News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

WislaHD said:
Immigrants chose to come to this country. The First Nations didn't choose to invite us over.
Click to expand...
That's not how it works. I'm an ethnic English, born in the UK. The original Celts and Picts did not invite the Angles, Saxons, Romans, Norse and Normans to move to British Isles. No, might or morality settles it. And today's descendants of those Celtic peoples cannot reasonable seek compensation from France, Sweden/Norway, etc. No, you just get on with your lives and carry on.
 
Admiral Beez said:
That's not how it works. I'm an ethnic English, born in the UK. The original Celts and Picts did not invite the Angles, Saxons, Romans, Norse and Normans to move to British Isles. No, might or morality settles it. And today's descendants of those Celtic peoples cannot reasonable seek compensation from France, Sweden/Norway, etc. No, you just get on with your lives and carry on.
Click to expand...
Should we abandon our legal structure too while we are at it?

English common law system, which we inherited, came after the final Norman invasions. Under this system, I am pretty sure we are supposed to respect the treaties that we have made.
 
WislaHD said:
Should we abandon our legal structure too while we are at it?

English common law system, which we inherited, came after the final Norman invasions. Under this system, I am pretty sure we are supposed to respect the treaties that we have made.
Click to expand...
Is it not the case that court decisions on the required degree and form of aboriginal consultation have nothing to do with specific treaty provisions, and everything to do with an expansive and expanding interpretation of the Charter? Aren’t large parts of BC unceded by any treaty at all? If that’s the case, isn’t settler occupation of most of that province illegal, and the only legally correct option the expulsion of all non-aboriginal residents?
 
WislaHD said:
Should we abandon our legal structure too while we are at it?

English common law system, which we inherited, came after the final Norman invasions. Under this system, I am pretty sure we are supposed to respect the treaties that we have made.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the opposite.

Unless there is a clear treaty granting the Natives certain rights, then it is assumed that the land was acquired by the rule of the day - which was invade, conquer and defeat.
 
BurlOak said:
The inter-tribe genocides kept their populations small enough that their poor stewardship of the environment was not as evident.
Click to expand...

Very true,
steveintoronto said:
If immigrants have standing and recourse under the Constitution and Law for land rights and special status, then they too are legally due consideration by the courts.

It appears that many who lean to the right in the last few generations are oblivious to why the Court rules as it does. And that tells far more about those same leaners than they realize.

Where exactly is your problem with the Court's ruling? To call for a further Appeal would be logical in view of your claim, but dissing those who have legal rights and using them just indicates how incredibly bereft you are of the what this nation is built upon. That's this odd term call "Law".
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the Courts, that their job. I have a problem with groups using, abusing the system. If First Nations (sometimes a small subset of them) and hypocritical environmentalists continue this path there will be a high price they & we will pay. It will take a long time to manifest, will be indirect, and irreversible. In other words, fewer jobs, fewer tax revenues, and fewer Progressive social services higher CPP deductions. And probably Alberta's secession.
 
ryguy7787 said:
I'm surprised no one here is talking about this yet. We all know Trump talks like this behind the scenes, but now that it's in the public forum, it'll be interested to see how both sides react and if the negotiations will implode.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html
Click to expand...

The US doesn't have to be 'nice' to us, they don't have to be 'fair' to us. That we are surprised when they ruthlessly pursue their own interest shows how sheltered we have become; safe & secure with US market access and protection, all the while lecturing them. There is ultimately a price to pay. I have told my sanctimonious friends this for many years.
 
They don't have to be nice to us, sure. But when we share the largest open border in the world as well as natural resources, corporations interwoven so meticulously and countless other financial, cultural and militaristic values then you would think the US wouldn't be so obtuse into gerrymander their one way deal on such a large public spectrum. Allies don't do that to eachother.
 
But we often don't act or talk like an ally, particularly our sanctimonious public lecturing to everyone far & wide.
The US would be in pretty good shape no matter who their neighbors are. We however are entirely dependent on the US as an economic or political partner.
Imagine substituting out the US for any other single country or combination of countries. Not good.
 
buildup said:
But we often don't act or talk like an ally, particularly our sanctimonious public lecturing to everyone far & wide.
The US would be in pretty good shape no matter who their neighbors are. We however are entirely dependent on the US as an economic or political partner.
Imagine substituting out the US for any other single country or combination of countries. Not good.
Click to expand...

I didn't know we had an option! But since we do, I'll trade for Sweden, or Belgium or Denmark, or Finland or the Netherlands and I wouldn't mind New Zealand either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top