Damn you rule of law DAMN YOU!!!
Why must you occasionally go against the best interests of white middle-class males!?
Why oh WHY? I cry!
It seems as though the article indicates that no resolution to the issue had been identified. But rather simply that a fair majority of Supreme Court Judges have acknowledged a failure on the part of the Federal Government to up-hold its side of a 140 year old contract.
The label you have given this thread is highly inaccurate and inflammatory. This seems to be more rhetoric and a carry over from the other thread. My personal views on the subject aside, I’m inclined to defer to the judgement of the people with the skills, Knowledge and authority to make a ruling on the matter. After all they are a charged with the task of up-holding the laws of our society and are far better equipped to pass judgement on such matters than anyone on this forum.
The bigger question at hand is with how much foresight and intelligence shall the matter be dealt with by our elected and appointed Governmental officials in finding a fair and mutually beneficial resolution.
Damn you rule of law DAMN YOU!!!
Why must you occasionally go against the best interests of white middle-class males!?
Why oh WHY? I cry!
LOL! I know!!
It seems as though the article indicates that no resolution to the issue had been identified. But rather simply that a fair majority of Supreme Court Judges have acknowledged a failure on the part of the Federal Government to up-hold its side of a 140 year old contract.
The label you have given this thread is highly inaccurate and inflammatory. This seems to be more rhetoric and a carry over from the other thread. My personal views on the subject aside, I’m inclined to defer to the judgement of the people with the skills, Knowledge and authority to make a ruling on the matter. After all they are a charged with the task of up-holding the laws of our society and are far better equipped to pass judgement on such matters than anyone on this forum.
The bigger question at hand is with how much foresight and intelligence shall the matter be dealt with by our elected and appointed Governmental officials in finding a fair and mutually beneficial resolution.
Good serious response. But I would coin the term “outrageously expressive/exagatory/obtuse” over “inflammatory”. Unless you consider Winnipeg the target of my comment?
As for the “contract” the entire case would have to be reviewed. If I’m not mistaken, “contracts” are annulled when some parties of the contract engage it outright rebellion and sedition against you? No?
As for the “inflamatory” comments about white males… other than being deeply offended let me remind you that winnipeg is one of the top 3 prime destinations for new/settling immigrants who want to start thiers lives as Canadians. I’m sure they wouldn’t appreciate being forgotten.
Also for those of you WHO DON"T KNOW CANADIAN HISTORY
There were 2 Metis rebellions led by Louis Riel.
1. The Red River Rebellion (Settled by the document in question)
2. The North West Rebellion (Settled by force)
It would seem to me, and ALL of the lower courts, that by rebelling, and taking up arms against the government, that the Red River settlement in question no longer holds validity…
I’ll stick by my wording. However the fact that you can find so many other words to adequately describe your own title tells me that you did it knowingly.
As to the rest of it… Again I would think that the courts would have taken into the consideration any and all actions that would have made any such contract void. And if such an argument holds water, then I’m sure it will be a factor in the case going forward.
Perhaps you could phone Ottawa and offer up your services as part of the Crown Legal team. You seem to feel you are well equipped to represent Canada interests in the area of Aboriginal Affairs. :lol:
Well until a month and a half ago, Metis weren’t even considered “indians”. And by legal rights they shouldn’t be (half french).
That’s probably whats prompted this ruling.
I don’t see why some pompos a s s with a gown and a wig who’s “appointed for life” should have anymore right to the determination of this country that you, or I, or Canuck, or any other canadian.
Yes he has the authority to make those decisions. The crown gave it to him. But NO we don’t have to like it, and YES we can freak out about it, complain about it, and get seditious about it.
Yes he has the authority to make those decisions. The crown gave it to him. But NO we don’t have to like it, and YES we can freak out about it, complain about it, and get seditious about it.
What’s all this we business Garg? You got a mouse in your pocket or something? Cause I don’t hear anyone else getting downright rowdy about every single ruling in favour of indigenous rights… or women’s day for that matter…
Yes he has the authority to make those decisions. The crown gave it to him. But NO we don’t have to like it, and YES we can freak out about it, complain about it, and get seditious about it.
What’s all this we business Garg? You got a mouse in your pocket or something? Cause I don’t hear anyone else getting downright rowdy about every single ruling in favour of indigenous rights… or women’s day for that matter…
Oh I’m not alone…
