Hydraboss

Again with the "Canadian courts have no jurisdiction". And again I ask why, if your nation does not recognize Canadian laws, are there natives in jail? Why not just refuse to allow police to arrest them? By your own admission (re: Canadian laws do not apply) these people have committed no crime, so why do YOU allow them to be detained in Canadian prisons? If you allow them to remain incarcerated, then you do so by admitting that they fall subject to Canadian law. If that be the case, then by extension you acknowledge that Canadian law has precedence over your own nations "laws" and therefore are citizens of Canada. Which is it Tsi? Whoa, circular logic's a bugger, isn't it?

You hold nothing. Keep dreaming about getting "your" land back. And I'll keep dreaming about getting that $15 back that that guy borrowed in 1983. After all, I hold the upper hand.

Really? Come and get it.

I have bad news for you: treaties between nations are not legally binding documents since there is no court with the authority to force either party to adher to the terms of the document. This means that every treaty between nations is subject to renegotiation whenever one party decides that it is not happy with the terms. So if Six Nations is really a sovereign state that signed a treaty with Canada then Canada is free to annex all lands in the Haldimand tract without compensation. The Americans took control of the Oregon territory from the British by simply declaring that they controlled the lands. The British had no choice but to start a war with the Americans to prove them wrong or negotiate the new international border.However, if you want to argue that Canadian law requires Canada to honour the treaty then you are acknowledging that Canadian law is supreme and the Canadian courts have jurisdiction. Personally, this problem would be a lot easier to deal with is Six Nations really was a separate sovereign state. If it was the case then Canada gov't could tell Six Nations to FOAD - this is what the US says to Canada whenever Canada asks the US to live up treaty obligations that are politically inconvenient for US politicians (i.e. free trade in lumber). What's the matter Tsi? Don't want to tackle this one?

Okwaho, and what of the nations (native) that conquered each other? You say you are sovereign, but only by a matter of degrees. You say that the white people never took your land by force. Will you also say that no native has taken another native or land by force? Will you seek restitution on behalf of the conquered? So it is I who have poor understanding. Granted (because it's not worth arguing). But in your all-knowing mind, what is different between the caucasion people taking "your" land by deception, and other cultures taking land by deception or force? Example, the English conquered the Saxons...should they give the land back? The Turkish took many lands...should they give the land back? The Romans, the Russians, the Hungarians, the Chinese...the list goes on and on. How far back should this reach? The neanderthal's? Or just as far as it suits you? Were you the first on the land? Are you sure? What about the Swedish-decent skeleton that outdates your people by over 500 years? Should you turn the land over to Inga and her friends? When does the timeline of entitlement end? What would you do if the land actually belongs to the Swedish? Would that not make ALL treaties null and void? After all, the land would never have been yours to give/sell/be stolen/whatever. Incidentally, if the laws of Canada do not apply to native people, why are there natives in jail? Why haven't all the bands simply refused to let the police apprehend native criminals? After all, they aren't really criminals if they only broke laws that don't exist to you. Has your nation sought to extradite these innocents to your lands, Canada be damned? If it's not just about the money, why are your people captive? You wouldn't be selling them out would you? Overall, what is the purpose of these threads? To encourage anger-motivated racial comments? Perhaps not you in particular, but I read at least one member on this thread that is only trying to irk people. If not trolling, then why?

I rarely visit this board anymore mainly due to some of the idiocy. I am seeing it again in this thread, as it seems that there are some posters who are intentionally trying to prod others into losing their cool and writing something that can be brought up again and again. This thread is a constant rehash of the same points over and over. Reading it is like working for the Department of Redundancy Department. Well here, I'll say what the instigators are looking for: We (meaning anyone who isn't native) took this land by force. If you don't like it, we'll start again. You take back all the land in Canada, then we'll declare war on you, kick your ass (again) and this time there will be no treaties, no money, no non-taxable status, no status at all for you and your people. Everyone happy now? Is that what you have been prodding to hear? Now you can call me a racist, a bigot, a tyrant, whatever... Tsi, does this give you enough conversational fodder to work with? End the land claims altogether. If you live within Canadian borders willingly from birth, then you are Canadian. Period. I personally don't care if you don't want to acknowledge the laws of the land. I also don't care if you don't want to acknowledge the law of gravity. You have to abide by them. If ANYONE, native or non-native murders someone, they go to jail. Try not acknowledging that law and see what happens. Unhappy that we (meaning anyone who isn't native) took the land by force and don't want to give it back? What about the natives that forcefully took land and people from others? Are you going to pay restitution to those bands/people that were conquered? Are you going to give their land back? I doubt it. Tsi and others, you intentionally try to be unreasonable and provoke anger from members of MLW, and then you get pissed off when they get do. Have your fun, we are well used to ignoring those who "troll". Incidentally, we are having fun with you too. Have a nice day.

You ask a good question. I have a better one.Why do we give double time served ??? The two issues go hand in hand. Cutting the time served provides some semblance of an incentive on the part of prosecutor to mete out justice promptly. How else would YOU have it?? Is this what "double credit for time served" is for? Really? Prosecutors have rules that dictate the timing and procedures to follow to ensure timely access to justice. But, like every other rule of law in this country, it goes mostly ignored. Whether by virtue of sheer volume in our courts, or by laziness of the prosecution, our countries own guidelines are placed on a back-burner. So how does telling a prosecutor "if you don't get your ass in gear, we'll let the sexual assailant our early" benefit society as a whole? It doesn't. Quit thinking that criminals should have rights. BASIC human rights only. No more. Although currently they have more rights in this country than I, it's still the wrong way to think. What would I do? Let's reverse the situation. Are you going to do a crime? First you must understand that you could conceivably sit in jail for three or four years before you even get to trial. If you are found guilty, you will serve your ENTIRE sentance (no exceptions). However, you can get two-for-one meal credit for good behaviour, you can get off of the heavy manual labour chain gang for doing what you're told, and you can NOT get put in solitary if you don't fight, do drugs, or have sex with other inmates. I hope this isn't all too touchy-feely for some people, but I guess I'm just too liberal for most people's tastes.

Life. No parole. End of story. If he wants a lighter sentance, all he has to do is give back what he stole. Her life.

The problem is setting black and white rules to very grey situations. It's impossible to say, "10 and 11 year oldsl are aware of their actions." You can't generalize ALL 10 and 11 year olds; therefore, it's nearly impossible to make a blanket law for all 10 and 11 year olds. The same can be said for the parenting of those children. Often times 10 and 11 year olds are unsupervised and will do things that they don't want their parents finding out about. You can't possibly expect parents to supervise these children at all times, constantly keeping an eye on them even when they're out playing with friends. So, once again, you can't make a law to cover all parents of 10 and 11 year olds because it's a very grey area. The maturity and morality of children grows and changes with time and there isn't a specific set age where that changes. You can't say anything about ALL 10 and 11 year olds. You can't say anything about ALL of any group. Exactly why can parents not be held responsible? If a parent neglects to feed a child, can that parent rationaly state that "I can't feed the kid all the time"? I am responsible for my 8 and 9 year olds AT ALL TIMES. And so should every other parent.

blueblood, I agree that making it a matter of choice should not be an option. There do, however, have to be limits on what we as a country wish to regulate. Arguments regarding the slippery slope of regulating VLT's, cigarettes, booze, driving fast, promiscuous sex, etc.. abound. I do not agree with many forms of government regulation, but I can see the benefit to society as a whole with the banning of known killers. Cigarettes, drugs and liberalism. All are known brain-killers (ok, maybe not liberalism but I had to throw it in). If you make it legal, more kids will do it. Both sides may argue yea or nay, but my belief is that if kids can't do it in front of adults, it will be reduced. How many fourteen year olds sit at home and drink a six-pack in front of the tube with dad? Not many I bet. For those that do, regulation would have no more effect than deregulation. There will always be those that could not give a damn about the laws, but that does not mean that society as a whole has to give in to them. Legalize drugs? Why? Those that do them will do them regardless. Those that do not do them will probably not start, not because of the dangers but because of the law. I'm certain someone on here will spark a spliff and argue the flipside. And harsher penalties will solve it for some.

Actually, you're wrong. That question has been debated for a long time. Here's a well thought out analysis: Death Penalty Info Actually, I was referring to this thread. It's not clear to me what you're saying here. You support it because of offences other than murder ? Do you mean that you support its use for other crimes ? Yes, I do. Serious crimes that endanger the lives of others. That's a dangerous argument. The system is designed to err on the side of the innocent. I doubt there are any studies that compare murders by re-offenders versus wrongful executions. The system is designed to err on the side of the innocent. But usually it just errs. The unjustice system in Canada does not protect the innocent. Why should the guilty walk free with my kids because the system is weak beyond belief? What protects my children? Where are their rights? They don't have any in this country because the system is too busy worrying about the feelings of dangerous criminals. If the occasional innocent is killed, how would that be any different from the innocents that are killed every year in this country because we are too scared to enforce justice? Why do we worry about rehabilitating the un- rehabilitatable? (sorry, is that even a word?) One moment of justified decision making, and that criminal will never reoffend. If there are any studies anywhere that compare re-offenders vs innocents, I would like to see them. The anti-capital crowd loves to cite this instance and that instance, but has anyone ever counted how many have died wrongly accused? If so, then how is it that this same crowd can recite from memory that only two or three murderers were actually reoffending? Ridiculous.

As do I. There hasn't been any form of "tough punishment" in this country for decades upon decades. Rape a child? 18 months (out in under a year). Murder someone? 7 years (out in 4). Criminals are people that decided to commit a crime after weighing the "risk vs reward" in their mind. Notice that I am not saying that they were rational, just that they made a conscious decision. The risk in this country is miniscule, therefore almost any reward seems to justify the crime. Where I get a laugh is when people quote statistics from places like Texas. "They have the death penalty, and it hasn't stopped people from committing murder!" But how many murders didn't happen because people thought twice about the "reward"? Nobody wants to address that tidbit of information. I fully support the death penalty (in case it wasn't obvious). I support it mainly because of the number of repeat serious offences, such as rape, murder, child molestation, drug dealing, etc.. Not for armed robbery, or grand theft auto. As for the number of innocent people that get caught in the system? Do they outnumber the innocent people that get caught in the crossfire from re-offence? I don't think so.

I think you mean recidivism. The death penalty has been shown time and again not to provide any deterrence, nor have any effect on crime rates. Time to find a new approach. That's just nonsensical. If one can possess it, how can they come to possess it without someone selling or growing it? You're saying that you're going to make it illegal to sell something that its legal for the purchaser to own? That makes no sense at all. If you legalize possession you have to legalize the methods of obtaining it as well or you've achieved nothing. And if you legalize it you better damn well regulate and tax it to pay for the health problems to come because people who don't need drugs to survive ought not have to pay for it. Hicksey, were you referring to me? I certainly don't want possession legalized. I just think that capital punishment should be reserved for those that endanger others. uOttawaMan, I apologize for the spelling error. The people and "studies" that try to prove that capital punishment is not a deterent are basing their arguements on what they choose to. Much the same as every study ever done, on either side. But ask yourself this: How many dealers put to death have ever reoffended? How many would-be-dealers decided not to go into business for fear of capital punishment? Kinda hard to prove a negative, isn't it? As for legalizing it, who will pay for the billions it will cost to take care of all the addicts created when you can stop at the 7-11 and pick up Canadian Classic Cannabis Lights? Remind you of smoking? That is legal and rates of smokers are rising...or falling...or something. But the "thrill" of it has not disappeared. I know. I have been smoking over a pack a day for 20+ years. And one day, you will all be paying for my chemo. Does the government (all levels) really want us to quit smoking? And lose all those billions in tax dollars? I don't think so, Len. Now let's add a whole plethera of new, taxable items to the mix. That way my kids will never have to worry about their retirement or the CPP in their future. They won't have one.

Unless you put them to death when you catch them. Your enemies will decrease if they have no chance to reoffend. Death penalty = 0% revitisism You have to set a rule, determine a punishment, and then follow through with the punishment...each and every time. A rule that is not enforced is a guideline. I don't advocate capital punishment for possession or use. Only for trafficking. My kids are going to grow up in this world. If I have to take care of the ugly business so they don't have to, so be it. That's my job as a parent.

bump

What you choose to do to yourself is your business. What you choose to do to others is everyone's business. I am the Director of Health, Safety and Environment for an oilfield corporation. When I sit in or conduct employee orientations, I specifically address the corporation's disciplinary policy. I explain that this policy is used when employees disregard the rules. Verbal warning, written warning, suspension, etc... However, I also explain very clearly that any worker (front line, manager, etc..) that knowingly disregards rules or policies that endanger another worker will have their employment terminated on the spot and will be escorted off the property by me personally. All personnel are told in no uncertain terms that there will be no appeal through corporate channels, and I will see them at the Labour Board inquiry (and I have on several occasions, and never lost on these grounds). No one has the right to endanger another person's life. Someone asked what crimes would I subject to capital punishment? Any crime that puts the life of another at risk. Period. Drug dealing, murder, rape, any crime involving children, drunk driving. No exceptions, no excuses. Draconian? Uh huh. My best friend for over twenty years had been using every type of drug imaginable for those same twenty years. Mostly pot, but also anything else he was offered. Did I care? Ya, but it was his decision and he never hurt anyone. Then along came meth. Three months and I went to his apartment to clean out everything he owned (and there wasn't much left). I tried to ignore the blood that was all over the walls, the floor and the bathroom (where he had slashed his own arms and neck with a razor blade) that made the place look like the set of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I also sat and held both his teenage sisters at his funeral (he was cremated because he had mutilated himself so extensively). He was an "experienced" drug user and still did this to himself. What chance does a "new" user have; some sixteen year old high school student that has sparked one or two left handed cigarettes at most? But drug users only affect themselves, right? His meth dealer wasn't hurting anyone, right? My friend did this to himself so it should be legal, right? Give me ninety seconds with that dealer, and I'll do what society is too gutless to do. Drug dealers kill people, and they don't care about age, sex or race. Only the color of the money. In war, you usually know what the enemy looks like and where they are. And when you find them, you kill them. This should be a war.

Your math doesn't work, as Renegade has pointed out. All childcare subsidies do is shuffle the money around (I guess we could call it the Kyotocare Program). By the time parents earn enough to pay sufficient taxes to offset the taxpayer-funded childcare subsidy, they would no longer qualify for the subsidy. Net loss to society. People cannot do simple math to figure out what child-rearing costs will be...but they can sure as hell calculate Childcare+Welfare+Child Tax Benefit=Free Ride. My wife and I are raising our two kids by ourselves. It meant reducing to one income for a number of years, but we survived (barely). Others should do the same. The CPC's plan is a joke, although it does give some taxpayers back some of their stolen money. Not me, though. The Lib's and NDP plan is the watered down version of communism - no one is allowed to have more than the lowest-common-denominator. I also should not be paying for Geoffrey's education, but at least he is working to help himself, and will pay back the money in taxes. What does the no-tax-paying-live-off-everyone-else-breeder do? Nothing except accepting everyone else's money that they have not earned. I WORKED FOR MY MONEY, SO QUIT STEALING IT!

The whole "war on drugs" is a flop. We all know that. As fixer said, if you want to win a war, you have to fight it like a war. Go to Turkey and try to buy drugs. What? Can't find any within the country's borders? Amazing! That may have something to do with the fact that convicted dealers are put to death. We (North Americans) will never win this war because we are not prepared to fight it as it must be fought. Bring back the death penalty in Canada, and apply it to crimes that deserve it. Pedophilia, drug trafficking, murder, etc.. and I guarantee that the incident rate will drop dramatically. The hardcore gangs will continue, but the fifteen year old dealer will think twice before selling. But this country will never do this because we treat these crimes as "diseases". Drug addiction is not a disease. Cancer is a disease. Too stupid to stay off meth? Committ a crime? Go to jail. Deal drugs and kill kids? Go to hell (and we'll pay your ticket). Just got to rape kids? Bye, bye bastard. There, now you're rehabilitated. Feel better? The day we as a society decide to put the rights and lives of ordinary citizens above the scum, we can proceed with this "war". Until then, throw the cash into General Revenue, legalize everything, and close the jails. Might as well as long as we have no intention of meting out punishment.

Although I am not a big fan of how the threadstarter uses his words (retarded?), I must admit that I agree with the argument that learning Quebecois French is a waste of time. They are going to start forcing kids in Alberta to take "a second language" starting in Grade 4. This means learning french, because there is not a large enough support system for a useful language like Spanish or Chinese. My daughter will have to learn this version of a language that is inherently useless, unless you want to work for the federal government. As a member of the advisory council for my school region, I and many others have been fighting tooth and nail to at least have the kids learn real french. I would of course prefer that they learn a useful language, but the federal dollars will only roll if it's french. Shame.

Exactly. An ingrained culture that the government will take care of everything. Try standing on your own two feet, and leave mine alone. Politically incorrect? Yup. And I just don't care anymore.

I know you guys pay a lot and have a right to complain (Ontarians pay out almost $2000 while Albertans pay almost $3000, going by what Ralph said last year). The fiscal arrangement in this country needs to be reworked to give the people more of their own money. John, I agree. My problem is the "give the people" part. They shouldn't be taking it in the first place, and I equate it to theft.

Check out the commodity prices and factor inflation. Our utility bills have no gone up much. The difference is made up in less government expeditures, which the ulitily program was before. We pay less taxes because of deregulation. Why must everyone insist that the government subsidize everything we do? I am not in favor of government subsidizing anything. My statement is simply that the Alberta government handled de-reg horribly. I was a Klein fan, and am still a PC supporter, but the "following blind" attitude in this province is the problem. Not everything they do is for the benefit of the people of the province. And if you research the inflation issue, they're not even close to being reasonable when it comes to utilities. Based on a monthly price of $55 in 1993, the inflation rate would have had to be 10% every year (year over year) for 12 years to reach a price of $172.61. 313.84% effective increase. /hijack

Geoffrey, are you kidding? Not to be rude, but how long have you been paying utilities in this province? It wasn't long ago that my power bills were $45-$55 per month. Last month $173.86. Gas bill used to be roughly $80. Last month $233.00. Same house. Same people living there. Tell me again that the government caps work. What a load of crap. I am a proud Albertan, and partially because of our tax structure (which I have been paying into for years). BUT Klein royally f**ked up the whole de-reg thing. And then the government consistently misleads Albertans about it.

Just a note from Alberta....you may want to rethink the power de-regulation thing. Based on this month's power bill (it goes up EVERY month) I pay over $2300 a year. My gas bill from last year was $2640. "Competition" has quadrupled my bills. Be careful what you wish for.

I would like to see our presence overseas reduced. Not cut-off, just reduced. It's not that I don't believe in the campaigns, but I do believe that we should not have personnel on active duty without sufficient training and equipment. Canada should reduce troop deployments to the point where only fully and properly trained personnel are outside our borders. As funding increases (and I am willing to support this fully) and troops are given what they need (not what some politician thinks they need) then, and only then, can we consider increasing worldwide presence. If we want them (you) to do a job, give them what they need to do it.