Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
cannuck

Stanley verdict not to be appealed

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Rex Havoc said:

We need an our own political party in Parliament with Indigenous  MPs as Co-Ministers dealing with the Indigenous side of issues.

Instead of complaining about Government,  we need be the Government.

THAT would be a divisive and failing move.  What we need to do is NOT polarize politics into special interest groups (such as the amalgamation of the CCF with the Canadian Labour Congress to form the NDP).  That would once again set Saskatchewan into a flight-of-capital mode the could last decades before the world could trust our government once again and return to our province.   Everyone seems to think we have been surging ahead of the rest of the country for the last 10/15 years, but in reality we were just playing catch-up from a half century failure in political experimentation.

If you want to make a difference take a look at which parties have been able to SUCCESSFULLY do anything for Saskatchewan, vs. do things TO us and join that party (which, at this time would fairly obviously be the Saskatchewan Party).   I know your participation would be welcome.  If you mean federally (as it appears you did) more of the same would apply, except that there are two viable parties.  To form a racially defined special interest party it would NEVER get to be government thus be able to have ministers or "co-ministers".

Come to think of it: you should run for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada....they NEED someone with at least one foot planted firmly in reality.  

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is how the media covered the shooting extensively,. but rarely did they talk about WHY Boushie was on the property and why he was attempting to steal a truck. I could be wrong about the attempted stealing, but he was shot while in a vehicle that belonged to someone else.  According to the reports there were a few people that were at the scene.  I know this is about the appeal, but I believe this is part of the reason there will be no appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rex Havoc said:

We need an our own political party in Parliament with Indigenous  MPs as Co-Ministers dealing with the Indigenous side of issues.

Instead of complaining about Government,  we need be the Government.

Would this party be competing against the other parties in Canada or are you saying that each area (with high enough Aboriginal population) would get an additional MP to serve the Aboriginal community?

If it is the former, then I have to wonder what the demographics look like in the sense that there would only be a handful of areas in Canada that would most likely elect this group into power meaning it would be slim chances for them to even get official party status, never mind having the voting power to directly change things. But yes....they would have a voice.

If its the latter then I feel that it would be a divisive move that would probably negate the purpose. It would be more formal that the current situation but it would remain similar to what we have today which is 'us versus them'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

 I could be wrong about the attempted stealing, 

No you're not wrong about this as they admitted to it however it was never a contentious issue since these hoodlums were never going to be charged with these acts as the Crown needed them to testify against Stanley, therefore they are given immunity for those other crimes. 

 

10 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

 but I believe this is part of the reason there will be no appeal.

The decision to appeal is granted when the feel there was a technical error made in the case and Not based on what people think the verdict should be. Since there was no errors made in the case, they don't have the choice to even appeal as the law won't allow for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

I could be wrong about the attempted stealing, but he was shot while in a vehicle that belonged to someone else.

That is very strange wording. There is no indication that the vehicle he was in was stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is very strange wording. There is no indication that the vehicle he was in was stolen.

Maybe reading this over will give you a better idea of things.......30 shots of alcohol and an SUV matching the one that was stolen.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8105875-witness-in-stanley-trial-admits-truck-stolen-maintains-farm-visit-was-for-tire-help/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Maybe reading this over will give you a better idea of things.......30 shots of alcohol and an SUV matching the one that was stolen.

Except that is not what your link says. Instead of paraphrasing, I suggest you quote something and then you might improve your comprehension skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is very strange wording. There is no indication that the vehicle he was in was stolen.

At the time maybe not. But if this group that Boushie was a part of was attempting to steal Stanley's ATV, then a good chance the truck they showed up in was also stolen (turns out to the the case that it was stolen from another farm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

At the time maybe not. But if this group that Boushie was a part of was attempting to steal Stanley's ATV, then a good chance the truck they showed up in was also stolen (turns out to the the case that it was stolen from another farm).

How was it stolen, did you also misread articles because you have extreme racial bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

At the time maybe not. But if this group that Boushie was a part of was attempting to steal Stanley's ATV, then a good chance the truck they showed up in was also stolen (turns out to the the case that it was stolen from another farm).

No. They tried stealing the truck from was from another farm however they were unsuccessful. They continued driving their own SUV which belonged to Wuttunee.  They did also try to steal an ATV a the Stanley farm but were unsuccessful again. 

 

Quote

Meechance said the group, which also included Boushie and his girlfriend Kiora Wuttunee, got into Wuttunee's grey SUV and went swimming at a river. On the way back to the reserve, the group got a flat tire.

They ended up at the ranch of Marvin and Glennis Fouhy in the district of Spinney Hill, northeast of the Stanley farm. Cross-Whitstone admitted to trying to break into a truck there.

The group then took off, the SUV's muffler dragging "real bad," according to Meechance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cannuck said:

THAT would be a divisive and failing move.  What we need to do is NOT polarize politics into special interest groups (such as the amalgamation of the CCF with the Canadian Labour Congress to form the NDP).  That would once again set Saskatchewan into a flight-of-capital mode the could last decades before the world could trust our government once again and return to our province.   Everyone seems to think we have been surging ahead of the rest of the country for the last 10/15 years, but in reality we were just playing catch-up from a half century failure in political experimentation.

If you want to make a difference take a look at which parties have been able to SUCCESSFULLY do anything for Saskatchewan, vs. do things TO us and join that party (which, at this time would fairly obviously be the Saskatchewan Party).   I know your participation would be welcome.  If you mean federally (as it appears you did) more of the same would apply, except that there are two viable parties.  To form a racially defined special interest party it would NEVER get to be government thus be able to have ministers or "co-ministers".

Come to think of it: you should run for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada....they NEED someone with at least one foot planted firmly in reality.  

We who? You aren't one of us. We have more at stake in developing OUR resources on our territorial lands.

We have every Right to partake in Parliament. 

If Bloc Quebecois sepeartists can have a stake in Parliament  with a negative value your are going to have a damn good reason why we shouldn't have representation in respect to our traditional territories in a positive partnership.

Do you have any damn good reason?

When we have giant corporations like BHP, K+S, and Enbridge knocking on our door for our resources we all get together as a people meet with them and decide what we want when it comes to having a stake in development of a resource that will make somebody else Billions.

With Parliamentary representation we can get better deals and guaranteeS of our Rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rex Havoc said:

We who? You aren't one of us. We have more at stake in developing OUR resources on our territorial lands.

We have every Right to partake in Parliament. 

If Bloc Quebecois sepeartists can have a stake in Parliament  with a negative value your are going to have a damn good reason why we shouldn't have representation in respect to our traditional territories in a positive partnership.

Do you have any damn good reason?

With Parliamentary representation we can get better deals and guaranteeS of our Rights.

The only way to get parliamentary representation under our current system is to gain the majority of seats in a given riding. Unless the riding which contains a reserve has a majority of natives you ain't going to win it just by saying "Hey, I'm an Indian! Vote for me so I can represent my fellow Indians!" And I believe most native reserves are far too small, population wise, to be a majority of the population in any particular riding. 

Now if the Liberals ever brought in a more rep by pop system then all natives could vote for one 'native' party across the country and that party would get a % of the seats in parliament commensurate with the size of the vote, regardless of where it was. But that would only give you - presuming every single eligible native voted for that party, about 4% of the seats in the federal parliament. The numbers would be higher at the provincial level, depending on which province, but nowhere anything like a majority.

And if natives got into the habit of only voting for the 'native party' the rest of the parties would have no reason to give a damn about what happens with natives, except in the occasional and unlikely event they needed the votes of the 'native' party during a particular vote.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

How was it stolen, did you also misread articles because you have extreme racial bias?

Projection.  I do not have racial bias. But if you are on my property and up to no good then you have to accept the consequences.  Now I would not be shooting anyone, but I would have no problem with laying the beat down if you are stealing from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rex Havoc said:

We who? You aren't one of us. We have more at stake in developing OUR resources on our territorial lands.

We have every Right to partake in Parliament. 

If Bloc Quebecois sepeartists can have a stake in Parliament  with a negative value your are going to have a damn good reason why we shouldn't have representation in respect to our traditional territories in a positive partnership.

Do you have any damn good reason?

When we have giant corporations like BHP, K+S, and Enbridge knocking on our door for our resources we all get together as a people meet with them and decide what we want when it comes to having a stake in development of a resource that will make somebody else Billions.

With Parliamentary representation we can get better deals and guaranteeS of our Rights.

 

 

2 hours ago, Rex Havoc said:

We who? You aren't one of us. We have more at stake in developing OUR resources on our territorial lands.

We have every Right to partake in Parliament. 

If Bloc Quebecois sepeartists can have a stake in Parliament  with a negative value your are going to have a damn good reason why we shouldn't have representation in respect to our traditional territories in a positive partnership.

Do you have any damn good reason?

When we have giant corporations like BHP, K+S, and Enbridge knocking on our door for our resources we all get together as a people meet with them and decide what we want when it comes to having a stake in development of a resource that will make somebody else Billions.

With Parliamentary representation we can get better deals and guaranteeS of our Rights.

 

First of all, the resources in Canada belong to Canada.  The original treaties gave rights to fishing and hunting, not mining.  IMHO, those who have negotiated comprehensive claims have far over reached their authority when it comes to resources.  When it comes to producing resources, the people who make billions are also putting billions at risk to earn them.  It is no different from what happens on ANY other crown lands.

There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from founding a federal political party and running for office, but that would be subject to running within an established constituency.   As a member of a rump party, you would have as much impact as BQ....i.e. none.  But go ahead, knock yourself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Projection.  I do not have racial bias. But if you are on my property and up to no good then you have to accept the consequences.  Now I would not be shooting anyone, but I would have no problem with laying the beat down if you are stealing from me.

What does your silly rant have to do with the fact that you read something incorrectly because you want to hate on a group of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Argus said:

The only way to get parliamentary representation under our current system is to gain the majority of seats in a given riding. Unless the riding which contains a reserve has a majority of natives you ain't going to win it just by saying "Hey, I'm an Indian! Vote for me so I can represent my fellow Indians!" And I believe most native reserves are far too small, population wise, to be a majority of the population in any particular riding. 

Now if the Liberals ever brought in a more rep by pop system then all natives could vote for one 'native' party across the country and that party would get a % of the seats in parliament commensurate with the size of the vote, regardless of where it was. But that would only give you - presuming every single eligible native voted for that party, about 4% of the seats in the federal parliament. The numbers would be higher at the provincial level, depending on which province, but nowhere anything like a majority.

And if natives got into the habit of only voting for the 'native party' the rest of the parties would have no reason to give a damn about what happens with natives, except in the occasional and unlikely event they needed the votes of the 'native' party during a particular vote.

 

You wouldn't get to vote for a territorial MP but feel free to vote for your regular choices in your riding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cannuck said:

 

First of all, the resources in Canada belong to Canada.  The original treaties gave rights to fishing and hunting, not mining.  IMHO, those who have negotiated comprehensive claims have far over reached their authority when it comes to resources.  When it comes to producing resources, the people who make billions are also putting billions at risk to earn them.  It is no different from what happens on ANY other crown lands.

There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from founding a federal political party and running for office, but that would be subject to running within an established constituency.   As a member of a rump party, you would have as much impact as BQ....i.e. none.  But go ahead, knock yourself out.

Treaties clearly say it's our land and newcomers are our tennents. What applies to you under the Charter doesn't always apply to me.

Provinces are irrelevant to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What does your silly rant have to do with the fact that you read something incorrectly because you want to hate on a group of people?

I have no problem being corrected. However I have a problem with incorrect projections from many members here who cannot deal with what is posted without looking like a total fucking idiot while doing it. It has been a plaque on this forum for years now. I don't tolerate it from others, and I will not tolerate if from you either.

I'll give you another chance, let's see how it plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rex Havoc said:

Treaties clearly say it's our land and newcomers are our tennents. What applies to you under the Charter doesn't always apply to me.

Provinces are irrelevant to us.

Dillusional statements like this are the very reason why progress will never be made. 

Edited by Accountability Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Dillusional statements like this are the very reason why progress will never be made. 

You don't like it when we flex our Rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rex Havoc said:

You don't like it when we flex our Rights?

Your rights are laid out and very clear, just like the treaties that also say you ceded your rights to the land which go on to give certain exceptions to what  you are allowed to do on that land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for the natives to join the country. We have tried to let them keep the old ways but it is a major failure and can't be done any more. It is time they think of the people and thier future then always looking back .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rex Havoc said:

Treaties clearly say it's our land and newcomers are our tennents. What applies to you under the Charter doesn't always apply to me.

Provinces are irrelevant to us.

That thinking is why the natives suffer so much, The greed of the chiefs and the bands, we want the country and you pay us to live here is a major problem? Shake your head, because it is not yours.

Edited by PIK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rex Havoc said:

You wouldn't get to vote for a territorial MP but feel free to vote for your regular choices in your riding.

What do you think a 'territorial MP" is anyway? There is no such thing, nor will there ever be. The biggest reserve I'm aware of is the Six Nations, and that's less than 13,000 people. Most are far, far smaller. There are only 10 with populations that are more than 5,000 people.  That's a moderate small town in this country. The average population of a federal riding is about 70,000 people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...