Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-24-2017, 11:54 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Parsons View Post
As I mentioned in my above post,,, the whole thing involves alot of different angles that is time consuming too get a grasp of.


Don
Therein lies the problem. Too many people think it is too complicated when in reality it isn't. The supreme court needs to be faced with the decision, equality or no equality.
  #32  
Old 07-24-2017, 11:56 AM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Therein lies the problem. Too many people think it is too complicated when in reality it isn't. The supreme court needs to be faced with the decision, equality or no equality.
Are you saying you think the Supreme Court has the ability to cancel or over rule the treaties?
  #33  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:05 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Is there anything in the treaties that states special rights will be given to First Nations when they commit criminal activities? Because that's what this is about.
  #34  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:09 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMichaud View Post
Treaty 6

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100028783
Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
Are you saying you think the Supreme Court has the ability to cancel or over rule the treaties?
Yes, I believe they do.
  #35  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:10 PM
Vook's Avatar
Vook Vook is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Treaties, hunting rights, and all else aside, anyone convicted of illegally harvesting animals should be suspended from hunting, anywhere in the province for at least one calender year. And that suspension should not end, until all fines are paid in full.
Well said!
  #36  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:26 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Yes, I believe they do.
If we could, Don't you think we would have long ago? You know PET tried in the 60's.

The treaties were nation to nation agreements, that's reality. Today, many people see them as agreements between adults and children and think we can just make it go away. That's not what they are.
  #37  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:28 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
If we could, Don't you think we would have long ago? You know PET tried in the 60's.

The treaties were nation to nation agreements, that's reality. Today, many people see them as agreements between adults and children and think we can just make it go away. That's not what they are.
If you read them, there is a clause stating they are subject to change from time to time. This can be played in the favor of either party, however it seems to be one sided in that regard.
  #38  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:35 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
If we could, Don't you think we would have long ago? You know PET tried in the 60's.

The treaties were nation to nation agreements, that's reality. Today, many people see them as agreements between adults and children and think we can just make it go away. That's not what they are.
I don't care who tried or how they are viewed. They are divisive and not conducive for equality.

My question is this, why can't Indians accept the destruction of the treaties and be given the same rights and opportunities as the rest of us? What are some good reasons why the treaties should remain in place? I know it is a derail but I am sincerely interested in what reasons there are.
  #39  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:44 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
I don't care who tried or how they are viewed. They are divisive and not conducive for equality.

My question is this, why can't Indians accept the destruction of the treaties and be given the same rights and opportunities as the rest of us? What are some good reasons why the treaties should remain in place? I know it is a derail but I am sincerely interested in what reasons there are.
The answer is easy ......it's their choice and they don't want to. Really , why should they?
  #40  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:48 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
If you read them, there is a clause stating they are subject to change from time to time. This can be played in the favor of either party, however it seems to be one sided in that regard.
The truth is, the intent of the treaties is quite generous. That's because when we signed the, Canada thought natives would quickly be assimilated and in a hundred years or so, there would no natives left, so nobody cared.

Turned out to be a bad plan. But again Kurt, the sticking point here is, they are equal partners in the treaties. We don't get to dictate like some people think we do.
  #41  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:57 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
If you read them, there is a clause stating they are subject to change from time to time. This can be played in the favor of either party, however it seems to be one sided in that regard.
Yes most treaties do contain a stipulation that the government can regulate their hunting or fishing, but that is one part of the treaties that certain people refuse to acknowledge.

From Treaty Five
Quote:
Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada,
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #42  
Old 07-24-2017, 12:59 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
The truth is, the intent of the treaties is quite generous. That's because when we signed the, Canada thought natives would quickly be assimilated and in a hundred years or so, there would no natives left, so nobody cared.

Turned out to be a bad plan. But again Kurt, the sticking point here is, they are equal partners in the treaties. We don't get to dictate like some people think we do.
I agree, but there is a reason the clauses were included, not just for one side to use.

If we do not get to dictate, who does? When the First Nations have a problem with a treaty or one of their rights, land use, royalties, etc, they challenge it. Why is it forbidden for the other side to want to challenge a treaty or right? Especially one that is grossly outdated and obtuse?
  #43  
Old 07-24-2017, 01:28 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I agree, but there is a reason the clauses were included, not just for one side to use.

If we do not get to dictate, who does? When the First Nations have a problem with a treaty or one of their rights, land use, royalties, etc, they challenge it. Why is it forbidden for the other side to want to challenge a treaty or right? Especially one that is grossly outdated and obtuse?
Here's how I understand it from the Canadian Law course I took. the simple answer is the courts do, not the government. The treaties were written to last forever, therefore they can't be taken literally. 1870 doesn't apply to 2017, so the courts interpret the intent of the treaty. I agree the treaties were short sighted, but because the intent was to be generous, the courts often side with natives.

I think the government has challenged the treaties many times Kurt, I think many fights people want to see today, have already been fought and didn't go well.
  #44  
Old 07-24-2017, 01:42 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
The answer is easy ......it's their choice and they don't want to. Really , why should they?
As I said before, they want equality but demand to be treated different. You can't be a part of the treaty and expect to be equal.
  #45  
Old 07-24-2017, 01:50 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
Here's how I understand it from the Canadian Law course I took. the simple answer is the courts do, not the government. The treaties were written to last forever, therefore they can't be taken literally. 1870 doesn't apply to 2017, so the courts interpret the intent of the treaty. I agree the treaties were short sighted, but because the intent was to be generous, the courts often side with natives.

I think the government has challenged the treaties many times Kurt, I think many fights people want to see today, have already been fought and didn't go well.
So other than by reading the actual treaty, how does one interpret the intent? The judges were not present at the treaty signing, and the people that signed the treaties are long since dead. That being given, nobody actually knows what the natives thought that they were agreeing to by signing the treaty. Taking that one step farther, if I sign a business contract, and I misunderstood the terms because I didn't read them properly, it's not like I can expect that I will be allowed to only live up to the terms as I understood them. I will be expected to honor the contract that I signed.

And in this case, the judge found these people guilty, so just like any other poacher, they should be suspended from hunting.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
  #46  
Old 07-24-2017, 01:51 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
As I said before, they want equality but demand to be treated different. You can't be a part of the treaty and expect to be equal.
In Canada, all citizens have individual rights. First Natiions and Francophones have collective rights. The constitution says so.

So I guess they can.
  #47  
Old 07-24-2017, 01:55 PM
270person 270person is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronNoggin View Post
Far to small a fine IMHO:

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/p...81522226006867

At least it wasn't a walk I guess...

Nog

Unless you consider that we're probably the ones paying the fine?

Stewards of the land. Uh huh.

Last edited by 270person; 07-24-2017 at 02:01 PM.
  #48  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:01 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

[QUOTE=riden;3590125] I agree the treaties were short sighted, but because the intent was to be generous, the courts often side with natives.

QUOTE]

Basically you're saying the courts side with the natives to avoid hurt feelings? Not based facts or common sense?

At some point, both sides have to agree that the original intent was so both parties could live harmoniously in one land, and that in order for that to happen today they have to realize that the treaties have run there course and it's time to let common sense take precedence. The treaties are doing the exact opposite of their original intent.
  #49  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:04 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
So other than by reading the actual treaty, how does one interpret the intent? The judges were not present at the treaty signing, and the people that signed the treaties are long since dead. That being given, nobody actually knows what the natives thought that they were agreeing to by signing the treaty. Taking that one step farther, if I sign a business contract, and I misunderstood the terms because I didn't read them properly, it's not like I can expect that I will be allowed to only live up to the terms as I understood them. I will be expected to honor the contract that I signed.

And in this case, the judge found these people guilty, so just like any other poacher, they should be suspended from hunting.
A treaty isn't contract law. Your analogy is irrelevant.

Elk, there have been countless native hunting precedents. Are you trying to say this has never been dealt with in court? I guarantee there is already precedent on this.
  #50  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:04 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

[QUOTE=Kurt505;3590155]
Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
I agree the treaties were short sighted, but because the intent was to be generous, the courts often side with natives.

QUOTE]

Basically you're saying the courts side with the natives to avoid hurt feelings? Not based facts or common sense?

At some point, both sides have to agree that the original intent was so both parties could live harmoniously in one land, and that in order for that to happen today they have to realize that the treaties have run there course and it's time to let common sense take precedence. The treaties are doing the exact opposite of their original intent.
I said no such thing and stopped reading when you put words in my mouth.
  #51  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:09 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

[QUOTE=riden;3590159]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post

I said no such thing and stopped reading when you put words in my mouth.
What exactly did you imply the courts are using to make their decisions when you wrote this?

I agree the treaties were short sighted, but because the intent was to be generous, the courts often side with natives.

Was it to "keep in the spirit of good will"?

I am not trying to be disrespectful, but in all honesty, the way you have written this sentence, to me implies the courts make their rulings as to "not rock the boat" so to speak. If you meant something different, please explain.

Last edited by Kurt505; 07-24-2017 at 02:38 PM.
  #52  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:28 PM
HighlandHeart HighlandHeart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riden View Post
In Canada, all citizens have individual rights. First Natiions and Francophones have collective rights. The constitution says so.

So I guess they can.
Just wondering what collective rights francophones have that anglophones don't have? I understand the First Nations rights, Gladue sentancing is a big one.
  #53  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:43 PM
grouse_hunter grouse_hunter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Is there anything in the treaties that states special rights will be given to First Nations when they commit criminal activities? Because that's what this is about.
Monty Robinson is the poster child for Red Privilege! He received an extra lenient sentence for some rather egregious actions.

Personally, I don't think that equality or "reconciliation" can be ever achieved. The Native community is not interested. It is much more profitable to remain in the position of a "subjugated victim"...
  #54  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:48 PM
CMichaud's Avatar
CMichaud CMichaud is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Default

There can be no reconciliation until all peoples are seen as equals and are not simply defined by their respective immigrant status.
  #55  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:55 PM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is online now
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,175
Default

Since I joined the forum, there's probably been a thousand threads just like this.

It isn't right, it isn't fair, and it's not going to change in my lifetime I don't think.
  #56  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:07 PM
BuckCuller's Avatar
BuckCuller BuckCuller is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,665
Default Let's get something strait.

Treaty rights have nothing to do with poaching on private land without permission. Period.
__________________
As long as there is lead in the air there is always hope.
  #57  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:08 PM
ryeguy21 ryeguy21 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckCuller View Post
Treaty rights have nothing to do with poaching on private land without permission. Period.
but thats not what newwave and many others are nòw talking about. If one wants to take away certain rights what rights are they willing to lose?
  #58  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:12 PM
grouse_hunter grouse_hunter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryeguy21 View Post
too many racist ignorant white guys butt hurt over hunting rights. They claim they want equal rights but in fact dont care abouy anything as is evident by their other posts.

Curious what rights newwave will give up to have natives give up their rights. After all for it to be equal he has to lose something.
Well, the descendants of the hated colonists have less rights than the natives do. You can't take away from the group with less. Not in Canada anyways.

What rights would you have the whiteman give up?
  #59  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:14 PM
riden riden is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandHeart View Post
Just wondering what collective rights francophones have that anglophones don't have? I understand the First Nations rights, Gladue sentancing is a big one.
Mainly French educational rights. There are a lot more French schools in AB than people realize.
  #60  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:18 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryeguy21 View Post
too many racist ignorant white guys butt hurt over hunting rights. They claim they want equal rights but in fact dont care abouy anything as is evident by their other posts.

Curious what rights newwave will give up to have natives give up their rights. After all for it to be equal he has to lose something.
Let's not get into butt hurt racists here, it won't do anyone any good.

Let's address the crime vs punishment in this particular case. I know you said a poacher is a poacher and should be dealt with harshly, that's something we all agree on. I ask the question, do you think the punishment fits the crime in this case?
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.