login

Its Arab League vs. Syria / Iran right now, no one will care, it just makes more of a market for SE asia and China, and maybe Russia. Canada has been sucked into the US foreign policy sphere it is probably only a week or two before Canada recognizes Al Qaeda as the legitimate rulers of Syria.

Wrong. Wrong. Aboriginal rights exist at their local organization level as well as internationally. You are just being ignorant. You are just being fascist. You can't accept natives have their rights because they existed before Canada did. They made Canada and gave it its name from their language not the other way around. They gave the French a place to live. It was the English who opted to fight for the land. They are occupying they don't own anything. Treaties which must be followed exist to give the Crown right to use the land Canada is within. You are just in denile if you ignore that fact. Fabricate your reality it doesn't make it any more real. Geuss what, those treaties were broken and the crown lost its title. If they obey the treaty the title can be mainained, its just like any other lease. You play by the rules you can play you don't, you can't. Its the natives who gave Europeans a right to exist not the other way around. Europeans recognized the requirement to coexist because natives were too valuable and did no wrong to deserve being at war in many cases. It was colonial occupation that has bloomed. Natives have been very welcoming both by their spirit and their necesity. It is sad you have to resort to use of force to rob people of their land. If we can agree it can be shared for mutual benefit. It was all about trade not ownership. The natives saved Canada, remember that. You are utterly ignorant of the past.

That is wishful thinking as it was changed by the Government via the Indian Act, not as a band council decision and not as an individual status indian agreement level land was given per family not per band.

His Tax Plan is a step in the right direction... http://www.theglobea...article6204738/

They must feel great right now. http://www.guardian....launches-rocket This is not just about the launch but the fact they are now a space age society and mostly on their own. The fact they have put a satalite into space from their tiny state is a great acheivement. This is not meant to be a commentary on the militarization potentials such as attacking satalites japanese south korean etc.., lauching space debris to knock out the global satalite network, or military applications of ballistic missiles. To date this has only been a peaceful occurence so lets not dwell. Its not like other nations havn't developed those capacities.

You are subjugating but you arn't recognizing the historical factor. You are trying to impose EuroCanadian values on First Nations identity. Sovereignty can't be forced on others. You can't force assimilation. Indians rejected that long ago under the premise of Citizens Plus. Native rights arn't alienable, this includes the foundation of their membership in Canada, much like Provinces have rights as part of a Federation. The Indian Act is a mechanism for performance under the treaty, regardless of the injustices that have been done through it. No native land has been properly ceeded. The cession process is whatever you make it but as long as it is disputed, it is disputed. If Canada can back out and change the rules so can the natives. Most of Canada wasn't ceeded to the federal government, there were land use treaties by provinces. Most of BC wasn't historically ceeded. Most of Northern Canada wasn't. There are massive problems in Ontario in that the land was occupied by non ancestorial claim, that is during the contact period there was a diaspora so natives in areas wern't in their traditional lands. Disease effected things greatly. In that sense there is a certain degree of shared land rights in that only individual groups were dealth with. In Quebec and all former French territories land was not ceeded, it was assumed for the crown, when France under treaty, which has since been in large part voided, handed it over to England. Nova Scotia was annexed. In modern contract any treaty signed under duress is void, which are many. The circumstances are problematic. That is why there are so many court cases on rights. Not all native land is ceeded. The government just likes to think that way because it benefits them. You are only supporting the view of the conqueror and that is why your view is faulty. You are just trying to force and enforce changes to the status quo that advantage Colonialism over stakeholder rights it has been going on since the contact period but it doesn't make it ethical or supportable. I would hope we have become more enlightened and moved away from a period of forced conversion, occupation and oppression. My Canada is not your Canada if you support those things. Ultimately we are free and equal but we need to work on concensus not unilaterialism. Canada is many stakeholders and many nations, not simply a unitary subjugation of the populace. I reject the sort of Canada were it is ignorance and rule by force alone, and so should you. We are equals and we are free.

Wrong. The treaties are between two nations. Canada doesn't own its land it is held by Canada in trust of the Crown. The natives hold their own title, but are at least brothers equal in status to the crown. As soon as treaty is violated Canada looses its claim of right. Sure if it violates treaty and is completely crooked on its obligations, it can do whatever it wants but so can the natives. The idea of a modern Canada as nothing but something which rules by force doesn't promote legitimate rule though. You can go that route but it is just occupation in that event. You can say so what but in blind ignorance or dishonour you will take it to your grave and be held accountable. Ultimately we all have equal rights but if you corrupt the system to suit your own means, than you are worthless to deal with or recognize or respect. Your form of government is illegitimate. You can't impose rule. If you do you fail eventually because it is unilateral when there are multiple parties. It is just war, and it is unfortunate you can't repsect people and have to result to use of force.

-

I forgot to add I like warm weather. Really say 50 yearse from now is Global warming going to be worse than nuclear winter? What is better flooding the worlds major cities or needing to use hydroponics? What are the effects of nuclear winter anyway? So it seems that striking the right balance could do it. If 150 Tg does -8°C than would 25 Tg do 1 degree?You are probablty right it is a bit like cutting an organ out or amputation to stop the spread of cancer. But what if it was done in space or the moon instead so that moon dust blocked some sun instead of devstating earth? There is already a radiation belt out there. Sagan has words on this too http://en.wikipedia....ki/Project_A119 ps I like warm weather... just the oceans would get so dirty if all the coastal cities flooded.

So I've read that putting reflective particles into the air could stop global warming --- also it seems that there were cooling periods caused by nuclear fallout? Discussion point?

Can you choose a reason and stick with it. As I stated it as a means of preventing greater human rights abuses is merited but not in a context of hate, or to attack a group for their beleifs or practices in general. You don't get it. For a signals nco you don't seem too bright. People are a product of their circumstances. Innocence is relative.

It is the waterboying of war but it is war. http://www.cjiru-uii...a/index-eng.asp http://en.wikipedia....t_Response_Unit It is a sub-unit of the Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence Company, which in turn forms part of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.

Why ask the question? bs. you are nonsense talking with that tangent.

They got plenty of money from their land.

It is good to hear they are being sensible with recognizing individuals right to freedom of association.

ISAF wasn't yet involved. The reality i don't need to follow suit. And if America has a problem with that they can add it to their list. I'll support individual freedom and liberty over any states totalitarian rule any day of the week. This isn't about America but rather individuals rights to self determination. Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. And if you as an American, or America have a problem with that, they arn't American.

US did it alone. Maybe the US shouldn't go stomping on every third world country that doesn't suck it. I don't like the idea of being dragged along on us foreign policy without my consent. The US was out of line in attacking afghanistan. That is what I get. What I don't get is that if any nato member tries to kill me, I feel justified to defend myself against that attack. I don't get how you especially as an american say my only right is to die. I disagree. If laws existed preventing the activity fine, but none existed in Canada so he was lawfully conducting himself. I 110% support the rights of Canadians to conduct themselves lawfully as they so choose, especially while in other countries.

Where is the contradiction? "The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group." I stated that I would not commit genocide simply due to association, that is religion, ethnicity etc.. but support genocide in specific circumstances as a means to humane resolution of more servere circumstances that place a greater harm to human rights. States that execise the death penalty are effectively totalitarian states which support genocide. My message is one of love, not hate.

Military acadamies exist in other parts of the world, there are cadet programs throughout Canada. Just these people ended up fighting Nato. what don't you get about that?

What "bad acts" did Khadr's father do?

I don't have time to waste on a full response so I'll sumarize. A does not = B building a bomb is not the same as throwing acid in a girls face. Your logic is faulty. If he was supplying acid, that is a different story in that he was abbeting that act. Although once again its not the jobs of Canadians to police people in Afghanistan, except for those offences on statute that are appliaclbe there. Now you could suggest that law change, but it is defamation to suggest that he supported acts he didn't. I don't think he was a terrorist. He was fighting the military not civllians. It was an invasion, he wasn't building bombs to terrorize Afghani civillians. This discussion isn't about the Taliban or what their beleifs are. As for my personal opinions on them, I really can't offer comment as I have no first hand knowledge to make an informed opinion. In regard to genocide I can't offer comment, as although, I do support genocide, I do not think it should be done on a basis of association or exercise of a group, but as an extreme of war to reduce casualties and damages. That is eradication to end war, not to eradicate a people. I am fundamental that way, I support humane actions, and I find that long dragged out wars arn't humane, and relatively quick death for those opposing peace is a better solution. That is my opinion. I don't like low intensity warfare as there are too many victims, it serves as an indirect torture. In the instance in the Holocaust, the starvation of Jews would be my second choice to gasing them, now I know I will never have that dilema, but it was a rather harsh war context that saw forced labour during a period of overactivity. A lot of advances did result from the war though, I am not condoning those acts but I do understand that there were benefits that came from it, not to say that there were many negatives also. Since it is illegal to advocate for genocide in Canada, I do need to say that these are my opinions and I do not call for any specific group to be eradicated, but as a matter of practice and theory there are instances in which genocide is a greater good, not because of who people are but because of what can result from not acting. I was someone who highly advocated for peace but after being victimize I do unfortunately feel there are people who should be killed to save humanity from further harm and the creation of more victims. Your logic is faulty. I need to add in the case of the Holocaust there were more options available that could have been explored, but if between starving them to death or gasing them to death, I would gas them.

WRONG! Majority of those who attend 'a meeting' not majority of band members. What is quorum for the meeting hmm? Also this is not something a simple majority should handle it should be an extreme super majority if not full acceptance by everyone for ceeding territory, since it is held collectively not by a corporation but by individuals who have ancestorial right individually, not due to being part of a group recognized as the government of those people there is a difference between individual rights and collective rights. A part owner of a property does not have the ability to sell their partners share.

Why did they increase the size so much though, only to have to work years to bring it down to the level they got it at?

It also includes pensions and benefits.

Very suprised to see this http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Average+federal+worker+costs+Budget+watchdog/7681542/story.html