Accountability Now

Please define what you mean by their land? They surrendered the land and all rights that we live on. I agree that any work or resource extraction done on reserves should be to their favor.

Ok...so it's not in the original treaties. It's just the bleeding hearts in the Supreme Court and the natives who have inflated their rights through the judicial system. I have zero sympathy when they say they don't get enough as its clear they get WAY more than what was originally agreed to.

You didn't even come close to answering my question. Where in the original treaties does it show this? I've looked a number of times and don't see it anywhere yet I hear natives continually talking about how we are not living up to the treaties. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I understand that court cases have come to this conclusion but where in the original treaties does it say that Canada must consult with the First Nations on anything?

I wonder how her band is going to treat her when she does get home. Most of the pressure for her to quit was from them saying "Come back now or lose your job!". That really sounds like they have her back!

The treaties are with the Queen and her successors. Would the PM qualify as a successor?

The writing is on the wall for these fools.

We should get a group of visible minorities comprised of 2nd Nations Canadians and have them blockade the reserves. The police wouldn't remove them because that would be racist too. Hmmmm....

I hear you on this one and the answer is no...i don't read them and I do sign them. I guess the difference is that I hold myself accountable when I do get screwed over on any deal where I haven't read over the terms. I may call them names but I still blame myself. Rick Mercer just posted a blast of the new OMNIbus bill saying its a deceitful way to get legislation across because most MPs admitted they don't actually read the whole thing. They just vote on what the party is voting. Yikes! The reason for that is because these new age legal documents take immense will power just to read nevermind actually comprehend. Conversely, the treaty documents are not that long and don't consist of too many pages. I don't think they can claim the same argument in that respect. Here is the link if you wanted to read through some of the treaties. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028653/1100100028654

If you have time you should read the treaties. Being an educated person of the 21st century....they seem fairly simple and easy to understand. Having said that, you are probably right in assuming the Natives may not have understood what they were signing. But is that our fault? You can't come back now and say....OH by the way....we didn't actually know what you were saying there....so give us back all that land and resources that you have developed and we'll go our own way. Remember....the Natives were in no real position to negotiate so whether they understood completely or not is somewhat irrelevant.

I have been trying to learn that myself. I definitely think there is some mismagement in some bands but how many...i don't know. I tend to be more objective when I look at disputes and I feel that we have had 140 years of subjectivity to blur things up. Put yourself back to when the treaties were signed. The British were coming from the East....the Yanks were invading from the South. There was two choices for the Natives....sign the treaties or risk being wiped out. Let's be honest.....if it would have gone the route of being 'wiped' out then we wouldn't ahve this problem today. Just ask the Newfies how their Native situation is doing since they wiped them out back in the day. Fortuneately (or unfortuantely) civilized minds prevailed and a deal was struck to allow for peaceful co-existance under the Crown. It was not peaceful coexistance as separate nations but as one. But for some reason, the Native poplulation feels that they are soverign or that they deserve soverignty. Howeve objectively speaking they gave up soverignty in the treaties. Its seems very clear to me and I would truly love to have a rational, non-emotional conversation with a member of the First Nations who disagrees with me on this only so that I can try and understand the injustice that has been done. Obviously there are individual situat

Topaz...the only deal that this government should honor is the original treaties. Any alteration or 'accord' after that fact was done by persuasion of some sort whether it was liberal or conservative and we are going to continute having this flip flopping as long as governments switch hands. The original treaty deal that was made was a business deal in that it was objective. You give us the land and we give you some money and things you will need to get by. However because our government is so flaky and is open to such broad interpretation, we have found ourselves tied up in subjective arguements that no one will ever win. Either go back to the orginal treaties or get rid of them all together.

That's only what I've heard

The blockades? I think there was one or two in every province ranging for 2 people per blockade to hundreds ( I think the Windsor one had that many) That day was just the national day of action. It will be interesting to see what happens on the global day of action on the 28th

I agree. It was a calculated risk and really what was the benefit as it was a no win situation. Arrest everyone and cause an international scene. However, if the blockades happen again then I think they have no choice but to step in.

The police obviously aren't scared to take down three women!

Look back at the conversation and see who started the attacks first. Nice try backing out now. I did state my specific arguement with canuckistani and he got it. You were so riled up that I questioned your study that you didn't see it. Simple comment on not liking the categories. And no I don't care if it was a subset of a subset...because I agreed with everything else. Did you hear that....I agreed with everything else so don't cut and paste someone else's work for me to look at. I would say you are the one that needs to consider leaving the forums but I'm sure it's the only thing you have in your life so that's not really an option. I'm done arguing on this as I do have other things to do.

You have yet to address any of my specific arguement. How can you compare road deaths in Japan versus other countries? I have no other problems with this article other than that. I'll wait for your answer but it better not be a summary of a previous study. BTW...I have been to most of the countries on that list. So yes...I get out much!

So you give a summary of the report. Way to go! Where in your condescending yammering do you actual offer an idea of your own? Read your post again and tell me what you brought to the argument besides repeating what the study was about? My specific argument was that I didn't agree with a couple categories. How do you compare road deaths with Japan when they widely use public transit compared to the US? I was not out to discredit the whole study...just pointing out the obvious. I'm sorry that closed minded people like you can't even have the conversation without getting your panties in a bunch.

LOL

My own thoughts were that I don't agree with having the road deaths and violence reflect on how we evaluate health. What have you contributed besides throwing comments from the peanut gallery?

What's my agenda? Telling people to think deeper? Not accept things on face value. Yup...that's one hell of an agenda. Your agenda is to ensure everyone completely agrees with you or else!

Have you guys heard about the Obamacare thing at all? Have you seen the division it has caused in the US? You don't think someone with a Pro-Obamacare stance COULD have an agenda to get their point across? I put could in bold because I'm not saying they are...I'm saying they could. I'm also not saying the US system is not suffering. Just saying to look deeper. But go ahead and believe what you want but I'm a little more skeptical because there is always an agenda!

Holy crap! Whine much? All I'm saying is you have to been suspicious of the agenda behind the study. I do believe there are people that have good intentions but there are a lot of studies founded on poor agendas. If you don't believe that then please tell me what world you live in because it must be heavenly there.

The treaties were written broadly for today's standards but not for the time they were written. Today's lawyers and lobbyists have had a field day with this because they can stretch the objectivity in fear of racism.