Northwest passage

[John1234]

Originally Posted by Tad

Upholding the right to navigation........

+1
It is an unalienable right.

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by John1234

+1
It is an unalienable right.

First of all, the word is inalienable.

Second, every country has the internationally respected right to protect, defend and control access to it's sovereign territory, which in this case is clearly within Canada's boundaries. People have no "right" to passage, other than that permitted by the country controlling the territory. How would Americans feel about Mexicans claiming the "unalienable" right to passage through the Southwest?

I fully expect to be have to ask permission to enter, transit and visit the United States - including "passage" across the St. Lawrence to New York close to my home. I expect to be subject to American laws when I'm in the United States. I also expect the laws of my country of citizenship do not apply when I'm in other countries. For some inexplicable reason, most Americans feel they are subject to, and protected by American law when they are outside their country. Wrong. Witness poor Natalee Holloway's murder in Aruba.

As a Canadian, I have no "right" to the Intercoastal Waterway down the east coast - it is a privilege I have to ask for, and keep by complying with all applicable American laws.

I've recently had to have this "rights" versus "privileges" discussion with my son, who seems to have shared the same confusion in the previous post.

--
CutOnce

[John1234]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

First of all, the word is inalienable.

Second, every country has the internationally respected right to protect, defend and control access to it's sovereign territory, which in this case is clearly within Canada's boundaries. People have no "right" to passage, other than that permitted by the country controlling the territory. How would Americans feel about Mexicans claiming the "unalienable" right to passage through the Southwest?

I fully expect to be have to ask permission to enter, transit and visit the United States - including "passage" across the St. Lawrence to New York close to my home. I expect to be subject to American laws when I'm in the United States. I also expect the laws of my country of citizenship do not apply when I'm in other countries. For some inexplicable reason, most Americans feel they are subject to, and protected by American law when they are outside their country. Wrong. Witness poor Natalee Holloway's murder in Aruba.

As a Canadian, I have no "right" to the Intercoastal Waterway down the east coast - it is a privilege I have to ask for, and keep by complying with all applicable American laws.

I've recently had to have this "rights" versus "privileges" discussion with my son, who seems to have shared the same confusion in the previous post.

--
CutOnce

First of all, No. The word I originally used is exactly what I meant. It should be looked up and read before one exposes their confusion and realize they are interchangeable with some minor differences attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalienable


Everything else said is something I believe everyone would find some agreement on as do I, and all that has been done is overstate the obvious in an attempt to justify something which is still unclear to me, so in a way, even more confusion has been created.

I can't even begin to state how many times I've had this same discussion with all my sons to provide them with clarity on these excruciatingly simple matters pertaining to rights and they still think I'm the one confused much like the previous post.

[Submarine Tom]

Well, I'm certainly confused and I'm over 50 years old...

-Tom

[John1234]

Originally Posted by Submarine Tom

Well, I'm certainly confused and I'm over 50 years old...
-Tom

LOL.
Good for you.
I find it best to live in that state.

[BATAAN]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

First of all, the word is inalienable.

Second, every country has the internationally respected right to protect, defend and control access to it's sovereign territory, which in this case is clearly within Canada's boundaries. People have no "right" to passage, other than that permitted by the country controlling the territory. How would Americans feel about Mexicans claiming the "unalienable" right to passage through the Southwest?

I fully expect to be have to ask permission to enter, transit and visit the United States - including "passage" across the St. Lawrence to New York close to my home. I expect to be subject to American laws when I'm in the United States. I also expect the laws of my country of citizenship do not apply when I'm in other countries. For some inexplicable reason, most Americans feel they are subject to, and protected by American law when they are outside their country. Wrong. Witness poor Natalee Holloway's murder in Aruba.

As a Canadian, I have no "right" to the Intercoastal Waterway down the east coast - it is a privilege I have to ask for, and keep by complying with all applicable American laws.

I've recently had to have this "rights" versus "privileges" discussion with my son, who seems to have shared the same confusion in the previous post.

--
CutOnce

As a lifelong American, it's irritating when I read 'most Americans', followed by a stereotype derived from viewing the US clown media, which many of us view as Soviet citizens viewed Pravda; it's all lies and you have to figure out the truth by what they don't report, not what they do. Many of us are actually not as dumb as we seem if you watch TV.
Of course any country controls its immigration on its territory and internationally recognized waters. Any person on that territory or waters is subject to that country's laws, totally, unless you are a diplomat and have immunity, and even this only goes so far.
There is right of transit, if you do not 'touch' or put foot on the country's shores, then you don't have to formally enter the country. Shuttling between WA and Alaska through Canadian waters US fishermen do this all the time. If you stop for fuel, you have to enter and declare, but if you're just passing through, you can legally anchor to get some sleep but not go ashore. A Canadian vessel going from CN to Mexico can transit US waters just the same way. NW passage is the same international law I think.
Every country, even including that which gave us the Red Green Show and the deep fried bacon doughnut, has its small minority of citizens who think they are lords of the earth and their law trumps all. US citizens are maybe just the most visible due to high budget media, but I have met some extremely arrogant and stupid tourists from other countries, both on sailboats and working on films in the Bahamas with the cops looking over my shoulder, getting to be friends, and them telling cop stories about 'stupidest traveler ever', which usually was followed by a European or Asiatic country's citizen. In the US we get people who think their laws apply everywhere, and my favorite is here.
A Japanese tourist asked an American tour guide about armed robberies, and if he was held up, how much was it customary to give, $10, $20? He was unable to grasp the idea of an armed robbery. To him it seemed like some formal game of pushy panhandling, but not a real threat where the twitching addict with a gun might actually shoot him. In his country poor people are taken care of pretty much, so the street crime rate is so low as to not be on the social radar at all. The idea of a country not taking care of the hopeless and broken among them was also not in his thinking.
I'm sure Canadian Customs officials know mostly American stories of traveling idiots since we share such a long and unfortified border.
The usual one is the handgun (illegal in Canada with good reasons) in the car or motor home, and the US guy screaming about his second amendment rights and the Canadian guy calmly explaining that this applies in the US only, then telling him he cannot enter the country now, with or without the gun, because he's a jerk, and jerks aren't allowed.

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by John1234

First of all, No. The word I originally used is exactly what I meant. It should be looked up and read before one exposes their confusion and realize they are interchangeable with some minor differences attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unalienable


Everything else said is something I believe everyone would find some agreement on as do I, and all that has been done is overstate the obvious in an attempt to justify something which is still unclear to me, so in a way, even more confusion has been created.

I can't even begin to state how many times I've had this same discussion with all my sons to provide them with clarity on these excruciatingly simple matters pertaining to rights and they still think I'm the one confused much like the previous post.

Much like there are television shows on the occult, and popular belief in many questionable religions, cults and the afterlife, Internet documentation and media presence does not actually make a belief tangible. I'm sure Somalian pirates have no respect for this concept of "unalienable" or natural rights. I'm pretty sure they don't refer to Wikipedia to sort out and justify their belief foundations. They've got multiple wives and kids to feed as well as khat to buy and use.

I guess I have chosen to base my values on tangible, provable and geography specific foundations - and you have chosen a more ephemeral and theoretical basis for your beliefs. That's okay with me. I'm pretty much a subscriber to the philosophy that I only have the rights I can afford, or those supported by the society I am in at the time. If I had a choice, I think your lofty, global, all humanity-style philosophical ideas are great - but they only have value if everyone else respects them.

I don't think I'd have much success arguing my "unalienable rights" with Homeland Security in New York if I ignored US laws about border crossings. I think they would pretty much be in sync with my viewpoint. I'd expect a hefty fine, future border trouble and a size ten motivator in the posterior before I think they'd agree with my "rights".

Cheers,

--
CutOnce

[Tad]

In writing that Jeffery Allison was "upholding the right to navigation" I was referring to his being "almost sunk" on one occasion and the next year detained by Russian authorities while sailing what he claimed (or believed) was international waters (beyond the 12 mile limit). Either the Russian judge or Russian law didn't take this infraction very seriously as indicated by the minimal fine. Despite this difficulty Jeffery came back a third time sailing these same waters and this time he was not detained........

I suppose I misstated "right to navigation" when I should have written "Freedom of Navigation" which is governed by international treaty.....

Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Navigation

And some background on Canadian arctic waters.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arctic

Currently in Canada we enjoy the right to navigation, that is I can start and end a voyage where and when I like (more or less and subject to various local restrictions), with no one checking on were I go or why (again more or less)...but this right (which is I believe unwritten and comes from British Common Law) is under attack on many fronts (licensing, AIS, permits to anchor, etc), as it is in the US and UK and many other places I'm sure.......

Of course one should not expect free passage though the inter-coastal waterway, just as there are no international waters in the Great Lakes. But if I'm sailing 50 miles off the US West Coast, passing by not entering Territorial Waters (12 mile limit), I would not expect to be detained and boarded by any authority.....(but I'm not sure I wouldn't be stopped).....I would expect USCG or Navy to come by for a visual inspection from a distance, and perhaps radio contact, but that's all.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

I'm sure Somalian pirates have no respect for this concept of "unalienable" or natural rights.
I don't think I'd have much success arguing my "unalienable rights" with Homeland Security in New York if I ignored US laws about border crossings.

Good reasons to stay away from both places, no fence, good people living here and there..

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by BATAAN

As a lifelong American, it's irritating when I read 'most Americans', followed by a stereotype derived from viewing the US clown media, which many of us view as Soviet citizens viewed Pravda; it's all lies and you have to figure out the truth by what they don't report, not what they do. Many of us are actually not as dumb as we seem if you watch TV.
Of course any country controls its immigration on its territory and internationally recognized waters. Any person on that territory or waters is subject to that country's laws, totally, unless you are a diplomat and have immunity, and even this only goes so far.
There is right of transit, if you do not 'touch' or put foot on the country's shores, then you don't have to formally enter the country. Shuttling between WA and Alaska through Canadian waters US fishermen do this all the time. If you stop for fuel, you have to enter and declare, but if you're just passing through, you can legally anchor to get some sleep but not go ashore. A Canadian vessel going from CN to Mexico can transit US waters just the same way. NW passage is the same international law I think.
Every country, even including that which gave us the Red Green Show and the deep fried bacon doughnut, has its small minority of citizens who think they are lords of the earth and their law trumps all. US citizens are maybe just the most visible due to high budget media, but I have met some extremely arrogant and stupid tourists from other countries, both on sailboats and working on films in the Bahamas with the cops looking over my shoulder, getting to be friends, and them telling cop stories about 'stupidest traveler ever', which usually was followed by a European or Asiatic country's citizen. In the US we get people who think their laws apply everywhere, and my favorite is here.
A Japanese tourist asked an American tour guide about armed robberies, and if he was held up, how much was it customary to give, $10, $20? He was unable to grasp the idea of an armed robbery. To him it seemed like some formal game of pushy panhandling, but not a real threat where the twitching addict with a gun might actually shoot him. In his country poor people are taken care of pretty much, so the street crime rate is so low as to not be on the social radar at all. The idea of a country not taking care of the hopeless and broken among them was also not in his thinking.
I'm sure Canadian Customs officials know mostly American stories of traveling idiots since we share such a long and unfortified border.
The usual one is the handgun (illegal in Canada with good reasons) in the car or motor home, and the US guy screaming about his second amendment rights and the Canadian guy calmly explaining that this applies in the US only, then telling him he cannot enter the country now, with or without the gun, because he's a jerk, and jerks aren't allowed.

I am American by birth and patriarchal lineage, and have become Canadian by choice, matriarchal lineage and my military service as a reserve officer. I grew up in New England and live in Canada. So, I'm not the pot calling the kettle black. I still sing both national anthems at hockey games!

I think it would be interesting to investigate this "right" of passage and determine conclusively if it is an assumed "privilege", or actually a "right". I suspect by long standing trust in this case the privilege has been generally assumed a right. I don't think Eric Holder would hesitate to prosecute a boatload of terrorists using the Intercoastal, but not going ashore.

I wish the border were the same as it was in my youth, but it isn't. Predator drones now fly the Canadian border. Americans now need a US passport to come to Canada - not because of Canada - but because the US won't let them back in without one. None of the 9/11 terrorists entered the US through Canada - although the wonderful elected folks (and Fox News) in the US keep saying so. Canadians now need a passport to go to the States - and all we ever do is shop Outlet Malls, wear shorts to Florida beaches (when the locals are in ski jackets) and see the Canada Geese that are leaving my neighborhood right now for the south.

I was a child of two countries - but I long for a return to the peace and sanity of my youth. The news media has discovered screaming "....Incoming ....." constantly keeps us all watching their commercials. And we keep on electing polarized idiots from both left & right camps.

Cheers,

--
CutOnce

[John1234]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

Much like there are television shows on the occult, and popular belief in many questionable religions, cults and the afterlife, Internet documentation and media presence does not actually make a belief tangible. I'm sure Somalian pirates have no respect for this concept of "unalienable" or natural rights. I'm pretty sure they don't refer to Wikipedia to sort out and justify their belief foundations. They've got multiple wives and kids to feed as well as khat to buy and use.

I guess I have chosen to base my values on tangible, provable and geography specific foundations - and you have chosen a more ephemeral and theoretical basis for your beliefs. That's okay with me. I'm pretty much a subscriber to the philosophy that I only have the rights I can afford, or those supported by the society I am in at the time. If I had a choice, I think your lofty, global, all humanity-style philosophical ideas are great - but they only have value if everyone else respects them.

I don't think I'd have much success arguing my "unalienable rights" with Homeland Security in New York if I ignored US laws about border crossings. I think they would pretty much be in sync with my viewpoint. I'd expect a hefty fine, future border trouble and a size ten motivator in the posterior before I think they'd agree with my "rights".

Cheers,

--
CutOnce

Cutonce,

Pick your point of reference and go from there. Wiki or the unabridged version, Tomatos or tomatoes are the same and their only difference is that one is plural. Anybody stupid enough to think they can waltz into any country waving the Constitution rights afforded to them in the US deserves a ten inch motivator to stimulate their colon right there on the spot andif I were there I would recite the constitution while they're taking it like a man, woman or other.

I love America and our screwed up laws and the rights afforded to me which are NEVER privileges, ergo the word "rights". I have "Unalieanable" rights to be where I want to be as long as I respect the laws and rights of those in possession of said space and what I do does not effect the way people live or function.

Off topic, sorry, back to OP.

[DCockey]

Living in the US 26 miles north of Canada, I'm somewhat familar with US and Canadian laws concerning crossing the border.

In the Great Lakes and associated waterways boats can cross the border while navigating without reporting or getting permission. Canada considers a boat which has anchored in Canadian waters to have landed and is supposed to report to Canadian authorities immediately. The US allows Canadian boats to anchor without reporting as along as no one goes ashore and they intend to return to Canadian waters without going ashore. However, a boat which is entering US waters to land should report to US authorities as soon as possible.

[John1234]

Originally Posted by Tad

But if I'm sailing 50 miles off the US West Coast, passing by not entering Territorial Waters (12 mile limit), I would not expect to be detained and boarded by any authority.....(but I'm not sure I wouldn't be stopped).....I would expect USCG or Navy to come by for a visual inspection from a distance, and perhaps radio contact, but that's all.

You are of course correct and true freedom means never having to worry about being bullied into authorizing a boarding because of our current global conditions. Any USA authority will be granted immediate access to my vessel upon their request, period. I am not a smuggler or a terrorist or choose with knowlege to break any maritime laws or foreign laws and the last thing I need is a full blown inspection upon my return to the states, which gets you a blue slip to replace everything they have broken, torn or cut up to inspect, which will take months to repair once their done with you.

I would certainly expect and welcome them to approach and at the very least establish my current conditions. I would probably do the same for any foreign country that I recognize to be legitimate, law abiding and accountable.

The Somalian government would be greeted in a whole different manner if they even thought about an intercept course while I'm in international waters let alone a boarding especially if I have no intent to enter their territorial waters or land anywhere in their country. The teufelshund would be unleashed.