jacee

Sadly, there's always some collateral damage in revolutions.

Ask the Supreme Court.

Who made money on the subprime mortgages? Was it ethical? http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011979.shtml " but suckers in Arctic Circle and elsewhere didn't appreciate the risk that they were buying into and the shambolic standards, if they could be termed that, that applied to the underlying loans. " ------ shambolic adjective (Informal) disorganized, disordered, chaotic, confused, muddled, inefficient, anarchic Sounds like the standards might have been ... er ... nonexistent for all practical purposes. Is there a board of ethics and standards?

Oh fercrapsake another dp!

We'll have to audit the 1percent with 40percent of the wealth of course . Depends who/what unethical practices you're blowing the whistle on. The revolution needs you.

dp

Funny you should ask that ...What about people who get wealthy NOT playing nice, where nice relies on standards and ethics? Who made all the money on the subprime mortgages?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution Although France in 1789 faced economic difficulties, mostly concerning the equitability of taxation, it was one of the richest and most[ 1] powerful nations of Europe.[ 1. The French people also enjoyed more political freedom and a lower ncidence of arbitrary punishment than any of their fellow Europeans. However, Louis XVI, his ministers and the widespread French nobility had become mmensely unpopular. This was a consequence of the fact that peasants and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie, were burdened with ruinously-high taxes levied to support wealthy aristocrats and their[ 2] sumptuous, often gluttonous, lifestyles.[ 2] The fall of the ancien régime in France may be blamed, in part, on its own rigidity. Aristocrats were confronted by the rising ambitions of the merchants, tradesmen and prosperous farmers who were allied with aggrieved peasants, wage- earners and intellectuals influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment philosophers.

Gee ... thanks for sharing.

The real jazzed up honkers and hummers on soon to be occupied Bay Street?

Hear hear! Well said. Every time times get tougher, wealth becomes more concentrated in the top 1percent and consumer and public debt skyrockets and big investors with an inside line reap megaprofits and STASH IT OFF SHORE UNTAXED, MONEY SUCKED FROM THE LABOUR OF THE OTHER 99percent of us. And don't kid yourself about who works harder ... nobody works as hard as a roofer or a ditchdigger or their wives with 3 preschoolers. Smarter maybe ... but is preying on others an ethical trade? What 's wrong with this picture?

NOBODY is talking about personal violence ... except you. We are only targeting the wealthiEST, the top 1 percent who have 40 percent of the wealth and all of the power.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19471&view=findpost&p=708359 "We need to have an adult conversation about income distribution before we’re forced into an unruly one." Hmmmm ... better hurry!

And MAYBE the richEST have ripped some people off along the way, ya think? The richEST get richer - thus the increasing gap between richEST and the rest of us - using their wealth to control the governments, to keep their taxes low and profits high.

People can use their "top 1 percent" status for good or evil. People who evade taxes are criminals. People who toady to such criminals are goofs. A reasonable tax rate for the richest, and enforcement of it, is the solution. If they get wealthy off Canadian resources and people, they pay accordingly. Income gaps such as we currently have simply demonstrate that the wealthiest are abusing their privilege and taking more than their share. Such income gaps give rise to civil unrest and disobedience, as is currently occurring everywhere.. Defend them if you like, but I can assure you they could care less about you. The sociopaths who are sucking the people of Canada dry will be long gone to the Caymans ... while our economy lies in shreds. You are either the top 1 percent, or you are not. If you are, you'd better leave quick. If you are not, stop defending them: They will NEVER defend you.

Your misinterpretation of my words is your reading comprehension, or intentional misrepresentation problem to sort out for yourself.

Your misinterpretation of my words is your reading comprehension problem to sort out.

Ya, to avoid paying their legal and fair share of taxes, and guess what that makes them? CRIMINALS !!! And it's not peanuts we're talking about here, but obscene wealth earned via Canadian labour, on Canadian land, and likely with Canadian government subsidies, paid by the rest of us taxpayers. Those of you who aspire to their wealth are their toadies, defending their right to commit tax fraud and deplete government coffers to provide them with more obscene wealth sucked from the rest of us ... including you. They're laughing at you all the way to the Caymans! We need special jails for people like that, where they clean the toilets of the prostitutes, pimps and dealers, or maybe chain gangs to clean the playgrounds of condoms and needles for the safety of the kids, or maybe cooking and serving nutritious meals for kids whose parents are unemployed and on welfare and cannot afford to feed them well. The possibilities are endless!

Peanuts.

Legalize, regulate and tax it. Sounds good to me!

"Can't" is pretty much a moot point at this stage, not worth wasting words on. Constitutional change is irrelevant since Aboriginal rights continue to exist anyway and as you said, "have been the law in Canada for centuries". "Won't" is the reality. Anyone holding out hope that Aboriginal rights will be 'disappeared' will be disappointed.

From "Clearcut defiance" (link above) Community context ... "Abitibi's clearcuts aren't the first disaster to hit Grassy Narrows, or the second or the third. In 1962, the federal government discovered gold on the original reserve. How our gold got buried under their land remains unsolved. The entire community was moved that year to their current reserve moved that year to their current reserve where they started a salmon fishery with the compensation money. Eight years later, a Dryden pulp mill - then called the Reed Paper Company, but it changes names every few years - dumped 50 tons of mercury into the English and Wabigoon rivers. The fishery was wiped out and, as of last year, 86 per cent of the community show one or more symptoms of mercury poisoning according to a study by Dr. Masazumi Haroda, who has been following the Grassy Narrows for over 30 years. Next they tried growing wild rice, until Ontario Hydro built a dam and raised water levels throughout the area, costing them 90 per cent of their harvest. "The population of Grassy Narrows is 800 people, three quarters of them are under the age of 17 and it's not because under the age of 17 and it's not because they have a particularly high birth rate," says Thunder Bay Indymedia editor says Thunder Bay Indymedia editor Dave Clement. "It's because most of the older people are dead." Dave Clement. "It's because most of the Dave Clement. "It's because most of the older people are dead." Environmental diseases are the leading cause of death. A 10th of the community have Lou Gehrig's Disease, caused by mercury poisoning, and an eighth have cancer - the depleted-uranium affected areas of Iraq aren't this bad. Other causes include alcohol, gas-sniffing, suicide and murder. "Nothing you've seen in any Afghan refugee camp will prepare you for refugee camp will prepare you for Grassy Narrows," says Concordia anthropology graduate student Tiffany Ryan. "The place is notorious in the profession. Anthropologists go there to profession. Anthropologists go there to study the problems and turn into aid workers because they have no choice." __________ A personal story ... "Another warrior, Charlie, 48, has a soft and slow voice that can be difficult to follow, but his stories are worth the effort. He was put in residential schoo at the age of seven and escaped severa times, each time getting sent to a schoo further from home. Four years and six escapes later, he was in a school near Sault Ste-Marie, where the nuns beat Sault Ste-Marie, where the nuns beat him unconscious with hockey sticks. He still has the scars."I knew that if I stayed, they'd kill me, so I escaped again. I made it to Winnipeg I escaped again. I made it to Winnipeg [1,450 kilometres away] on foot through the bush, living off the land, fooling the police dogs in the woods. They didn't catch me that time until I was 21," he says. The other men his age have similar residential school stories. Nothing can happen to them in jail or in a gunfight that's worse than what already has."

The situation of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada as it is and has been is untenable. No country that aspires to be healthy, respected and successful can maintain its Aboriginal people in poverty and distress. Six generations of mandatory incarceration in largely punitive residential schools have decimated and devastated Aboriginal families and communities. With funding for reserve schools, health, social services, etc. at lower levels than for other Canadian families, the struggles for them are endless and debilitating. Governments have failed to address land claims in a timely manner, maintaining the dependency of Aboriginal communities. Modern rulings of the Supreme Court have pointed the way to solutions that will engage Aboriginal people in development that is proposed for their traditional territories and involve them in negotiating for shares in profits, jobs, training, education, etc. in those developments. While land claim continue to drag on at a snail,s pace, the 'duty to consult and accommodate the rights of Aboriginal Peoples, based in the treaties or outright Aboriginal title where there are no treaties, affords communities opportunities to move forward in becoming independent, self-sustaining healthier communities. The rulings are not altruistic, but acknowledge existing (never extinguished) rights: whether by treaty or Aboriginal title, Indigenous Peoples retain the right to sustain themselves - earn a living - from the land and its resources, and any development activities on their traditional or treaty lands. Not just in Canada, but around the world, former colonies are facing up to the rights that Indigenous Peoples still retain despite the encroachment and oppression of rights that has characterized colonial and post-colonial countries. As information about the new legal realities filters down to Canadians, a new awareness is developing that there will be significant changes in the way industry and business, municipalities and other governments relate to Aboriginal communities where development infringes on their territories and rights. Mining, forestry, oil/gas extraction and pipelines, municipal development, etc. have all become aware of their legal obligation to consult with and to accommodate the rights of Indigenous Peoples to benefit from those initiatives. While some may resist these changes and demand that government roll back the clock, the courts have upheld these rights repeatedly and they are now the rule of law in Canada. Clarification through Supreme Court case law is ongoing, and federal, provincial and municipal policies and procedures are being developed and refined since governments at all levels, and indeed all Canadians, are obligated to abide by the rule of law. Internationally, the recent UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples addresses these issues and provides a common reference point for countries. While Harper initially blatantly refused to sign the document, he sheepishly caved in when the UN denied him a seat on the Security Council. Combined legal, political and economic pressures outside and within Canada have and will continue to move these issues forward. While there are many many examples of Aboriginal protests leading to court rulings on Aboriginal rights, the case of Grassy Narrows is a recent good example: http://freegrassy.org/2011/08/01/grassy-trappers-win-major-legal-victory/#more-2399 Aug 17, 2011 Landmark legal victory could end clearcut logging in Grassy Narrows Territory(Toronto) – Yesterday the Grassy Narrows First Nation (Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek) won a major victory in their more than decade long battle to stop clearcut logging in Grassy Narrows’ traditional territory. Grassy Narrows Chief and Council welcome the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to protect the rights promised to the Anishinaabe from interference by Ontario. Madam Justice Mary-Anne Sanderson’s decision, over 300 pages in length, finds that the Government of Ontario does not.have the power to take away the rights in Treaty 3 by authorizing development including logging and mining. (See above link for more ...) For background see ... CLEARCUT DEFIANCE http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/032003/news3.html This is but one example of how the Supreme Court rulings in such cases are now being applied in provincial courts to address conflicts arising from provincially approved projects. It is likely that there will now be a negotiation process to determine whether any logging will occur and how it will be done to minimize disruption of traditional ways of life, and how the Grassy Narrows people will participate in and benefit from the industry in that area. Clearcutting devastates environments, ("The trees are gone, the animals are gone, the water is poisoned.") but selective logging can be sustainable. It remains to be seen how or whether logging will resume. There is no question of whether the legal rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada will be 'cancelled'. There is only the question of how they will be implemented and that will vary by community and be subject to negotiation with relevant governments and private interests.

Ya Aboriginal and treaty rights will just disappear ... when pigs fly. But go ahead and delude yourself. Hell, strap on some wings and prove me wrong!

Aboriginal and treaty rights exist whether they are in the Constitution or not. The Supreme Court, in ruling on those rights, holds the responsibility for "upholding the honour of the Crown" (ie, the Queen's treaties) even when governments fail to. Aboriginal and treaty rights are "recognized and affirmed" in the constitution, but they exist anyway. They weren't created by the constitution nor can they be destroyed by changing it. They are here to stay, and they give rise to the "duty to consult and to accommodate" Aboriginal communities when any development is proposed that may infringe on those rights. Treaties can only be changed through negotiation and with consent. You are desperatly twisting words trying to maintain a fiction you have created in your own mind.