Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Gospel]

I'll take your word for it but none of my posts were deleted (to my knowledge), yet TomC somehow thinks I hate all Catholics and want to burn down all their churches. You chimed in with an apparent agreement with him so, I deduced that you were talking about me.

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. And yes I totally misread who you were quoting.

 

[Lion IRC]

This is the part that the Church Defenders keep skipping: The churches which were burned were on First Nation's property.

At the time the churches were built, were they built legally?

Why do you think having native title entitles an individual to do what they want as if they were the sole freehold owner of land? Did the person or persons who burned down the churches consult with and get the endorsement of their nation to do so?

Good points.
There's enormous ambiguity surrounding concepts of native title.
In .au there is plenty of inalienable native title 'ownership' of land which isn't freehold and on which there exists buildings that ARE legally owned by someone other than the native title holding entity.

 

[Patooka]

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.

You're absolutely correct. The true victims of all this is the Roman Catholic Church. What the fuck, pal.

 

[Toni]

This is the part that the Church Defenders keep skipping: The churches which were burned were on First Nation's property.

At the time the churches were built, were they built legally?

Why do you think having native title entitles an individual to do what they want as if they were the sole freehold owner of land? Did the person or persons who burned down the churches consult with and get the endorsement of their nation to do so?

Good points.
There's enormous ambiguity surrounding concepts of native title.
In .au there is plenty of inalienable native title 'ownership' of land which isn't freehold and on which there exists buildings that ARE legally owned by someone other than the native title holding entity.

In Canada: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_rights/

Original peoples have ownership of their lands.

 

[Toni]

I'll take your word for it but none of my posts were deleted (to my knowledge), yet TomC somehow thinks I hate all Catholics and want to burn down all their churches. You chimed in with an apparent agreement with him so, I deduced that you were talking about me.

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.

Trudeau said that burning churches is ’ not the way to go’ is a very long way away from a ‘ fundamental misreading the laws in various jurisdictions. The jurisdiction in question is First Nations land.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the victim here is stunning and seems to place greater value on a few buildings than in the lives of hundreds (so far) of children. Explain how that reconciles with the Catholic Church ‘s views on the sanctity of life. In detail, please.

 

[Metaphor]

Good points.
There's enormous ambiguity surrounding concepts of native title.
In .au there is plenty of inalienable native title 'ownership' of land which isn't freehold and on which there exists buildings that ARE legally owned by someone other than the native title holding entity.

In Canada: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_rights/

Original peoples have ownership of their lands.

The very first sentence in what you linked:

Aboriginal rights are collective rights which flow from Aboriginal peoples’ continued use and occupation of certain areas.

Is a person acting alone exercising their collective right?

Some areas of land in Australia are under native title. Native title is not freehold title.

Your link says:

Although these specific rights may vary between Aboriginal groups, in general they include rights to the land, rights to subsistence resources and activities, the right to self-determination and self-government, and the right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion.

I don't see anything in there about "person or persons unknown torching buildings".

 

[Toni]

The very first sentence in what you linked:

Aboriginal rights are collective rights which flow from Aboriginal peoples’ continued use and occupation of certain areas.

Is a person acting alone exercising their collective right?

Some areas of land in Australia are under native title. Native title is not freehold title.

Your link says:

Although these specific rights may vary between Aboriginal groups, in general they include rights to the land, rights to subsistence resources and activities, the right to self-determination and self-government, and the right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion.

I don't see anything in there about "person or persons unknown torching buildings".

Good for Australia for beating down its indigenous peoples more than Canada?

Whoever burned down the churches remains unknown. It could have been people acting under individual initiative or perhaps with the approval of the tribal governments. We dont know.

Please note that there is nothing stating that the Catholic Church has a right to maintain buildings on tribal lands.

 

[Lion IRC]

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

Trudeau said that burning churches is ’ not the way to go’ is a very long way away from a ‘ fundamental misreading the laws in various jurisdictions. The jurisdiction in question is First Nations land.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the victim here is stunning and seems to place greater value on a few buildings than in the lives of hundreds (so far) of children. Explain how that reconciles with the Catholic Church ‘s views on the sanctity of life. In detail, please.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's not either/or. It's and/too.
Inciting ppl to fire bomb abortion clinics churches is morally wrong because it endangers life in addition to whatever other property crime is being committed.

If someone is responsible for "the deaths of hundreds (so far) of children", they are just as morally culpable as an abortionist who I would view thru the exact same lens. And no, I do not support the death penalty for either. Why?
...because I'm pro-life.

 

[Toni]

Um...your deduction is wrong.
I was agreeing with Toni who said....
"Within this thread, I see a lot of anti-Catholic Church sentiment..."

Me saying there are "a few statements" is hardly a blanket accusation.

I'm taking about the sort of post where someone says that burning a few churches isn't going to change anything and that in order to really get the attention of the Vatican you have to burn a lot of churches. Or that the churches which were burned were on First Nation's property therefore it's OK.

This is a fundamental misreading of the laws in many jurisdictions which would send you to jail for incitement to commit vandalism, arson, grievous bodily harm, assault, manslaughter...

https://globalnews.ca/news/7992990/church-fires-canada-condemned/

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

Trudeau said that burning churches is ’ not the way to go’ is a very long way away from a ‘ fundamental misreading the laws in various jurisdictions. The jurisdiction in question is First Nations land.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the victim here is stunning and seems to place greater value on a few buildings than in the lives of hundreds (so far) of children. Explain how that reconciles with the Catholic Church ‘s views on the sanctity of life. In detail, please.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's not either/or. It's and/too.
Inciting ppl to fire bomb abortion clinics churches is morally wrong because it endangers life in addition to whatever other property crime is being committed.

If someone is responsible for "the deaths of hundreds (so far) of children", they are just as morally culpable as an abortionist who I would view thru the exact same lens. And no, I do not support the death penalty for either. Why?
...because I'm pro-life.

Who is inciting anyone to fire bomb anything?

Not me. Not whoever burned down those churches.

 

[Arctish]

FYI anyone who still thinks those children died hundreds of years ago,and the pain and suffering of the victims faded away:

With Discovery of Unmarked Graves, Canada’s Indigenous Seek Reckoning

MUSKOWEKWAN FIRST NATION, Saskatchewan — At age 6, Ken Thomas said he was put in a van, driven two hours from his home and dropped on the steps of the Muskowekwan Indian Residential School. The nuns immediately shaved off his braids, and he soon learned that whenever he spoke his Indigenous language they would wash out his mouth with soap.

During his 10 years there he experienced many more searing horrors. He recalled a friend committing suicide after being stripped naked and locked into a dorm after trying to escape. Mr. Thomas and the other boys found their friend hanging lifeless in the shower.

And like many other students, he says he saw human bones being unearthed by unsuspecting contractors connecting a water line on school grounds. Some students had gone missing and he had heard rumors that they had died and been buried there.

From the 1880s through the 1990s, the Canadian government forcibly removed at least 150,000 ​Indigenous children like Mr. Thomas from their homes and sent ​them t​o residential schools ​designed to sever them from their culture and assimilate them into Western ways — a system that a ​National Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2008 ​called “cultural genocide.” At the schools, which were mostly run by the Catholic Church, sexual, physical and emotional abuse and violence were commonplace. Thousands of children went missing.

We're not talking about some long ago trauma, although that would be bad enough. We're talking about that and what happened to our contemporaries within our lifetimes.

We're talking about what might still be happening in Catholic institutions because gawd knows the Church didn't reform itself when the first child abuse scandal broke, or the second, or the third, or the hundredth, or the discovery that 796 babies and young children were "indecently buried in a defunct sewage system" in Tuam between 1925 and 1961, or any of the many other examples easily found with minimum of effort..

In fact, instead of reforming, the Church recently made one of the most notorious abusers of Native Americans a saint.

I don't know who set those fires that burned down those churches but I do know we can't rule out someone who personally suffered at the hands of Catholic priests, nuns, and lay teachers at those schools, or someone who lost a child to them.

 

[Bomb#20]

In Canada: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_rights/

Original peoples have ownership of their lands.

So in your view, the aboriginal people who worshiped in those churches don't qualify as "Original"? They -- the people who actually use the land the church is on -- don't have ownership of their lands? Some random hothead offended by the church's presence is more "Original" and has more "ownership" than his cousins who like going to church?

Your link says of aboriginal rights,

"in general they include rights to the land, rights to subsistence resources and activities, the right to self-determination and self-government, and the right to practice one’s own culture and customs including language and religion."​

So I take it you figure the "one" in "one’s own culture and customs including language and religion" refers to the arsonist. I take it you figure Canada is respecting and guaranteeing the right of Catholic aboriginals to practice the arsonist's own religion. I take it when an aboriginal parishioner wants to practice Catholicism, you're defining that as not her own religion. I take it you figure Canada isn't guaranteeing her right to practice somebody else's religion, and you figure it's up to you and the arsonist, and not up to her, to decide whether Catholicism is her own religion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Since the children whose bodies have been discovered in multiple locations in unmarked graves all died 'a long time ago' one would think that the Church would have an easy time stepping forward, and expressing remorse for their previously unacknowledged deaths and the callous way their bodies (and lives, and families) were treated so very long ago.

Expressing remorse?

But why would people who are not guilty express remorse?

They might if they mistakenly believe they're guilty, or if they fake remorse because if they fail to express remorse other people will hurt innocent people - for example -, or for some other reason. But people who are not guilty - and who do not have reason to believe themselves guilty - have no good reason to express remorse.

It is much easier to get over a wrong done to you when that wrong has been acknowledged and there has been some kind of apology and/or remorse expressed.

That depends on the case. But again, an apology implies a recognition of guilt. People who are not guilty should not sincerely apologize, unless they rationally but mistakenly believe themselves to be guilty.
Granted, it is possible that people who are not guilty should insincerely apologize under certain circumstances - e.g., to prevent something worse, like violence by people who fail to realize that the people from whom they demand an apology are not guilty, as long as the threat of violence is bad enough. But that depends on the circumstances. I do not see a justification here for an insincere apology. A sincere one would be irrational.

You think that this all happened a long time ago and no one living actually knew any of the people whose bodies were so buried in unmarked graves.

I do not know that. I said probably the perpetrators of the murders are dead. But also I reckon that if the murders happened until more recently, then some of them are probably alive. Then they deserve to be punished, of course. If they murdered a child for fun or to impose their religion, I think they deserve to be executed though Canadian law does not allow it.

The fact that so many children were stolen from their families and forced into residential 'schools' to be made 'good Christian servants' has left an extremely large wound in their families and their nations. We still acknowledge the deaths of soldiers who died in battle. We still acknowledge the Holocaust.

Yes, some of us at least recognize that historical events did happen. This one too. But that is not a challenge to anything I've said.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra Mainyu is just here to disagree with things. So don't expect any meaningful contributions from Angra if there is no disagreement.

There is more than enough disagreement for me to contribute.

On the other hand, I have plenty of work and my health is not so good these days, so my contributions are pretty limited I will grant.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I believe the key words here are disclosure. The churches that caused this weren't up front, and we literally need to unearth their secrets for them to apologize for the next atrocity they were responsible for. The churches apologized for the poor conditions in the 90s. It made the churches sad how much suffering they caused. And now we are about to dig up mass unmarked graves to uncover a mini-genocide. It gets to the point where words won't help, but there should at least be words and actions. But the churches are suffering from grave injustices they have committed over the last couple centuries... and up to the last decade to be able to even have their words mean a thing, to even believe they care about anything but how the atrocities reflect on their image.

What is a church, or churches, etc., or generally some institution?

If we're not talking about the buildings, we're talking about a subset of the activity of some people. People may say that 'The Catholic Church did this...' as short hand for what some of the members did in the context of the activities connected to what we call 'the church'. But even though the name of an institution may be preserved across time, and even if there is some causal continuity that justifies said usage in some contexts, as long as there is no continuity of the individuals, there is no 'their' atrocity. There is no guilt passed on to the next generation.

I do not know who apologized for what. Give me a link, and I can assess whether it was a proper apology, or one that was either irrational or rational but insincere.

Yes, there is marginal harm to others in the form of inconvenience regarding the destruction of churches that are symbolic of heinous acts that the churches tried to hide well into the 21st century, even after they had a chance to come clean.

The harm of innocent people, happening now, and defended in this thread now.
It's not only the parishioners and priests, though. It's the very idea of collective guilt, punishment for past actions of 'the church', etc., and other sorts of group-thinking that concern me.

Agreement that the mass graves were kept secret by the Church into the 21st century?

Who is the Church? Mr. Ibekwe ? Mr. Bergoglio aka Francis? Someone else kept it a secret in this century?

Well, there is no disagreement for sure. Which is not to say there is agreement. I would have to get more precision on the charge and the evidence before making an assessment.

 

[bilby]

What is a church, or churches, etc., or generally some institution?

If we're not talking about the buildings, we're talking about a subset of the activity of some people. People may say that 'The Catholic Church did this...' as short hand for what some of the members did in the context of the activities connected to what we call 'the church'. But even though the name of an institution may be preserved across time, and even if there is some causal continuity that justifies said usage in some contexts, as long as there is no continuity of the individuals, there is no 'their' atrocity. There is no guilt passed on to the next generation.

I do not know who apologized for what. Give me a link, and I can assess whether it was a proper apology, or one that was either irrational or rational but insincere.



The harm of innocent people, happening now, and defended in this thread now.
It's not only the parishioners and priests, though. It's the very idea of collective guilt, punishment for past actions of 'the church', etc., and other sorts of group-thinking that concern me.

Agreement that the mass graves were kept secret by the Church into the 21st century?

Who is the Church? Mr. Ibekwe ? Mr. Bergoglio aka Francis? Someone else kept it a secret in this century?

Well, there is no disagreement for sure. Which is not to say there is agreement. I would have to get more precision on the charge and the evidence before making an assessment.

Corporate entities have responsibilities (and indeed an existence) that are not attributable to their members, nor to a specific subset of their members.

It's quite possible for the Catholic church to be guilty of killing children in their care, even if no current member of the Catholic church is personally guilty of that offence. However in this case it's highly likely that both the church and a subset of its current members are guilty.

The church could, and should, mitigate some of its guilt by actively seeking out and bringing forward for legal action those members who are personally responsible; And the church's failure to do so is morally reprehensible.

This individualistic idea that bodies corporate are incapable of being criminal, or morally wrong, because guilt and/or immorality can only be attributed to specific members of the body corporate is childish and dangerous nonsense. Religious organisations, governments, companies and other bodies corporate can and should behave morally, and can and should be held to account if they do not.

This is particularly true when, like the Catholic church, the organisation holds itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality. The Catholic church is vile, hypocritical, corrupt, and unaccountable. It's well past time that other powerful bodies, such as national governments, made the church accountable for its many crimes. It has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to police itself.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Corporate entities have responsibilities (and indeed an existence) that are not attributable to their members, nor to a specific subset of their members.

Legally, you mean, or morally?

When it comes to morality, only individual humans (well, and some other monkeys) can be guilty of things, deserve punishment, etc. (well, at least on Earth, in the real world; there are other possible entities that have such properties, and perhaps some other real ones). Organizations can be said do be so only in the secondary sense that some of their members are guilty, etc., in connection to their activities related to the organization.

Also, when it comes to owing things (morally too), guilt is not necessary (e.g., if you get insurance for your car and it's damaged as specified, the insurer owes you money even though they're not guilty), but even then, those obligations are the obligations of some people. It's just that they do not have an obligation - moral or legal - to respond with all of their money, but with some they dedicated to some activity.

It's quite possible for the Catholic church to be guilty of killing children in their care, even if no current member of the Catholic church is personally guilty of that offence. However in this case it's highly likely that both the church and a subset of its current members are guilty.

No, that is not possible. Not in the moral sense of 'guilty', i.e., blameworthy. More to the point, some members would be guilty of something like choosing to kill a child, or choosing to deprive them of food, or whatever. But guilt is - in the end - for choices, not for results.

The church could, and should, mitigate some of its guilt by actively seeking out and bringing forward for legal action those members who are personally responsible; And the church's failure to do so is morally reprehensible.

No. And who is "the church"? Who are the people you say should act in such and such way guilty of?

This individualistic idea that bodies corporate are incapable of being criminal, or morally wrong, because guilt and/or immorality can only be attributed to specific members of the body corporate is childish and dangerous nonsense. Religious organisations, governments, companies and other bodies corporate can and should behave morally, and can and should be held to account if they do not.

On the contrary, the idea that something other than a mind can be morally guilty is dangerous nonsense (except in a figurative sense, or in a secondary sense that refers even if indirectly to a mind or minds). It is one thing to use it as a legal fiction to attribute compensations - which do not require moral guilt to be owed, even in the moral sense; see again insurance -, but actually believing this entity is guilty is nonsense.

Now, given that organizations are the activity of some people, and of course people can act immorally, then sure, there are in that sense immoral organizations. But the behavior cannot be immoral without a corresponding immoral behavior of the people involved.

(organizations can be criminally guilty if the law says so of course, but that's another matter).

This is particularly true when, like the Catholic church, the organisation holds itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality. The Catholic church is vile, hypocritical, corrupt, and unaccountable. It's well past time that other powerful bodies, such as national governments, made the church accountable for its many crimes. It has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to police itself.

No, "the organization" only "holds itself up..." in the sense that some members of it do that, in the context of the activities that constitute the church. And many people engage in vile, hypocritical, corrupt, behavior when acting in the context we say the church is acting. Others are not. But the organization can be said to be vile, etc., only in the secondary sense that some of the members (many, most, etc.) are engaging in such behavior when acting in the capacity of church officials. It's all anchored in individual behavior.

 

[bilby]

Legally, you mean, or morally?

Both.

When it comes to morality, only individual humans (well, and some other monkeys) can be guilty of things, deserve punishment, etc. (well, at least on Earth, in the real world; there are other possible entities that have such properties, and perhaps some other real ones). Organizations can be said do be so only in the secondary sense that some of their members are guilty, etc., in connection to their activities related to the organization.

No. Organisations are quite capable of guilt.

Also, when it comes to owing things (morally too), guilt is not necessary (e.g., if you get insurance for your car and it's damaged as specified, the insurer owes you money even though they're not guilty), but even then, those obligations are the obligations of some people.

No!!

This is a particularly clear example of a case where the obligation falls on the corporate entity, not on any individual(s). An insurance company pays claims. Using the insurance company's money. No individual employee pays from his own funds.

It's just that they do not have an obligation - moral or legal - to respond with all of their money, but with some they dedicated to some activity.



No, that is not possible. Not in the moral sense of 'guilty', i.e., blameworthy. More to the point, some members would be guilty of something like choosing to kill a child, or choosing to deprive them of food, or whatever. But guilt is - in the end - for choices, not for results.

The church could, and should, mitigate some of its guilt by actively seeking out and bringing forward for legal action those members who are personally responsible; And the church's failure to do so is morally reprehensible.

No. And who is "the church"? Who are the people you say should act in such and such way guilty of?

This individualistic idea that bodies corporate are incapable of being criminal, or morally wrong, because guilt and/or immorality can only be attributed to specific members of the body corporate is childish and dangerous nonsense. Religious organisations, governments, companies and other bodies corporate can and should behave morally, and can and should be held to account if they do not.

On the contrary, the idea that something other than a mind can be morally guilty is dangerous nonsense (except in a figurative sense, or in a secondary sense that refers even if indirectly to a mind or minds). It is one thing to use it as a legal fiction to attribute compensations - which do not require moral guilt to be owed, even in the moral sense; see again insurance -, but actually believing this entity is guilty is nonsense.

Now, given that organizations are the activity of some people, and of course people can act immorally, then sure, there are in that sense immoral organizations. But the behavior cannot be immoral without a corresponding immoral behavior of the people involved.

(organizations can be criminally guilty if the law says so of course, but that's another matter).

This is particularly true when, like the Catholic church, the organisation holds itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality. The Catholic church is vile, hypocritical, corrupt, and unaccountable. It's well past time that other powerful bodies, such as national governments, made the church accountable for its many crimes. It has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to police itself.

No, "the organization" only "holds itself up..." in the sense that some members of it do that, in the context of the activities that constitute the church. And many people engage in vile, hypocritical, corrupt, behavior when acting in the context we say the church is acting. Others are not. But the organization can be said to be vile, etc., only in the secondary sense that some of the members (many, most, etc.) are engaging in such behavior when acting in the capacity of church officials. It's all anchored in individual behavior.

You are assuming your conclusion. And you are wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

Good for Australia for beating down its indigenous peoples more than Canada?

One wonders how you go from A to Z, Toni. Native title is not freehold title, and I am certain that Aboriginal rights in Canada is also not freehold title.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. Organisations are quite capable of guilt.

No, they aren't, except in the sense one or more of their members are guilty.

Think about it: suppose you believe the Catholic Church is guilty, and deserves to be punished. What do you have in mind, if not some people behaving immorally, and deserve punishment? If you feel moral outrage, think about your own moral outrage: is it not directed to people? I can feel moral outrage directed at people. Or monkeys. Or angels if I believed they existed. But what is it that you would feel outraged against? What is the Catholic Church, if not the activity of some people? And how can it be guilty?

You believe the Catholic Church can be morally guilty, deserve punishment, etc., without any individual member be guilty, deserve punishment, etc.? Could you give an example of that? I mean, any historical instance that you know of? Or a hypothetical scenario, that will do.

No!!

This is a particularly clear example of a case where the obligation falls on the corporate entity, not on any individual(s). An insurance company pays claims. Using the insurance company's money. No individual employee pays from his own funds.

That is not true. While the company is made by activity of some people. And the funds of the company are funds of the shareholders, alocated for the purposes of that activity. Of course, no employee pays, unless of course the employee is also a shareholder, in which case she pays indirectly from the money she alocates to the company.

You are assuming your conclusion. And you are wrong.

I'm not assuming my conclusion more than you are assuming yours. And you're wrong. But I actually, I'm now arguing for it, by asking you to think about it (see above), and try to construe it in a different manner.

 

[Toni]

Good for Australia for beating down its indigenous peoples more than Canada?

One wonders how you go from A to Z, Toni. Native title is not freehold title, and I am certain that Aboriginal rights in Canada is also not freehold title.

One wonders at how you conflate Australia with Canada.

Actually, in Australia, at least some lands are freehold with respect to aboriginal peoples.

https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-te... Rights Act provides,as collateral for a loan.

Here is a discussion of property rights held by First Nations peoples in Canada:

https://www.uoguelph.ca/fare/FARE-talk/transcripts/beyond-indian-act.html