Saturday, June 28, 2014

Treason is reason enough to Politicize the Supreme Court

The supporters of native rights like to talk about Canada having to negotiate nation to nation with various native bands. The notion is absurd. A nation without recognized boundaries is no more a nation in the way Canada is than a “marriage” is a marriage without a marriage license. No foreign government recognizes the various bands as being a nation. NATO is not going to offer membership to the Squamish “nation”. The US and Mexico are likewise not going to ask them to join NAFTA. The US is not going enter into negotiations to have the Squamish nation join the US. However, the 9 idiots saw it otherwise. They have decreed that because title was not formally extinguished a nation that clearly no longer exists does. This is akin to saying that any soldier declared missing in the American Civil War is not dead for lack of a body. Sadly, for Canada, the Supreme Courts resurrection is far more than a textbook non sequitur. The undead nations want their pound of flesh and billions and billions of wealth that now flows to Canadians as a whole will no go to one ethnic group instead. What is lost on the supporters of this abomination is the sure absurdity of another nation’s supreme court similarly cleaving off a whack of national territory to apiece another “nation”. The citizens of those countries would not stand for such treasonous behaviour. Canadians should not either. I was once loath to see the Supreme Court politicized, as it is in the States, thereby bringing it under political control, but years of judiciary idiocy have changed my mind. For would be Supreme Court appointees down south abortion is the political litmus test par excellence. It is time to make national loyalty the litmus test up here.

4 comments:

The Mound of Sound said...

Excuse me but I read this was a blog for three "progressive" Canadians. Redneck, perhaps, but you're anything but progressive.

We're not giving them anything. It's always been theirs. Most bands/tribes/nations settled their land claims years ago by treaty. British Columbia, as a condition of joining Confederation, reserved the right to negotiate native land claims and then promptly declined to do that. Those land claims, never having been surrendered by conquest nor ceded by treaty, are as valid today as they were at any time in the past. It's only your ignorance that blinds you.

And there are only 8-sitting justices on the SCC at the moment, not the full panel of 9.

So, Cletis, time to hop back in the pickup and get yerself another six pack.

Koby said...

Mound of Shit. Let me get this straight. If the lands were not ceded by conquest, then they would have a leg to stand on. However, because they were not formally ceded by conquest, then we should lament Britain’s lack of bloodthirstiness and give the land back. Do you know how many lands have never been formally ceded through war or treaty throughout history?
Should governments everywhere go back correct the historical record? Should archaeologists be employed to figure out every time an native band lost territory to another without treaty or declaration of war?

How do you propose that BC fill the massive hole in budget that Supreme Court has ripped open? How much should health care spending and education spending be rolled back just so a 19th century idea of race and blood purity to adhered to?

The Mound of Sound said...

You can't even get that straight. It's surrendered by conquest and ceded by treaty. It's a simple principle you raging redneck. The lands were never ceded or surrendered and so they've never been ours. We're not 'giving back' anything.

This isn't something invented by today's Supreme Court. That you find this novel is a reflection on you, Cletis, not some betrayal by the court. By the way, somebody with your inflamed disposition shouldn't be drinking in front of the kids.

Koby said...

Pedantic Mound of shit. Let me get this straight. If the lands were surrendered, then they would not have a leg to stand on. However, because they were not formally surrendered, then we should lament Britain’s lack of bloodthirstiness and give the land back. Do you know how many lands have never been formally surrendered or ceded through throughout history?
Should governments everywhere go back correct the historical record? Should archaeologists be employed to figure out every time an native band lost territory to another without treaty or surrender?

How do you propose that BC fill the massive hole in budget that Supreme Court has ripped open? How much should health care spending and education spending be rolled back just so a 19th century idea of race and blood purity be adhered to.

Mound of Shit “The lands were never ceded or surrendered and so they've never been ours. We're not 'giving back' anything.”

Again and there are countless cases in which lands were not ceded or surrendered. By your idiot logic, the Tunisian government should be looking for the ancestors of those Carthaginians sold into slavery so that not only can they claim what is rightly theirs, but also so that they can let the world now that Carthage never went anywhere; it was here, in a strange legal way, all along.