A small step toward First Nations accountability

[CDNBear]

No, you believe it is contractual.

Actually, my opinion as to what they are is defined by the Supreme Court. So my opinion, is the mirror of theirs. They're contracts.

I don't.

I know you don't. Because you know so much more and are far better qualified to make that judgment then the Supreme Court Justices.

That is the crux of our disagreement.

Obviously. One day you might actually be able to understand your error, and concede. Or at the bare minimum present a reasoned rebuttal. One I have yet to see.

Since your feeble attempt at debate is to provide what you think is some proof of your position and then to question my cognitive skills, I've long since given up trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.

I'm sure you see it that way. That's why you just ignore what you can't disprove, then say I proved nothing, just like Joey...



You didn't give up trying to have a reasoned discussion, you never started. As exampled by your first post in this thread and how you simply call evidence feeble, without a single minute attempt to disprove any of it though. Again, presenting me with valid material to base my opinion of your cognitive skills.

Face it lil Joe, you're a bigot. It's OK, I am on some things too. Most people are in some way or another. I'm just mature enough, unlike you.

 

[gerryh]

No, you believe it is contractual. I don't. That is the crux of our disagreement. Since your feeble attempt at debate is to provide what you think is some proof of your position and then to question my cognitive skills, I've long since given up trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.

??????????????????? It's NOT contractual? The treaties are a matter of international record. You want to explain how you feel those contracts have no force in law?

 

[CDNBear]

??????????????????? It's NOT contractual? The treaties are a matter of international record. You want to explain how you feel those contracts have no force in law?

Because he says so Gh.

 

[Cannuck]

You want to explain how you feel those contracts have no force in law?

Are they being enforced now?

 

[CDNBear]

Are they being enforced now?

And you wonder why I question your cognitive and comprehension abilities?

From Timber and mineral rights, reparations for theft of treaty lands, funds, timber and minerals, to autonomy.

Don't confuse Gov't corruption, with treaty nullification. That would just be another reason to question your cognitive and comprehension abilities.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

??????????????????? It's NOT contractual? The treaties are a matter of international record. You want to explain how you feel those contracts have no force in law?

Treaties are not international beyond "North America". No country on the planet accepts an aboriginal passport, they MUST have a Canadian or USA passport to travel beyond NA-Cda and USA. They would even be rejected traveling to Britain, the country that made many treaties. Get real.

 

[gerryh]

Are they being enforced now?

some are, some aren't. It seems that the Government of Canada, in a lot of cases, are loath to live up to their contractual obligations and First Nations are required to take them to court.

What does that have to do with the FACT that it has been found over and over again that they ARE binding.

Now, again I ask, how are they NOT contracts?

Treaties are not international beyond "North America". No country on the planet accepts an aboriginal passport, they MUST have a Canadian or USA passport to travel beyond NA-Cda and USA. They would even be rejected traveling to Britain, the country that made many treaties. Get real.

Actually, the Treaties themselves have been recognized internationally, but aboriginal passports (Like the Haudenosaunee issue) is another discussion.

 

[Cannuck]

some are, some aren't. It seems that the Government of Canada, in a lot of cases, are loath to live up to their contractual obligations and First Nations are required to take them to court.

What does that have to do with the FACT that it has been found over and over again that they ARE binding.

Now, again I ask, how are they NOT contracts?

Not if they aren't enforced.

My opinion (and yes, I know it is contrary to the SCC) is that these "nations" have not behaved like "nation" and until they choose to act like "nations", any contracts between or with these "nations" are irrelevant.

Kweebeck calls itself a nation and politicians refer to it as a nation but it doesn't behave like a nation ergo it isn't a nation regardless of what anybody says

 

[CDNBear]

Treaties are not international beyond "North America". No country on the planet accepts an aboriginal passport, they MUST have a Canadian or USA passport to travel beyond NA-Cda and USA. They would even be rejected traveling to Britain, the country that made many treaties.

LOL, they would be accepted by Britain, if the actual physical passport was kept up to date.

Which is the only reason that Britain rejected the Haudenosaunee passport. Which is accepted in all the Commonwealth Nations and several others.

But what does that have to do with the Haudenosaunee having the oldest and longest rung participatory democracy in history, and the basis of the US Constitution?

Get real.

Please do.

Now, again I ask, how are they NOT contracts?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a legitimate answer Gh.

Not if they aren't enforced.

My opinion (and yes, I know it is contrary to the SCC) is that these "nations" have not behaved like "nation" and until they choose to act like "nations", any contracts between or with these "nations" are irrelevant.

Excellent cop out!!!

The Haudenosaunee met the standard for "Nation" and was eligible for a place in the League of Nations and Commonwealth before Canada.

Only because bigoted thinking, just like yours, was our petition rejected because Canada and Britain coerced the sponsoring nation into removing their support.

Hows that for behavior?

And to sum it up, you can't actually support your claims and your opinion is baseless.

Thanx for removing any doubt.

 

[gerryh]

Not if they aren't enforced.

My opinion (and yes, I know it is contrary to the SCC) is that these "nations" have not behaved like "nation" and until they choose to act like "nations", any contracts between or with these "nations" are irrelevant.

So, in other words, we are not talking what is fact, but what is only your opinion. An opinion that is contrary to the Supreme Court. An opinion that holds no more water than an opinion that shooting an unarmed man in the head in the middle of the town square is not murder.


Glad we have that straight, Bear is talking facts, you are talking opinion and wishfull thinking.

 

[CDNBear]

So, in other words, we are not talking what is fact, but what is only your opinion. An opinion that is contrary to the Supreme Court. An opinion that holds no more water than an opinion that shooting an unarmed man in the head in the middle of the town square is not murder.

Excellent analogy Gh.

Glad we have that straight, Bear is talking facts, you are talking opinion and wishfull thinking.

But Gh, he's the great Cannuck, he's so much smarter and righteous then I, because I'm just a blowhard!!! Who's opinion is based on fact, supported by the highest Court of law in the country!

So much for his argument.

I wonder if he has the ability to concede?

To quote Colpy...

Try and deal with that ........say it to yourself....you can do it! It is the first step towards sanity, and decency...com'on.....

"I was wrong"

It's not hard.

"I was wrong"

You'll feel so much better.

"I was wrong"

Sound it out........

"I was wrong"

Slowly.....that might be easier....

"I......was....wrong"

It is hard to believe an adult (allegedly) has so much trouble with such a simple concept.

That last line bears repeating.

 

[Cannuck]

So, in other words, we are not talking what is fact, but what is only your opinion.

Yes.

An opinion that is contrary to the Supreme Court.

Yes

An opinion that holds no more water than an opinion that shooting an unarmed man in the head in the middle of the town square is not murder.

No.

Glad we have that straight, Bear is talking facts, you are talking opinion and wishfull thinking.

On the contrary, many of these contracts are not being honoured so regardless of what the SCC opinion is (or CB's for that matter) it isn't wishful thinking.

 

[CDNBear]

On the contrary, many of these contracts are not being honoured so regardless of what the SCC opinion is (or CB's for that matter) it isn't wishful thinking.

Yes it is, because many of those are before the courts or on their way.

Besides that, you narrowed it down to the Haudenosaunee earlier. Our treaties have been ratified, with nothing before the courts, except land claims and theft of monies stolen from our Gov't controlled trusts.

So why are you moving the goal posts lil Joe?

I know you haven't the ability to concede, but just once it would be great to see you act like an adult male, just once!

Try and deal with that ........say it to yourself....you can do it! It is the first step towards sanity, and decency...com'on.....

"I was wrong"

It's not hard.

"I was wrong"

You'll feel so much better.

"I was wrong"

Sound it out........

"I was wrong"

Slowly.....that might be easier....

"I......was....wrong"

It is hard to believe an adult (allegedly) has so much trouble with such a simple concept.

Again, that last line bears repeating!

 

[Cannuck]

So, in other words, we are not talking what is fact, but what is only your opinion. An opinion that is contrary to the Supreme Court.

I got to thinking about this and I think you probably are not familiar with the discussions me and CB have had previously. To clarify, my position it is that the SCC sees these these groups as "nation" when considering treaties however, in reality they are not (at least not in practice). They do not have the things that real "nations" have and are not treated as "nations". I believe that if aboriginal communities want to be "nations", Canada should treat them as "nations". If the Blood reserve had a border erected tomorrow, and the citizens had to pass through customs to go to Walmart in Lethbridge...if they had to pay for health services or could not utilize the Alberta public school system...In other words, if they were treated like any other citizen of a foreign "nation" they would change their tune faster than you could say Pocahontas.

So it's not so much that I disagree with the SCC that they aren't "nations" it's that the term is not well defined and they are not "nations" in practice so they aren't in reality.

 

[CDNBear]

I got to thinking about this and I think you probably are not familiar with the discussions me and CB have had previously. To clarify, my position it is that the SCC sees these these groups as "nation" when considering treaties however, in reality they are not (at least not in practice). They do not have the things that real "nations" have and are not treated as "nations".

Because of corrupt actions of the Commonwealth of Canada and it's parent of the time, Britain.

Not because we didn't have the "things" needed to be a "nation". Because it would mean that the gov't of Canada would have to acknowledge us as equals. That corrupt act, gave the gov't enough to make sure we were illegally robbed of those 'things'.

You don't have to be Native to know that, if you knew Canadian history, you would be aware of that.

I believe that if aboriginal communities want to be "nations", Canada should treat them as "nations".

They pretty much do. Or they wouldn't negotiate, lol.

If the Blood reserve had a border erected tomorrow, and the citizens had to pass through customs to go to Walmart in Lethbridge...

I'd be OK with that, so long as the Jay Treaty was honoured.

...if they had to pay for health services or could not utilize the Alberta public school system...

They already do. The Feds pay the Provinces, and the Provinces pay the municipalities, for the education of Natives. That funding comes from that 9 billion dollar mortgage payment.

In other words, if they were treated like any other citizen of a foreign "nation" they would change their tune faster than you could say Pocahontas.

They already are, more or less.

So it's not so much that I disagree with the SCC that they aren't "nations" it's that the term is not well defined and they are not "nations" in practice so they aren't in reality.

Oh great, another one with a selective version of reality...:roll:

I see you've begun to ignore my posts, just like Joey, now too.

 

[gerryh]

forget it Bear, not worth the time or energy.

 

[CDNBear]

forget it Bear, not worth the time or energy.

But it's fun making him look like the jackass he is.

The best part is, I stripped him of that smug righteous attitude he's been throwing at me about my opinion of Islam.

He's got the same opinion, of Natives!

But you are right though. I guess I'll have to wait a couple more weeks to see if he keeps acting like Joey and ignoring my replies to him on this subject.

 

[Cannuck]

forget it Bear, not worth the time or energy.

Bu-bye. Thanks for participating

 

[CDNBear]

Bu-bye. Thanks for participating

Well that answers that question...

The transformation into Joey looks to be complete!!!

When you lose an argument, just ignore the member that beat ya...



I shouldn't use that smilie though, I actually feel bad for you, a little.

 

[TenPenny]

Our whole approach to aboriginals is race based and it is why I have such a problem with it.

If it was not race based, there wouldn't be all the rules on how to determine who qualified as an aboriginal, would there?