First Nation rights

[finaddict]

Such a proud and noble people............and our national police just stand there and watch. I am embarrassed to call myself Canadian when sh*t like this happens.

[jassmine]

IF, this IS FACTUAL and the COs/RCMP DID attend, witness such an atrocity and allow the minority group members to act in this manner, what does this tell you about Canada's future as a peaceful, law-based democracy????????

I think my feelings toward and opinions of this minority group are well known here, so, won't reiterate them, but, I do believe in the RIGHT of "self defence" as a fundamental aspect of freedom and support ANY action by those impacted by such outrageous behaviour.

I also firmly support total disarmament for any and all members of this minority group. Guns are NOT one of their "traditional" artifacts and ONLY WE whose ancestors invented rifles have the moral birthright to own them. After all, we all want to be *traditional*, eh................

So should we also stop using gunpowder (which is most certainly not an invention of Europeans)?

[DeepJeep]

This drives me nutts!

Its on private land. Shouldn't it have same implications as any other person? If it was crown land, I could still understand...but not on private land. With RCMP there as a witness, there is an easy case of tresspassing (to begin with...).

[Fisher-Dude]

The law of trespass in Canada is made up of tort law, provincial legislation, and criminal law.

Tort law
Trespass to land is one of the oldest torts known in law. Historically, it has been held to occur whenever there has been an unauthorized physical intrusion onto the private property of another. Trespass also occurs when a person remains on an individual’s land after permission has been withdrawn.

Trespass to land is actionable “per se”. That means that someone can be sued and found liable for trespassing even if there is no proof of damage. In a trespass case, if the incident was for particularly malicious purposes, such as to intimidate the land owner, even punitive damages may apply.

That said, however, any person can go onto the private property of another during daylight hours if permission to do so is implied. For example, if there is a path up to the front door of a residence and there are no signs warning people to stay off the land, there is implied permission for people to enter, such as a letter carrier. This implied permission can, of course, be revoked instantly by the person in charge of the property. If you are told to leave, you must leave or you could be sued for trespass.

Provincial regulation
Every province in Canada has trespass legislation, such as Nova Scotia’s Protection of Privacy Act, the British Columbia Trespass Act, the Trespass to Property Act in Saskatchewan and PEI, and the Trespass to Premises Act in Alberta. Only the territories rely on common law. In some provinces, Privacy Acts, Motor Vehicle Acts, Fish and Wildlife Acts, and even All Terrain Vehicle Acts may give a legal right to an owner to prosecute trespassers.

The purpose of any trespass legislation is to give greater control over entry to or use of an owner’s or tenant’s premises, to provide penalties and remedies for breaches of the Act, and to facilitate the recreational use of private lands.

The law, in most cases, does not take away an owner’s or tenant’s right to sue for trespass, but usually grants the government the authority to seek its own sanctions as a way to control this sort of behaviour.

While trespassing is usually defined as the unlawful entry onto the private land of another, it also includes performing an unlawful activity on the land and refusing to leave when told to do so.

In some provinces there is a reverse onus provision. This means a person is presumed to be trespassing if he or she is found in a private garden, field, or other land under cultivation, inside lands that are fenced for livestock or cultivation, and on lands where notice has been posted. It is noteworthy that trespass is not presumed in privately owned natural areas if it is not posted as prohibited. This point is in line with the philosophy of encouraging recreational activity on privately held lands.

Offenders may be fined, in some cases up-to several thousand dollars.

There are a number of defences available to a person charged under provincial trespass legislation. If there is a fair and reasonable supposition that an accused had a right to be on the land, an accused may be acquitted. As noted, there is also an implied permission to approach a door of a building unless there is a notice that warns people to stay away.

Criminal law
Entering onto private land at night is treated much differently, and implied permission does not extend to trespassing at night, which is a criminal offence. The Criminal Code makes it an offence to loiter or prowl at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property. “Night” is defined by the Criminal Code as between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. “Dwelling-house” is defined as a permanent or temporary residence and anything attached to it.

The essence of loitering is wandering about apparently without precise destination. It is conduct that essentially has nothing reprehensible about it as long as it does not take place on private property where the loiterer has no business. The substance of prowling is to move about stealthily, furtively, secretly, and clandestinely or move in small degrees.

The prosecutor does not have to prove that the accused was looking for an opportunity to carry out an unlawful purpose. Where prowling is proved, the accused is required to prove he or she had a lawful excuse for being there.

For legal advice and assistance, contact a lawyer.


http://www.legalline.ca/legal-answer...ones-property/

[edgar11]

Can you clarify the above as I think that concern over such situations IS most definitely a legitimate concern for all *rhs* and any other Canadian, who supports true democracy.

Sorry to say BgBlkDg that your "true democracy" is what built these laws in which these Aboriginal Person(s) are following. That is why the RCMP and Co 's are doing nothing about it. What you should be asking yourself is why your democratic system has done nothing to amend or improve this ruling after this many years? Don't you think they are a little outdated and that there is room for improvement? I disagree with harvesting females too but I seem to get grouped in with all other FN's saying that we hunt anything without any regard for conservation. Why don't they implement a system where if you have legit reasons to harvest an animal(sustenance purposes) then why can't you apply for it so it can be monitored? Then those who abuse it can be penalized. The problem is that you and me are not decision makers and this system that we must live under makes it difficult to get through to. People need to stop ranting and start looking at constructive ways to solve the problem if we want change and blaming the FN people is not going to help or change anything.

[Grizzlydick]

RCMP an the CO were most likely in conversation with their respected offices, as to what to do.
Bet ya the answer from both was "we don't want to touch that".
Round and round we go.................

Regardless of ones view, you have to draw the line when there is a unborn involved.

[Gateholio]

So should we also stop using gunpowder (which is most certainly not an invention of Europeans)?

.


The powder you would use in a .270 is of European descent. French, actually.

[jassmine]

.


The powder you would use in a .270 is of European descent. French, actually.

That's the point, the technology of humans is not reserved for one particular people.

. Guns are NOT one of their "traditional" artifacts and ONLY WE whose ancestors invented rifles have the moral birthright to own them. After all, we all want to be *traditional*, eh................

We only advance as a people by sharing our advances in science and technology. Not boxing them away for one particular group of people.

[jassmine]

.


The powder you would use in a .270 is of European descent. French, actually.

Guns are NOT one of their "traditional" artifacts and ONLY WE whose ancestors invented rifles have the moral birthright to own them. After all, we all want to be *traditional*, eh................

But if you think that only the French should be allowed to use smokeless gun powder, that is definitely your prerogative

[Gateholio]

That's the point, the technology of humans is not reserved for one particular people.

.
People have never been 100% transparent with technology. It's usually shared when it becomes common and there is no point of concealing it anymore, or if it benefits the creators of the technology to share it.

This is getting off topic, but yes, people of European descent have been very generous sharing technology to native people in north america.