MNN is rewriting history!
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Not really sure of how it came about but as well as the food fishery which I believe to be treaty rights there is a native only commercial fishery. So that is definitely race based. As far as I know both of these only apply to salmon. Remember that there were few treaties made on the coast unlike eastern Canada so there are lots of grey areas.
The food fishery has become a joke as we all buy salmon off the rez even tho it is supposed to be for sustenance and ceremonial purposes. I suppose taking cash from whites could loosely fit under ceremonial though. Far cheaper than buying a boat, gear and licenses.
I'd have to read the whole of the Treaties involved.
We have similar treaties here in Ontario, whereas the Native fishing fleets on the Great Lakes, can harvest for food, and commercial trade. By definition of the Crown not interfering with traditional trade practices.
Of course many have said that that should mean they harvest with traditional methods. But since the Crown began manipulating Treaties to suit their desires, ie: strip mining and deforestation. Thus turning Treaty lands into unhuntable waste lands. Further compounded by making the Treaties "Living Documents". The argument goes circular out of the gate.
This is where I jump right off the boat. I have no support to lend unethical practices such as this. I have railed against the illegal trade of Pickerel on the Lakes in Ontario, that are being sold to restaurants and out of road side shakes.
The treaties would be some read alright. Good luck.
I view the bastardization of the food fishery right up there with the commercial "sport" fishery. Both make a mockery of managed fishery and the selling of food fish only promotes racism IMO.
I was told the same thing about the litany of treaties I've already read, lol. But I managed to make it through them. As well as the statements of claim, filed with Ontario Courts, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
I actually feel no need to challenge that opinion.
If you ever come up with something that refutes my position send me an PM. I'll be happy to come back and debate it.
Done. It's on almost every page in four threads now.
Just because you can't debate, doesn't mean you haven't been proven wrong, many many times.
Like the last post you carefully ignored your own words being used to discredit your claims, yet again.
Gawd you make this so easy and yet it's still so much fun making you look more and more like a rube.
Not that there's much room left...
Maybe one day you'll surprise me, and actually debate me, or at the very least formulate a supportable opinion.
Of course I don't think the contract should be nullified. There is no need to nullify them as the "nation" they were signed with does not exist.
The only real difference between our positions is that you think you and your buddies are a nation and I don't. Your defense of your position is that the SCC and the international community support your view. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less what the international community thinks. Canada (and Canada alone) should decide what requirements are needed in order for us to recognize a nation. We don't allow international bodies to tell us we must recognize Taiwan, Chechnya or even the US. I also believe the government has allowed the SCC to usurp authority from the federal government. It is my opinion that what we need to do is define what minimum standards a group of people must achieve in order for us to recognize them as a nation. Once that is done then you, Kweebeckers, Chechnyans or Manitobans for that matter, can all develop your own nations if you so choose. Since we have a treaty with you and your buddies, we should honour it, much the same way we should honour a treaty with Yugoslavia or a unified Korea (if we had them in place before).
Your position is akin to Germany telling us we must honour a treaty signed with people in Sarajevo because we signed a treaty with Yugoslavia. I understand (you not wanting to be Canadian) that you care little about Canadian sovereignty but I assure you, I do.
Absolutely nothing you have said refutes anything I believe.
Wrong again...
Six Nations Of The Grand River
You do realize that SCC stands for the Supreme Court of Canada, right?
You do realize that that bears no weight on the contractual obligations right, nor negotiations right?
1, The Crown negotiates with all manner of entities.
2, The Crown is bound by Royal Proclamation.
3, Canada is also bound by International Treaty that Canada signed.
No it isn't. That's what you want it to be, so you can dismiss it.
My position is, two nations negotiated a Treaty to be two separate entities, sharing the same path. This was done because the government of Canada, was bound by Royal Proclamation that gave all title to the land, to the First Nations and for the service that the Haudenosaunee performed in the defence of Upper canada.
The breaching of those treaties, constitutes an illegal act, then and now. Hence the SCC's (That's still the Supreme Court of Canada)rulings. That Treaties are binding contractual documents. Made living and open to interpretation, due to the Crowns first acts of doing so, to favour the Crown.
Regardless of what you want to call us collectively, the Crown is still subject to contractual law. Whatever you believe.
Again with the baseless, childish accusations and made up BS. So much for being a mature debate eh Joey.
As if your silly argument wasn't weak enough, you had to lower it with that crap.
You can keep saying it, like EAO does, but the fact is, you've been proven wrong over and over and over.
From what you think Canada is legally bound to do, to what you have said.
The words are before you to ignore.
Posting something that backs up your definition of a nation does not refute my definition of a nation. As I've already said (and you seem completely unable to grasp) what we have is a disagreement as to what constitutes a nation and who gets to decide. At the risk of beating a dead horse, come up with something to debate if you want to debate.
We agree on that much however, we aren't "two separate entities". If you and your buddies want to be a separate entity then, as I've already said, let's honour the treaty. Again, there is nothing new here and as usual, you haven't actually refuted anything I've said. I was going to give you an E for effort but then you fell back to the tire old "Joey" routine so I changed my mind since that isn't the kind of thing a "serious debater" would do.
You said...
We do, as recognized by domestic and international law.
What you "believe" does not trump fact.
You "believe" it's wrong. Great so you're unethical on top of everything else.
That is irrelevant, as well as it is wrong.
A contract is still binding to any and all parties subject to it. It wouldn't matter if there were two Haudenosaunee left and they didn't think they were a Nation. The contract is still binding, because it's hereditary.
Good call, make up more crap.
Again, this only shows that you have no understanding or knowledge at all of what you speak.
Excellent idea. That is all we have asked.
Ya, except proved that what you believe is based on nothing but your imagination. You don't know what you are talking about.
You've offered nothing to even remotely support your position, which is your obligation in this debate.
Refuting your asinine opinion, is tantamount to trying to prove a negative.
And this is...
Is? Grow up child.
You really don't know what logical consistency is do you?
Last edited:
And that is all I asked so we finally have some common ground. Now all we need to do is convince you and your buddies to become a separate entity from Canada and we can start honoring the treaties and everybody will be happy....wait a minute....my bad...asking for you and your buddies to put up or shut up is probably asking too much. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Prove we aren't separate already.
It's your claim to prove. Shall I quote you on backing up claims with evidence?
And try knocking off the childish crap commentary. It weakens your argument and makes you look like an ass.
So in other words, you can't prove it?
You demand others provide evidence to back up their claims, but you don't have to?
I hope I don't see you talk about your pet peeve of logical consistency lacking in others Cannuck.
Way to run away from the debate Cannuck.
I was referring to the quote of yours I posted earlier, in which you demanded another member support his claim with evidence.
I'll get it for you. Feeding you, your own words is easy.
To anyone that can read. I've proven that your opinion is based on fantasy, you aren't logically consistent, you're prone to demanding evidence from others when you offer none, that you and Joey are more alike then any other member on this board, that you can't debate, that when that becomes apparent you lower the conversation to childish innuendo, false accusations, and out right BS.
Did I miss anything?
Last edited: