Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Comment for teachers report card: "needs more work" | Main | The Sharansky "Town Square" Test »

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Ruling is stupid

Chief Terry Nelson of the Roseau River reserve refers to Justice Albert Clearwater’s ruling that native reserves should not be exempt from Manitoba’s anti-smoking laws as stupid:

“The ruling is stupid,” said Roseau River First Nation Chief Terry Nelson, referring to Justice Albert Clearwater’s ruling that struck down the provincewide butt ban that exempts reserves from the smoking legislation.

“Clearwater is clearly wrong. The province cannot legislate on federal Crown land.”

If the province cannot legislate on crown land, then what about other provincial regulations and rules such as traffic, liquor, gaming, vehicle licensing, and a whole pile of others? Yesterday it was noted that:

“It is every bit a breach of the charter to create offences for certain conduct by persons . . . and to concurrently exempt aboriginal persons from prosecution for the same conduct,” Clearwater wrote.

There is nothing stupid about that. (c/p)

Posted by Darcey on August 17, 2006 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a904d653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ruling is stupid:

Comments

The Roseau River FN Chief is plainly wrong regarding the applicability of provincial laws on federal Crown land, or Indian reserve land. It is difficult to plausibly argue that smoking regulations trench on exclusive federal authority over title to Indian reserves or "Indian-ness." I am not aware of any FN groups turning down provincial health care services on this basis.

A good argument could be made that the smoking of a ceremonial pipe indoors should be constitutionally exempt from federal laws, but that is not what I understand to be the issue here.

Posted by: murray | 2006-08-17 5:36:22 AM


Liberal-Land North formerly Canada is mixed down. Rights and Freedoms-rights and freedoms often don't even work together.Also special rights for minoritys, human rights courts, Quebec special uniqness rights,ect.,. Folks, Canada is simply a mess. Mostly do to liberalism rights.Which really means special rights for certain minority groups and equality for all to be the same forced by government as in communism.

Posted by: Larry | 2006-08-17 6:20:58 AM


This is one land, we need one law.

We need to stop the multicultural system of victimization that has allowed votes to essentially be bought by Liberals with appointments, 2-way patronage and corruption. It is not just the reserves that are a problem; whole ethnic groups have been ghettoized. It’s a Liberal divide and conquer strategy.

Harper will have his hands full cleaning up this mess, even with a strong majority.


Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-17 6:38:59 AM


There would be liability, if the laws were not applied equally.

For example, if an Aboriginal gets lung cancer, and dies, his family may have a case to sue the Province, for not applying the laws, and protecting their loved one, in the same manner as all other people in the Province would be protected.

It does boggle my mind, that people will advocate for equality, and then advocate against it.

Please, make the stupidity STOP!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-17 11:12:11 AM



Do we pay for Indian health care? (also trucks, food, housing, drugs, smokes, lawyers, etc etc.)

Is smoking smart or stupid?

Is Canada a totally racist country?

Is is possile to be partiotic is this lunatic asylum?

For the stupid and/or misinformed the first three answers are YES and the last answer is NO.

Nice country! ... good work all you progessive pieces of really dumb shit!

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-17 11:22:58 AM


The late Mr. Justice Beetz, writing for a SCC majority, made short work of the idea that provincial law does not apply to federal Crown lands in Quebec (Minimum Wage Commission) v. Construction Montcalm , where he wrote:

‘The exclusive power of the Province to make laws in relation to property and civil rights under s. 92(13) [i.e., property and civil rights] of the Constitution is territorially limited only by the words “in the province”, and Mirabel [Airport] is located in the Province.’

The provinces’ general power over public health (and, e.g., smoking regulations) is similar, being limited territorially only by the closing words of Section 92(16), “all Matters of a local or private Nature in the Province.”

Chief Nelson's legal advice isn't the best.

Posted by: Rod | 2006-08-17 12:58:45 PM


"Please, make the stupidity STOP" - Lady

What she said.

Posted by: Erin Airton | 2006-08-17 3:58:53 PM


"Please make the stupidity STOP"

....only when there isn't any financial benefits will the "stupidity" stop. There's a lot of money made on reserves through cigarettes....let's not be duped into thinking that it's all about cermonial pipe smoking.

Posted by: anonymous | 2006-08-17 4:37:32 PM


The smoking bans are stupid. Bars and casinos are not designated 'health centres' the "Participation' in these 'dens of iniquity' (as my mom referred to 'drinking establishments) is NOT good health. Yet even the 'self righteous' like to go out to 'dens of iniquity' once in awhile and some people make a living running such places. There is PLENTY of room in our nation for both smoking and non smoking (for the benefit of the breathing challenged drinkers and gamblers) establishments.
Smokers and their friends just stay away from local 'dens of iniquity' and the owners of these businesses just go broke! The self righteous have always been a pain in the neck to free enterprise. 'Regulators' who want to control people's lives from birth to death, every day and every night are mini Hitler/Stalin's IMO. I know of far more lives ruined from gambling and alcohol than I do from the smoking of cigarettes.
If the Indian people want to fight a stupid law I say more power to them. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is NOT a 'ban backer', he said "People are going to have a drink and people are going to have a smoke, and that is the way life is going to be". Stephen does not smoke but he does not get his shirt in a knot just because other people do - he is a wise, good man. Stephen Harper, unlike some others, believes that adults can choose their own 'poison'.
As for the 'expense' the smokers cause to health care I challenge any of you here to provide the data on that. Smokers die fast (eg they do not linger in hospital beds) and we pay ENORMOUS taxes on every pack of smokes we buy. If any group should feel 'targeted and alienated' in this country it is those of us who enjoy smoking. It is tiresome and pointless to keep pounding away on this broken record of 'for the health of the children', 'for us that don't like the smell' I expect smokers will soon be blamed for the mythological 'global warming'!

BTW, maybe smokers are really more fun than the rest of you because the home parties I go to (with smokers and non smokers) have more people there than the bars do - the bars have a few people inside and a few people outside- no one is really enjoying the fresh air in the deserted bars and restaurants (esp not the owners of said bars and restaurants!). Also, banning smoking has roused the rebel in teenagers and I noticed A LOT MORE teenagers smoking. That should make the self righteous rethink this insane law because people should not smoke or drink alcohol before they are fully grown. When people are adults they can make their own choices without the help of 'nanny state.'

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-08-18 1:21:07 AM


jema: While I hate smoke, I agree that it is becoming a bit ridiculous. I have also used your reasoning regarding the health care angle. If somebody owns a business and wants it to be a smoking area, have at it. I won't go there, I'll go to the place that is non-smoking.

If somweone doesn't want to work in a smoking business, they can work elsewhere, right ? It's about choice. Where are all the pro-abortion liberals yelling about a woman's choice ? In this case choice is what it should be about.

Posted by: Markalta | 2006-08-18 1:31:58 AM


I agree that the smoking bans are stupid. They're not just stupid, they go against the basic principles of private property rights, individual rights and freedom of choice.

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-08-18 9:09:07 AM


I think perhaps we’re mixing up values with rights.

SSM is a value not a right. It’s what society decides it wants to be.

Abortion is a right of the child to live and right of the woman to choose. A very difficult issue that Parliament has ducked completely and not treated as a value that we as society want to be.

Smoking is your right to kill yourself; it’s my right not to want to breath your smoke. Society has to find a middle ground value that can deal with both my rights and the smokers’ rights – we haven’t figured it out yet.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-18 9:19:12 AM


OK
I'm a non-smoker (hate the stuff) but I don't think sitting in 100 rooms with 100 smokers is anywhere NEAR as bad as constantly breathing the crap that comes from the ass-ends of motor vehicles.
Alternatives to the internal combustion engine have been around for a while but as long as too many people make too much money from the oil and auto industries, it wont matter how many people they kill.
If our oh-so benevolent governments wanted to make a REAL change in air quality they would be doing more do deal with that little issue.
Second hand cigarette smole is bad for your lungs they say. With all the shit floating around in the air these days, how could you tell?

(BTW - I DO NOT support the Kyoto deal - it is useless posturing at best, a distraction from the real issues at worst)

Posted by: Observer | 2006-08-18 11:49:56 AM


A couple of years ago the WHO completed a 10 year study in Europe with 100,000 people on the effects of second hand smoke. The finding was that second hand smoke is not a factor in disease. The cases though to be caused by second hand smoke were statistically insignificant.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-18 11:58:14 AM


Very true. The problem, of course, is that smoking bans are not designed to protect the public from second-hand smoke. The anti-tobacco lobby admitted as much. They admitted that the bans are designed to make it inconvenient for smokers thereby increasing the likelihood that they will smoke less or even quit. This is about controlling behaviour.

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-08-18 1:50:22 PM


Speller you are right about the study. Yet I never saw it mentioned in the Canadian media.

Such bans should be banned. Let the free market decide. The chief is correct if you check the Indian Act for it removes reserves from provicial jurisdiction. For this to change, the Act must either be changed or terminated.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-18 5:06:17 PM


Separate but not equal.
Divided we stand or united we fall.
All pigs are equal but some are more equal than others.

or

When going through hell, keep going.

Pick your poison.

signed,
rancid h20.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-08-18 8:12:53 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.