You can read the Supreme Court decision here:

scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc59/2006scc59.html

It should be noted that it it was a 4-3 split

Fer: Deschamps and Abella JJ. (Binnie and Charron JJ. concurring)

Agin: McLachlin C.J. and Fish J. (Bastarache J. concurring)

A Toronto news-paper calling itself the "Globe And Mail" (I think I remember seeing a copy at my grandma's one Christmas) has a surprisingly good writeup, by Kirk Makin:

"However, the dissenting judges took sharp issue with their colleagues. They said that the band's treaty rights were not affected by the absolute prohibition on hunting at night, and that it was valid provincial law. Besides that, the minority observed, the law was also perfectly reasonable.

“A treaty must be interpreted in a manner that best reconciles the interests of the parties to it,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Mr. Justice Morris Fish wrote on behalf of Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache. “The right to hunt protected by the treaty is subject to an internal limit. It does not include the right to hunt in an inherently hazardous manner. Rather, the right to hunt must be exercised reasonably."

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061221.wsupcrt1221/BNStory/National/

They should be allowed to hunt for personal food as in the 1850's using the same methods and equiptment in vogue at that time!

Are these judges that voted yes out of their F@@king minds.
One of the first rules of hunting and general firearm saftey is always clearly identify your target and what is beyond, both of which are impossible at night.
There will be many lost and wounded animals because of this and a very real possibility of someone getting killed.

"VANCOUVER (CP) - Some B.C. aboriginals are celebrating a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on native night hunting, saying it shows the government is slowly beginning to understand their rights."

Actually the government is caving in to their racist extortions. When will the white man guilt end? The pendulum has swung way past common sense. The envelope cannot take much more pushing.

The three Judges got it right.There is no reason to hunt at night with all the government aid they get; or should I say welfare.You must remember they were never treated that badly.Aboriginals simply mean they were presumed to be there at an early time.The people there now might be different people than 400 years ago.In Ontario the ones here now are from the Ohio area and they got rid of the Neutrals that use to live here.All the old books have this in their history.

Well this is not surprising, when the floods of o6 happened on the St. Marys north of Cardston the Paul Martin govt. went in and surveyed the 100 odd houses that had flood damage and said they would cut a cheque for 50,000 per house and did such, one enterprising{in the eyes of Beverly Macglachlan) member of the band, took that cheque and deposited in his own account, and has never looked back, no charges no acoutability. welcome to Canada

Scott,
/s on
I had no idea the natives had invented the spot light so many years before Edison invented the lightbulb, not to mention they were storing electricity in batteries before Tesla discovered direct currant, or dragging long extension cords behind the spot lights plugged into their teepee wall outlets while they shined at night for game.

I'm always amayzed at wat I lern on this innertube thang.

/s off ;)

Trudeau's Jesuit/Aboriginal up-bringing starting to show through ?? If his country couldn't have Canada the other one won't neither.

Somebody HAS to warn Santa's reindeer!!

Just hope the first person killed by accident is a liberal from BC and not some innocent child or spouse wanting a divorce.

Back in Manitoba this was called "jacklighting" and if you got caught you were in deep doo doo.

This is because firing a .303 at a deer without knowing what is behind it is . . uhh . . . really stupid. Just like 4 out of 7 judges on the SCOC.

But then again the first fatality is unlikely to occur in some tony neighborhood in Ottawa.

Hmmm. Darkness, alcohol and high-powered rifles. What could possibly go wrong?

bullsh*tsky I mean bartinsky
The blind leading the blind or should I say the rednecks can't practise deceit on other races anymore so now they are telling it to one another in the hopes of keeping each other from finding out. Now you are being made to pay for it, how long did you guys think that you could pull off this B.S....inbred logic I guess. $50,000 a house,haha, were you even there? The adjuster told all only 60% of total damage would be covered regardless of total loss dumb f*ck, when are you rednecks going to learn from getting caught in your own bullsh*t. Oh thats right it's gotten you a country and a following large enough to make your lies truth, it amazes me the way you use your arrogant logic. It doesn't matter whether your b.s. is true or not lets just put it out there and let collective ignorance make it fact. Sh*t for brains when are you going to stop spreading your crap by evidence of hearsay and face the fact that you aren't as superior as you originaly thought you were just good liars who couldn't negotiate your way out of a paper bag even if you were holding all the cards back then.

What has changed. Years ago in the 80's I was hunting in the chilcotan, area west of Williams Lake B.C. This area is high prarie and you can drive for days on dirt track. Just remember to shut the gate behind you. While there I came across a hurd of mountain/wild sheep (don't know if thats the right name) and left my rifle in the truck while I tried to get close enough to take some good pictures. A CO watched me from some distance and wasted no time comming to check me out. I have no problem with that. Later that night it was like WWIII with all the lights and guns being fired. I didn't see a CO at all.
I conclude that the Law is not equal, apparently the mickey mouse courts agree with me. Now thats scary.

"Darkness, alcohol and high-powered rifles."

And then God said:

"Let there be a Wheat Board."

And he sent forth the naked man and the naked woman in the prairie bush to be fruitful and multiply and her birth pains would increase greatly, as would the bonuses.

I can't believe I'd ever say this, but have you ever wanted to hug a tree hugger?...it makes me want to projectile vomit!

Indians win right to hunt at night. Another racist ruling by the supreme Arrogant court of Canada. One said the treaties must be adapted to modern times as bow and arrows were no longer used so guns must be allowed. The logic of idiots. The spirit of the treaty at the time apparently doesn't matter, it's politically correct today so the law, their law, is simply overlooked. I guess simple hunting skills are beyond the intelligence of today’s Indians, is that what the supreme court is saying?

Posted by: Western Canadian at December 22, 2006 10:54 AM

...reminds me of the old joke I heard:

There was this young park ranger who wanted to befriend the old hermit, so one day he decides to take him out fishing.

WHile in the boat, the hermit opens his kit bag, lites a dynamite stick, throws it in and *BOOM*

...fish float to the surface.

The Newly Minted Park Ranger is going into a fit yelling "why'd you do that??? I'm going to have to arrest you now!"

To which the ol' hermit lighted up another dynomite stick, handed it towards the Ranger, and says "are ya gonna talk or are we gonna fish?"

It was the right decision.

"There will be many lost and wounded animals because of this and a very real possibility of someone getting killed."

Kelly, name one hunting casualty the tribe has ever had?

Done yet?

That's right. None. But go right on spouting.

Western Canadian said: "One said the treaties must be adapted to modern times as bow and arrows were no longer used so guns must be allowed. The logic of idiots. The spirit of the treaty at the time apparently doesn't matter, it's politically correct today so the law, their law, is simply overlooked. I guess simple hunting skills are beyond the intelligence of today’s Indians, is that what the supreme court is saying?".

It seems curious that the Supremes missed the opportunity to apply their reasoning to it's final conclusion. If the treaties can be moved foreward to allow modern equiptment, why can't they move foreward to modern social conditions? The Indians or First Nations do not need to hunt; it is atradition. They therefore can also abide by modern constraints: provincial wildlife Laws.
And it also follows that they can also pay for wildlife maintenance.
That is, if the Supremes can use logical thinking or are capable of such?

This is an inditement of how our Supremes are selected, is it not?

Learn to read Christoph

I said "possibility". It doesn't matter if it's happened yet.
Shooting in the dark is about as smart as driving blindfolded

Hey truthwillcum

Look at the bright side. Maybe(hopefully)the indians will kill themselves.

Spotlights? Luxury. What's wrong with using the traditional Rocket Propelled Grenades?

This is perhaps the stupidest decision to come out of the SCC ever. Little wonder Abella wrote the majority; she was known for very poor judgment in the Ontario Court of Appeal. Many appellate advocates quipped that her elevation was a good day...for the Ontario courts.

The activity is inherently dangerous. It was so found by the trial judge in evidence. Abella ignored numerous SCC decisions that do not ermit an appellate court to overrule findings of fact that are supported by some evidence. McLachlin also listed numerous appellate decisions that have held that night hunting is inherently dangerous. I can be that Abella, Binnie and the other majority/minority (it was not a full 9-judge panel because of court turnover) have never gone hunting in their lives. Out of touch, poor judgment.

As to whether anyone has been shot at night by aboriginal hunters, there is a good reason. It has been illegal to hunt at night. (Really. After reading the medeival logic in Miglin, one can expect that from Abella. But others? Don't people study science or logic in school anymore? )

"The adjuster told all only 60% of total damage would be covered regardless of total loss dumb f*ck"

Um - truthy, sweetie - as an "adjuster" in that flood, I can say - you are spreading a myth - (but that is the leftie way). I heard that 60% so often - not sure where it came from. Flood damage was paid out according to what was damaged based on the prices of the day.

So.......

"It doesn't matter whether your b.s. is true or not lets just put it out there and let collective ignorance make it fact"

Right back at ya, sweetie.

This ruling on hunting has similarities in the rights to fish. The natives are allowed to catch fish for their personal consumption at Morricetown on the Bulkley river where the river narrows. In the past , before electricity, they simply smoked the fish to preserve it over the winter. I have no problem with this. However now they haul the fish away and deep freeze them and they are made available to anyone.

I went through there several years ago, one family only was smoking their fish, the other were piling them into freezers in their pickups.

Conservation, how do you spell it?

Wonder what the reaction of the judges would be if the natives invited then out for a night of hunting. Wonder if any of the judges have ever seen a gun. Lets make it mandatory that at least 2 judges must be out to supervise the hunt, and must hide behind a tree, or better yet, walk unassisted thru the area being hunted without anything to idendify them as human. Think back to the PMs remarks re the court before the last election. Liberals are a species that should not be protected, and their extinction can't come soon enough.

murray wrote above, "This [night hunting] is perhaps the stupidest decision to come out of the SCC ever. Little wonder Abella wrote the majority; she was known for very poor judgment in the Ontario Court of Appeal." You've got that right!

This is the same Rosalie Abella who, in 1995, "equalized" the age of consent for sexual intercourse for girls and boys: for girls it was 14; for boys and homosexual activity, the age was 18. (Now, why would that be? Protection for young boys from such health risks as AIDS perhaps?) Did Abella raise the age of consent for girls and boys to 18? No, she lowered the age of consent for anal intercourse to 14 because she claimed that anal sex is, "a basic form of sexual expression for gay men." Get that: men's rights trumped the health and safety of 14 year old boys. Did Abella not know that "clean" 14 year olds--"chickens"--are prized in the homosexual community?

In her 1995 judgement, she also stated:

"The provision [age discrepancy for heterosexual and anal sex] perpetuates rather than narrows the gap for a historically disadvantaged group — gay men — it does so arbitrarily and stereotypically, and is, therefore, a discriminatory provision which infringes the guarantee of equality."

In her myopic and convoluted brain, "equality" trumps our kids' and society's health and safety every time. This woman is a menace--as, in general, is the Canadian Supreme Court (SCC), which wouldn't recognize COMMON SENSE and DECENCY if they were spelled out in ten foot high letters flashing in front of them. (Rory Leishman's excellent new book, Against Judicial Activism, provides a comprehensive overview of the craziness of our court system and the SCC since the Charter. If the shenanigans weren't so damaging to the moral and social fabric of this country, the book would be a real laugh.)

The wrecking ball in the hands of the SCC deconstructionists? Trudeau's Charter, which is--thoroughly mixing my metaphors--the albatross around the neck of the common good in this country. The sooner our politicians have the cojones to restore democracy by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause--do it early and often!--Canadians will continue to be serfs under the iron fist of our non-elected, judicial overlords--Rosalie Abella being a fine example of the very worst.

If Canadians don't wake up soon to the unpalatable realities of the judicial mess in our country, the unequal administration of the law will continue. It could be called apartheid. In a neighbourhood near you. Here. In Canada.

Mary - I have often thought back to Mr. Harper's musings about the Court and the Senate - mostly at times when both have proven his statement to be more than factual.

Of course, our left leaning MSM, who vilified him at the time he made the statements, are too blinded by the glow coming from their newly minted liberal leader to realize not only how hypocritical they are, but continue to champion the very thing they said could never happen.

Only in Canada!

Damn! My "expose" of Abella, J., the general craziness of the Canadian judicial system since the Charter, and Canada's slide into aparthied has been caught in the filter. (Kate's away so who knows when or if my efforts will see the light of day.)

I'm pretty well preaching to the converted here, but Canadians need to awake from their "holiday from history"--truth too--and take back democracy in this country.

Spelling counts: make that "apartheid"!

BC Tourism better advertise at the ferries: Wear Christmas trees when out for a walk at night.... I just wonder how many people will be killed "accidentally" before the powers that be revisit this insanity. Then it will be to late.

Dynamite? Next thing we know, Indians will win the "right" to catch fish by farting in the water & knocking 'em out with the stink... they'll float, all fainted out, to the surface...

applying an 1850 treaty to present day population and firepower is LUDICROUS.

but what do you expect?

would this be the same supremo court that made a ruling in august 2005 that drug suspects need not file delinquent tax returns? (Ive got the newspaper article here somewhere in my archives)

"Hunting with dynamite. My dad and his army buddies used to call this using a "T-4" lure. Any idea why?"

You probably misheard it; this is commonly known as the "C-4 lure", after the explosive C-4 ("composition 4"), a military explosive putty that's normally used for demolitions.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first (nor, I'm sure, will it be the last) example of "different rights for different races". Back when the LIEberals were passing C68, the "gun control" act, they wanted to pass a blanket prohibition on any and all rifles that could be considered a "variant" of the AK-47 (simply because they "look mean"). The trouble is, Indian and Northern Affairs had previously handed out free of charge TRUCKLOADS of Valmet Hunter rifles, rifles which, by ANY definition, are considered "AK-47 variants". So, rather than admit that this prohibition was based simply on looks, and rather than have it get out that the Indians' response to "Turn those prohibited weapons in" would have simply been "You can go and f&*k yourself, whitey", the LIEberals rewrote the original blanket prohibition to EXEMPT the Valmet Hunter.