Native fishing rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Do u think native people should get special fishing rights.

I think if their canadian citizens they should go by the same rules as everyone else.
 
What kinda rights??

Natives have lot of claims, and I think they do deserve some of it for all the past hardships.

.seek.
 
well right now they have the right to commercial fish, but non natives will get arrested if they try.

I personally don't think they should get any special rights, we treated them badly and that was wrong. But if u're a citizen u should follow the same rules as other citizens.
People have lost their land alot through out history, and not all of it was done by sitting around a table and shaking hands. Do the British give special rights to the Irish or the Scottish after treating them unfairly (I hope I'm getting my history right).
 
this is funny.

You don't want to give Natives special rights, but you want to give homosexuals special rights.
 
homosexuals don't get special rights. They get the same rights as everyone else.
rock.gif
 
no, you said in a different post that you want to give them special rights by re-writing the definition of marriage.

You want to give them the special right to change what consititutes a nuclear family.
 
I don't remember saying that we should give gays special rights, I said they should have the same right as everyone else.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The Charter, part of the Canadian Constitution which was repatriated to Canada on April 17, 1982, empowers Canadians to challenge any law, regulation or bureaucratic ruling created by government -- with a decision on its validity being left up to a judge.

At the same time, it was crafted with a careful series of checks and balances that allow governments to defend their legislation and decision. The pivotal one states that in any case where a judge has found a constitutional violation, government lawyers are then allowed to demonstrate why they believe the breach is justifiable "in a free and democratic society."

Some of the key rights protected under the Charter are:

* Legal rights, including the right to counsel and to be free of arbitrary imprisonment or unreasonable search and seizure.
* A broadly worded clause (Section 7), which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
* Guarantees of fundamental freedoms such as free speech, expression, association and religion.
* Equality guarantees (Section 15), which protect against unfair discrimination. It includes an exemption for affirmative action programs that discriminate in order to ameliorate historical inequalities.
* Language rights, affirming the equality of French and English.

The Cananadian Charter grew out of a perception that courts are more accessible and transparent than the largely invisible and conflicted world of politicians who are more concerned about the next vote instead of justice and long-term impacts.

"Government is inaccessible and enormously self-protective," said John Dixon, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and a former senior adviser to the federal Minister of Justice. "The real political action involves small groups of mandarins working behind closed doors. But look at the courts in contrast. The process is utterly transparent and rational. Citizens get to hear the same evidence the judges do, and when judges make a decision, they have to provide coherent reasons."

As a result, the Supreme Court has helped equality litigants by opening the door wide for challenges to the way bureaucrats administer regulations in specific instances. Politicians are able to appease the electorate, all the while knowing the courts will use the Charter to fix them, if necessary.

Women and aboriginal people have won many favourable rulings and, after some initial disappointments, so has the gay and lesbian community.

Landmark Charter Cases For The Gay Community

Vriend v Alberta (1998): Delwin Vriend was fired by a small Christian college in Edmonton. He was prevented from using the Alberta Human Rights Commission to fight his firing because it did not include gays as a protected group. The Supreme Court "read in" gay rights to the list of rights protected under Alberta Human Rights legislation.

Judge Major alone dissented from the majority of Supreme Court judges, in saying Alberta ought to be allowed to legislate its own solution. But as he watched the political interplay, he began to have misgivings about the faith he had naively placed in politicians.

"I'm no longer so sure it [his opposing position] was a great idea," he told the Globe and Mail. "The reason . . . is that legislatures across the country have not been particularly active doing anything."

M v H (1999): The case involved an estranged lesbian couple and the fact that Ontario family law provisions exclude gays and homosexuals. The court ruled that by excluding these groups from support provisions, Ontario had continued a history of discrimination that undermined their human dignity.

If u want to marry someone of the same sex I wouldn't stop u.:p
Do u have an opinion on native fishing?
 
Don't forget Joseph, that the Candian Federal Government three times voted to recognize that the legal definition of marriage is between one man and one women.  It won with an overwhelming majority all three times.  And all three votes took place during the period of Liberal Majority from 1993 to 2003.  If you were worried about the conservative stance on gay marriages, you should be more worried about the lack of commitment by the current government.  All three votes were democratic so, the liberals are proving once again they care not for the democratic process, rather, for their own personal interests.

I love this:

The Supreme Court "read in" gay rights to the list of rights protected under Alberta Human Rights legislation.


The Supreme Court of Canada can only interpret laws to determine if they are constitutional or not. They have no jurisdiction to read into laws to make them constitutional. If they are not constitutional they are to give an opinion that is isn't and they are to send it back to the law makers. It is up to the legislature or parliament to make them in alignment of the constituion or to enact the sunset clause, overiding the constitution. The supreme court was dead wrong in its actions.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If u want to marry someone of the same sex I wouldn't stop u.:p
of course u wouldn't stop me. you want that special right for gays. What you are failing to recognize is that it is just that, a "special right".

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Do u have an opinion on native fishing?
I'll give it when I have more information.


but you've never answered the question. As a liberal, you give implicit and explicit support to such measures. What makes this one any different?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]if it were up to me, I would say free fish for everyone! don't regulate the fishing, regulate the price!

The problem is that the fish stocks of the Atlantic seaboard has been so over fished by Spain, Portugual and Russia, the resource is almost "extinct." You can regulate prices in Canada or the USA, any attempt at regulating another countries prices will be an excercise in futility.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ July 13 2004,10:30)]this is funny.

You don't want to give Natives special rights, but you want to give homosexuals special rights.
He wants to give homosexuals the same rights..there's a difference.
 
I don't thinf free fish for everyone, but I don't think its right to give natives the right to fishright now and not let non natives. I think if its open for commercial fishing, everyone should have the right to fish at that time. But I think it should still be regulated. Peon's right if we over fish the water, they'll go extinct.
 
no Mr. Bill, homosexuals already HAVE the same rights, they, the same way as I, could marry anyone of the opposite sex I wished to (provided the other party was willing). Changing the definition of marriage (socially, legally and religiously) is a special right.


Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals. they can leave money to each other in death, they can assign each other as the person in charge through a living will. there is no benefits from filing your taxes as a married couple (it has only recently stopped being a deteriment).
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ July 13 2004,3:11)]no Mr. Bill, homosexuals already HAVE the same rights, they, the same way as I, could marry anyone of the opposite sex I wished to (provided the other party was willing).  Changing the definition of marriage (socially, legally and religiously) is a special right.  


Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals.  they can leave money to each other in death, they can assign each other as the person in charge through a living will.  there is no benefits from filing your taxes as a married couple (it has only recently stopped being a deteriment).
Sigh..I guess I shouldn't bother repeating myself. Though you never did get back to that old arguement kindof piddled off.. If we go back to it we should do so from where we left off.
 
Back
Top