Posit

I would disagree. I know that most people believe they are good people. Even the most lecherous murdered believes he is a good person. So where does that leaves us? It is my belief that all crime (being deliberate harmful acts against another human being) are crimes of insanity. The acts are moments of ill-thinking, or non-thinking about the consequences. They are moments of intense anger, hatred or fear. Because most people believe they are good, their crimes must come from irrationality. In the case of gang crime, it is a bit more complicated. We are raised in society to seek the approval of others to validate our self-worth. In most healthy families we receive that validation from our parents, grandparents or someone special in our lives, like and aunt or uncles etc. When that is missing we once could turn to our communities and in the case of more affluent families this loss of community is often responsible for rich kids turning to crime for validation, and or entertainment. In many cases in gang neighbourhoods, parenting roles are mixed up, or even absent. The greater family and community can no longer protect and guide the child. The gang represents a community where they validate each other and protect each other. At first most gang members are indoctrinated with small petty crime and as their status in the gang community rises, they move on to more elevated types of crime. The state is not to blame totally. The loss of social safety nets - the last stop gap measures to family and community break-down - are only part of the problem. However the major part of the blame lies on us, as members of society, as members of the community and even as brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents. We are losing our connection with each other as we are conditioned to believe that work is more important than family or community, or even our selves, our health or our spiritual well-being. It really is ill-thinking to put work before all the rest, and in a healthy and mentally fit well adjusted person work will be the last priority. If we want to raise good families and strong and healthy communities we have to change our way of thinking and let others find their own morality instead of trying to impose ours on them.

Forget about trying to teach children about respect for the law. It is unjust and hypocritical in its application. Rather teach them to have respect for other human beings under all circumstances. When you model tolerance and acceptance, the law will be unnecessary in all but the extreme cases.

Ah, but you miss the point..... It was the democratic majority that decided that minorities and Canadians in general needed protection from the oligarchy pretending to represent the majority. As a majority member of the democracy, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there by my (and others like me) blessing.

"We have as much right to this country like anyone else. And whether they like that or not....." Actually we only have as many rights as the letters patent that gave us the formation of Canada, and as much as our rights have been restricted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms AND those rights afforded us by law. On the other hand, Aboriginal people have an inherent (look it up in the dictionary) right to land and resources. Get used to that fact. The arguments presented by the xenophobes here about the native impact on the environment are completely off the wall and have no resemblance to reality. There is no sense replying to retarded assertions of that kind.

"As early as November, 1907, the Canadian press was acknowledging that the death rate within Indian residential schools exceeded 50% (aee Appendix, “Key Newspaper Articles”). And yet the reality of such a massacre has been wiped clean from public record and consciousness in Canada over the past decades. Small wonder; for that hidden history reveals a system whose aim was to destroy most native people by disease, relocation and outright murder, while “assimilating” a minority of collaborators who were trained to serve the genocidal system." "The term “Final Solution” was not coined by the Nazis, but by Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott in April of 1910 when he referred to how he envisioned the “Indian Problem” in Canada being resolved. Scott was describing planned murder when he came up with the expression, since he first used it in response to a concern raised by a west coast Indian Agent about the high level of deaths in the coastal residential schools. On April 12, 1910, Scott wrote, “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.” (Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General Major D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG 10 series)." Hidden From History - The Canadian Holocaust

The reality is, it is happening - the country is changing from a Anglo-European colonial colony to an independent thinking, self-evolving nation, complete with the tools to decolonize itself. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary system is mired in colonial aristocracy and until such time as the citizens stand up and take government away from the elite and long-term bureaucrats, we will get bogged down in archaic thinking, trying to impose our beliefs on others and waging a fight to those that resist. There is no doubt in my mind that aboriginal peoples' so-called "special" rights will be further recognized to include self-government, self-determination and self worth apart from mainstream Canadian society. I suggest you can wake up now. Canada IS "an impoverished, violent, dangerous mish-mash?" Just look at Toronto, the RCMP and the justice system. What I strive for is something far better and far more just than the impotent Conservative wasteland it currently is.

I understand plenty about rights. Gays and Lesbians, Muslins are looking for recognition of their distinct rights to be guaranteed under the Charter but still refused in many cases in the mainstream. Those rights detach themselves from mainstream ideologues. Gay marriage as an example, expands the definition of marriage to include same sex partners where it was long believed that marriage was an institution restricted for heterosexual couples only. As differences appear, the SCC continues to find ways to protect those differences, even if they are not aligned with the mainstream. Go back and read the Charter... 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and ( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15) and 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. ....recognized and affirmed.... not "offered" ..."not defined" but "affirmed" meaning that the rights existed beforehand and continue in effect despite the Charter. ALL human rights extend beyond and before the "rule of law". ANY rule of law is a restriction of rights based on an agreement withing a particular society to limit freedoms of one to protect another or a group of others. IN the case of aboriginal rights, the Charter is clear that it "....shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada....". So yes the rights of Natives are not only outside the rule of law but outside of the Charter limitations as well.

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." Thomas Jefferson November 8, 1808

"Canada is becoming a society of minorities which will make it more difficult to justify treating granting special privileges to one minority because they happen to have the correct DNA." We'll actually see MORE rights apart from mainstream as the country expresses compassion and understanding for cultural differences. In case you haven't noticed the "multiculturalism" movement designed by the Conservative think tanks to minimize minority rights has floundered - failed - kaput. It has been replaced by a cultural movement that recognizes and celebrates special differences. Native rights extend beyond the power and control of government. Pretty soon Muslim rights, gay and lesbian rights etc. will follow the same path. There isn't much you can do about, so you might considered getting comfortable with the idea.....

"Why us the White guys, the king of the world and not Indians or the Chinese?" We're not even Princes in this world. The Islamics dominate the world religions and religion dominates people around the world. Western civilization is in the throes of collapse. The financial, social, justice and educational systems are all in failure mode and we have ruined the environment to a degree that we risk our own health trying to band aid the poisons. In the US and Canada nearly 1/4 of the population is at or near the poverty level and the middle income class that makes up better than 2/3 of the total population pays the highest percentage of the debt load. Ya, we should be really proud of working a dogs life and getting no where but delusional success. As to survival, in 500 years of direct assault, murder, genocide and assimilation First Nations people are not only here but in 2007 are strong and thriving. Sure some of the populations were affected by all the murderous agenda by Church and government, but for the most part they have won the war waged on them. We should look to them for such successes not being grounded in a false economy that depends on greater and greater export just to keep manufacturing jobs in this country. We should look to them for the future of environmental successes as ancient knowledge will hold answers to modern ecological failures, I'm sure. We should look to them for spiritual and individual successes as spiritual corruption has not only ruined communities and societies but have abandoned children who search out street gangs for a connection to "something". Guns and steel and powder mean squat to technological advances as people get used by their Blackberrys and investment schemes meant to get those with the money more wealthy. You and are are insignificant in the overall scheme of things. You might prepare yourself for the age of freedom where the white Christian male no longer controls society, or institutions. Equality means EQUITY and the imbalance that kept the Anglo-European Christian men in control is a Jurassic ideology. Move over.....there are more to come....Canada belongs to the minorities.

"Stop this special status....and entitlement mentality...cos it's only getting passed on to the next generation." We can't. Their rights extend to before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - before Confederation and British or French Colonist rule. The best that we can do is learn to live with them in our society and forget about trying to change them to suit our very restrictive and controlling system. Neither can we redefine "human rights". They are what they are and we are what we are. We must learn to get along better - including restoring all the lands issues to an equitable solution.

"...one more example of why aboriginal privileges are an absurd legacy of feudal society..." The Indian Act is an invention of Canadian democratic society. Had it been done under Iroquois Confederacy participatory democratic thinking, non-natives as well as natives would have had unfettered human rights and not those silly limitations we have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Civil disputes are generally resolved with lawsuits where they party at fault pays damages." You don't know very much about civil law do you. In most municipalities line-fence disputes are adjudicated by a committee of Council, appointed for that purpose. Native people cannot sue the government over land issues when it continues to be the defendant and the judge. The only way to resolve land claims is meaningful and honest negotiations - something our government hasn't a good record on.

Here we go again...... Native peoples in North America were smelting metals long before Europeans. It was originally estimated that it was 3000 years before Europeans but scientists have recently revised that with the find of a smelting furnace in Virginia that predates European smelting knowledge by 7000 years. Gun powder was invented by the Chinese. If we were to compare cultures it would appear the the Europeans were uncivilized and savages long after they fled Europe for the Americas to avoid religious persecution. Had it not been for the Natives' knowledge and agricultural practices, it would be likely the Europeans would not have survived their first winter (and in fact few did being ill prepared and uneducated)

Many of you are amateurs. Indians can't be sued. You cannot garnish an Indian's wages because they legally have no income when living on a reserve. They are protected under the Indian Act. Getting a bus stuck across the railway tracks is not a crime. It is not terrorism nor can one promote terrorism against property. Holding a street party without a permit isn't a crime either. So a bunch of people who got their bus stuck on the railway and then decided to have a street party is not illegal. They were served with a injunction and within 24 hours removed their equipment and stopped the party. Civil disputes between parties, such as disputes over property are not covered in the Criminal Code, nor do the police respond with criminal charges. So what this boils down to is the act was a peaceful movement to instigate discussion and to expose the government's lack of action on land claims. Whether you take it as good or bad, you have been a willing partner in making that happen and all the MSM have done their part. The fact that we are discussing it at all is proof that their methods work - which makes the protestors much smarter than most of you.

"I'm sorry, Posit, but you really are a fool at times. The Monarch IS the Crown." Be careful of the mirror you're holding.... The "Crown" are the Queens "holdings" in a legal sense, and are apart from HRM. If the allegiance were to the Crown, or the Crown Corporation of Canada, then it might make sense. However, being only responsible to the Queen would allow Crown Officers to use any methods necessary, so long as it did not offend HRM Queen Elizabeth. It also retains a higher authority - even over compliance with the Constitution. One more reason why Canada is not a nation and is only the play thing of royalty....

So you swear allegiance to the Queen but not the "Crown" or "Canada"? Sounds like another legal loophole to me. I mean if you are not responsible to Canada or the Crown then it is far game to use any means (including under-handed ones) to exercise your profession....so long as the Queen is not harmed.... It also makes me wonder that there is definitely a line drawn here specifically addressing perversion of the law, frivolous suits and integrity. How is it that many lawyers cross that line frequently and with impunity? It makes me think that perhaps the oath is nothing more than a part of the deception.

Insurance plans are like that. Some people collect and others never do.

The Vietcong borrowed the mole tactic from the Iroquois. It is now in every War Manual but still very difficult to defend against. Yes you scoff at the thought of some extraordinary military techniques but no doubt celebrated the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus this past Easter weekend. BTW go back and study and those conflicts. They weren't wars. They were battles and the natives are still here and still able to assert their sovereignty. You highly under estimate them.

"The non-native majority in the country decide what the law is." That statement leaves me with a piteous view of you. It is a most incorrect statement. The average majority non-native Canadian is far removed from law making. We have absolutely no say in what is proposed, or how the law is applied. There is no public consultation on legislation unless the government wishes it to be so, and then only after the agenda and outcome is predetermined. The best that we can do is complain, and change our vote during the next election - after which time the damage is already done. Take the SSM as an example. Nothing we could say or do would sway the previous government. And look what happened. You gave your votes to a "new" government, and they just washed their hands of it. One of the most contentious Canadian issues in the last 100 years and Canadians had no input, whatsoever. It would be pie-eyed to believe that a majority could sway the party rule. In spite of the majority, the constitution sets out the rights, government generally follows it and the SCC protects it. But I come back once again to the fact that unless there is a "need" to change the constitution, it will never be changed. And even still, while there might be lots of discussion, Canadians will generally be left out of the decision-making process. In the modern world doing right is more powerful than majority might. So take your majority rule and find a warm and dark place for it.......It is a delusion. As to natives getting nothing, I would suggest it is just another delusion. The fact is that legitimate claims payout big, and land and the control of land is being turned over on a regular basis. There is no upper limit to the cost since there has been an unlimited wealth produced from the use of stolen and unceded lands that we all have benefited from. It is only a matter of time. While I agree that civil war could be the likely outcome, I would also suggest that it would not be strictly a military conflict. More likely it would be waged on the streets and in the bedrooms of the communities that are squatting on native lands, and the infrastructure would be the first to go. Of course I am only speculating, but world conflicts show this as the likely course. Ask them how they fared in Baghdad when the lights when out.

Of course that is what this entire thread is about - injustice and tyranny of the majority. They are not interested in fair and equal access to health care. They want money - their money in particular - to be a controlling factor. Health care like government and education, is an institution. Institutions are not businesses nor should they ever be run like businesses. They are meant to cost us and in return they provide reasonable services. The fact that Bay Street has convinced government to tow the corporate line is a misdirection. We should be taking back these institutions of the people and demanding that government provide the services at any costs - even if it means that they have to rake in 50% capital gains on every business transaction made in this country.

Its a good thing then, that more learned and just people will resolve this. Your obstinate style wouldn't last a day in the negotiation rooms or in the courts. Ever wonder why the government doesn't want to take these claims to court? Because they know the evidence is there to support the claim and the courts can be much harsher id eking out penalties and restitution than they can get through negotiation. Six Nations presented the evidence to the negotiators and it clearly shows that deeds were issued up to six months before they were supposed to have signed the sale. I have read texts from both sides of the dispute. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

From all indications the bridge and the highway are on the unceded Six Nations territory. It is not a crime for them to do road and redevelopment work on their own land. The Plank Road claim is another instance where the British government underhandedly stole the land. They had been selling of parcels of the Plank Road to settlers nearly 6 months before they claimed to have bought it. Plus they claim to have 46 Chiefs signatures on the documents. None of the so-called Chiefs who signatures were condoled (or legal) Chiefs. The British were well aware that according to the Royal Proclamation, they not only had to have the signatures of all 50 Confederacy Chiefs but they also had to have the consensus of the community by holding open public meetings. They did neither.

I'm just an ordinary joe with a historical interest in FN. I get nothing out of it except revealing the truth of the government's deceptions. In my career I have a number of opportunities to investigate and to listen to a number of government researchers and elders. It really is abhorrent - the treatment they have received. We expect them to act like Canadians and be like Canadians and yet WW1 and WW2 didn't receive the same benefits that we paid our veterans. How fair is that? We isolate them on reserves and ignore the fact that their drinking water, and health care and education is substandard. What's the difference between the cultural genocide of the past and that of today? No much when it boils right down to it....

"....something is happening down there." The I would suggest an urgent trip to your GYN.....:lol

The Supreme Court didn't accept oral history on the word of one person. The test requires a number of different sources of the same event and it is the commonalities that give it credibility. So what China are you in to killing the messenger because you can't debate the topic. How silly to think you were capable of having a rational discussion. My bad....