News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 743     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 988     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 569     0 

VIA Rail

BurlOak said:
A police officer is killed at Oka, and he is forgotten. Under Bourassa
A rioter is killed at Ipperwash, and Media still talks about it. Under Harris.
A native beats a non-native citizen to within an inch of his life, and it is forgotten. Under McGuinty.

Sometimes enforcing the law can get messy, but it is necessary to maintain civil order. In order protection priority is: Citizens, Police, Law Breakers.
Based on this, Harris handled the situation the best in the past 40 years of blockades.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it is this. I don't care if you are Native, Asian, Brown, Black or 6th generation Canadian the law applies equally. Yes people can express themselves in the form of protests but the moment a person pretends the law does not apply to them all hope is lost.

I do not support the protests if they cannot learn to compromise. If they want to block the tracks they should be removed if they do not want to play nice. I am sorry but the treaties and land agreements they are referring to are hundreds of years out of date. Do they really expect the federal government to give up huge chunks of the country because first nation tribes are a little butt hurt?
 
Northern Light said:
I don't recognize it as belonging to anyone.

As such, I'll take it, and that settles the issue; seeing as I don't have to recognize Canadian courts, says one side; while the other says I needn't recognize the Wet'suwet'en.

I agree with both! I declare the land to be mine, everyone else off!

****

For the dense.........satire people

****
Click to expand...

I was going to say..........how very hippy of you, mate! Have you been licking toads for brekky? ;)

Though really, I consider this an unholy mess that isn't as easily addressed as some would have it.
Click to expand...

I think it's quite simple: Wet'suwet'en land is unceded, therefore it belongs to their people and the RCMP and our courts have ZERO jurisdiction there. They didn't sign any treaties handing over the land for pennies on the dollar like most other nations in Canada so it's still their land. The Indian Act doesn't apply there either.
That's what unceded means.

It's very simple. The hereditary chiefs even proposed an alternate route through their territory! Which CGL balked at because it's longer and would therefore cost more.

Good for these people for standing up for their land and their rights to it. It's about time indigenous people in this place grab our governments by the bollocks and say they're not going to be mistreated in the same way they have been for hundreds of years.
 
As for the Mohawks.....they're in a funny situation because their lands were granted them by the Crown for services fighting the Yanks.
 
SunriseChampion said:
Our laws don't apply on land that was never given to the Crown.

Can you read that?
Click to expand...

That may be the case but the only way to solve the debate of who has title to what is to reopen the constitution and sever parts of the country. You would then need to tell the people of the various provinces why they are losing their homes to the first nations.

That being said, they could always just repeal the Indian act of 1876 and make everyone equal. No more reserves, no more tax exemptions and no more special status.

Even if lands were handed back to the first nations they would need to provide for themselves which is somewhat impractical.
 
Richard White said:
That may be the case but the only way to solve the debate of who has title to what is to reopen the constitution and sever parts of the country. You would then need to tell the people of the various provinces why they are losing their homes to the first nations.

That being said, they could always just repeal the Indian act of 1876 and make everyone equal. No more reserves, no more tax exemptions and no more special status.

Even if lands were handed back to the first nations they would need to provide for themselves which is somewhat impractical.
Click to expand...

Most land is covered by treaty or was never occupied. The Wet'suwet'en lands were never ceded and so don't really form a part of Canada as far as I'm concerned. No more than Tibet is a part of China.

Anyway, I deleted that post because it doesn't apply to the Mohawks whose land was granted them by the Crown for services in fighting against the Yanks.
 
BurlOak said:
A police officer is killed at Oka, and he is forgotten. Under Bourassa
A rioter is killed at Ipperwash, and Media still talks about it. Under Harris.
A native beats a non-native citizen to within an inch of his life, and it is forgotten. Under McGuinty.

Sometimes enforcing the law can get messy, but it is necessary to maintain civil order. In order protection priority is: Citizens, Police, Law Breakers.
Based on this, Harris handled the situation the best in the past 40 years of blockades.
Click to expand...

The media is a fickle beast, and can often have selective memory, but your attempt to turn this into a partisan issue is way off the mark. The SQ member, Dudley George and whoever you are talking about in the third point are all remembered by those who knew (know) and love them.

At Ipperwash, their were multiple failures of leadership, both political and operational.
 
SunriseChampion said:
I think it's quite simple: Wet'suwet'en land is unceded, therefore it belongs to their people and the RCMP and our courts have ZERO jurisdiction there. They didn't sign any treaties handing over the land for pennies on the dollar like most other nations in Canada so it's still their land. The Indian Act doesn't apply there either.
That's what unceded means.
Click to expand...

It’s not quite that simple.

If Canada is Canada and unceded land isn’t, and if Canada’s courts have no jurisdiction over unceded lands, then the rightful occupants of unceded land have no status before Canada’s courts. (As Tibetans similarly do not) So why would they seek, or be given, rulings under Canada’s courts?

Seems to me there is some degree of overlap, and seems to me that there is some cherry picking going on when Canadian court rulings that side with said unceded occupants are recognized by them but Canadian court rulings that don’t favour them are dismissed.

I would have thought that the courts were accepted by both as the neutral third party where they seek rulings that bind everyone, win or lose.

- Paul
 
Via Rail says that beginning Feb. 20, all trains running between Toronto-London-Windsor, Toronto-Sarnia and Toronto-Niagara will resume service following a notification from CN allowing allowing a resumption of service in Southwestern Ontario.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top