Posted by Bill R on April 26, 2000 at 11:37:48:
In Reply to: Next thing ya know, they'll want our guns... posted by Seamus's pal, Mike on April 26, 2000 at 06:46:09:
That's all well and good, but nothing was said about repealing the same ordinance here in the lower forty. Lainey still has that gleam in her eye, and that knife in her hand. I think next we should lobby for the same repeal here in the lower forty and get that danged scalping knife outta Lainey's hand!!!
Take note Lainey. Your little "pastime" is formally illegal in Canada now.....
: Bounty on Indian Scalps to Be Reconsidered
: HALIFAX (Reuters) - Canada will consider striking down a 244-year-old
: provincial law that offers hunters a bounty for Indian scalps, following complaints by native groups.
: The Nova Scotia government has asked Ottawa to confirm that the 1756
: proclamation by then-governor William Lawrence no longer has any force or effect.
: "It's a question of dignity. Nobody tends to think about stuff that
: happened two and a half centuries ago, but it's still a sore point with our Mi'kmaq community and we feel it needs to be addressed, just on the question of dignity," Richard Perry, a spokesman for the Nova Scotia government, told Reuters.
: "The minister states that it's fairly obvious that in Canada, in the
: year 2000, laws today obviously prohibit the kind of hostile actions that took place here (in the 18th century)."
: Nova Scotia's government passed a resolution Tuesday to ask the
: federal government to negate the effects of the bounty, one of three passed by the British colonial government. The
: other two were formally repealed by Britain.
: Perry said the resolution was adopted following complaints by Nova
: Scotia's 13 Mi'kmaq native bands who were upset the law was still on the books. The resolution also invites the government to express its "sincere regrets over past hostilities."
: Nova Scotia must ask the federal government for guidance because the
: law came into effect before the present-day province existed and before Canadian Confederation in
Post a Followup