Thank You to all Veterans
Also it’s RED Friday so wear a little RED. Remember Everyone Deployed
I don't get it… Can someone help me out here?
-
To prove this point in direct relation to the Indian Act. Â Please familiarize yourself with EMMINENT DOMAIN law.
In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to “be made whole” by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.
So lets justly compensate them, with say… access to education, healthcare and housing etc. That’s basically exactly what happened Garg! You are arguing in circles.
Furthermore, you cant have a discussion about government policy in Canada if you are going to suggest that rule of law does not apply. Rule of law did not apply in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or during a war in a country that does not have a constitution or rule of law enshrined thereunder. Which is why those examples are asinine and why we value rule of law in Canada.
So we have come to an impasse. You believe that rule of law is irrelevant and I do not. Thank you for the discussion until this point but it cannot continue any further.
I’ll have that beer now Malachi. :-)
-
To prove this point in direct relation to the Indian Act. � Please familiarize yourself with EMMINENT DOMAIN law.
In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to “be made whole” by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.
So lets justly compensate them, with say… access to education, healthcare and housing etc. That’s basically exactly what happened Garg! You are arguing in circles.
Furthermore, you cant have a discussion about government policy in Canada if you are going to suggest that rule of law does not apply. Rule of law did not apply in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or during a war in a country that does not have a constitution or rule of law enshrined thereunder. Which is why those examples are asinine and why we value rule of law in Canada.
So we have come to an impasse. You believe that rule of law is irrelevant and I do not. Thank you for the discussion until this point but it cannot continue any further. Â
I’ll have that beer now Malachi. :-)
Canuck, HELLO. You don’t compensate them if you DON’T GET THE LAND. That’s arguing in circles.
And it’s propostourous to believe that 100% of north america ‘belonged’ to the first nations in the first place.
Therefore your colonial ‘rule of law’ applies and canadians today don’t owe them a red cent ;)
Emminent domain IS LAW. The white paper would have compensated the first nations once and for all, and this would be done. Arguing that they are owed a debt for the next billion years + is retarded.
All I see here is that you entirely lost the debate on this issue.
-
We did get the land. Where you livin right now?
Emminent domain is law. We followed it.
The white paper sought to unilaterally cancel contractual obligations which is against the law.
The British government believed that the lands west of Quebec “belonged” to indigenous people. Hence the entire motivation for negotiating the treaties on the first place. They were acquired legally by contract to the original inhabitants and every shred of law and legislation since then has upheld this belief.
I know you would love to rewrite history Garg. Wouldn’t we all? But we just can’t.
-
Just remember that the purpose of government is to change and regulate law.
For example, pot is illegal in Canada, but there are people who petition to change that, and one day the law will change.
Banking laws, and contract laws have changed drastically over the last 100 years.
I completely fail to understand how there is law beyond the law… other than morality?
-
I completely fail to understand how there is law beyond the law… other than morality?
Well that’s something we shall have to remedy, isn’t it?
I recommend you take out a book on Common Law from your local library. This will help you understand the legal system that has existed in the English speaking world for the last millennium or so and clear up this idea of “law beyond the law” and its relationship with morality. I am sure it will be very enlightening for you. :-) It will also help you understand why no one, including the government, is above the law and why said government cannot unilaterally cancel contracts or change elements of the country’s constitution.
Once you have a good grasp of the common law you can move on to the method of Constitutional amendment in Canada, which would be required to remove Indigenous treaty rights from Canadian law. At which point you may write to your member of Parliament. (Is it still Green Party MP Elizabeth May? ) And ask her to put forward a private members bill to amend the Canadian constitution to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples of their treaty rights.
RE: I don’t get it… Can someone help me out here?
I hope I have helped you out here and you get a little better what’s going on with indigenous rights in Canada. :-)
-
I completely fail to understand how there is law beyond the law… other than morality?
Well that’s something we shall have to remedy, isn’t it?
I recommend you take out a book on Common Law from your local library. This will help you understand the legal system that has existed in the English speaking world for the last millennium or so and clear up this idea of “law beyond the law” and its relationship with morality. I am sure it will be very enlightening for you. :-) It will also help you understand why no one, including the government, is above the law and why said government cannot unilaterally cancel contracts or change elements of the country’s constitution.
Once you have a good grasp of the common law you can move on to the method of Constitutional amendment in Canada, which would be required to remove Indigenous treaty rights from Canadian law. At which point you may write to your member of Parliament. (Is it still Green Party MP Elizabeth May? ) And ask her to put forward a private members bill to amend the Canadian constitution to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples of their treaty rights.
RE: I don’t get it… Can someone help me out here?
I hope I have helped you out here and you get a little better what’s going on with indigenous rights in Canada. :-)
Canuck,
I really do appreciate that you are trying to help. But I think you are not understanding why we have parliament, and more particularily why we have a senate (House of sober second thought)…
These exists so that laws can change. You are correct in that ‘rule of law’ stipulates that no one is above the law. However, the law is a moving target.
For example:
- Same sex marriages. Once illegal, NOW legal, There are those petitioning the government to have them annulled yet again, with sitting members (THE CURRENT JUSTICE MINISTER) who support legislation. These are contracts are they not? that the government has the power to annul? Like the U.S. did in San Francisco.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/12/dan-savage-canada-gay-marriage_n_1202917.html
-
Abortion. Once illegal, there is now NO law in canada. And there are those who push both ways on this item.
-
Emminent Domain, etc, etc, etc, I am sure we can both agree, that there are MANY items we can discuss. Including treaties/protocol’s that were legally binding, that we’ve abandoned. Including your favourite Kyoto Accord!
From what I have read, it is your position that we cannot exit the “contract” we are in with the natives, under any circumstance legally. (correct me if I’m wrong)
The point of fact is that we can. And guess what?!?! Even if you’re right, and it’s illegal. Oh well. Lets get it done, and I’ll do the jail time for everyone. Case closed.
From what I am reading you have no concept of how legislation, parliament, or our legal system works. I highly encourage you to come to model parliament in January 2014 (those most procedurally accurate model in the world). and SIT IN THE BC LEGISLATURE debate me, and watch me pass these changes in a room of a 100 politically savy opponents and peers, right before your eyes.
BTW you have to wear a suit and tie to UMP, and a blazer, unless you actually run for government, and formally petition for the ‘rules’ or rather ‘laws’ to change.
But that’s the point isn’t it? Laws change because they need to change. And the indian act needs to be abolish, or radically altered. All of which is legal. The authority of elected parliament, and the governor general/queen allows for this.
I’m also going to take the pains to remind you that however IMMORAL the nuremberg laws were. That they were entirely LEGAL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_LawHence my previous comments about law being a ruse. As long as it’s agreed to by the people in authority. The Law is what it is.
-
I never said these laws were impossible to change. I even explained the method my which they change ie: a constitutional amendment.
Please read my last post again and adjust your response.
Thank you.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/07/canada-aboriginal-prison-population-report.html
You know what Canuck I was wrong.
Maybe we should be paying for these kinds of services.
-
Glad you finally came around. :-)
-
Now Garg, don’t blow a gasket but I thought you should know……
Canada’s Metis win 142-year-old land ruling
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722379 -
I already posted that.
Everyone who “owned” land in winnipeg, now has a landclaim against them. So much for Canucks comments that the “government can’t take away your home.”
Maybe the government can’t, but it seems the court can.
The STUPIDITY of the whole thing too is that the 142yr old settlement was basically a treaty that ended the Red-River rebellion…. but then there was the North West Rebellion involving the same folks, and the famous Louis Riel.
That’s like expecting the allies to honor their portion of the treaty of versailles post WWII… it just doesn’t make sense.
-
Ah, so THAT’S what that thread was about, should have read it first I guess!
It does go on to say they don’t actually want the same land, just compensation. Obviously they would owe some development fees etc.
-
Well I’d like a trillion dollars in compensation too.
The problem is that the “value” of Winnipeg today, is much different than the “value” of Winnipeg then.
But said “requested” compensation is the “value” of Winnipeg for all time.
-
I have no problem giving them present day value. Less development costs and interest of course. Should work out to a couple grand. But as my injury attorney says, you start high in negotiations and settle on a reasonable amount.
-
Louis Riel was executed for armed rebellion against the Crown. Now we have this land claim decision that is more in tune with modern political correctness and revisionist history than the historical events of that time.
-
-
Garg, one word comes to mind with you last post……
NICE!
Suggested Topics
