PotatoAppreciator t1_j05aecm wrote
Reply to comment by AlternativeComplex82 in AFN votes to reject Ottawa’s gun-control bill, citing potential risk to treaty rights - National | Globalnews.ca by raider1v11
It allows for that if the issue also is affecting non-rez lands/communities such as, say, a dog fighting ring run on a rez that outsiders come to or the like. Even the most conservative courts have ruled to uphold native sovereignty in issues that only affect native reservations.
AlternativeComplex82 t1_j06kol6 wrote
>It allows for that if the issue also is affecting non-rez lands/communities
Correct. As I said, Section 88 allows for laws "of a general nature", and specifically excludes laws pertaining to Natives.
Generally speaking, the only Canadian laws that DON'T apply on reserves are land related ones, which of course makes sense. So provincial landlord-tenant acts have no force on reserves. Everything else, from highway traffic laws to animal cruelty laws apply ... in theory. Enforcing them is another matter.
margmi t1_j063fgy wrote
>Even the most conservative courts have ruled to uphold native sovereignty in issues that only affect native reservations.
... conservative courts in Canada? Since when do Canadian courts have a political/ideological lean? Our court system has avoided the politics that have been commonplace in American courts.
PotatoAppreciator t1_j06rpre wrote
> Our court system has avoided the politics that have been commonplace in American courts.
lol you're joking right
margmi t1_j0750mo wrote
Let's see some examples of the politicization that you're talking about.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments