I am a newcomer to this site and i must say that i am quite perplexed at the lack of moderation regarding name calling. How can a discussion ever bring any positive thinking or knowledge under these conditions? It appears to have strayed off topic as well but i will proceed, being that it appears to be accepted.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Having spent time to read most of this thread i find some puzzling statements made. One being that Natives do not have "rights" regarding subsistence hunting. Perhaps i have misunderstood this question for a great many years as my understanding is that those rights appear to exist regarding status Indians. Are "rights" a misnomer?
Although apparently not inalienable, these "rights" are being exercised in this country. Here i quote.......
"No Aboriginal right, even though constitutionally protected, is absolute in Canadian law. Fishing rights, for example, are not exclusive in the sense that only indigenous peoples can exercise them and they are not immune to regulation by other governments. Aboriginal title, on the other hand, may give rise to an exclusive right to use and occupy lands, but that right may be interfered with for other societal purposes such as economic development or power generation. Infringement of aboriginal rights or title must be justified by non-Aboriginal governments on the basis of a legitimate government purpose and recognition of the constitutional protection of the rights being affected. There may also...
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 *** handed to you.
I saw on TV, Eskimos killling a whale with speedboats, how traditional.
Tradition is dead, thanks to the Scientific Revolution and progress.
Animals, trees or rocks no longer talk to us.
Actually, your Gish Gallop debate style and constant goal post shuffling causes confusion, as you hope it will.
so you claimed you were arguing from a moral position, so could look like you were right.
Then you switched up to race based rights. You got served there, so you switched it to hereditary. Got served on that, now you're onto birth right.
Good point about the original intent of hunting in the old days, it was to allow aboriginals to feed themselves in remote areas, for a subsistence existence, that's all. In the 19th century, hunting rights were seen as temporary. Now, "hunting rights" ought to be extinguished because the original intent is now altered irreparably in the 21st century and modernisation.
I saw on TV, Eskimos killling a whale with speedboats, how traditional. Tradition is dead, thanks to the Scientific Revolution and progress. Animals, trees or rocks no longer talk to us.
It? What is "it"? If you are referring to the way aboriginals are treated in this country, birth right is only one issue. As has been said, I have issues with regard to the way we have defined aboriginal groups as "nations".
You are desperately trying to simplify the issue (probably due to your admitted confusion)
Are you still trying to peddle that snake oil?
Of course not, you work quite hard at making it next to impossible to nail your position down. It's not surprising, considering the fragility of your ego and limited understanding of First Nations Jim.
With regards your continual confusion, it really is quite simple.
1 - As I've stated numerous times, I have a problem with birth right
2 - I don't believe in the "infallacy" of the legal system
3 - Unlike you, I do not believe "legal" equals "right"
I really see no reason that we need to change the legal system because it "upsets" you.
4 - I believe the federal government should spell out how or what it uses to define what is(or what is required to recognize) a nation.
It's not really my fault that the current aboriginal situation conflicts with these views nor is it my problem that your confusion does not allow you to separate the issues.
Probably the biggest reason that you, Dasleeper, RCS, JLM and some of the other racists are having such a problem with this is that you can't seem to understand how, while not inherently tied together, these issues do have an effect on each other at different points. It's a complex issue.
That's probably why you find it confusing.
So inheritance of any kind is immoral in your view? No one born in Canada should be considered Canadian?
Neither do I. But in regards to Nations, the legal system is but part of the proof that was presented to you, before you claimed you arguing from a moral position
Seriously, what type of argument did you think I was using?
Never mind, I just remembered you are confused.
No they didn't. They just accepted the decision.
There is no standard used by the federal government in place today.
Says the guy that just got PWND, yet again.
I look forward to you telling me the Statute of Westminster, means nothing in regards to the Canadian Governments position on what a Nation is...
You aren't here for debate, not that I find it surprising you can't stick to your own claims. You're here for entertainment, so you say. Although I'm not sure how me making a fool out of you consistently and continuously, is entertaining to you.
There is no standard [Re; what constitutes a Nation] used by the federal government in place today.
There is wayy too much Déja-vu in his kind of entertainement...like a singer with the same tune all the time....isn't that what politicians do????
Except for all the stuff that refutes everything you said, like...
Except for the standard the Government of Canada uses, which is also the international standard, which is used in the Statute of Westminster, which is the document that defines Canada as a Nation within the Commonwealth, which the SCC considered in their deliberations. When charged by the Federal Government of Canada to determine what constitutes a Nation.
International standard....LOL. Tell that to the folks in Somaliland.
You sure are a sucker for punishment. Despite getting repeatedly PWNed, you insist on picking yourself off the floor and coming back for more. International standard....LOL. Tell that to the folks in Somaliland.
If you are unable to see how Somaliland relates than this conversation is clearly over your head.
There is no standard used by the federal government in place today.
My position was right because I was arguing from a moral position.
As has been said, I have issues with regard to the way we have defined aboriginal groups as "nations". That has more to do with how the political system and the legal system have mismanaged the situation.