|
|
|
|
|
by BryantD
127 days ago
|
|
Hey, try not to lie too obviously. I explicitly said "not a treaty matter," and I explicitly said I didn't necessarily agree with the decision. Not that anyone's reading this but what a great example of the tired old trick of attempting to use social justice language as a rhetorical lever. |
|
>This was an indigenous people treaty case
and here say
>not a treaty matter
The fact you may have contradicted yourself later by arguing it is a "case" but not a "matter" doesn't disprove that. It's just a cheap way to cover both bases by using vague enough overlapping terminology that you can claim it's a "case" when you want or a "matter" when you want so you can retroactively create a catch-22 where you win if it's heads and I lose if it's tails.