HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 1:42 AM
Tacheguy Tacheguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 897
the way " you, and a majority of Canadians" want to interpret Treaties doesn't matter a flying fuck. Look at how the Supreme Court interprets them consistently. you could start with Sioui (1990) which states that " treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and uncertainty resolved in favour of the Indians". The Supreme Court has consistently ruled along those lines on other cases.

you could also read the Constitution act and Charter to realize that the special legal rights that flow from treaties cannot be overturned by majority opinion.

education is the key. I am no expert but I know enough to realize that Canadians have to get their heads around this reality and deal with it in good faith. I plan to buy the book Headhorse recommended and I thank him for that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 2:48 AM
OTA in Winnipeg's Avatar
OTA in Winnipeg OTA in Winnipeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Silver Heights
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse View Post
I have a few questions for the people who thinks indengous peoples need to just assimilate/conform/stop victimizing themselves, or whatever:

1) 4% of Canada's population is aboriginal, yet 23% of the federal prisons population is aboriginal. why is this happening? do you blame thousands of individual bad choices/bad people, or is the justice system biased?

2) aboriginal people working full time are paid an average of $26 per hour vs $27.41 for non-indigenous? in a fair, market based society, why would this discrepancy exist?
1) FASD. Period. That IS the problem. Over 40% in some communities. We need to start having a conversation about that. For everyone's sake.

2) That's not too bad really, but yeah, there should be no difference. On the other hand I'm not sure where you got that stat from but compare the difference between men and women and you will find a much larger divide.

Last edited by OTA in Winnipeg; Mar 21, 2018 at 3:14 AM. Reason: ERROR
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 5:05 AM
JM5 JM5 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacheguy View Post
the way " you, and a majority of Canadians" want to interpret Treaties doesn't matter a flying fuck. Look at how the Supreme Court interprets them consistently. you could start with Sioui (1990) which states that " treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and uncertainty resolved in favour of the Indians". The Supreme Court has consistently ruled along those lines on other cases.

you could also read the Constitution act and Charter to realize that the special legal rights that flow from treaties cannot be overturned by majority opinion.

education is the key. I am no expert but I know enough to realize that Canadians have to get their heads around this reality and deal with it in good faith. I plan to buy the book Headhorse recommended and I thank him for that.
Treaties are overturned, ignored, thrown out and modified ALL THE TIME. You simply cannot expect a document created under certain specific set of circumstances to stand up long after those circumstances have changed significantly. Hey, how about if one day aboriginals become an absolute majority? Would you still want the treaties to remain in place then? One of the oldest known treaties was enacted sometime between 1272-82 B.C. between the Egyptians and the Hittites. Less than 100 years later the Hittite empire was gone. Worn out by repeated Assyrian attacks and finally wiped off the map by the mysterious Sea Peoples. Egypt should probably still claim rights to the Levant based on this treaty though. All your tantrums cannot change the fact that a treaty is just an aging piece of paper that will become irrelevant at some point for one reason or another.

Funny, I never even said anything about repealing the treaties.

Regarding their interpretation, yes, they have been interpreted too liberally (funny, aren't you guys the ones arguing that English common law sucks?) and this will change if and when the majority of people decide/realise that the S.C. justices are doing society a disservice and new, more conservative judges get appointed. Yup, Canadian democracy is imperfect and there is often a long delay between changes in people's views and when the judiciary finally catches up, just look at how long it took to legalize weed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 6:12 AM
Tacheguy Tacheguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 897
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by JM5 View Post
Treaties are overturned, ignored, thrown out and modified ALL THE TIME. You simply cannot expect a document created under certain specific set of circumstances to stand up long after those circumstances have changed significantly. Hey, how about if one day aboriginals become an absolute majority? Would you still want the treaties to remain in place then? One of the oldest known treaties was enacted sometime between 1272-82 B.C. between the Egyptians and the Hittites. Less than 100 years later the Hittite empire was gone. Worn out by repeated Assyrian attacks and finally wiped off the map by the mysterious Sea Peoples. Egypt should probably still claim rights to the Levant based on this treaty though. All your tantrums cannot change the fact that a treaty is just an aging piece of paper that will become irrelevant at some point for one reason or another.

Funny, I never even said anything about repealing the treaties.

Regarding their interpretation, yes, they have been interpreted too liberally (funny, aren't you guys the ones arguing that English common law sucks?) and this will change if and when the majority of people decide/realise that the S.C. justices are doing society a disservice and new, more conservative judges get appointed. Yup, Canadian democracy is imperfect and there is often a long delay between changes in people's views and when the judiciary finally catches up, just look at how long it took to legalize weed.

Well then, when the Constitution of Canada is an aging irrelevant piece of paper we will certainly know where to go for further direction. I'm tapping out..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 9:44 AM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse View Post
i disagree that "the state" is oppressive, the problem is the state we have now oppresses the majority for the benefit of the few. the issue isn't the "state", it's who has power in the state. and again, your silly ideas of private property.. how does a free society have areas where you can't go to access the things you need to survive? the entire idea of private property is oppressive because by offering land and thus resources to a select few who have the means to own it, you're depriving others of using it for their guaranteed human rights to food/water/shelter. if someone owns all the water sources in Canada at some point and refuses anyone access to the water, how is that conducive to a free society?
Just an observation but I don't recall any of those things mentioned in the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms. None of the sections address that. So no, in short, those are not guaranteed human rights. Not in Canada anyway.

Taking a law abiding citizen's freedom away arbitrarily, no matter how justified it may seem, is not conducive to a free society either. The law exists to protect citizens from that sort of oppressive governmental action. The Magna Carta , you may have heard of it (kinda an important moment in history) was signed so that the private land owners back in the 13th century didn't get their land randomly taken from them by the crown for no reason. This is the basis for all human rights today. Private land ownership is fundamental to human rights.

Last edited by optimusREIM; Mar 20, 2018 at 9:49 AM. Reason: Had something to add
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 2:02 PM
DirtWednesday DirtWednesday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
We start with the basics. You don't begin life with any entitlements, only a set of charter protected rights. Now certain people may have a legal entitlement to certain things based on negotiated agreements between parties but you don't automatically start off with a bunch of things that you get just for existing.
You can say that again.

My first home had around 4 outlets, an oven, and a wood burning stove for heat. No plumbing, no baseboard heaters, no bathroom. My "room" doubled as the "slop pail" room in the winter while an outhouse was the preferred dumping ground in the summer. I don't remember the view out the windows because the single pane windows were usually covered in plastic. I think we had a tv... black and white 13 incher. I'm not that old, people had colour tv's when I was a kid. My parents didn't have a post secondary education at the time. They both worked though. I guess we had one thing going for us though, the community well was at the end of our driveway. Oh and the backyard double as my zoo where bears would show up and eat our garden.

So what kind of entitlements did you not have when you started this life?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:06 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.