XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics   
   XPost: can.politics, can.general   
   From: loralandclinton@invalid.co   
      
   % wrote:   
   > someone should shoot the idiot   
      
   https://nfa.ca/the-firearms-act-and-canadas-first-nations/   
      
   People think that the aboriginal peoples have some sort of exemption   
   regarding the provisions of the Firearms Act.  There are minor but   
   important points involved here, and one gigantic time bomb.  I will deal   
   with the minor points first:   
      
   The native peoples do not have any kind of an exemption.  C-68’s   
   Firearms Act section 117(u) authorizes the Governor in Council (a   
   thinly-disguised Minister of Justice) to issue Orders in Council (with   
   force of law) “respecting the manner in which any provision of this Act   
   or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada,   
   and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application.”   
   There are several interesting points to be made about that little gem.   
      
   First, it may APPEAR to be a provision enabling the government to   
   discriminate IN FAVOR of aboriginal peoples — but look again.  It is   
   EQUALLY a provision authorizing the government to discriminate AGAINST   
   the aboriginal peoples.  For example, an “aboriginal people” (which can,   
   for example, be taken to mean one tribe or the residents on one or more   
   reservations) may block a highway over some dispute regarding land   
   claims, forest rights, etc.  Hey — it HAPPENS.  FAs.  117(u) then   
   apparently authorizes the Minister to revoke every firearms licence and   
   registration certificate held by any member of that “aboriginal people,”   
   so that they can be disarmed by the police or army without having to   
   bother getting a court order.   
      
   Note the wording of FAs.  117(u): It does not say, “any aboriginal   
   person of Canada.” It says, “any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.”   
   That allows discrimination between any of the groups forming “aboriginal   
   peoples” — lawful(?) discrimination on a tribe-by-tribe basis, if one   
   cares to recognize each tribe as an “aboriginal people.” That, in turn,   
   opens any attempt to exercise the powers given in FAs.  117(u) to court   
   action based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – — which   
   requires that everyone be “equal before and under the law.”   
      
   Everyone has the right “to the equal protection and equal benefit of the   
   law without discrimination, and, in particular, without discrimination   
   based on RACE, NATIONAL OR ETHNIC ORIGIN, COLOUR, religion, sex, age, or   
   mental or physical disability [CCRF 15].” Therefore, any attempt to USE   
   FAs.  117(u) is likely to run head on into Charter conflict for   
   discrimination based on “race” or “national of ethnic origin” or   
   “colour.”   
      
   Note that FAs.  117(u) CANNOT be used to alter anything that is written   
   into C-68’s Firearms Act or Criminal Code alterations.  An Order in   
   Council CANNOT alter legislation, it can only do what the legislation   
   SPECIFICALLY authorizes the Governor in Council (actually, the Minister   
   of Justice, acting alone or almost alone) to do through Orders in   
   Council.  The CFC and Department of Justice do not seem to have grasped   
   that basic principle of law.   
      
   When the NFA was consulted by the CFC last spring, several proposed   
   Orders in Council were disclosed to us — OICs that CLEARLY violated that   
   limitation.  That is enough on the SMALL problems built into C-68.  The   
   BIG one is probably going to blow the entire Act out of the water the   
   first time it is used by a lawyer representing an aboriginal person.   
      
   When the government negotiated the James Bay Treaty with the aboriginal   
   peoples, one of the provisions was that the Treaty would become a part   
   of the Constitution of Canada.  Therefore, any violations of the terms   
   of that Treaty are unconstitutional — and legislation enacted WHILE   
   violating that Treaty is void from its day of birth.  The Treaty   
   requires that any legislation that will have any effect on aboriginal   
   hunting must be presented to and scrutinized by a council set up by the   
   Treaty itself, BEFORE being presented to Parliament for action.   
      
   That was not done — although C-68 clearly DOES heavily affect aboriginal   
   hunting.  During the House Committee hearings on C-68, Reform MP and   
   Justice Critic Jack Ramsay brought that out very clearly.  The   
   government admitted that it had not done what the Treaty required.   
      
   Liberal Chairman Warren Allman refused to allow the Committee to drop   
   the consideration of Bill C-68 for unconstitutionality, and the   
   Committee’s Liberal majority voted to ignore the entire problem.  That   
   was an incredible demonstration of arrogance, ignorance and   
   incompetence.  It is going to come back to haunt the Liberals.   
      
   The first time an aboriginal person is up on charges under ANY provision   
   of C-68, his lawyer is going to be able to claim that C-68 was never   
   legally before the House, therefore could never have been legally   
   enacted, and it is therefore null and void in its entirety.   
      
   I do wonder what the Supreme Court of Canada will do with THAT mess.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)