Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves

[Cannuck]

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]

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...

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

 

[Cannuck]

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]

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.

 

[DaSleeper]

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.:smile:

I know you enjoy working with kids but..........;-)

 

[CDNBear]

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.:smile:

I know you enjoy working with kids but..........;-)

One makes me better at the other.

 

[Cannuck]

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]

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]

And you defend DTM. That says lots.

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

 

[Goober]

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

Of course you do.

 

[Cannuck]

Of course you do.

Of course I don't.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

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 be a requirement for prior consultation with the Aboriginal peoples concerned and compensation in some circumstances.'
From.........
Aboriginal Rights - The Canadian Encyclopedia

I have many times heard, as i am sure many others have, government sources state that as a non Native, i do not have any rights regarding fishing or hunting, only a privilege subject to their discretion. I have not heard the word "privilege" applied to Natives, in fact i would assume a crap storm if that happened.

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 believe the original intent was to ensure that Native folks would not go hungry in remote or wilderness areas. People who did not have the same standard of living or conveniences of their city counterparts. Few, compared to years ago, now actually need that "right", or more properly discretion, but it should not be extinguished, rather be more transparent and i blame government for that lack.

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.

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.

The word rights may be a misnomer, it is more like corporate breaks, corporation meaning both a group and a business. These "rights" are not universal like we generally use the term. But in the old days of the British colonialism, equality of peoples was scoffed at, and the Crown in Canada still enacts these old attitudes. They will continue to do so until protests and opposition stop it.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

Actually, your Gish Gallop debate style and constant goal post shuffling causes confusion, as you hope it will.

First it was they aren't nations. I proved you wrong, 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.

My issue is with birth-right.

Fine, you want to make it about a birth right now.

What's your problem re: birth right and First nations?

Highlighted so you don't miss it. Because I'd actually love to see a coherent argument from your position.

You are the one that brought race into the discussion.

Like in the Marines Honour thread?

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.

Honesty is always your first casualty. You earned that label when you started lying to try and smear a First Nations community. While implying the COO of NWW committed two counts of perjury.

I can see why you wouldn't want to be honest about why I call you a racist Jim.

I saw on TV, Eskimos killling a whale with speedboats, how traditional.

Speed boats? Care to offer up some proof of that?

Tradition is dead, thanks to the Scientific Revolution and progress.

You obviously don't know what tradition is, in the First Nations sense.

Animals, trees or rocks no longer talk to us.

Kicked the meth habit did ya?

 

[Cannuck]

Actually, your Gish Gallop debate style and constant goal post shuffling causes confusion, as you hope it will.

I'm not surprised you are confused.

First it was they aren't nations. I proved you wrong,

No, you haven't. But it's okay since you've admitted you are confused.

so you claimed you were arguing from a moral position, so could look like you were right.

You have that backwards. My position was right because I was arguing from a moral position. Again, it's okay because you are confused.

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.

In your admitted confusion, you have yet again failed to grasp the fact that you are the one that keeps bringing up race.

Fine, you want to make it about a birth right now.

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". That has more to do with how the political system and the legal system have mismanaged the situation. You are desperately trying to simplify the issue (probably due to your admitted confusion)

Like in the Marines Honour thread?

Honesty is always your first casualty. You earned that label when you started lying to try and smear a First Nations community. While implying the COO of NWW committed two counts of perjury.

Are you still trying to peddle that snake oil?

 

[DaSleeper]

Jim Bo is at it again:roll:

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

lmao
So the Inuit are still feeding themselves on whalemeat and stuff. They just use a different method of doing that. The tradition is still there. DUH

 

[CDNBear]

I'm not surprised you are confused.

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.

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".

The irony aside. So which is it you want to discuss Jim, Nations or birth right?

You are desperately trying to simplify the issue (probably due to your admitted confusion)

That's funny coming from the guy that uses generalizations to base the bulk of his arguments on.

Are you still trying to peddle that snake oil?

That's your shtick Jim, I just point it out.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

My position is not hard to nail down at all. With regards your continual confusion, it really is quite simple.

1 - As I've stated numerous times, I have a problem with birth right (You may have noticed that I have expressed concerns regarding the monarchy on some other threads)

2 - I don't believe in the "infallacy" of the legal system (You may have noticed that I have pointed out other examples where freedom and equality have not been the cornerstone of the legal system)

3 - Unlike you, I do not believe "legal" equals "right" (You may have noticed that I have discussed this in the past on abortion threads)

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. (You may have notice that I have said this more times than you can probably count)

5 - I do not believe people should be treated differently based on race.

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. I must say though, all this time I thought your problem was that you were a special interest shill. You can imagine my surprised when you admitted that you were just confused.

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.

 

[CDNBear]

With regards your continual confusion, it really is quite simple.

Yes it is simple, you employ Gish Gallop, among a litany of other fallacies, when you get cornered Jim.

1 - As I've stated numerous times, I have a problem with birth right

So inheritance of any kind is immoral.

No one born in Canada is to be considered Canadian.

Gotchya Jim.

2 - I don't believe in the "infallacy" of the legal system

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.

3 - Unlike you, I do not believe "legal" equals "right"

Wrong as usual. Besides the fact that "right" is subjective, slavery was once considered right.

Given the level of hypocrisy and deceit you employ Jim, it's not that much of a stretch to consider your version of right to be quite askew. Which is why we rely in part on the legal system to aid us in maintaining a fair society.

Perhaps you should reflect upon your own words though Jim...

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.

They did Jim, as I've already well established, It's based on international law, and standard, deliberated upon by the SCC and their decision rendered to Parliament.

The first time I proved that, you did the old cannuck two step and claimed you were arguing from a moral position. When it was pointed out that you moved the goalposts, you claimed to be here for entertainment. Although I'm not sure how you derive entertainment from having me make a fool of you.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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.

It's the fact that you muddle the issues in the discussions at hand, that causes any confusion.

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.

Your continued dishonesty aside. Why didn't you just quote me, I've only told you that a dozen times when you generalize the whole of First Nations.

That's probably why you find it confusing.

Wrong as usual. I find only your position to be confusing, not the issues. Because of your use of fallacy, generalization, and deceit to avoid admitting you are wrong.

 

[Cannuck]

So inheritance of any kind is immoral in your view? No one born in Canada should be considered Canadian?

Ultimately yes. We have to walk first before we can run though.

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

Proof of what? That you think because the law says so it must be right? I'm pretty sure my first response to what you lamely call "proof" was that I didn't care what the law says. Seriously, what type of argument did you think I was using? Never mind, I just remembered you are confused.

"right" is subjective, slavery was once considered right.

Hey, you're catching on. Perhaps your fog of confusion is beginning to lift.

They did, based on international law, standard, deliberated by the SCC and a decision rendered.

No they didn't. They just accepted the decision. There is no standard used by the federal government in place today. The decision to recognize or not recognize a nation is a political decision based on expediency and the winds of the day. Simply put, it was just political correctness. It would appear that I spoke too soon. The fog looks like it's rolling back in.