Posit

Sure there are. Nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide. Passive solar contributes nearly 20% of my winter heating needs. Ground and water source heat pumps. Grey water reclaim systems. Low velocity hydro power systems. 24 volt lighting systems... Walking, bicycling and mass transit can reduce GHEs. The problems is there is no incentive to create and adopt more efficient technologies because we don't want to give up any comforts even they they are healthier alternatives. With the internet in many homes it is possible to reduce or eliminate the commutes to work and work from home in many jobs. For those that must travel then car-pooling and transit can be used. Eating less imported fruits and vegetable - especially in winter - and canning and freezing our own local foods is not only better for us but a whole lot cheaper. If you compute the GHE's produced in getting one tomato from South America to here you will see how just one's person's shopping habits can have an effect. You're just not looking hard enough for solutions and spend way too much time looking for excuses.

There are many practical and inexpensive technologies that can help reduce GHE. We just have to suck it and take responsibility to get off the lazy oil-based technologies.

Actually, the Biosphere Project proved that forests cannot correct the problems we have. Once though to scrub the air of carbon dioxide the scientists living in Biosphere 1 and 2 quickly learned that there is a limit to the amount of CO2 the vegetation can absorb. The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to cut back in all sectors.

Ha ha ha. I'm not angry. Nor do I support the Mohawk Warriors. I just know of their expertise from an uncle that was in the Green Beret during Vietnam. He attribute his still being here on account of the skills taught to him during training by Mohawk Warriors enlisted by the US Special Forces. There are still many there today training Seals and Special Ops using modern weaponry with a twist. Of course you do realize that while the Warriors almost equal access to most weapon systems, it is their "other" abilities that make then invaluable. Can you imagine an ordinary Canadian like you confronted by a Ghost Warrior? or a mole? "Can" doesn't mean "will". There is no "will" to change the constitution and the Canadian government cannot change the rights of Native. Go reread the Charter. It says "35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." No where does it afford First Nations these rights as is does in the rest of the Charter. It acknowledges that their rights pre-exist the constitution and the Supreme Court has gone that way in the interpretation. If government choose not to recognize these rights then under international law they would be required to negotiate new ones...unless of course the rule of law doesn't matter.... You had better go back and reread all the constitutional documents as well since the Crown is not Canada but an entity greater than Canada. The power of the Crown comes from the Queen and legally every act must receive her consent. Trudeau so wanted to repatriate the Constitution that when the Queen told him that he had recognize the pre-existing rights of aboriginal people he balked but eventually caved. Her power, and the power of the GG is still intact and very much the holder of the treaties. The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship.... "The scope of the fiduciary concept was extended significantly in R. v. Sparrow (1990),(6) the Court’s first section 35 decision. Sparrow determined that: * the “general guiding principle” for section 35 is that “the Government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal peoples. The relationship between the Government and aboriginals is trust-like, rather than adversarial, and contemporary recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights must be defined in light of this historic relationship”; * "the honour of the Crown is at stake in dealings with aboriginal peoples.(7) The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginals must be the first consideration in determining whether the [infringing] legislation or action in question can be justified”; * “[t]he justificatory standard to be met may place a heavy burden on the Crown,” while inquiries such as whether the infringement has been minimal, whether fair compensation has been available, and whether the affected Aboriginal group has been consulted may also be included in the justification test.

dbl post

Well then, you had better wake up to reality. You are already living in a feudal state. Ever wonder why the constitution never entrenched property rights and why all public land is referred to as "Crown Land"? The only difference is that Crown Land is really "Native Land" save and except those treaties you abhor. Whether the consititution "can" be change is irrelevant to this discussion. The basis for an amendment must demonstrate a "need" to be changed in order to get support for holding a Constitutional Conference. As well the majority does not rule in Canada since we are a party based system that can legislate where only a minority of Canadians have elected the ruling party.

Go ahead and under estimate a formidable and tenacious foe. The Mohawk Warriors were under estimated at Lundys Lane too. Ask the Americans how it turned out for them..... We not only recognize them as being skillful fighters but we enlist them in our armed force to train our troops in non-conventional combat.... However, the Senate has warned us of the impending civil unrest if we do not deal honestly and timely in our disputes over treaties. It is not a threat we should worry about but the inevitability of doing nothing, or worse deliberately sabotaging our agreements with First Nations.

"Watch Spot run" when the oil lobby steps up to defend the plastic grocery bag ban because it will mean that vegetable bags and packaging are next. I highly doubt that we would deliberately urinate in our own drinking water. But yet the amount of pollution that we pump into the air, and dump as waste into the ground does exactly that to our children and grandchildren. We have seen how in many communities we are reclaiming dumps and brownfields because we have outgrown our inner cities and the government has curbed urban sprawl. We pump carbon into the atmosphere and whether or not it is totally the cause of climate change, it is definitely a contributing factor. And just like there are lots of reasons to stop smoking from protecting our children from second hand smoke, or ridding our clothing of the stink, to our own health etc. there are many reasons to take responsibility for the air we breathe the water we drink and the climate we live under. However, we are competing with big corporations who stand to lose profits by taking responsibility when they have run pretty much their own game for decades. What we need on top of taking responsibility for our contributions of carbon in the atmosphere is a new paradigm for society that is not based on profits at any cost, but on reasonable capitalism, that profits come after sustainability and responsibility. The mad frenzy of investment usury cannot be sustained as we are running out of regions in the world to exploit and sell our goods to. Rather we must look towards profit as reinvestment in better and greater technologies to remove our impact on the environment, and ultimately on our children and grandchildren.

Ya ya ya ....I've read your argument before but you don't get the fact that it will never happen. A consitutional amendment is not an option since precedent law would dictate the direction. Of course you realize that the Supreme Court has not only enforced native rights within the constitution but they interpreted them as extending well outside the Charter. This would make little argument for Canadians and legislators at the provincial levels to support any more, since the Charter presently provides that no act or legislation can abrogate from their pre-existing rights. You cannot make an reasonable argument to support the change when a change is not warranted. The government cannot trash the treaties without a legal and civil backlash. Such a unilateral move would likely result in a civil war. Is that what you are after?

Don't be silly. The integrity of the Crown and Canada is at stake. We can't "throw out" agreements anymore than we can unilaterally toss the FTA without penalties. The penalty for doing what you say would be to lose our title and interest (resources and development) in all lands, since the treaties we made in the past benefit us along those lines. Not only that we would be confronted with having to renegotiate new agreements with First Nations that would cost us far more than it costs us now. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, without having to pay the baker first....an obviously you do not believe in the "rule of law", which is first and foremost the basis of being Canadian.

Ah, the point isn't to believe me. It is to question the myths you subscribe to. And contrasting information does that , or at least gets others to question YOUR integrity and myths. Any scientist never accepts the result at face value but must always delve into the evidence to confirm the facts of the experiment. Too few educators and historians ever did this being too lazy to fully research the facts of evidence of history from a number of source to confirm its integrity. Rather most of the historians and educators, and many of the mainstream read just enough until they confirm their own bias, myths and prejudices. I have presented the facts as I have receive them. It is up to you to prove or disprove it to yourself. I gave you the references to confirm my point of view. It is up to you to search them out and confirm or dispute. However, using a collection of prejudices to present your debate is mere laziness. "It seems to me that you approached this with the view to prove that "the establishment" were the "bad guys."[/i} No. I started out with an open mind and have concluded with greater and greater evidence that the establishment, colonialism and corporatism are the bad guys. Big difference. I stand by the statements...for now....

Global warming does not necessarily point to warmer temperatures. What it means is that severe weather patterns will continue to get worse. Snow in July anyone?

Wrong. The colonial government - of which we are still rooted - is that of an aristocracy. The concept of participatory democracy is entirely an Iroquois invention in N.A. We are not in a revisionist era. It is historical enlightenment that is the result of the "information highway" where historical facts are no longer hidden from us, or where those we are exposed to are not customized to support a single ideology. In reading much of the Jesuit's Relations, there is much admiration for the Iroquois from their customs to their organized democratic governments to their advanced forms of agriculture and trade. Much of this has been clouded by the editing of the texts by the Church, but not enough to block out the sentiment. History - especially British colonial history - is biased. In listening to Iroquois orators recite some of their oral traditions (I had the honour of attending a number of conferences where someone renowned speakers were present) it is evident that their version fo the history is vastly different than ours. The trick to their oral history is to confirm the record from a number of sources and as one delves into the French, American and Native versions, it is evident that the British have told a number of lies and Canadian educators have vastly misrepresented native history. These corrections, some of which I offer are necessary in order to understand the exact relationship our forefathers forged with the Natives. Turns out they were in need of the First Nations help and in exchange we guaranteed their protection....in writing...binding and legal like.... Throwing money as a solution to anything never works. However, being penalized for our past wrongs financially is the only punishment that we will remember long enough to not do it again.

Prove otherwise. History has shown - if you care to study enough of it - that these truths are evident. The myths that many subscribe to (including the myth of the Resurrection BTW) are submitted to the public in order to get them to think and act in predictable and controlled ways. I have read the entire Ipperwash Transcripts front to back and watched every live video available. None of it supports any of the conjecture presented here that Dudley George deserved to be killed, for any reason. There is also sufficient evidence to conclude that not only was their a conspiracy to commit violence against the natives by the OPP but that there was a conspiracy to hide the racism, and murder that took place.

The police have no authority to adjudicate civil disputes. In cases of property disputes between two neighbours their ONLY job is to keep the peace. Judge Marshall who issued the injunction was found on appeal to have made a grave error that violated the rights of the protesters and the injunction order was struck down. At Ipperwash, the police were not "attacked" by a school bus, nor were they in any danger. The bus was driven out to retrieve an old man who was beaten into unconsciousness by police boots and batons. His only crime? Going to retrieve his pooch that was beaten in a similar fashion by the same people. The murder of an unarmed man by the police was an attempt to terrorize the protectors at Ipperwash. The bullet put into Dudley George was deliberate and premeditated. "You're first." spoken by Kenneth Deane while pointing at Dudley George 2 days before the murder. The Surete du Quebec shot and killed their own. Despite the findings of a closed inquiry, the round was American made. If the Mohawks had killed him, first they would have had to get behind him (since he was shot in the back) and secondly there were no American made weapons in their encampment - lots of Russian made stuff, but no American. There is no equal rule of law in Canada. There is lawlessness and corruption at every level of the police, government and corporations and even when they do get caught by whistle blowers there is little in the way of punishment. The rule of law in Canada is set out by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that despite rulings by the Supreme Court that First Nations have an inherent right to their lands, and that all development within disputed or territorial lands must pass by the consultation with and approval of the First Nations. Yet the rule of law is not adhered to as developer after developer continues to build, dump, extract and profit without even a notice. Our government has forced First Nations to take back the land and let US prove we have some right to it. Funny that is why the government is so afraid of them reclaiming the lands. They can't prove there are treaties, or legal transfers over most of Canada. The Mohawks are not violent. You have been conned by the media into believing that the armed attacks, illegal invasions and illegal injunctions are the Mohawk's fault. In April last year 150 OPP attacked 15 old people, women and children at Caledonia with batons, tazers and pepper spray. They drew their assault weapons again against unarmed protestors. When another 200 unarmed protesters responded by walking onto the site the OPP retreated. There was no violence instigated by the Six Nations people. Just peaceful occupation. Same thing at Oka. Only there were only 25 old people, women and children peacefully gathered in front of the bulldozers. Even when the Surete du Quebec shot Corp. Lemay there were no weapons on site. The Mohawk Warriors only showed up after we sent in the army. Again they reacted to the violence visited on them. The Mohawks have always settled their differences peacefully. At Oka it was through negotiation that settled the dispute and at Caledonia and Deseronto the same thing is happening. Simply walking through an unlocked gate is not violent. It is a peaceful action brought on by 20 years of delay and failure by our government to settle their lawful right to the lands in question. That is the rule of law and they have learned that possession - their possession - is nine tenths of that same law. And as a reflection of Easter consider that the "supremacy of God" that goes with the "belief in the rule of law" in the preamble of our Constitution is dominated by Christian beliefs - those very same beliefs that originate in violence and have perpetuated violence in the name of God for centuries. The fact that residential schools were just recently closed and human rights abuses continue against First Nations provides ample evidence that it is us as Canadians that are violent - not native people.

Scott. Perhaps you missed the history lesson. Archaeology has proven that North American natives beat Europe in the smelting and working of metals by nearly 3000 years. As well our system of democracy as was the US Constitution was derived from the over 1000 year old Great Law of Peace practiced by the Iroquois Confederacy. They had a system of government, agriculture and a society far superior to the colonial peasants that arrived here fleeing poverty and persecution from Europe. Although it wasn't spoken of too much, many if not most of the Jesuits and colonists that came here "turned Indian" and adopted the lifestyle and culture of many First Nations. That's how the Metis were born. So if you want to accuse someone of being stone age, I would suggest that you are not far derived from it.

Yes it is a silly question. Health care is an insurance plan managed by the provincial government. It is no more universal than province managed car insurance. People can be denied services and insurance for all kinds of reasons - for cosmetic or elective surgeries etc - and be limited as to the diagnostic services provided. While the government can't discriminate against obese people, some doctors choose to refuse to treat patients that do not accept their advice or treatment. However, being overweight is not necessarily a health factor, anymore than working in smog-ingested Toronto is. If you move to ban anyone, then target those that live in the cities and pollute the environment, by driving SUVs, smoking or farting excessively outdoors.

I'm not confused. The occupation of disputed land is neither illegal or a terrorist action. It is a line fences problem between neighbours. When this happens in a community there is usually some public tribunal to "view the line" Terrorism is the willful and deliberate action to inflict terror upon a target. Simply inconveniencing towners, as in the case of Caledonia is not terrorism any more summer road construction is a terrorist plot against us all. However, stoning old people - killing one - women and children driving in their cars across the Mercier Bridge is an act of terrorism on innocent people who had nothing to do with the Oka Crisis. The citizens of Chateuaguay who inflicted this murderous act were never arrested or punished, even though there are hours of mainstream media recordings documenting the event. Terrorism IS tolerated in Canada especially where it is directed at people because of the colour of their skin. Genocide is thriving as well.

The REAL Terrorism thrives under the protection of police and government. One Dudley George was gunned down in a hail of bullets (180 spent round shells recovered) at Ipperwash. The Rocks of Whiskey Trench at Kahnawake The non-native mobs at Caledonia. They all share similar beginnings, including the silence of and protection of the terrorists by the police and the encouragement of political officials.

They aren't "their" treaties that the Charter is protecting. It is protecting "our"treaties with First Nations - legal agreements without which we would have no land base, resources and livelihoods drawn from their territories. The fact is we cannot unilaterally deny them them treaty obligations while benefiting from our sharing of lands and resources with them. The sooner we come to that realization the sooner we will rid ourselves of the ignorant racism that often pops its ugly head on this message board. Guns, modern technologies, snowmobiles and GPS do not belong to mainstream Canadians, or Americans. They are the fruits of prosperity bought with the resources we have extracted from the land, set into commodities that are traded between nations and developed by multinational companies we all - Natives included - have invested in over the years. Nor are these technologies lent to First Nations in exchange for their continued commitment to their culture and traditions. Most of these technologies were derived and built by Asian cultures (among others) vastly different than our own and your suggestion would deny them too because of their differences. First Nations people continue to be exploited by Canadians and national / multi-national corporations with the blessings of our government. Take Kasetchewan as an example. The are located in a community that became home after they were displaced by government wanting their original homelands, then built with a poorly located water intake system down stream from their sewage discharge by OUR government. In the spring their water intake is flooded by spring thaws causing their entire water system to be contaminated. The simple solution is to move them right? The government wants to move they to Timmins far away from their traditional territories where many of the residents hunt and fish for sustenance. They offered them on week a year return tickets to 100's of thousands of thriving hunting wilderness. The residents voted for a slightly more expensive solution of moving upstream 32km to higher ground. Of course the government cares about First Nations and offers them a higher standard of living than ordinary Canadians, right? So why would the government insist on displacing them once again when Walkerton was offer unlimited access to cash to inquire about and resolve their water quality issues? Ah but De Beers doesn't have a stake on Walkerton land for a diamond mine now does it.....No, the Government wants Kasetchewan residents off the land so de Beers can develop the mine and pay their royalties to the government. Follow the money. The water quality problems are not fixed in First Nation communities (approximately 500 FN communities have water quality problems with Ontario have nearly 120 communities in the same boat). No, FN do not get equal or equitable treatment because 1. they are not seen by the government as Canadians citizens and 2. the government still sees FNs as a problem, and 3. there is better use for lands we didn't bargain for and contamination and encroachment is a far easier method of eradicating the "Indian problem" (Duncan Campbell Scott, former Minister of Indian Affairs) than legal proceedings, or the types of genocide used on them in the past. If we want to continue to use the roads, built our house using limestone to make cement, or asphalt, fish and recreate in lakes and rivers, or just enjoy the house built from the timber derived from forests on treaty lands, then we had better be meeting our obligations under those contracts or the First Nations will do as they assert they will do and cut us off permanently. No the treaties do not benefit them nearly as much as they benefit us.

When the land is returned - and it will be returned - the people who are not members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte will be living on Mohawk Territory. Presently there is no requirement for the MBQ to pay to resettle any Canadian that wants to move. It is something that our government will have to consider in the compensation package as they negotiate with the natives. However I suspect (and have heard some rumblings) that the government will provide a buy-out package to the residents and those who reject it will fall under the MBQ jurisdiction. Any taxes they pay would likely be directed towards MBQ and additional rent monies for the land may be required. I have no doubt that the land will be returned. People may move and some may stay. However, when the government returned parts of Shannonville (another town on the west side of the reserve) they bought out the residents and tore down the houses. Although it may not be expropriation, a forced buy-out is essentially the same thing.

Of course it is none of your business and you have drawn another "wrong" conclusion. But then I'll feel free to conclude that you are a paedophile rapist, just for clarity's sake... "We" refers to us Canadians. But it proves again you have a reading comprehension problem.....

Who, what and where I am is none of your business and has nothing to do with this thread.

Are you a homo? Or maybe a paedophile, or a deviant?

Guyser. Are you a homosexual stalker? My background, my personal information etc. are not subject to interrogation. This is a discussion forum on Provincial politics. Stick to the subjects.