supreme-court-affirms-american-indigenous-mans-right-to-hunt-in-canada

Jack Robinson said:
Me too, my grandmother dated a native in highschool.
Click to expand...

I dated one 5 years back...gtg right?
That means my offspring can go to Notre Dame for free! It's only 30 K $ per year... part of my newly acquired 'Self Described Metis' status...cool

And as someone said " Lotta Fail.." lotta fail to generate much support for Cousin Eddie IMO.
What do you suppose the breakdown on this is 90 % against...10% for? Like the old saying goes...You meet an a**hole in the morning, you met an a**hole in the morning. You meet them all day....
 
Last edited:
silver 55 said:
I think a lot of people posting on this topic should review the Jay treaty.
Click to expand...

Ok, I read it. Now explain how it applies in this case please. In the preamble the only article of the treaty that is still honored is article 1 recognizing the USA as a sovereign country which to me implies that treaties are not worth the paper they're written on. I don't/didn't anything in the treaty about indigenous/first nations at all?
 
I perused it and several versions of court documents pertaining to it as well. Said precious little about hunting that I could find...sorry still not ready to drink the Koolaid.
I'm a big believer in ' Because the Gov't allows it...doesn't mean you need to take advantage of it '
Raised well under the Poverty line here, dad wouldn't collect welfare... pride. CERB; sorry... I got by without Gov't handouts.
Apparently this is tough to understand for some folks... continue on as you see fit
 
F.P.S. said:
A lot of ignorance on this topic.Before you make stupid comments on this ,Please look back in history and understand that Indigenous peoples hunted, fished foraged in these and other areas long before the before the white man came and made borders . How would you feel if someone just came along and told you that,you could not feed your family any longer?
Click to expand...

After all the game in this country is wiped out, this argument will be irrelevant.

Grizz
 
Grizzly Adams said:
After all the game in this country is wiped out, this argument will be irrelevant.

Grizz
Click to expand...

Does anyone believe that anything but a small percentage of Folks actually Sustenance hunt?
"How would I feel if someone came along and told me that I couldn't feed my family anymore"... inviting Cousin Eddie up is gonna help that?
Well, I guess I'd feel like a regular Canadian and get a job to feed my family.
 
F.P.S. said:
A lot of ignorance on this topic.Before you make stupid comments on this ,Please look back in history and understand that Indigenous peoples hunted, fished foraged in these and other areas long before the before the white man came and made borders . How would you feel if someone just came along and told you that,you could not feed your family any longer?
Click to expand...

What colour were modern humans on the planet when they first entered North America? I reckon they (we) were pretty much all the same at that time. Like a lot of other critters on this planet, we experienced some slight changes in our appearance over millennia. Why are there people today who have their band cards that 'look' white? Is that because they could establish a lineage, a connection to the 'first peoples' ? If that's the case, we're all entitled to a band card as we can all establish a lineage to the 'first people'. What is the date in history that is used as a 'cut-off' to establish lineage in North America? 1000yrs, 10,000yrs, 100,000yrs?
"How would you feel if someone just came along and told you that, you could not feed your family any longer" is a very good question as it applies to anyone who wishes to hunt and gather using traditional methods. No one race has a monopoly on tradition whether it be hunting or other as there is and has only been one race of 'modern humans' no matter how hard governments and some organizations insist on division.
 
ITT whiteys who are butthurt that the natives do a better job of preserving their rights and culture by being willing to go to jail for it.
 
BioPace said:
ITT whiteys who are butthurt that the natives do a better job of preserving their rights and culture by being willing to go to jail for it.
Click to expand...

Ad Hominem attacks generally mean the offending side is losing the argument.
Out of good retorts... start calling names? Just like Grade School...
 
tokguy said:
Ad Hominem attacks generally mean the offending side is losing the argument.
Out of good retorts... start calling names? Just like Grade School...
Click to expand...

Is it ad hominem if I'm a whitey too? It's hard to realise that your position of objection basically comes down to jealousy - "Waa waa, he can do that, why can't *I* do that?". It took me some time to come to terms with that, and I can now only respect FN for (in some cases at least) having the balls to do what firearms owners only preach about.


tokguy said:
Does anyone believe that anything but a small percentage of Folks actually Sustenance hunt?
"How would I feel if someone came along and told me that I couldn't feed my family anymore"... inviting Cousin Eddie up is gonna help that?
Well, I guess I'd feel like a regular Canadian and get a job to feed my family.
Click to expand...

I guess your culture is only skin deep, so it's easy to give up. Why give up rights, in order to go and be a wage slave somewhere, paying taxes to the entity that wants to further strip your rights from you? If you don't use a right for a couple of years, should you lose it? What about a decade? How long will *your* rights last if you don't exercise them?

Tarrantula said:
Maybe they're "butthurt" about the extreme preferential treatment given to the natives
Click to expand...

If it's law it's not preferential treatment, it's legal treatment. We'd all like to be judged against the law, not what the mob feels like today. I read an interesting piece about the different between the settlement of the West in the US and the settlement of the West in Canada. Often the same tribes, straddling the border. The difference being, that the state arrived that the same time (or before ) the settlers in Canada, and treated whites and natives relatively equally (by comparison with the US). Our interactions with FN today all stem from those decisons and legal actions 150 years ago.
 
Is it ad hominem if I'm a whitey too? It's hard to realise that your position of objection basically comes down to jealousy - "Waa waa, he can do that, why can't *I* do that?". It took me some time to come to terms with that, and I can now only respect FN for (in some cases at least) having the balls to do what firearms owners only preach about.

And how am I to know / or care what color you are? It's what in your heart and guts that counts...you are the one calling names. Look back and see if I used any derogatory terms...don't think so. If one can't debate without calling names... a bit dull no?
As far as Wah, Wah... nope never said that...you did. I brought myself to where I am on my bootstraps...no Gov't help. That affords me a teensie bit more leeway than someone who has accepted 'gratuities' shall we say?


I guess your culture is only skin deep, so it's easy to give up. Why give up rights, in order to go and be a wage slave somewhere, paying taxes to the entity that wants to further strip your rights from you? If you don't use a right for a couple of years, should you lose it? What about a decade? How long will *your* rights last if you don't exercise them?

If there were no wage slaves ( I actually own a business), who would pay the taxes? Who do we know who receives 'Gov't stipends' paid for by taxes. Your rhetoric smacks of that Freeman Crap that used to be around... you don't pay taxes? You a Freeman LoL?

If it's law it's not preferential treatment, it's legal treatment. We'd all like to be judged against the law, not what the mob feels like today. I read an interesting piece about the different between the settlement of the West in the US and the settlement of the West in Canada. Often the same tribes, straddling the border. The difference being, that the state arrived that the same time (or before ) the settlers in Canada, and treated whites and natives relatively equally (by comparison with the US). Our interactions with FN today all stem from those decisons and legal actions 150 years ago.

And the law is always right, correct? Let's review some Gov't policies concerning the FN topic. Has that little deal where the women marry out of the tribe , hence their offspring have no rights...has that been straightened out yet? Proud folks that I know wouldn't allow that to continue. And if anyone 'other than' tried that crap... well the Snowflakes would have a field day. Upstanding brave men would have rectified that by now, correct?
Enlighten us further please.
 
Donny Fenn1 said:
Ok, I read it. Now explain how it applies in this case please. In the preamble the only article of the treaty that is still honored is article 1 recognizing the USA as a sovereign country which to me implies that treaties are not worth the paper they're written on. I don't/didn't anything in the treaty about indigenous/first nations at all?
Click to expand...

My understanding of this treaty is there are not canadian natives or american natives but north american natives. Since natives wandered back and forth across the prairies, just because the white man decided to carve two countries out of this land does not mean the natives are in two different groups. I believe a native from either side of the border can cross back and forth with out a problem.
 
silver 55 said:
My understanding of this treaty is there are not canadian natives or american natives but north american natives. Since natives wandered back and forth across the prairies, just because the white man decided to carve two countries out of this land does not mean the natives are in two different groups. I believe a native from either side of the border can cross back and forth with out a problem.
Click to expand...
Native

“Native” is a general term that refers to a person or thing that has originated from a particular place. The term “native” does not denote a specific Aboriginal ethnicity (such as First Nation, Métis, or Inuit). In the United States, the term “Native American” is in common usage to describe Aboriginal peoples. In Canada, the term “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous” is generally preferred to “Native.” Some may feel that “native” has a negative connotation and is outdated. This term can also be problematic in certain contexts, as some non-Aboriginal peoples born in a settler state may argue that they, too, are “native.”


https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/
 
dan belisle said:
"Whiteys" generally get real jail time instead of a healing circle or lodge. "Rights", Lol. - dan
Click to expand...

Sir. Not all of us on board with this and Gladue sentencing procedure. At Some Point grown up persons know what's right and what's wrong and take personal responsibity for thier actions. To me that's just it, no backpeddling, no weak kneed excuses claiming ignorance, etc.
Take the fecking punishment like a man.

Be well
 
R vs. Gladue

The perfect example of systemic racism. Unfortunately because it's racist in advantage of native people it's never spoken of outside of a courtroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom