blackbird

House committee launches investigation into purchase of Canada's new $9M condo in NYC (msn.com)

Hey, we're talking about "MASS" immigration, not normal immigration that benefits the country if immigrants are properly selected. We do need some immigration. The past 160 years was not always mass immigration as you claimed.

Really? How do treaties help the economy? They are deals negotiated between FNs and the provincial government, which end by the government paying FN a lot of money, land, and the legal costs involved and the settlement costs. All born by the taxpayers.

Dude that's not my quote. Nationalist, You are correct. My comment was meant to be directed to herbie. I apologize. He seems to think the whole province belongs to FNs.

Actually various bands claim the whole geographic area of B.C. Yet they are only roughly 5% of the population. So what about the other 95% of the population that live in various parts of B.C.? Do they have no rights? It is far more complex than you seem to think. They don't own the thousands of square kilometers that they claim as "traditional territory". There are many non-native people whose life and livelihoods depend on the land in various occupations. What about them? The non-natives of Canada have been providing housing, water systems, support, and social services to various FNs, bands and villages and have spend billions of dollars on them. Is this to go on in perpetuity? And now you think we must just hand over lands that they claim as their own even though there is no proof of anything. Or we are to pay them a percentage of profits from natural resource extraction when they have no ownership in the land or companies. Nice to be so privileged. Kind of like a Prince in Saudi Arabia.

The reality of life in British Columbia is that railways, highways, cities, towns, farmlands exist on what many native bands claim as their traditional territory. If Canada or British Columbia were to recognize such claims to the land, Canada as a sovereign nation would cease to exist. 5% of the population claiming ownership of the land that the other 95% of Canadians live on? Hardly a rational position to take. European settlers started coming to north America approximately 500 years ago or more. They eventually settled in the various parts of the country. Natives existed in small areas in the various regions. But there was so much uninhabited land that there were few disputes in Canada. The U.S. was different. When Americans settled in the U.S. starting on the east coast, friction developed over the land and conflict continued as the west was settled. There were the Indian wars. That scenario did not happen in Canada fortunately. Settlement was relatively peaceful.

The reality of life in British Columbia is that railways, highways, cities, towns, farmlands exist on what many native bands claim as their traditional territory. If Canada or British Columbia were to recognize such claims to the land, Canada as a sovereign nation would cease to exist. 5% of the population claiming ownership of the land that the other 95% of Canadians live on? Hardly a rational position to take. European settlers started coming to north America approximately 500 years ago or more. They eventually settled in the various parts of the country. Natives existed in small areas in the various regions. But there was so much uninhabited land that there were few disputes in Canada. The U.S. was different. When Americans settled in the U.S. starting on the east coast, friction developed over the land and conflict continued as the west was settled. There were the Indian wars. That scenario did not happen in Canada fortunately. Settlement was relatively peaceful. This is a brief history of B.C. re FNs. " Copilot Sent by Copilot: The process of acquiring land from the First Nations in British Columbia has a complex history. Initially, the British Crown recognized Indigenous title to the land through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which stated that only the Crown could acquire land from First Nations, and this had to be done through treaties12. However, when British Columbia joined Canada in 1871, the province did not recognize Indigenous title and believed there was no need for treaties, except for the existing Douglas Treaties13. These treaties were negotiated by James Douglas between 1850 and 1854 with various First Nations on Vancouver Island3. In the northeastern part of the province, Treaty 8 was signed in 1899, covering a large area and involving several First Nations13. For many years, no further treaties were made, leading to unresolved land claims and disputes. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the British Columbia Treaty Commission was established to facilitate modern treaty negotiations3. The Nisga’a Treaty, implemented in 2000, was the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia1. This history reflects ongoing efforts to address and reconcile land claims and rights with First Nations in the province." Add to that the existence of many reserves where aboriginals live in villages and it gets very difficult and complex. There are elected band councils in the various reserves where aboriginals live. But there are also hereditary chiefs that many believe are legitimate representatives. Some elected band councilors would dispute that. One could say that the idea of hereditary chiefs does not fit in with today's nation where Canada is governed by various elected levels of government. Hereditary chiefs often claim vast tracts of land which cover the whole of the province. This is a problem because the country is not the same country it was 500 years ago or even 100 or 200 years ago. There are 40 million people living in Canada and 95% of the population are not aboriginals. These people have rights to. Nobody in north America has a perpetual claim to vast areas of the continent. So, it is simplistic and naive to accept the claims of FN hereditary chiefs and their activists who claim vast areas of land which covers all of B.C. There is no evidence or proof that they ever lived on much of areas that some of them claim. In fact the present FNs absolutely did not live or occupy a lot of the areas in question. Their ancestors may have lived in some areas or locations, but it is very difficult to prove exactly where they lived and what they did. They were not miners or oil/gas producers or even farmers. They were hunter-gatherers and on the coast fishermen. So again, what gives them the right to claim natural resource revenues from companies operating today in areas that they just happen to claim as their traditional territory when there is no proof they even lived in all those areas? This is the conundrum British Columbia's government is in and depending on ideology, the government seems to be bending over backwards to grant them lands and money and various services at the expense of everyone else. Just how far this should go is the question. This concerns many British Columbians who live on the land and depend on it for various occupations and industries. Another problem is the present BC NDP government signed onto the United Nations' UNDRIP which is the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This has a long list of demands or requirements for the country or jurisdiction that signed on. This has created a whole new set of problems and may have serious consequences for the people of B.C.

You think all the land the pipeline is on belongs to them? Obviously you don't have a clue. If you think the whole country belongs to them, you better pack your bags and move somewhere else. You will be paying FNs rent to live here if we followed your ideas.

Shows complete lack of judgment and common sense.

Casting guilt and complicity by association is no different than comparing. That is not comparing leftis/liberals with mass murderers. You lied. I said leftist/liberals either don't know what is going on in the world or they like authoritarian Communist countries (like China). Trudeau said he admires Communist China years ago. The Liberals have been trying to downplay and evade the foreign interference issue for a long time now. So my comment is accurate and had nothing to do with mass murderers as you claimed. The fact that the Communists were mass murderers in the past does not negate what I said. It only proves we should be having nothing to do with them.

What unintelligent crap? Quote? Who did I compare to the worst mass murderers? Quote?

Just found it on wikipedia. The Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band has several reserves. One of them is 35 km north of Kamloops BC and the size of it is given on Wikipedia. This is reserve no.4 and is probably the one the TMX pipeline is crossing. "Whispering Pines Indian Reserve No. 4, W side of the North Thompson River, N of Heffley Creek, 494.40 ha." " There are the following Indian Reserves under the administration of the Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band:[1] Clinton Indian Reserve No. 1 Clinton Indian Reserve No. 2 Clinton Indian Reserve No. 2A Kelly Creek Indian Reserve No. 3, on left bank of the Fraser River one mile N. of the mouth of Kelly Creek, 1.40 ha. 50°58′00″N 121°53′00″W[2] Whispering Pines Indian Reserve No. 4, W side of the North Thompson River, N of Heffley Creek, 494.40 ha. 50°59′30″N 120°14′25″W[3] Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band - Wikipedia 494.40 ha equals about 4.94 square km or 5 square km. That means the pipeline probably crosses only a few km of Reserve No.4. The whole pipeline is about 1150 km long. This crossing reserve no.4 of couple km is insignificant. It is certainly no justification for claiming billions of dollars in shares or 30% to 51% of the pipeline.

The TMX pipeline apparently crosses the Whispering Pines/Clinton "claimed" territory. Actually it crosses an Indian Reserve (#4) 35 km north of the city of Kamloops. There is apparently a map of this IR somewhere, but I can't find it. The search AI comes up with a little information saying it is 35 km north of Kamloops and says there is a map but for some reason does not show the map. In any case, if it crosses an IR it would likely be a small distance of uninhabited wilderness. This is just a phony scheme to claim 15 billion dollars from Canadians and take over control of the pipeline which is ludicrous. Funny how the FN activists across western Canada have jumped on the band wagon to obtain 30 or 51% ownership of the pipeline and become millionaires or billionaires at taxpayer expense.

The FNs activists in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. don't own any land the pipeline is on but see a chance to get ten or fifteen billion dollars or more out of the Canadian taxpayers and control over a huge oil pipeline shipping oil internationally. What about the 95% of the Canadian population who paid for this pipeline and deserve to be compensated for its existence? FN leaders know the federal government is extremely naive and will give away land and natural resource control that Canadians own if they get the chance. This pipeline is paid for and owned by the Canadian taxpayers. It is costing over 30 billions dollars and will generate millions of dollars in revenue carrying oil from the Alberta oil patch to the shipping port down near Vancouver BC. These natives are not dumb. They know when they see a chance to get great wealth from the liberal/NDP governments. They want to become Saudi princes over the oil industry in Canada. They have no money but that won't slow them down. The government already said they want these people to take over the pipeline. What more could they ask for? " LeBourdais, 55, represents the Western Indigenous Pipeline Group — a coalition of First Nations located along the Trans Mountain route in British Columbia that is determined to purchase the pipeline from the federal government. The group wants a 51 per cent stake." Trans Mountain pipeline: Why some First Nations want to stop it — and others want to own it | CBC News

You don't appear to know what land they have title to. They don't have title to the land the pipeline is on except possibly in a very small area where the pipeline might be crossing some private property. Can you tell us where this land they own is exactly and give any evidence?

Let's keep the conversation civil, intelligent, and constructive if possible.

Spain still practices bull fighting. Bull fighting is a barbaric cruel practice. That should be obvious. Columbia is finally trying to ban it but is up against a lot of resistance. Colombian bullfighters decry new ban on the centuries-old tradition and vow to keep it alive (msn.com) "Bull fighting in Spain has been at the heart of culture for centuries. From the prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice to the modern bullfights, this is probably one of the best-known popular customs around the world. If you’re interested in the current season, check the official dates of Madrid, Seville and Pamplona. Are you planning to attend one? Make sure to get your tickets well in advance! Bullfights are considered one of the symbols of the Hispanic culture. They are not only organized in Spain but also in Portugal, France and part of Latin America, where some customs may vary. However, Spain has the longest season and it is the country in which most of the bullfights take place. Prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice took place in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean region. As a matter of fact, bulls started to play an important role in religious ceremonies. Bull fighting in Spain started when Iberian tribes organized events where humans confronted bulls. Then, Greeks introduced fights against bulls as a spectacle. Proof of this is a fresco dating from about 2000 BC that was discovered at a location called Knossos, in Crete (Greece). Knossos is the largest Bronze Age archaeological site on Crete and has been called Europe’s oldest city. The fresco shows male and female acrobats confronting a bull, grabbing its horns as it charges and vaulting over its back. Later on public fights between animals and men were common-place in Ancient Rome. And as you can imagine, they spread to the Iberian Peninsula through the expansion of the Roman Empire. A history of bull fighting in Spain The powerful Almohad caliphs who ruled Andalucía in the 12th century apparently enjoyed the spectacle. And so did Alfonso VII de León y Castilla (1105-1157), who is said to have put on bullfights to celebrate his wedding to Berengaria de Barcelona in 1128. In the Middle Age the bull simply was released into a town or village square, in which the aristocrat (acting as the matador) would then fight the animal from horseback with a long lance. In these medieval bullfights there were often individuals who were in charge of finishing off the animal and who were called matatoros (killers of bulls). In the north of Spain, this profession became very well paid and esteemed, and some monarchs even hired them for their festivities. unquote A brief history of bull fighting in Spain (spain-traveller.com) Why is this barbaric practice such a big thing in Catholic countries? Does it have something to do with religious beliefs? Or do the beliefs simply not discourage or condemn it? We know the Spanish Inquisition in the middle ages was a particularly cruel part of history that was ordered by the RCC clergy and the leaders of Spain. A search engine will lead to articles describing the Holy Roman Inquisition.

America cannot have assassins operating at political rallies and still have a democratic country. This is extremely serious. This is a serious threat to democracy.

Other reasons why Minister Joly's cozying up to China doesn't make sense is because China is aligned with Russia against Ukraine and now appears to be aligned with Palestinian terrorist organizations. A news item shows China is aligning itself with Hamas ( a designated terrorist organization) and Fatah. Rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah sign ‘Beijing declaration’ of unity after China talks (msn.com) " The two largest rival Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, have signed a declaration to end their longstanding rift and instead fight for “Palestinian unity” in a deal brokered by Beijing, Chinese state media said. The deal came at the end of reconciliation talks in Beijing where a total of 14 Palestinian political factions met with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi."

That is doubtful. One or two FNs don't own land like that stretching the length and route of the pipeline. If you can give an article proving it, post it. There are a couple FN bands that own a tiny bit of the land the pipeline crosses, maybe a few hundred acres or hectares. They are using that to try to become Saudi Arabia billionaires. The pipeline is over a 1000 km long and they have no rights to claim ownership of it. If they own a few km of land the pipeline crosses, they might be entitled to a small payment for rent. That's all. The fact is the FN groups that want ownership of the TMX are in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. They do not own the land. But they see a goldmine and believe the government wants to get rid of it. So they are asking for 51% share of the TMX pipeline. Trans Mountain pipeline: Why some First Nations want to stop it — and others want to own it | CBC News The TMX pipeline is worth over 30 billion dollars which is the property of the Canadian taxpayers. There is no reason on earth why we should just hand it over to FNs for nothing so that handfuls of FN leaders can become millionaires or billionaires. That is what they want it for. They know it is producing hundreds of millions of dollars and they want that money flowing to them. The Canadian government is crazy to think of giving it to them. The FN do not have that kind of money. Yet here they are begging to be given a pipeline worth billions of dollars. That is false. B.C. has not resolved land claims for most of the province. You are obviously just making things up as you go. There are a large number of FNs in B.C. that have claimed vast areas of the province as their traditional territory but this has never been accepted by governments as their land. It is only a bargaining ploy by FNs. The FNs are only a small percentage of the population who live throughout B.C., about 5% of the population. The claims overlap between some FNs and cover the whole province. Canada is country of 40 million people and only 5% are FN. They are not going to have ownership of all the land or large swaths of it. They are not going to have ownership of the pipelines either unless our governments have completely gone mad. The taxpayers paid for the TMX pipeline, which is costing over 30 billion dollars. There is some movement to give them a small percentage of resource revenue in some places. But they want to become billionaires like the kings and princes in Saudi Arabia who control the oil industry of the middle east. What a joke.

Could you please post some statements in the subject article which you believe are false and give explanations why?

I think we the settlers and colonizes have paid more than our share to the FNs and continue to pay billions to support these people and provide housing, social services, health care, etc. etc. Enough already. Go get a job.

No I don't think it crosses a lot of FNs lands. I don't know if it crosses any FN reserves. Don't forget there are small FN reserves where some of the bands live. Then there are what is called "traditional territory" which are vast areas of British Columbia that many of the first nations claim. There are many FN bands claiming this territory which covers the whole of B.C. If you examine certain historic rulings, FN do not have ownership or sovereignty over crown land. This belongs to Canada in right of His Majesty. This is part of B.C. and Canada. It is not reverting to FN. They never really "owned" or even occupied the vast areas that some of them now claim. They will continue to claim thousands of square kilometers which there is no evidence they ever lived on or occupied. But it is their bargaining chip to claim billions of dollars in compensation. But for what? The liberals and left have bought into this idea that we the settlers or colonizers owe everything to them. I don't agree. But this conflict will never end. We the colonizers have a perfect right to be here and inhabit this part of the earth without having to pay anyone endlessly.

Freedom of religion or freedom of thought is technically non-existent in China. One must adhere to and bow to the Communist system ideology and party. quote In the history of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), President Xi Jinping is the first paramount leader to give prominence to religion in word and deed. In a major speech in 2016, Xi called for the ‘sinicization of religion’. He noted that, given the rise of religion among the Chinese people, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) must ‘guide the adaptation of religions to socialist society’. In its academic sense, ‘sinicization of religion’ refers to the indigenization of religious faith, practice, and ritual in Chinese culture and society. For Xi, however, ‘sinicization’ is profoundly political. It requires religious leaders and institutions demonstrably to embrace State Socialism and the leadership of the CCP. Ideological, legal, and bureaucratic, Xi’s ‘sinicization’ campaign is one part of a pervasive ideological re-education and remoulding campaign that recalls the campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s to anchor Chinese national identity firmly within the ideology and rule of the CCP. Among religious groups where the primacy of that identity is resisted, ‘sinicization’ has even entailed the imprisonment of vast numbers of Uighur, Kazakh, and Hui Muslims as well as intractable Christian leaders. Accordingly, ‘sinicization’ is no mere slogan, but a religious policy to enforce three key priorities of the CCP: to streamline the bureaucracy for efficient oversight and control of all non-Party spheres and institutions; to revive the sway of Party ideology over all aspects of life in China; and to remove any ‘contradiction’ that might challenge Party ideology and rule. In March 2018, the CPPCC put in place the necessary ideological, legal, and bureaucratic structure to enforce ‘sinicization’ of religion. Party control In March 2018, the National People’s Congress and the Chinese Peoples’ Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) put in place the necessary ideological, legal, and bureaucratic structure to enforce ‘sinicization’ of religion. It reduced the plethora of official departments that have multiplied with growth of religious followers and affiliated churches, mosques, and temples. For Protestants, the China Christian Council (CCC), the Three-Self Patriotic Association (TSPM), Religious Affairs Bureau (RAB), and the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA) have seen their oversight powers transferred to the Party’s United Front Work Department (UFWD). This has effectively swept clean the differing and overlapping bureaucracy that had diffused and diminished the state’s ability to control Christian growth and influence. Under the new religious policy, the old bureaucracies live on, but now in name only, as their powers over churches and church leaders are now firmly in the hands of the UFWD. With control of all non-party institutions under the UFWD, the state now has a direct conduit speedily to enforce policy and control—or even end any relationship with overseas individuals and organizations they deem a threat to official ideology, security, or state control. This has allowed the UFWD to enforce religious oversight locally so as to cut off national and international connections that had been encouraged through the auspices of the TSPM and CCC. This leaves registered churches controlled locally or at best regionally with little access to international Christian networks. Thus, even as the UFWD now enforces national religious policy, its control will be enforced directly in given localities. unquote The Sinicization of Religion in China - Lausanne Movement

China's human rights record is just one reason why Canada should not be trying to cozy up to China. I wonder if there may be a clique of elite business people in Canada who may have business dealings with China. Perhaps they are pressuring the Canadian government. Since there is billions of dollars worth of goods made in China and sold in Canada, that may be the driving force behind the government trying to smooth things with the Chinese government. The question is should business take precedence over human rights violations in China? Human Rights Watch's 2023 report on 2022 gives extensive information on what has been going on. Here are a couple items. For the full report go to this link: World Report 2023: China | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) "The Chinese government tightened its Covid-19 restrictions, imposing repeated, unpredictable lockdowns on hundreds of millions of people. In some cases, officials used barbed wire, metal bars, and large barriers to prevent people from leaving their homes. In Sichuan province, residents were unable to leave buildings even during an earthquake. During these lockdowns—which lasted from days to weeks—people reported difficulties accessing food and medical care, in some cases leading to deaths. Others reported privacy violations, censorship, disruptions to their livelihoods, and government brutality as police and health officials kicked and shoved people who resisted Covid restrictions. In Tibet and Xinjiang, residents reported even more draconian Covid-19 controls imposed by local authorities already severely limiting rights." " Tibet Authorities in Tibetan areas continue to enforce severe restrictions on freedoms of religion, expression, movement, and assembly. Popular concerns over issues such as mass relocation, environmental degradation, or the phasing out of the Tibetan language in primary education were met with repression. Local officials are required to educate the public in “obeying the law,” and cash rewards are offered to citizens prepared to inform on others. Under intense censorship, Tibetans continue to be detained for online offenses, such as having banned content on their phones or “spreading rumors.” Authorities introduced a ban on posting religious teaching and other content online, intended to enforce tight official control over religious institutions and teachers. In a Tibetan area of Sichuan province, regional authorities ordered the demolition of outdoor statues and temples, the construction of which had initially been approved." " Freedom of Religion State control over religion has increased since 2016, when Xi called for “Sinicization” of religions. Going beyond controlling religion by dictating what constitutes “normal,” and therefore legal, religious activity, authorities now seek to comprehensively reshape religions such that they are consistent with the party’s ideology and that they help promote allegiance to the party and to Xi. Police continue to harass, arrest, and imprison leaders and members of “house churches,” congregations that refuse to join official Catholic and Protestant churches. Authorities also disrupt their peaceful activities and ban them outright. In September, dozens of members of a Shenzhen church fled to Thailand to seek refuge after having left China three years ago due to escalating police harassment and after they failed to secure refugee status in South Korea. The group reported being monitored by Chinese government agents in Thailand. The new Measures on the Administration of Internet Religious Information Services came into effect in March, prohibiting individuals or groups from teaching or otherwise propagating religion online without official approval. A widely used Catholic app, CathAssist, shut down in August because it was unable to obtain a license. The regulations have reportedly severely disrupted people’s religious life as many have increasingly relied on online religious gatherings and information especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. In October 2022, the Vatican and the Chinese government renewed an agreement signed in 2018. It was renewed despite the Chinese government’s arrest of Cardinal Joseph Zen and the continued detentions of Bishops Zhang Weizhu and Cui Tai, among others."