Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 362 posts

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#301

Post by ricardobeat »

TSiege wrote: post #219
ricardobeat wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly why they wouldn’t be sovereign nations except by Canada’s niceness. You can only be sovereign by having some form of strong leverage, either resources, power, or international support.

Except for the legal treaties Canada signed with them? This isn't Canada being like gee I guess it'd be woke of us to say you're a separate legal entity. This is based on treaties they've signed and being legally obligated to recognize the rights of a people

Legal treaties, or any kind of contract really, are only worth their paper as long as there is an underlying system with power to enforce them. I believe these nations have no standing in international courts; they have no armies, allies or resources. Upholding these treaties is entirely dependent on goodwill.

If Canada was to ignore them and take over all land, who would stop them? It is, in the end, Canada being nice. Is that such a terrible thing?

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#302

Post by ivan_gammel »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #293
ivan_gammel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is simply not your business to tell disadvantaged people how they should exercise their rights. They have agency and can decide for themselves. If this means, some of the nature has to be sacrificed, that’s their business, not yours to decide. If you care so much, undevelop your own land and restore the nature and the balance. Plant forests over your parking lots and golf courses, erase suburbia and embrace minima…

My property value is dependent on what happens to the neighborhood around me. It's literally my business. That makes the rest of your comment just ridiculous.

It is unfortunate that you did not account for possible development in the neighborhood when you got your property and it is your problem, but not your business. Also it is fun that your protection of nature in the end is just protection of privilege.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#303

Post by trimethylpurine »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #302
trimethylpurine wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My property value is dependent on what happens to the neighborhood around me. It's literally my business. That makes the rest of your comment just ridiculous.

It is unfortunate that you did not account for possible development in the neighborhood when you got your property and it is your problem, but not your business. Also it is fun that your protection of nature in the end is just protection of privilege.

I didn't say that. You did. Take responsibility for your own thoughts. Improve your reading comprehension. I'm not so smart as to be impossible to interpret. What does it say about you if you are gaining understanding that is missing from my comments? It says you're a zealot and a liar and more interested in conflict than understanding. Go back. Read again. Read with interest. Otherwise this conversation is truly not your business. Is it?

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#304

Post by philistine »

nikitaga wrote: post #295
bawolff wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes. That is the supreme court's job. They decide how to interpret things. Their interpretation is law. Interpreting the constitution in the context of current social…

You say it like it's a good thing, but it's not. Specifically, the fact that our country's foundational document is so vague about our fundamental rights, is a very bad thing for everyone involved. If it was more specific, our fundamental rights would not only be more clear, they would also be more stable, not subject to the momentary (on a historical scale) whims of pop culture. If our fundamental rights are subject…

First Nations right have nothing to do with our constitution; it’s either treaties, or in the absence of it, a court agreeing to a nation asserting itself.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#305

Post by philistine »

travisb wrote: post #257
philistine wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To do that you need to break international law by declaring the treaties signed in the past null and void. You also need to break international law by refusing to negotiate with nations who never signed treaties, and want deals at least as good as nations who signed treaties. There’s a very good reason why what you’re proposing is not what’s happening: it’s because you’re dealing with nation to nation negotiations, a…

How would it be breaking international law? Who would enforce it? Would the US stop trading with Canada because Canada nullified some treaties with a third party (ie. not the USA)? Would Germany invade Canada? Treaties are just agreements and are broken all the time; for an obvious example look at trade treaties or weapons treaties. In the Canadian context the constitution states that Canada must maintain those exist…

The whole current recounciliation is based on the premise that we will respect the treaties we didn’t in the past. Courts literally limited what was written in them in the past, in blatant disregard of common law.

You want to go in the direction of breaking them again, and making Canada look like a fool on the international stage.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#306

Post by FpUser »

typewithrhythm wrote: post #280
FpUser wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others." They did not ask to be a citizens of Canada. They were invaded, conquered, killed and actively suppressed. Mistreatment still continues. How's that for moral grounds?

Morality really only has relevance to an individual. Was it moral to invade Canada? No, at least not under contemporary morality. Is it moral to give a random subset of people special rights in modern Canada? Is a seperate question, that has nothing to do with historical treatment. My take is that the current government does not adequately represent several groups in Canada, and the best solution would be to allow fo…

>"and the best solution would be to allow for separatist actions as a fundamental human right."

This will lead to countless wars.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#307

Post by bawolff »

philistine wrote: post #304
nikitaga wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like it's a good thing, but it's not. Specifically, the fact that our country's foundational document is so vague about our fundamental rights, is a very bad thing for everyone involved. If it was more specific, our fundamental rights would not only be more clear, they would also be more stable, not subject to the momentary (on a historical scale) whims of pop culture. If our fundamental rights are subject…

First Nations right have nothing to do with our constitution; it’s either treaties, or in the absence of it, a court agreeing to a nation asserting itself.

The treaties are literally part of the constitution.

Also section 25 & section 35 of the constitution act talk about treaty rights:

35 (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. ... (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#308

Post by klyrs »

spxneo wrote: post #263
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have saved a lot of time by just saying "fuck poor people"

You misunderstood me because you didn't read what I wrote carefully but I don't care to convince you of your biases. I don't have time for this BS anymore. Listen my neighbour just died. He was a struggling renter. I'm deeply saddened by this and everybody struggling. I know its even harder to leave behind what's familiar but it's not going to get better but the longer you stay in a financially strapped situation and…

> The Canadian government is taking 60% of my income.

The top tax bracket is 33% in Canada. You should fire whoever's doing your taxes.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#309

Post by throwaway44773 »

bawolff wrote: post #287
grecy wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? There are 43 first nations communities in Canada that are entirely self-governing. The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself. So, yes, First Nations people in those communities break "Canadian" laws every single day and not…

Your link disagrees with you To quote: "However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply"

Unless the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and freedom is invoked

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#310

Post by layer8 »

FpUser wrote: post #247
ximus wrote: post #120

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society. However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian…

>"On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others." They did not ask to be a citizens of Canada. They were invaded, conquered, killed and actively suppressed. Mistreatment still continues. How's that for moral grounds?

Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada. Nobody born to poor parents was asked to be born poor. Just treat everyone equally based on their own actions and merits, and their actual individual circumstances, not based on their broad ancestry.
Post reply on HN