Originally posted by Smurph
Sure. I grew up in Calgary, on Treaty 7 territory.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_7
So you'll see that the Blackfoot nation(s) have certain rights within the terms of that treaty. Much of it, I expect, is in dispute.
Now I live in Vancouver, which the city acknowledges (via one of those lane acknowledgments) is the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.
https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/land-acknowledgement.aspx
It's complicated and not my area, but the fact that everybody now acknowledges that the land was never ceded through treaty will change the legal requirements on how those nations need to be consulted at various points of land/water development.
Much better, I think I get it now.
Am I right to assume a raw deal for nations with no treaty? Or do I have it backwards, and is lack of a treaty treated as theft, meaning room to renegotiate a better deal as a punitive measure to a nation who lost land without an agreement?
The term woke as used in the lexicon of American society is mostly as an umbrella term where conservatives can take all of their strawman arguments into one term to invoke an emotional response of their base.
The idea of being too woke falls into that trap and logical fallacy of theirs. There will be people with extreme ideas but those ideas should be judged on the merit of the idea itself.
Originally posted by Newjak
The term woke as used in the lexicon of American society is mostly as an umbrella term where conservatives can take all of their strawman arguments into one term to invoke an emotional response of their base.The idea of being too woke falls into that trap and logical fallacy of theirs. There will be people with extreme ideas but those ideas should be judged on the merit of the idea itself.
No, I agree.
Which isn't to say I don't believe woke exists. Personal examples of what I consider wokeness:
Laws in European states that have actual prison time for refusing to honor gender pronouns.
I'm sorry, but I will always consider imprisonment for "hate speech" as an extreme unwarranted response. No one has died from being offended.
And maybe I forgot Australia isn't strictly European, but always considered them as a European nation in spirit given their influences.
Originally posted by cdtm
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/new-transgender-law-australia-make-illegal-call-individuals-120627395.htmlAnd maybe I forgot Australia isn't strictly European, but always considered them as a European nation in spirit given their influences.
Maybe you got confused with names. They can be difficult
Originally posted by cdtm
What about the UK malicious communications act? This was passed in 1988, and specifically targets delivering messages designed to cause distress or emotional harm, on threat of a maximum two years imprisonment.Essentially, one can be imprisoned for mean social media posts.
Well if it's been around for 34 years I'm sure you'll find plenty examples of people being imprisoned for using the wrong pronouns.