Renegade

Who says they are stuck? Do they not have the right to work in any area either on or off the reservation? You can't go pointing to historical incidients for ever. Should the English sue the Italians for benefits because the Romans occupied the British Isles? As has been pointed out historically land transfers take place all the time whether just or unjust. Natives need to adjust to the current condition and get over this obsession of historical injustices. Or maybe it's not just the natives, it's the socialists in our midst who cater to this nonsense. BTW, if all the benefits that natives gets is screwing them, please screw me the same way. No one is obliging them to live in our version of society. They can create their own version but without our financial support. If they want our financial support they need to accept it in our context of society.

It's not that the crutch is taken away. The question is why have a special set of crutches based upon race? Surely there are people in society who have the same need to get back up on their feet. We already have social programs which address that. Why have a special set of benefits which only natives are entitled to? In your response you've indicated that all protest groups needed to be treated with care. Do you recognize that when the protest group are natives that the defferential treatment goes beyond what is provided to other groups? If it were a funamentalist Moslem organization behaving in the same fashion as Six Nations, the population at large would be demanding their heads. Should justice be blind or racist?

Michael, as you've said the benefits haven't helped much. For me the biggest objection is that the beneifts actually promote a culture of dependance and reduce the initiative for self-reliance. It would be one thing if the benefits were temporary and actually shown to help, but history has shown that all it does is create a culture of dependance and a sense of entitlement.

It is natural and expected that students incur debt. I dont' think it is a problem. Personally I don't like the way the government treats tuition. They should recognize it as an investment required to generate income. Here's what I would do if I were the government: 1. Loan qualified students money for specific education. Qualified means that the student has the required prerequsite grades or skills. It also means that only programs which lead to a profession which is in need of workers gets funded. Payments don't start until your first job or some time after graduation. 2. Universities charge the full unsubsidized cost of tuition. 3. Students get to deduct the loan and interest from income, or carryforward indefinately (like capital losses), until it is all used up. 4. If you don't graduate you are still on the hook for the loan.

geoffrey, while I sympatize with many of your sentiments, you do realize that your university education cost is subsidized? If you were paying the full unsubsidized cost, it would likely be more than $10000/year for tuition.

I would agree if what were talking about are the right tatics the OPP should employ in order to enforce the order. (ie what is the best way to get them out?) but except for the botched raid, there doesn't seem to be very much in the way of intent either. Do you even agree that the intent of the OPP should be to enforce the order? Here's some ideas on how even without raiding the place they can speed up resolution: 1. Blockade the subdivision. Cut off the protesters food and water supply. 2. Charge everyone occupying the place with trespassing. They would need to appear in court to fight it or be found guilty. Modify welfare/EI rules so that anyone violating the law, gets benefits cut off.

I strongly agree. If the government spent less time catering to this sense of entitlement to land claims and special treatment then at some point natives themselves would get over it and get on with their lives. In my view, they should have been intergrated into society a long time ago, much as immigrants are. The gettos which have resulted have been a breeding ground for attitudes which precipitate confrontations such as this. Its time they grew up and joined the real world that the rest of us have to live in.

link Police Raid Fails to Break First Nations Action at CaledoniaThe protestors claim to be unarmed, but apparently they only mean they don't have firearms. I would consider the use of any weapons to be armed.

Very few people had a formal education 100 or 200 years ago. If they had an education they would see that they actually had the power in their hands to lead a very comfortable life. My guess is that it is actually the uneducated and unemployed natives who are at the heart of this confrontation. If they had a job to go to do you think they would camped out there for a couple of months? Peaceful legal protest are fine. When the protest becomes illegal or disrupts the rights of others, they absolutely should be arrested and thrown in jail.

More than not being treated the same, they are treated preferrentially. That's exctly the point. The rule of law is usurped for political expediency, in this case so it doesn't look like we are bullying the natives. The OPP and police in general are sworn to uphold the law, not to make their political masters look good. The law is only just when it applies uniformly to everyone. Do you really think it's reasonable to wait 100 years for justice ? Would that be fast enough for you if you lost your land ? At a certain amount of powerlessness, rage takes root. Yes 100 years is a long time and I am guilty of exaggerating for effect. However, there are esclation mechanisms which no not resort to armed confrontation, and yes some disputes take a long time to resolve. Just recently a statue taken in 1929 was returned to Easter Island Easter Island statue heads home Natives resorting to armed confrontation should expect an armed response. They will definately be on the losing side of that battle. It's too bad our government doesn't have the backbone to enforce the law, they would rather let the home building company go bankrupt, and let the tradespeople lose wages than take action.

1. The claim is far from black-and-white as you portray it Inside native politics: the dispute within the dispute in the Six Nations standoff 2. What evidence do you have that the legal complaint has not been acknowledged? Even if it takes 100 years to settle, they need to respect the rule of law.

So why exactly do they stay in business? Not quite accurate. Canadians (and everyone else) hate to pay more than they have to for food, health, education, real estate, cars, and everything else they buy.

Michael, accually the OPP has a specific policy for the handling of native incidents such as this. If all protesters are treated the same, why have a special policy? I have read a newspaper article that this policy is one in which both sides be treated with "mutual respect". Why is that specific to native confrontatons? Shouldn't all protests be treated with the same "mutual respect". My disdain for preferential treatement is not selective. If the construction workers distupted traffic, the police should have broken it up and arrested the violators. I'm sure if I disrupted traffic I would have been arrested no matter how righteous my cause. Or is it only ok to violate the law without consequences in large visible groups?

You wonder why? Any group willing to override rule of law is one you should be cautious of.

The question is not whether they have a valid claim on the land. It's up to the courts to decide if they do or not. The question is that they have taken enforcement of that claim into their own hands. If I think I have a valid claim on my neighbour's land, and I find that the court process is too slow to resolve it, should society tolerate my unilateral occupation of my neighbours house? Apparently the answer is yes but only if I'm a native.

Angus and geoffery, I agree with you guys. In the latest update the mayor tried to stand up for the tradespeople who's livelihood has been disrupted by this standoff. First Nations protesters enraged anew over comments by Caledonia, Ont. mayorWell this caused a storm of controversy. The council couldn't back away from her comments fast enough. They muzzled the mayor from speaking further on the issue. I don't see how the mayor's comments were inaccurate in any way. While I can't seem to find anyone who is on the Native's side in this dispute, I think as a country we are hampered by a sense of guilt. This sense of guilt causes us to shower benefits and special treatment on native groups far beyond what we do for anyone else. It time we got over it. Its time native groups got over their sense of entitlement for special treatment. If they want to stay on there reserve, fine, but do it without the economic support of the taxpayer. If they want to integrate into society, fine too, but don't expect special treatment. But do one or the other and stop this constant display of childishness.

Shadow of Ipperwash looms large during latest police raid on native protestA native group has taken the law into its own hands by occupying land over which there are disputed land claims, further the provincial police, despite one boched attempt have failed to enforce a court order for the native groups to stop the occupation. There has been a history of native group occupation: I don't dispute the validity of the claim, but our courts are the mechanism to solve such disputes. My issue with the Six Nations and with other native groups who act similarly is why are they above the law? Why do our security forces treat them with kid gloves and not enforce the law? Surely in the rest of society we don't tolerate this behaviour. Why tolerate it from native groups. As yet another example 50 Mohawks blockaded a train in sympathy with Six Nations. Again no one was arrested despite the trespassing and costly disruption. Natives End Rail Blockade

Yes they did, but when you criticize $100 a month as "barely makes a dent in the cost of daycare" you have to also consider that it is incremental to the benefit already given. It is not the sole amount used to address childcare.

Certainly I haven't forgot them, but on the other hand I'm not going to cater to them. If they have no retirement prospects due to the fact that they haven't a clue or live from day to day without a thought for tomorrow, then they are the architect of their own misfortune, and rightly deserve it. Of course they have the option for pensions. Its called an RRSP and is open to everyone. As for BSE, every occupation has risks. Many entrepreneurs got wiped out, sometimes more than once before they were successful. I have no idea if beef farmers have access to insurance to mitigate against such risks as BSE, but if they don't have it, I agree they should. Athletes insure themselves against injury because their financial wellbeing is at stake. Should beef farmers be any different? Edit: I found that indeed insurance is available to beef farmers :Protecting Farmers - A Hartford tradition Since 1916 If they availed themselves of this insurance why would the lose everything. If they did not avail themselves of this insurance, despite it being available, then chose to risk it, and should be prepared to accept the consequences.

I agree that people should have to choice of opting out of company pension plans. However, I don't believe that RRSPs and DC plans are right for everyone - nor should we expect them to be. DB plans are a financial instrument that some people find attractive and there is nothing wrong them provided people understand the trade offs (i.e. your estate gets nothing if you die early) and the risks (i.e. your level of benefits depends on the pension managers achieving certain investment targets). I agree. If people had a choice and choose a DB plan, they shoudl do it understanding the limitations and lack of individual choices. Most companies who have DB plans don't also offer a DC plan or RRSP as a choice. I think that soon, except for public sector, most companies will stop offering DB plans so there won't even be that choice.

Did you factor the benefit of tjhe childcare deduction? So the parent is getting money on top of the subsidy they were already getting.

I understand, and it makes sense. In most cases the contribution for insurance is fairly minimal, so I can live with this loss of freedom. Riverwind, you have said that people can "choose to invest their money", but really the DB pension plan I have an issue with involves no choice by people. They make no choice on if they participate in the plan, and they certainly don't get to choose their investmetns. I have no problem with DC plans which allow people the choice. I agree with the rest of your statement.

In my youth I was fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. In that respect I haven' t changed much, however as I've aged I've become more flexible in my viewpoints. I once held views in which issues were either black or white. I have moderated and can see shades of grey. Where I once thought there was no reason ever for government intervention, I can now see that there are cases where intervention is necessary. I guess you can say I moved left, but not a whole lot.

Actually it is not that hard to lose everything buying a house. People are buying houses at inflated prices with 5% down. All it takes is a downturn in prices and an increase in interest rates. Can't happen? Happened in Toronto between 89-96. Lots of people lost everything.

There is some risk in buying a house, it's true, but I would say it's harder to lose everything buying a house than it is investing your money yourself. The idea that people should be responsible for their own lives is basically a good one, except for the case of people who don't have what it takes to get by in the world. Do we all have to suffer because of these people ? To a degree, we do. Should we ? There's no way to protect people without treating everybody the same, unfortunately. That applies to many aspects of the mass society. I'm not suggesting that everyone manage their money themselves. I understand that some may not have that skill, however if they don't have that skill or apptitude, they should use an investment manager. There are plenty of competent managers out there. No we don't all have to suffer because of these people. Let them bear the consequences of their ineptitude, not society. I think your basic argument is that some people don't have the aptitiude, or knowledge to manage their own retirement, and we can't even trust them to delegate that authority to someone competent. There are many precedents in society where we acknowledge this, however don't compeletely remove the choice of the individual. It is interesting that in society we allow people to have RRSPs which are voluntary contribution, and completely discretionary in the investment choices. On the other extreme, we have defined-benefit pension plans which are forced contribution and no individual investmetn choice. So we trust even the stupid and naive with RRSPs, but if you happened to be in a DB Pension plan, well trust is out of the question no matter how capable you are.