From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Fri, 1 May 2026 15:01:35 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Actually, our Charter gives us "freedom of expression" not freedom of >speech. No one has ever explained to me what the difference is but they >didn't SAY "freedom of speech" in the Charter so I assume they meant >something different. Maybe it's a reformulation to cover not just spoken >words but written as well and make it clear both are protected. Or maybe >it's something else. I just don't know.

The trouble of course with that is that if the language is NOT crystal
clear the judges will come up with the darnedst interpretations.
British Columbia is currently going gaga with a case where a Vancouver
Island native band has gotten a ruling giving them rights over a large
part of Richmond (a large southern suburb of Vancouver), has ruled
that these rights supercede "fee simple" land ownership (which is what
the usual owner of residential property has) and to further top it off
Indian tribes from Washington State and Alaska adjoining the Canadian
southern and north-western border are suing as they weren't consulted
(as this ruling I was earlier kvetching about) before certain land
developments took place.

Imagine what would be said if Canadian Indians were making legal
claims on the US government? (There are a few tribes mostly on the
prairies - e.g. SK/MB on the Canadian side and MT/ND/MN on the US side
where there might well be such a case but those were tribes that were
mostly hunter-gatherers moving around as opposed to in BC where things
were more settled pre-contact) If that happened you would probably
hear the giggling from DC to the west coast!

https://vancouversun.com/news/us-tribes-demand-say-key-bc-economic-decisions

Catch is in Canada things are not at all clear as to what the division
of powers are between feds and provinces on native matters so things
often go sideways, almost always to the detriment of the "white man".
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On May 8, 2026 at 10:55:10 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Fri, 1 May 2026 15:01:35 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Actually, our Charter gives us "freedom of expression" not freedom of
speech. No one has ever explained to me what the difference is but they
didn't SAY "freedom of speech" in the Charter so I assume they meant
something different. Maybe it's a reformulation to cover not just spoken
words but written as well and make it clear both are protected. Or maybe
it's something else. I just don't know.

The trouble of course with that is that if the language is NOT crystal
clear the judges will come up with the darnedst interpretations.
British Columbia is currently going gaga with a case where a Vancouver
Island native band has gotten a ruling giving them rights over a large
part of Richmond (a large southern suburb of Vancouver), has ruled
that these rights supercede "fee simple" land ownership (which is what
the usual owner of residential property has) and to further top it off
Indian tribes from Washington State and Alaska adjoining the Canadian southern and north-western border are suing as they weren't consulted
(as this ruling I was earlier kvetching about) before certain land developments took place.

Imagine what would be said if Canadian Indians were making legal
claims on the US government?

I can imagine. We'd tell them something Canadian officials can't seem to
figure out how to do:

No


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2