It is not hard to see from these quotes that over 300 years the discretionary right of the police and Crown to exempt certain classes of people from criminal prosecution is illegal.
While the Ontario Government has not been so foolish as to publicly declare an exemption for native protestors and for OPP officers, the Crown has repeatedly stated in their factums presented in court that due to the Henco ruling in 2006 police and natives are to receive special treatment.
Your arguments would seem to make sense:
If both natives and non-natives are citizens of Canada, then we should all be treated equally under Canadian laws.
Where I am unclear, though, is when and how did Aboriginal people all
become citizens of Canada? Is this something they each, or as a group(s) chose to do freely? Was it imposed on them? If it was 'imposed' on them via Canadian legislation, how legal is that really?
And somewhat aside from that issue, even within Canadian law itself, our Canadian Constitution does include recognition of "Aboriginal and Treaty rights", special rights that existed prior to the existence of Canada, and continue to exist today.
So how do these facts relate to your arguments that, I will grant you, seem quite logical?Your arguments only make sense if, in fact, Aboriginal people are simply citizens of Canada like the rest of us, no more and no less.
However, I think there's some question about that as their pre-existing rights as Aboriginal peoples do have a basis in both international and Canadian law.
Are you saying that you disagree with the Constitution of Canada and with international law?
You do have the right to disagree, of course, but I think you should present your arguments more honestly ... as a disagreement position instead of claiming to be making statements of facts.
If what you are saying is that you believe
Aboriginal people should be
equal citizens of Canada, no more and no less, that's a position, an opinion, and a disagreement with the Constitution of Canada, but it is not a statement of fact.
Of course, it raises an interesting issue doesn't it?
If one tries to organize people and foments disagreement with the Constitution of one's country ... is that treason?
For example, "Anarchists" are harassed and arrested by the RCMP&CSIS because they believe our current system of representative democracy needs to be dismantled in favour of a more direct, consensus-seeking form of democracy.
Might you also be subject to arrest for disagreeing with our Constitution?
I don't know. An interesting dilemma ... with no clear answers.