Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves


L Gilbert
#301
Like I said, any Canadian can hunt/fish anytime provided certain justifications are met. Aboriginals are no exception, but one of the justifications provided to natives that other Canadians don't have is by contract, AKA treaties.
 
taxslave
#302
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Wrong on both counts. It isn't the first time you've been wrong.

Actually he's arguing about it being a right. He tried insinuating that no other Canadian has the same right. When it was established, that despite the fact that the word right appears in the term hunting rights. It is in no way any greater a right than is equally available to all Canadians.

Which is why he ignored my comment about negotiated/collective bargaining by unions. Which of course he has defended, and clearly supports, as well as accepts the perks there of, by right of membership. Since you and I can not simply go to a union and demand they offer us the same benefits.

Since he can't actually argue the issue he brought forth, as he thought he could, he will now deny, dodge, dismiss and deflect.

Whites in BC do not have the same hunting rights as natives. Among other things Natives are permitted to hunt for sustenance at night with a light on a high powered rifle. If I got caught doing this it is called pitlamping and has a sizable fine attached. Another is the Roosevelt Elk hunt on the island. Natives have a special permit even though this is an introduced species while everyone else must enter a lottery.
 
CDNBear
+3
#303
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

I have not heard the word "privilege" applied to Natives, in fact i would assume a crap storm if that happened.

Of course, it would be a breach of contract.

Quote:

Numerous times over the years i have personally witnessed the taking of wildlife by status Indians at all times of the year while Fish and Wildlife officers observed. If that is, as stated by some, not a right, then semantics aside, what the hell is it?

I've witnessed CO's arresting status Natives for hunting without a license or tags. I've also witnessed status Natives without tax exempt status, use there status card for tax exemption, right in front of a Police Officer. I've also witnessed CO's ignore visible minorities, and stop a an obvious local, to check their catch, license and gear. I've even watched QMNO help my Grandfather load bushel baskets of fish into the back of his pick, that he just caught with a CIL lure.

It's an imperfect world.

Quote:

My position and reason for same reflects much of what Cannuck has stated. I have no problem with those who take advantage of the ability to provide themselves and family with fish and game where and when it is necessary as well as it not affect at risk species. IMO there should be no ethnicity involved.
Differing and accepted discretion regarding natural resources for different ethnic groups does not belong in our country.

That would be all well and good, if the contract was based on race. But since the contracts were negotiated, written, and based on the possession of one party and the necessity of the other, or between two entities if you will, not race/s. The point is moot.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Like I said, any Canadian can hunt/fish anytime provided certain justifications are met. Aboriginals are no exception, but one of the justifications provided to natives that other Canadians don't have is by contract, AKA treaties.

If more people understood that treaties are valid, enforceable, documents, subject to contractual law, between entities, not races. There would be a lot less confusion.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Whites in BC do not have the same hunting rights as natives. Among other things Natives are permitted to hunt for sustenance at night with a light on a high powered rifle. If I got caught doing this it is called pitlamping and has a sizable fine attached. Another is the Roosevelt Elk hunt on the island. Natives have a special permit even though this is an introduced species while everyone else must enter a lottery.

It amazes me that that was even entertained by a court. They do call it the left coast for a reason though.

Since that's illegal in Ontario, across the board, both jacklighting and hunting even reintroduced species under protection. It just goes to show, that lumping all Natives into one group, is just silly.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 22nd, 2012 at 04:38 PM..
 
Cannuck
#304
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I have statistics to say they are the safest drivers.

Perhaps you should have provided them when you had the chance.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Arguing with Cannuck is highly futile, when he is proven wrong it all of a sudden changes to "sarcasm"

Of course not. I only use sarcasm when I'm dealing with an idiot.


(That was sarcasm BTW)

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Whites in BC do not have the same hunting rights as natives. Among other things Natives are permitted to hunt for sustenance at night with a light on a high powered rifle. If I got caught doing this it is called pitlamping and has a sizable fine attached. Another is the Roosevelt Elk hunt on the island. Natives have a special permit even though this is an introduced species while everyone else must enter a lottery.

Well, obviously you must be a racist!

Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

My position and reason for same reflects much of what Cannuck has stated. I have no problem with those who take advantage of the ability to provide themselves and family with fish and game where and when it is necessary as well as it not affect at risk species. IMO there should be no ethnicity involved.
Differing and accepted discretion regarding natural resources for different ethnic groups does not belong in our country.
Regardless of ethnicity, all humans basically retain the tendency to wish to achieve top dog status. Coping with that forever issue is what democratic principles are based on, lest we forget.

The problem is that CB is using a legal argument and I am using a moral one. It is very much in the same vein as an abortion debate. CB, JLM and (surprise, surprise) Gerry believe that because the law allows it, it is acceptable. I haven't figured out Gerry on this one because on the abortion issue, he is very much in line with my way of thinking.

The key points that we differ on is that I believe the government and only the government should decide on what "nations" they recognize. First nations are no different than Chechnya, Kosovo or Slovakia in my view. The problem is that the government does not have a standard so the courts imposed one. Once a political standard is set, then First nations can opt to follow those standards or not. We have, in effect, put the cart before the horse. As I've said, the term "nation" is thrown around willy nilly and very few people actually consider first nations as "nations" just like most Canadians don't consider Quebec a "nation" despite the politically correct bull**** the politicians spew.

In a nutshell, I believe that the government signed treaties with nations but the reality is that these really are no longer nations. It would be no different than The Czech Republic demanding that we honor a treaty signed with Czechoslovakia. It should be up the government and not the courts to decide if we should.

Since I don't believe these are actually nations, I see aboriginals as ordinary Canadians. That somehow makes me a racist in some people's eyes. The logic escapes me.
 
skookumchuck
#305
A great many lawyers would celebrate the thought of the Balkanization of Canada. Apparently it is on it's way.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#306
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

A great many lawyers would celebrate the thought of the Balkanization of Canada. Apparently it is on it's way.

Balkaization. Bad news in Europe over the centuries in that part of the world. Did anyone notice that rival peoples and powers want to kill each other on a large scale when they get the chance? Lawyers would just continue to blather on and say everything is fine as long as they make their $100,000 per year, but that's not in the public interest.

Privatisation of reserves does mean abolishing them, that means all Canadians are equal and own land in the same way as citizens.
Indians are just like the rest of us now, dealing with the same courts, politicians, and watching the same news.

Most of the $10 billion per year is wasted at present, most of the money foes down a rat hole. A transition needs to be initiated to create Canadian equality and these amounts will shrink and the living standards of Indians, sorry, formerly poor, uneducated, rural Canadians, will begin to steadily rise.
 
CDNBear
+2
#307
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Well, obviously you must be a racist!

I always knew you threw that word around to freely.

Quote:

The problem is that CB is using a legal argument and I am using a moral one.

That's because it's a legal issue. The fact that you want to erroneously make it a moral issue, is because you can't win a legal argument. It isn't my fault you aren't very bright.

Quote:

CB, JLM and (surprise, surprise) Gerry believe that because the law allows it, it is acceptable.

The law doesn't allow it, the law protects/enforces it, because treaties are contractual agreements between two entities, not races. Whether you believe all First nations are Canadians or not.

If you read the links I've provided to educate you, you wouldn't keep making the same silly mistakes.

Quote:

As I've said, the term "nation" is thrown around willy nilly and very few people actually consider first nations as "nations" just like most Canadians don't consider Quebec a "nation" despite the politically correct bull**** the politicians spew.

As I've proven, time and time again, the Haudenosaunee have met the long standing international standard, since before anyone even thought of calling this country Canada.

Quote:

In a nutshell, I believe that the government signed treaties with nations but the reality is that these really are no longer nations.

The reality is, many aren't, because of illegal actions, taken by one party to the contract. If you understood contractual law, and the Royal Proclamation, you would know where that leads.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 24th, 2012 at 04:14 PM..
 
L Gilbert
+3
#308
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

If more people understood that treaties are valid, enforceable, documents, subject to contractual law, between entities, not races. There would be a lot less confusion.

I think people are not interested enough to do any research. They are only interested enough to bitch.
 
CDNBear
+2
#309
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I think people are not interested enough to do any research.

dumpster and cannuck make that abundantly clear.

Quote:

They are only interested enough to bitch.

And generalize.
 
Cannuck
#310
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That's because it's a legal issue. The fact that you want to erroneously make it a moral issue, is because you can't win a legal argument. It isn't my fault you aren't very bright.

No, it's a moral issue. The fact that you want to erroneously make it a legal issue, is because you can't win a moral argument. It isn't my fault you aren't very bright.
 
CDNBear
+3
#311
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No, it's a moral issue.

Our legal system says otherwise. Suck it up sunshine. We all know you just hate Natives.
 
Cannuck
#312
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Our legal system says otherwise. Suck it up sunshine. We all know you just hate Natives.

Of course the legal system would say otherwise. Everything is a legal issue to the legal system.
 
CDNBear
+2
#313
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Of course the legal system would say otherwise. Everything is a legal issue to the legal system.

Which thankfully protects us from people like you.
 
Cannuck
#314
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Which thankfully protects us from people like you.

That's pretty funny. Seems to me the legal system had no problem depriving women of the vote. The legal system wasn't leading the charge against slavery. The legal system was used to punish people for being gay. The legal system has always been a follower. Perhaps that is why you are so enamored by it.
 
MHz
#315
"domestic or commercial purposes"

In cases of domestic consumption you do have rights above and beyond other persons. As far as rights in a commercial venture you do not have any rights that give you an unfair advantage over other commercial operations.

In the case of a smoke house that is open to 'band members only' it is a domestic consumption rule even though temp memberships bring in a very large 'legal' income. There is no current commercial businesses that qualify as a 'smoke house that was open to the oldest and brightest of the various tribes' therefore there is no unfair advantage rule broken and the various bands qualify as 'competition' even though they sit and talk all the time and are the best of friends all the time when it comes to rates and such there is a list that qualifies as being the 'competition'. Try getting that through the courts in one week or less.

When you sign the various releases you become a full fledged member as long as the elders approve of you (they run the actual inside of the house, full time members keeps the day to day things, the temps get escorted out to s designated driver already on stand-by humming along) The theme is to have many patrons each do about 6 weeks during their membership and the experiences are something automatically recalled anytime the person wants. Many patrons equals many dollars and the locals don't become part of the income they become members who benefit from the income and the 'temps' end their vacation being smarter than when they started.

To run something like only a campground would be the same as any commercial interest and no advantage is allowed. A waiver might be a requirement of insurance companies if the attractions available outside the smoke house include things like zip lines atv adventures as some of the cabins are quite far off the beaten track and man-eating bears are in the area.
Last edited by MHz; Jan 25th, 2012 at 12:21 AM..
 
CDNBear
+1
#316
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's pretty funny.

Not nearly as funny as your inability to understand that the contracts weren't/aren't based on race.

Quote:

Perhaps that is why you are so enamored by it.

Wrong as usual. I believe in the rule of law, because it stops people like you, from making fallacious, and subjective moral conclusions, and forcing them upon the rest of the general populace.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 25th, 2012 at 03:56 PM..
 
Cannuck
#317
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Wrong as usual. I believe in the rule of law, because it stops people like you, from making fallacious, and subjective moral conclusions, and forcing them upon the rest of the general populace.

You mean like slavery is acceptable or women aren't smart enough to vote?
 
CDNBear
+1
#318
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You mean like slavery is acceptable or women aren't smart enough to vote?

I was already aware that your argument fell apart. You don't need to change the topic again to try and avoid admitting defeat.
 
Cannuck
#319
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I was already aware that your argument fell apart. You don't need to change the topic again to try and avoid admitting defeat.

It isn't changing the subject considering your glowing admiration of a system that has allowed and supported such immorality.
 
CDNBear
+3
#320
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It isn't changing the subject considering your glowing admiration of a system that has allowed and supported such immorality.

Irony aside. Perhaps if you could prove that the basis of the contracts in question was race, not possession. You wouldn't have try so hard to come up with such silly strawman arguments.

Good luck.
 
Cannuck
#321
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Irony aside. Perhaps if you could prove that the basis of the contracts in question was race, not possession. You wouldn't have try so hard to come up with such silly strawman arguments.

Speaking of straw man arguments and trying to change the topic. Nice try. Clearly you realize that you can not draw a straight line between what is right and what is legal.

 
CDNBear
+1
#322
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Speaking of straw man arguments and trying to change the topic. Nice try. Clearly you realize that you can not draw a straight line between what is right and what is legal.

LOL, I didn't think you could prove it. Since it's central to your moral claim, you kind of need to, to make it a moral issue.

Thanks for the laughs though.

eta; LG said it best, and you keep proving him right...

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I think people are not interested enough to do any research. They are only interested enough to bitch.

Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 25th, 2012 at 05:00 PM..
 
Cannuck
#323
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

LOL, I didn't think you could prove it. Since it's central to your moral claim, you kind of need to, to make it a moral issue.

LOL, I didn't think you could stay on topic. Yet again, I've been shown to be right.
 
CDNBear
+1
#324
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

LOL, I didn't think you could stay on topic. Yet again, I've been shown to be right.

Couldn't dig anything out of Google eh?

The topic you chose was the immorality of race based special rights.

You have to prove the agreements were based on race. You being dishonest isn't proof of that.

I'm not surprised I had to explain that to you Jim.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 25th, 2012 at 06:39 PM..
 
DaSleeper
+1
#325
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Couldn't dig anything out of Google eh?

The topic you chose was the immorality of race based special rights.

You have to prove the agreements were based on race. Being dishonest isn't proof of that.

I'm not surprised I had to explain that to you.

Bear......I don't know how you have the patience to keep dancing with someone who's only dance he knows is the side step.

I know you enjoy working with kids but..........
 
CDNBear
+1
#326
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Bear......I don't know how you have the patience to keep dancing with someone who's only dance he knows is the side step.

I know you enjoy working with kids but..........

One makes me better at the other.
 
Cannuck
#327
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

The topic you chose was the immorality of race based special rights.

No it isn't. That's just one more example of how you need to put words into people's mouth in your feeble attempt at debate. My issue is with birth-right. You are the one that brought race into the discussion. After all, it was you that started to throw the racist tag around once you realized your position was flawed and you were getting your ass handed to you.
 
Goober
#328
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No it isn't. That's just one more example of how you need to put words into people's mouth in your feeble attempt at debate. My issue is with birth-right. You are the one that brought race into the discussion. After all, it was you that started to throw the racist tag around once you realized your position was flawed and you were getting your ass handed to you.

And you defend DTM. That says lots.
 
Cannuck
#329
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

And you defend DTM. That says lots.

I don't defend DTM. I don't defend anybody.
 
Goober
#330
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I don't defend DTM. I don't defend anybody.

Of course you do.
 

Similar Threads

29
190
Nationalize Canadian oil reserves!!!!
by Socrates the Greek | Jul 5th, 2008
2
Oil Shale Reserves
by I think not | May 8th, 2006
0
Privatizing the Apocalypse
by darkbeaver | Apr 3rd, 2006
no new posts