[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / fur / htg / hypno / newbrit / polk / wai / waifuist ]

/canada/ - Moose fuckers anonymous

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 2 per post.


What election?

File: 1423439687724.jpg (137.52 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Sign_marking_the_property_….jpg)

 No.173

L'Acadie, dats for me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Vautour

In 1998, Jackie Vautour, his wife Yvonne and their son Roy and Ron were arrested for illegally harvesting shellfish in the park. In 1999, they were convicted under the Law on National Parks of Canada. They were exonerated on appeal, and were compensated. Jackie and one of his sons then got a second trial and invoked their ancestral rights. The trial, scheduled to begin in 2002, was repeatedly postponed until 2006. In 2008, Jackie Vautour announced the discovery of evidence that they had never been legally expropriated. In 2009, he returned to court, defended by lawyer Robert Rideout. His defense is based on the assumption that the ancient inhabitants of Kouchibouguac are Métis (i.e., they descend from both Mi'kmaq and early Europeans settlers), and therefore his clients have an aboriginal right to harvest clams, according to the Canadian constitution.

According to historian Alan MacEachern, the Jackie Vautour case has changed the history of national parks in Canada, and how the land is expropriated. According to Professor MacEachern, Parks Canada has especially focused on opening parks in northern Canada, because there are fewer residents. The law now prohibits Parks Canada from expropriating residents to create a park. (Since the land was expropriated by the province and not subject to federal laws, could the same type of expropriation take place?)

 No.174

"The law now prohibits Parks Canada from expropriating residents to create a park. (Since the land was expropriated by the province and not subject to federal laws, could the same type of expropriation take place?)"

The above was copypasta from the wiki article, but here is this lawfag's response:

As we both learned in first year law school, property is a bundle of rights. The aboriginal people of the Mi'kmaq and Malliseet Nations signed Peace and Friendship treaties with Crown Entity, they did not at any time give up possession.

Furthermore, dealings with the Crown Entity depend on the received law of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and many of my fellow contrymen of the Canadian Confederation are ignorant of that fact.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / fur / htg / hypno / newbrit / polk / wai / waifuist ]