Posit

Better check your facts again. Canada is not a nation. It has no authority even over Treaty Nations.

GRE IS NOT collecting taxes. Period.

Let me make sure that this is clear. THERE WERE NO TAXES COLLECTED BY GRE ON ANY TOBACCO PRODUCTS! Is that loud enough for your. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION UPON A SOVEREIGN NATION TO COLLECT TAXES FOR A CROWN CORPORATION LIKE CANADA! How's that? The point is that Six Nations gave Canada, $160 million and only received $65 million back. Seems a tad disproportionate don't you think? And just before you get off on another of your ignorant tirades, there is no obligation for Six Nations to pay on behalf of any other First Nations. Six Nations is a sovereign ally of the Crown. Besides Canada isn't even a country. The DOJ can't produce a legal definition of what Canada is, or its boundaries under which it claims. Essentially, according to Crown law, the Provinces are sovereign entities and Canada is nothing more than a Corporation with the provinces as partners. That puts Six Nations and other Crown treaty nations on the same footing.

Sovereign nations do not collect taxes for a Crown corporation. So Six Nations has been recognized not only by the Federal negotiator as being sovereign, but also by the Governor General and Supreme Court of Canada. Six Nations has been explaining that they were sovereign for centuries and finally (in the last couple of months) Canadian officials are finally agreeing. So no Six Nations is not supposed to do "anything" that Canada wants, except by way of the principles of the Covenant Chain. GRE gifted Canada the monies in lieu of excise taxes to avoid being tied up in seizures and in Canadian courts explaining the nation to nation relationship. The did not collect taxes on tobacco from anyone. However your argument is moot. GRE PAID $160 million into the tax system and Six Nations only received about $65 million in transfers and services. Looks like they are up on Canada by nearly $100 millioni for last year alone.

Nope!. Six Nations does not collect ANY TAXES from ANYONE! The are not agents of the Canadian government. The "excise" taxes are paid out of the GRE profits. Anyone can go to the reserve and purchase goods tax free. It is up to the government...and of course the average Canadian's honesty...to declare the purchase and pay tax themselves. Like I said earlier. Learn a little bit about Six Nations before you propose to criticize them. You'll find that your prejudices are completely unwarranted.

Like I said "One Six Nations' business alone contributed over $160 million to the Canadian tax base last year." Thanks for your support!

Speaking of welfare...where do you think all the lands and all the resources for your industry came from? Maybe you should educate yourself about Six Nations, rather than wallow in your petty prejudices and ignorant assumptions. One Six Nations' business alone contributed over $160 million to the Canadian tax base last year. There are more doing the same. That's more than $100 million more than Six Nations received in the same period in transfers and services. Maybe YOU should get off the pubic teet and get a real job.

The courts can't arbitrate international agreements. The dispute is between Canada and the Six Nations, whom have been recognized by the government and the courts as sovereign allies, not subjects. I wonder how we would have fared had Canada taken the US to Superior Court over the softwood lumber dispute over NAFTA?

That's your problem. You're waiting for the big pill. Unfortunately it only comes in football size and has to be swallowed whole. The point is that it is not about solving global warming. The ideas are about changing it - just one kilowatt at a time. If enough people did just a little it can add up to a whole lot....and the benefit is we all save money in the long run. In the last couple of years I built a new house. With a little planning and a bit of research I was able to incorporate low tech green technologies. This house uses 1/3 of the energy that the last 20 year old house I owned consumed. On top of it I had less than a three wheel barrows full of waste materials during construction. Simple, cheap and cost benefits. So you can sit back and claim "we can't do it" "its too much for me", or you can do a little bit. The energy you save and the greenhouse gases that you reduce WILL have a positive effect on your children. And perhaps just your effort will instill others, including your children to carry on with your legacy. That can't be bad, now can it?

I picked this up from another site.... In remembrance of the abuses and injustices suffered by our people, and in consideration of the 1 year anniversary (and still no settlement) of the reclamation of Kanehstaton, I encourage all aboriginal people, and all supporters of Six Nations to wear arm bands, tie bows or display a red ribbon on your lapel on February 28, 2007. It is unconscionable that we must continue to be ignored and subject to the trickery of Canada's negotiation team as they delay, obfuscate and refuse honest negotiations. I would suggest that ribbons and bows can be made from any material, red cloth or duct tape - the latter being most appropriate due to the patchwork approach Canada takes to legitimate land claims and native rights issue. Let's all remember to wear / display our ribbons and bows and educate non-natives of the legal and moral responsibility the governments owes Six Nations as allies of the Crown! I henceforth declare and proclaim February 28 from this point on as Six Nations Reclamation Day!

You wanna start? Try changing all your light bulbs to compact florescent. Or replacing that outdated furnace with a high efficiency one. Or turning back your thermostat a couple of degrees. Or car pool or take the transit. Or turn out the lights behind you. Or shop for energy efficient appliances. Use a hand can opener. Get rid of all your aerosol sprays. Plant a tree. Plant a vegetable garden. Plant flowers. There are lots of ways to slow greenhouse gas emissions from your own home. It doesn't have to be drastic, or even expensive. You just have to do ~something~ and that something will make it easier on your children. I've heard the $10 billion propaganda before and it is hogwash. The city of Edmonton went green about 4 years ago and they ended up saving money - lots of money. The initial cost of conversion was more than covered by the energy savings they have reaped in the last 3 or 4 years. And then we have the car companies that whine of the cost...oh the cost...Toyota wasn't doing anything genuine. They are simply playing to the "green" market. However, the best thing the big car companies can do is come up with their own plan and put it the consumer. You know and I know they will buy green if it is available. And if GM, Ford and Chrysler put it out there within the next couple of years, they might just make it big again. If you really want to make a difference, take off all the packaging on products you buy and tell the retailer to send it back to the manufacturer. If enough of us did that it wouldn't be long before the massive garbage producing packaging would be on the decline. They contribute to global warming and pollution since most of the stuff cannot be recycled or reused...

Capitalism isn't the problem, corporatism is. You cannot get companies to effect change when they are neither worried about the products they sell the resources they consume or the people they serve. The bottom line isn't about minor investors in companies because they are controlled by people whose interest is to greedily make money, even if it means destroying the company and sucking up minor investors' life savings. And as long as the controlling interests can manipulate companies there will be no voluntary commitment to any GH gases emissions. For industry and commerce we MUST have tough legislation without any loop holes. And at the same time we must close the borders so that those controlling shareholders cannot take our money out of the country to another less emission-controlled country. For a Prime Minister and a Government to do nothing is not an option. Canada signed the international Kyoto agreement and if we expect others - like the US and the Free Trade Agreement - to live up to their agreements then we can do no less than living up fully to ours. If Stephen Harper can't, or won't do the job he is legally obligated to do then he should call an election and let us put in someone who can. I hear that the Liberals are courting Elizabeth May of the Green Party. I believe that they should pursue a coalition with the Greens and the NDP to put a controlling government in place to implement the tough legislation required to send us on our way to an end to excessive carbon emissions. On the other hand, I'm sure Harper could do the same thing if he had the gonads to do what was right, instead of what suits his rich oil-field friends in Alberta.

Example of this data? ahh - and the IPCC crowd is working for free? Actually - it has. The earth has been fluctuating in temperature for eons - and it's cooler now than it has been in the past. Oh my god that is PRICELESS. The left's solution for EVERY problem is MONEY. WHat the heck do you think makes Kyoto tick? Good will? hahahahaha. Global warming is not a new phenomena. If you had watched Al Gore's documentary you would have heard that he has been studying global warming and carbon build up since he was in university and his professor had about 20 years of research beyond him. That is only on sector of the massive study. And yet the right produces junk science produced by oil-company funded researchers to suggest that this is just normal fluctuation in the weather....give me a break.... I don't know where you get your information, but today's weather is 2 degrees warmer than it was just 50 years ago. Global warming doesn't mean that we will get warmer winters per se but that we will see more severe weather over the whole year as a result of that increase in temperature. And while they have been peaks and valleys over the ages in the warming / cooling cycles they do not compare to the exponential warming that has occurred in that same 50 years. Industrialization is the only common denominator that puts it far warmer than it has ever been. If the right wing corporations and oil companies would put as much money into solving carbon emissions as they do in denying it we would have had a solution already. The unfortunate thing is solving the problem means they earn less and as we all know, greed will cause good people to not do what is right. When I suggest that money is the root of the right's evil, of course we are talking about hoarding and greed, rather than being members of the global community who put the global interest above the personal greed of the individual. That is one of the fundamental differences between the right and left. Money, in terms of penalties and bonuses is the only motivator that will cause voluntary compliance with Kyoto. So sure it is about money in one sense. However, the net benefit isn't about money but about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You would be naive to think that Kyoto is about stopping global warming. It is really about slowing it down until we can find alternatives to our gluttonous use of fossil fuels and our mass consumption of useless things.....

Actually I'll chime in.... The Left Wing do know better than the Right Wing primarily because they use legitimate science to support their argument and not junk science and religion like the right. No better is there an example than the issue of global warming where for the last 10 years the right has been trying to dismiss millions of scientific data by inventing d support for their opposition by hiring paid science and claiming that the evolution of the earth has seen the same ebbs and tides of warming and cooling that we are seeing today. Then if that doesn't work it doesn't take long for someone in the extreme right to claim that God will punish us all if we don't leave it alone. I have actually noticed here that same types of arguments from the more right posters. While there are quite a few right and left of centres, it seems that the more right leaning posters don't care to discuss issues but prefer just to repeat the same old tired statements that they think are fact. Since I'm not in either political spectrum, if I were to choose a side where it concerns scientific, or social problems I would have to lean towards the left since they don't use money as a guide to do the right thing.

If you have to get to work, and you've missed the bus then you have to get on another one. Complaining that we missed Kyoto targets and then doing nothing doesn't solve the environmental problems we are faced with. The environment IS NOT a renewable resource. It is a delicate balance of many resources. When you cut yourself, then contaminate the wound, pick at the scab and continue to aggravate the area, then you end up with greater problems than the original cut. The environment is very much like that, in that when we destroy or alter one segment of it, then all the other systems are affected. We must stop looking at the environment as either a single entity (which we can ignore) or a collection of individual resources (which we can exploit). The environment is a system that cannot be replaced once it goes into failure mode. Implementing Kyoto will not "shut down the economy" as the naysayers like to cry. Sure it will require some adaptations and some manufacturing dinosaurs might end up facing extinction because they refuse to keep up. However, the majority of us will survive with not only new technologies but greater efficiencies in industry. There are benefits in the long run not only to the environment, but also to our own pocketbooks. The problem IMO is letting the bottom line of shareholder's gains, dictate the way business is conducted. Instead businesses - even if forced by government laws and regulations - will need to rethink their strategies. The end result will not only be a reduction of greenhouse gases and other contributors to global warming but a greater appreciation for the workforce that can make it happen.

Don't forget that it was the Harris and the Conservatives that put Ontario where it is today. Their "total chaos" approach to government is what has cost us a bad health care system, poor educational system and decaying infrastructure. Tory hasn't said anything new because he would do it all over again....

The problem isn't whether or not one cop committed a crime in the execution of his public duty, but the number of cops that hid it and protected him before he was finally charged. When cops defend the types of racist attacks against the public, then yes there is something wrong with the system. When Dudley George was killed there was tape recorded evidence and other evidence presented at the inquiry to suggest that some, if not many of the cops there were racially motivated. When the upper command heard about it very little was done until it was leaked to the media. No one was ever disciplined for the abhorrent behavior.

Its all about context my friend. You need to read the entire SC decision and expound the issues being played out. BTW Mitchell was chastised by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy for taking this issue to Canadian court and was not an authorized agent of the Council when he did it. As far as they are concerned the decision has no bearing on their rights as a sovereign nation. There is however, going to be a refinement of that decision in the near future that will hold out the avenue - that of sovereignty - I have described to you. You see, through negotiation the issue of Haudenosaunee sovereignty will no longer be a question and I have it on good authority that the government has already agreed to the identification and is waiting for an opportune time to present to Canadians, like you...... Here's the teaser: "Old policies don't apply. You're different. You are Her Majesty's Indian allies and are not subjects..." Ron Doering, Canadian Federal Negotiator / Lawyer, Caledonia Negotiations Dec. 13, 2006. That is a recognition by an official representative of the Crown. The SC has been building new interpretations of existing laws over the last couple of years where they have conflicted with pre-existing aboriginal right. The reality is that they have made it easier for natives to exercise their universal rights in hunting, land resources and territorial claims. The SC has pointedly stated that new relationships with First Nations must be built. And because the definition of "pre-existing aboriginal rights" has not been clarified they tend to use a wide brush when interpreting them.

Nope. Read the treaties first and then comment second. You are bluffing again. You are full of wishful thinking that is not indicative of the law as it stands today.

You can hypothesize all you want but it is really nothing more than "wishful" thinking. Your theory has no basis in law. However the fact that native rights supercede the constitution is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 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 (b ) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired..(15) 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. You should note that the Charter has no authority or prescription over any First Nations. It applies to Canadian citizens only and in essence limits your rights and freedoms while telling Canadians that aboriginal rights and treaty rights preempt (cannot limit) any limitation contained in the Charter. I'll call your bluff as it is evident you haven't read any treaties. Try starting with legal documents including the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. No where in any treating is there an agreement for any sovereign First Nation to accept the laws of the Crown. Canada has no legal jurisdiction over First Nations, except those acquired through treaty. A treaty can only be made between two sovereign entities......

I think you should study "the law" more closely. Native rights aren't "special" they are "pre-exisiting. That means that the limits placed on you by government do not apply to them. Consitutionally - legally - their rights supercede yours, not because they are "special" but because legally the governments have no "special" control over them. So no matter what you "wish" the constitution to be, it guarantees that pre-existing native rights, or rights aquired through negotiation of treaties will continue. And the Supreme Court of Canada has held that those rights and practices cannot be limited in the same way that yours are. Just because you don't agree with the Constitution does it mean that it can be easily changed. Constitutional conferences are complex beasts and I can guarantee that there will not be one province or one delegate that would be willing to reopen it on the basis of your petition. Land ownership in Canada is not a right and "legally" there are all kinds of problems in trying to define it as one. The fact is that all lands in Canada are under the control of the Crown - the Queen of Canada - and when the Crown believes it is prudent, it can rearrange the living arrangements of the Queens subjects with the stroke of a pen. However, the Queen has lease agreements and treaties with First Nations which require them to not only be consulted but to be compensated and protected for certain uses. The terms of these "legal" agreements are constantly being challenged and ratified by the courts as the details and the interpretations of the agreements are being revealed. The issue of native rights, land ownership and resource protection is not a matter for the courts - as the Supreme Court has maintained - but is a matter of negotiation between First Nations and the Crown. New treaty negotiations are taking place all over Canada and their resolve will no doubt further release Native people from the constraints imposed on Canadians by law. If you "feel" that the laws limiting you are unfair then I suggest that you join some constitutional discussions and attempt to sway public opinion. However, you have no constitutional argument to arbitrarily limit people just because you feel slighted by the legal rights that were once afforded to all people but have since been limited by your willingness to be a Canadian.

None of the Above too. If I had to choose the best would be "humanist"

You have some 'splainin' to do... People were in the Americas more than 20,000 years before they reached Europia. There is more likely a chance the Europe was populated by natives than the other way around....

Well that might have BEEN you opinion but things change. It isn't up to you to decide who is a nation and who isn't. Harper just announced Quebec IS a nation. What that entails is yet to be seen. However, internationally it is probably sufficent to see Quebec starting to stand on its own feet. China says Taiwan is a province of thiers and Taiwan says they are a nation. The UN recognizes Taiwan as a separate entity to China. Quebec may very well end up in the same boat...... The other possibility is that Quebec will be able to move forward with its "separation" given that it is now recognized as a "nation". That's one birds of two that need to take flight before total sovereignty becomes formal...

Sure there are. It is called "It is the Fall the Kills You, Not the Sudden Stop at the Bottom" report. However, we're not talking about volcanoes. We're discussing the effects of second-hand smoke that is plagued with emotional rhetoric and almost no fact. Yet if we were to outlaw alcohol or driving using the same argument you can bet that nearly three quarters of the Canadian population would be demanding proof! Here is a fact for you: I had an uncle who smoked 2 packs a day, a pack of colts a day and a pouch of pipe tobacco every 3 days, as well as chewing in between. He was 96 when he died. His wife outlived him 3 more years. Perhaps the reason for their good health was their being physically active and eating non-commercially processed food. If the health community were to look into the instigators such as chemically enhanced products, antibiotic-laced meats and environmental smog we would all discover that corporatists cause cancer.......