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.
Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
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.
Of course, it would be a breach of contract.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Perhaps you should have provided them when you had the chance.
Of course not. I only use sarcasm when I'm dealing with an idiot.
(That was sarcasm BTW)
Well, obviously you must be a racist!
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.
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.
I always knew you threw that word around to freely.
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.
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.
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.
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:
I think people are not interested enough to do any research. They are only interested enough to bitch.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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:
Not nearly as funny as your inability to understand that the contracts weren't/aren't based on race.
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:
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.
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.