Accountability Now

The difference is that the current system has the Feds dictating how that money is to be spent once it gets transferred where as with Self Government, the band decides. As per the BC Treaty system: And who said anything about the money stopping? Nothing prevents me from saying I'm the best hockey player in the world. However reality does matter in the end and in the end, these bands are still under control of the Indian Act until they get the self government title. I can see that government may be more leniant with how the funds go out compared to the past however they are still in control of how those funds are spent. Its like living at home and being able to come and go as you please....however you are still under the control of your parents no matter what you tell people. Once you move out....then you are self governed. I certainly don't doubt that the bureaucracy of the system has been significantly reduced however the Feds still have final say on what gets governed until they are in fact self governing. I do agree with you in that a lot are driven by the land claims too.

Lol. Nice stretch but I'm not buying it. They are still ruled by the Indian Act until the point they achieve self government. They can negotiate all they which can also end up in the courts, however until they reach self government, the Feds are in control of the money that is given to them. At this point only 5% have self government which again conflicts with your 'many' comment. Let's put it this way, if getting self goverment agreement was no big deal then why the 99 other claims for self government in the works? PS...in the future you should use the quote button on the bottom as it actually includes the person's screenname and therefore notifies them that you are responding to their quote. Just makes it easier.

Not 'quibble' at all. A vast majority ( I think I counted 70 of 99) initiated their claims in the 1990s and they still haven't been implemented. Obviously someone is dragging their feet for some reason. I know you think its the government (with their 200 billion dollars in legal fees) however overthere made a good point about the First Nations stalling until future projects come to light. There is also the idea that a certain amount of these may never get it based on the fact that they won't meet the economic criteria set forth by the government to achieve self government

The luxury reference was to the people in those first nations who did not have a treaty and can use that as leverage to establish a modern treaty with more benefits than the preexisting ones. The reference was not to people neighboring those modern treaty areas however if the claims are reasonable then I would be happier to live next to an area that signed a modern treaty versus a disgruntled First Nation still pissed off about something their forefathers signed away years ago.

Nope. Certainly did not miss that at all. Of course your claim was that many First Nations already had self governments...not are negotiating for them. But if you want to change your statement the go for it. I don't mind.The reality is that I don't mind the idea of self government as long as they abide by the rules laid out at the the bottom of the linked page regarding the accountability required to become self governing. Only 23 out of the 617 have not disclosed their financial statements which isn't bad.

What do you mean by 'many'? According to the AANDC site, only 21 agreements covering 35 communities have been made. So that means 35 out of 617 which is around 5%. Doesn't seem like many to me and this is the total sefl government agreements....not just non-treaty areas. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016293/1100100016294

I would disagree that its with federal govt concurrance rather its through the courts.

The only reason this modern 'treaty' or land claim happened was because no treaty was signed back in the day. Most other locations don't have that luxury and hence will most likely have to live with the deal they signed.

What services are 'owed' to the First Nations from the Federal Government beyond health care and education? We outlined this above with the water and wastewater treatment facilities examples. The problem that exists is the treaties only list a few items that are the actual responsibility for the Feds but it is always thrown into their lap when various services are lacking. Keep in mind that most services that the rest of Canada sees are extracted from municipal or local taxes not Federal. In the limited examples we've seen, the Federal funding per capita is usually higher for reserves as providing these services to remote locations is not as efficient and cost effective. I have always said they are entitled to their treaties but I do think the treaties are screwing them over especially in places where econonmic sustainability isn't an option. As eyeball points out, there are a number of places were it is an option and these places flourish but those are far and few compared to the numbers that are not. But no matter how bleak things are they still want their treaties. I guess its easier to see the irony in this from the outside looking in.

I am quoting the 'exact' results and conclusions of what these scientists are saying and not twisting a word. I know it doesn't fit into you your agennda which is why you claim that I don't understand science. You make that claim to anyone on here that disagrees with you so I honestly couldn't care if you say it or not. Its rather meaningless coming from you. No...your reading skills have failed you. What was posted by the other poster was that the negative intervals do not mean that the flu vaccine would make you sick (ie have a negative benefit). He indicated that the sample size needs to be larger to zone in on those confidence intervals and get it above zero. I did agree with that. However the actual VE for the shot this year in Canada was next to zero. As per the INFLUENZA EXPERT: You keep chirping about how its going to protect us from the other strains but as Dr. Skrowronski said there aren't enough of these other strains to even assess. Hence what's it going to protect us from? Sure they may come later in the season, but the season typically peaks in January/February. PS....today is Febuary 20th. She also went on to say the following about the sample size which you said was too small: How many times do I have to explain that Canada is not the US. We are north of the border, they are south. Do you need a visual? The VE was 23% in the US. It was actually in negative number in Canada but as mentioned that only suggests it has no benefit. Here...as per the article you should have read the first time. Perhaps you are confused since the range goes from well below zero to 23% although the acutal VE stated is at -8%. Again...the US and Canada are different because they are actually seeing some matches going on there. Essentially none in Canada. So the old strawman...hey? Again...why is it all or none? I can either ask no questions or all questions according to you? This is your response? A medcial doctor who says his opinion was that it was an adverse reaction to the shot must now have lab samples to prove its the flu. Do you require that same sort of confirmation for the 3,000-43,000 people that allegedly die from the flu? In short....no. He never took samples just like he wouldn't take samples from most of the other people coming in for the flu LATER that season. Until they figure out what actually causes autism or other auto-immune diseases that have increased dramatically then YES they do need to answer the question becasue as you said....the reaction LOOKS like something associated to autism. There are still credible questions to be answered...not your flat earth ones....credible ones. See...your arrogance has blinded you once again. I have yet to INTERPRET anything. I have posted these studies and pasted the written conclusion of the scientists that wrote them. If you disagree with their findings then by all mean take it up with them and publish your findings that refute their paper. However, don't think that you have any sort of argument by saying that I'm 'misinterpreting' the data as I haven't. Again...this is a tactic you do with other posters yet you don't actually back it up. So what's your point on showing that its 'outside' of flu season. Trying to prove you can read? You failed that test many times already. Can someone please translate for me? I don't speak jibberish. Are you trying to say that the study shows fewer vaccinated people were dying? Wow....you continue to surprise me with your comprehension fails. Did you read the conclusion of the study....you know the part that actually tells you what they were looking for? Here...I'll post it AGAIN... The 51% redcution in mortality was most like a result of CONFOUNDING. Less deaths? No...other factors. Again...its a play on words that I have already said I don't like from either side. Vaccines 'eliminated' some and even 'eradicated' others however Vital Statistics/CDC shows the measles mortality REDUCED significantly before the vaccines came along. I have seen anti-vaxx sites claim the same about the other diseases but I haven't looked into it so I don't know. Of course by defintion, the vaccines eliminated/eradicated them. Thats the point with ALL of these studies. The data isn't accurate enough to be making strong conclusions....in other words the science isn't settled. When it comes to flu there are a number of factors that affect flu mortality including pre-existing condition, age, and even Vitamin D consumption (as per recent studies) So to rest your vaccine effectiveness on a direct relationship between number of people injected and number of deaths is quite broad and misleading. Oh good....I see you are this arrogant and abrubt with other posters on this site. Its not just me. Again...does everyone that disagree with you get told they don't understand science and have idiotic ideas? Really...they didn't fudge numbers? Apparently you didn't read the multiple follow up studies on the same thing that RE-DID the numbers where your study failed immensely. Like this one from 2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210121/). They found so many errors and confounding that it brought the numbers down significantly. But you didn't cherry pick your particular study for a reason...did you? It also notes the actual extra lives saved could be partly due to the introduction of antiviral medication....not just the vaccine. Of course....I will bring up the question of how can you even count the number of people saved from influenza death when you can't even know how many died in the first place? I also think its interesting that you chose to focus on Japan...a country that banned the MMR vaccine, still doesn't have a mumps vaccine and is now not allowing doctors to promote the HPV vaccine. I guess the question at the end of the day is if your study is true and so effective then why has Japan removed themselves from mandatory flu vaccination and why are they moving themselves from others as well? Perhaps there are risks that outweigh the reward? Ok....remove vomitting and stomach pain. Up to 10% will get swelling at the injection site, fever, chills, malaise, chest tightness. Over 10% will feel fatigue. But yet 0% will get any protection. Another comprehension fail but this one is bad. Do you know what the word 'has' means? It means it did....in the past. The paper you quoted this from was written in 1999 and even at that point the author was stating Eradication HAS been defined many ways. If you would have read a little further down the paper, you would see where he offers current definitions which were the purpose of the Dahlen Workshops held in 1997. Definitions that were intended for the medical community to move forward on: Elimination of disease:Reduction to zero of the incidence of a specified disease in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued intervention measures are required. Example: neonatal tetanus. Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis. Eradication: Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox. So Macleans had since 1997 to get this right but yet they're still using eradicated on a local scale? They even break out Elimination further....and measles isn't even Elimination of the disease in the US but rather Elimination of infections. Just another connotative pleasing touch to say it that way. Acutally they said it was eradicated in North America...not just the US. And as proven above they are not using the CORRECT defintion as per the ones agreed to in 1997. But hey...if you are ok with misusing defintions then there is a lot of truth to what the anti-vaxxers say. The defintion was not correct. You didn't even finish reading the paper that you Googled. You must have been so happy when you read that first line...like a kid in a candy shop. Your ignorance should just not be used at all. A good what? Cat's got your tongue? Scientific modeling is good when you have great data and are able to dial in using controls. The data on influenza is not great and therefore the models are only so good. Once more appropriate data is accumlated, data which breaks out characteristics and demographics, then these models will be more meaningful. Until then the science is not settled.

By nonsense do you mean the multiple scientific studies that I provided or is it the numerical facts that I have posted? I can agree that anti-vaxxers most often will argue with anectodal evidence but I have not done that here, so your claim above is completely invalid and proof positive that any speculation of the vaccination industry leads to such statements. Claims? Do you means scientifc studies? You know the TWO studies that I showed for the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in Canada. The risks were also outlined as per scientific studies and per the manufacturer of the vaccine themselves. Please outline where I have made a CLAIM that I have haven't supported with scientific evidence. You're really on a roll here. If I've made a claim that I have taken out of context then by all means step up and show it. At this point you are making baseless accusations. I agree. Its also a problem when other valuable information is presented and people have their head's in the sand and won't validate it because 'the science is settled'. That has been a major point of mine. Both sides have issues they need to deal with. Again...you are saying that the 'science is settled' when its not. Studies have proven adjuvants can cause inflammation which again is a notable trait in children with autism. There is a new question now. Not does it cause autism but does it aggrevate the condition. Pardon the pun, but science is not immune to questions. As long as people have questions then science has to provide the answers. You have to remove the arrogance from it or you end up in athe place we are now. Quite frankly, this whole vaccine debate will not go away until more questions are asked and answered. Interesting. So my doctor that looked at me who said that I had an adverse reaction is wrong because you say so. I'll make sure I stop by his office to let him know. I'm glad that you are fixated on the one week line but maybe focus more on the 'about' part. I apolgize that 10 years ago I wasn't documenting exactly how many days it was from the shot to the start of my illness. I do remember a period of a couple days prior where I wasn't feeling great but I passed that off as it wasn't as bad as what was about to come. Now...as for the chances of it being another strain. Well...I got the shot quite early in the flu season that year which is why the medical doctor felt it was more likely that it was an adverse reaction because the flu count was so low at the time. I have no problem admitting that it could be an adverse reaction or a different strain, however based on this evidence the doctor felt it was the former and I agreed with him. With that being said, I don't rely on anecdotal evidence. If you would have read the question asked of me and actually read the response you would have seen that I had this issue happen and then I started to look into the science which is where I made my decision. But perhaps you did read it because you cropped it from my quote above. I guess it just didn't fit into your agenda...hey? Wow....3,000 all the way to 49,000 hey. That is some fine precision. LOL. Of course you didn't come up with that number, its an ESTIMATE from the CDC. An estimate you say? Why yes....the CDC even says they do not KNOW how many people die from the flu each year. But you have NO problem trottting out these numbers do you. Here's a bit more on it if you feel like educating yourself (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm). Now with that said, it is quite obvious that you either missed or chose to overlook TWO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that shows that the flu vaccine doesn't actually prevent mortality. So even if you're numbers are remotely correct, it doesn't matter as it is not proven that the flu shot actually prevents death. http://www.atsjourna...cm.200802-282oc Quote Confounding meaning that the people who naturally get flu shots are more likely to be healthier in the first place. Here's a more recent study: http://archinte.jama...ticleID=1108809Estimating Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Community-Dwelling Elderly Patients Using the Instrumental Variable Analysis MethodFREE Kenny Wong, MPH; Michael A. Campitelli, MPH; Thérèse A. Stukel, PhD; Jeffrey C. Kwong, MD, MSc Background Estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in elderly individuals are largely from observational studies, which are susceptible to bias. Instrumental variable (IV) methods control for overt and hidden biases in observational studies. Methods We used linked health administrative databases in Ontario to examine the association between influenza vaccination and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling individuals older than 65 years for 9 influenza seasons (2000-2001 to 2008-2009). We examined the composite of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza and all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. We used logistic regression modeling and IV analysis to remove the effect of selection bias. Results We included 12 621 806 person–influenza seasons of observation. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) for all-cause mortality during influenza seasons and 0.85 (0.83-0.86) during post–influenza seasons when influenza is not circulating, suggesting the presence of bias. In contrast, IV analysis yielded adjusted odds ratios of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.03) during influenza seasons and 1.13 (1.07-1.19) during post–influenza seasons. For the composite of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza and death, logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70-0.78) during influenza seasons and 0.88 (0.87-0.90) during post–influenza seasons, whereas IV analysis produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 1.02 (0.97-1.06), respectively. Conclusions Influenza vaccination is associated with reductions in the composite of hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza and all-cause mortality during the influenza season but not mortality alone. Compared with standard modeling, IV analysis appears to produce less-biased estimates of vaccine effectiveness. Influenza causes substantial mortality in people 65 years or older.1- 4Annual vaccination is recommended to reduce the burden of influenza in this age group.5,6 However, the evidence in support of vaccinating older adults against influenza stems primarily from observational studies, which are susceptible to bias.7 Past observational studies suggest that influenza vaccines reduce all-cause mortality in the elderly by approximately 50%.8 Recent studies observing similar mortality reduction among vaccinated individuals during non–influenza seasons suggest potential bias in such studies.9- 13 Because influenza has been estimated to account for less than 10% of all deaths during winter periods, it seems implausible that vaccination could reduce all-cause mortality during influenza seasons by approximately 50%.14A recent Cochrane review concluded that the available evidence is of poor quality15; thus, the true effectiveness of influenza vaccination in the elderly population is uncertain.16 Individuals who engage in health-promoting behaviors may be more likely to get vaccinated, whereas very sick individuals may be less likely to receive vaccine.9,10,17 This difference in underlying health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may artificially overestimate vaccine effectiveness.9,17,18 Traditional analytical strategies (eg, stratification, restriction, matching, and regression modeling) cannot adjust for unobserved confounders or control for nonrandom treatment allocation.19 No randomized controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of influenza vaccines against mortality have been conducted. The objective of this study was to use instrumental variable (IV) analysis, a method designed to control for unmeasured confounding, to obtain unbiased estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness against all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza (P&I) in the elderly population. Where you could begin is actually knowing what you are talking about. So far I'm the one providing scientific studies to back my claims while you're provding verbal diahhrea. Now....speaking of studies, here's another one that illustrates that antibodies in naturally. Also shown in the news article I posted earlier, they spoke about how your immunity actually goes down if you have subsequent flu shots. So let me get this straight. If my body fights of a cold or bacteria then its getting a work out that will help to fight influenza? Really? You do realize the immune system is one stop shop. We have different immune responses (antibodies) for each one....so...no it won't help. My point is that getting the flu will actually give you the specfic antibodies to that strain naturally. As pointed out above, having natural immunity is better than what the vaccine will provide. 'Might'...and 'some'. Can you qualify this for me? I haven't had the flu vaccine or been ill since my issue 10 years ago. In that 10 years I haven't had the flu shot. Many others claim the same and I understand its purely anecdotal but it does stand to reason that even if a dominant strain is out there that one will not automatically get sick. So by HOW MUCH will a partly effective vaccine prevent one from getting sick? First off...the 23% is in the US. As per the two articles/studies I posted, in Canada its next to zero. With that said, do you know what the 23% means? Of the x amount of virus strains out there, 23% are the strain that happens to be in the vaccine. This now automatically assumes that if you get the vaccine you are 100% certain to be immune from that strain which is not true. In some of the studies I've seen they rate vaccine effectiveness for matched strains around 75-85%. And as I point out above, your immunity will decrease simply by having subsequent flu shots. So combined, how effective is the shot even when its matched. So....in Canada since its zero percent effective then that means there is neglible amount of those strains circulating. So go ahead and get the shot but you won't have much luck finding those strains however you will have 10% chance at some discomfort. It was in the articles I posted. Perhaps it wasn't a 'don't bother' thing more than it was a don't rely on it. They recommended taking alternative actions based on the dismal performance of the vaccination. As mentioned, in Canada those strains are only negligably circulating....hence the low vaccine effectivness. So no...you are gettng no reward. Not to mention, you still do have to deal with the risks which are not negliable (as shown on the manufacturers site). Well I saw this on the acutal Fluviral sheet from GSK. (http://www.gsk.ca/english/docs-pdf/product-monographs/Fluviral.pdf) Very common being greater than 1/10 and common being up to 1/10. Other vaccines have 24% for muscle aches and 20% for fatigue. Again...if the number is so low as it is in Canada then there is no reward but you do have the above stated risks. So I guess they did say such a thing! LMFAO....you are as slippery as they are. I asked you to define ERADICATED and you end up supplying me the definition for ELIMINATED but felt it was ok because you put it in quotes? The actual official defintion to ERADICATED is elimination on a world wide scale. You cannot eradicate something on a North American scale. Furthermore, ERADICATION means no future measures are required whereas ELIMINATION means continued measures are still needed. At no point did the US stop giving vaccines, so NO...it was never eradicated. My bone of conention on this was that the Macleans article misused the word ERADICATED when its not correct and its still not correct despite your best efforts. Overall when it comes to vaccines I think the statistics aren't great to begin with. As shown, the deaths from flu are simply an estimate. We guess at what the effective rates are? etc. However the largest area that needs to improve is getting more information on the people taking the vaccine and separating out certain pre-existing condtions. Right now it seems to lump everyone in as the same which we know from the measles decline in the 50s is not valid when it comes to such diseases.

Yes....you are right "And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."

I agree that sovereignty is taken however the proclamation also states the following: "We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements." I don't think the answer for non-treaty land can be found in the RP

Another mature comment. Don't worry. I'd walk away too if I couldn't comprehend the argument. Have fun on Planet Earthling! Don't forget your daily dose of pixies!

Yes....we have. However it's pretty obvious that you don't seem to acknowledge truths even if it hits you in the face. The legal fees example is proof of that

Actually it is. Look at SmallC's comment above about them agreeing to be subjects to the Queen. That my dear is soverignty.

LMFAO. The way you make it out, this Bull was one of the greatest CRIMES against humanity. And now this book about CRIME doesn't apply. Nice try bub. You can't have it both ways. I never dragged it into this point. It was presented in other points. You really have a tough time with this....don't you? In the apology versus repudiation part we were talking about the Vatican repudiating the Bull with the subsequent Bull. In turn I said that this was repuduation which was a large part of the apology. Hence.....part and parcel. Now do you have it? What? Are you five years old? I said squirm in my first line response and now all you can do is say it back 7 times. No I'm not but you are!!!!!! You can use that one next time. PS...I posted the defintion to provide clarity to the conversation, something that you struggle with immensely. Can you please focus here. We are talking about Canada and First Nations here yet you now bring up Spain and Portugal. As you say, the Vatican is just one part. There were other churches and other influences but no influence was greater than the King which gave the Royal Proclamation. Again....it stated no Indians to be harmed. So the OFFICIAL mandate of the Vatican and the Royal Proclamtion by 1693 both protected native rights. You have two official mandates but you are focused on the one mandate that was already overtaken by the second? Again with the squirm hey. Yikes. I'm rubber and you're glue.... This is quite simply. The Natives were still the enemy. Regardless of the proclamation, the Europeans were still had wars with the natives. Some started by the Europeans and some started by the natives. Here are a list of the ones easily found on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America). When you war with people you generally do things that aren't good. Just look what happens during cease fires. Because of these wars, the Natives were viewed as the enemy and even though the greater picture (Proclamation and Vatican) wanted them unharmed, it wasn't always possible. On the same note....why did the Natives rape, pillage and murder the other native tribes. Was that because of the Bull too? You don't seem to answer me on that one. We have laws in place against murder, assault and rasiscm but yet those things still happen all the time. Who's to blame for that? My context was just fine until you cropped it and tried to answer a question with a question. Here....I'll post it again: So....the endgame is to get back what was 'taken'. So it is about levarge for soverignty talks. Thanks. Ok...I'll play your game. What does repudiation from the Vatican look like to you? Yes...I've noted your earthling crap before. Good luck with that. By the way, the door out of Canada is always there for you to leave. Good fences make good neighbors. You want a world with no borders? See how long that would last. This is the most defeatist and victim attitude that I have ever heard. I was actually going to respond with how First Nations people can easily add to Canada in a lot of good ways but why bother....you don't care about solutions...just problems. The ordinary Canadians haven't seen an impact yet and if it stays that way then you're right...they'll shrug. However, if some of these claims start hitting closer to home then you will see people start to care. The Idle No More rallies were proof of this. A lot of people didn't take to kindly to the road blocks and other tactics they did. Of course the Theresa Spence thing was interesting too. So....lay it out. What does this skillfully excuted repudiation look like?

Yup. That's in there too. Subjects to her Majesty but still they have their own soverignty.....right!

Wow...I love how you squirm out of these things. I offered you proof from the Handbook for Restorative Justice and now that's not good enough? Now you want something between the Crown and a First Nation. The Bulls weren't about the Crown though....they were about the Vatican. So what good does that do in this example? No...its just a definiton which I pulled from the internet. Take it or leave it...I don't care Again...is the Vatican to blame if certain people listen to one thing and not the other. With that said, who were the people following the Vatican at that time... Catholics? In Canada that would be mostly the French who were Catholic who gave up their conquest of Canada which then gave way for the Royal Proclomation of 1693. Even at that point in history the Royal Proclamation states that the indigenous are not to be harmed....contrary to the first Bull and inline with the second. Answering questions with questions. How deflecting of you. Don't feel like answering that one? Our end game is the same as what our pre game move was. To build Canada.....not to build Canada with a bunch of separate nations within Canada. If the First Nations want to be a part of Canada then great if they want to continue their fight to exist as separate nations then the battle will continue. You keep forgetting. Canada is NOT the Vatican. Even our foundations are not entirely based on the Vatican. The current government has already separated itself from the church so what would anything the Vatican does have to do with our government. Additionally....our government has already apologized and paid billions for the Residential schools with more to come. Again...what does the Vatican apology do here? Are they looking for money from the Vatican? Or is it leverage in future discussions? I believe in Canada....not Canada and a bunch of separate First Nations. I get that you don't give a crap about Canada or its soverignty but some people do. I also care about Quebec leaving or idiots in Alberta who occasionally talk about separating. So anything that affects Canada as a whole affects me. Of course I wouldn't need to explain the importance of soverignty to other places in the world like the Ukraine or the Middle East but since you have never had to worry about it, apparently its no big deal. When you say indigenous people can add...what do you mean by that? Add to the treaties? Add to society? It has nothing to do with a hold over from the Church. Rather, it's the letigous frame work of our society that makes it this way. You can't comment or say anything now without there being some sort of ramifciaiton. Its not just our government but other governments of the world that have learned this. As such they drag their feet to ensure they say it exactly the way it needs to be said. If they can't find a way then they just don't say it much to the chagrin of people like yourself. Again...our governments have already separated themselves from the Church. We can't even say Christmas anymore! And again...our government has apologized for the direct ramifciations they caused. I'm just curious....is there any point where the Indigenous accept responsibily for their future or will it always be looking at edicts from the 1400s?

Come on jacee...now you're just playing silly. You know that part in pretty much every treaty that states "hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion"....that is them surrendering soverignty and you know it. Of course, you also think that the goverment spent $200 billion on legal fees so I should say what you actually know.

Good. I only had to say it three times. From the Handbook of Restorative Justice I offer the following: https://books.google.ca/books?id=U2UQBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=restorative+justice+handbook+apology+repudiate&source=bl&ots=1km5xaDh4R&sig=jj6WZAW2NagjBlJNtrad40xqDqE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hqzkVN_VLMLvoASphILwCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=restorative%20justice%20handbook%20apology%20repudiate&f=false So as you can see in the above example, repudiation is a PART of an apology hence its part and parcel. Now just to make sure we're on the same page, the defintion for part and parcel is "PART AND PARCEL means essential portion or element, integral part, a vital part of a larger entity." So looking at the example with the Bulls, the first Bull stated the atrocity which was then reputiated by the second Bull which repealed the message of the first Bull. If you are going to put so much emphasis on the first bull then I have to ask why not the second? The only thing missing is in fact the formal apology which again is that truly what the First Nations of Canada want OR do they want more? What is their endgame on this eyeball? If the Vatican actually came out and said we offer an apology and reputdiate that first Bull, would that be it? Would the First Nations then drop it or would they be on the hunt for reparations in the form of sovereignty? I'm sure its the latter. Interestingly enough, I was reading a blurb on Slavery in the US and how the US government hasn't officially aplogized. Apparently, it came close in 2009 when the Senate approved but the House couldn't quite figure out the exact wording. Apparently the wording had to include that any stated apology would not authorize or support any claim against the US. I think the Church is looking at it the same way since even Pope Benedict expressed 'sorrow' for the Residential Schools but did not offer a formal apology.

Ok....so let's recap here. Above we were talking about your claim that I was an 'apologist' for the Bulls. From 'apologist' for the Bulls you somehow derailed yourself by stating: "According to your logic the definition for apology is the same as it is for repudiate." You then proceeded to give definitions for apology and repudiate even though we weren't talking about apologies to the indigenous but rather being an apologist for the Bulls. To clarify this I asked you which definition of the three you provided was the one which you felt I was the same for apology....full well knowing that they weren't the same trying to show you that once again you have jumped to a conclusion that is unwarranted. Hence me saying...you know where this is going. You went on a little tizzy after that refusing to point out which definition of repudiate provided would match allegedly according to me....again at this time knowing that I never said they were the same. Now you're pointing back to the original news article to again deflect from your initial mistake that we were talking about your claim of me being an 'apologist for the Bulls' and not an apology from the Church. So....to clear this up because we all know you need the help with clarity: 1. I am fully aware that the Church was not a pristine organization nor would I apologize for their actions that I now consider to be immoral 2. I am fully aware that apology and repudiate are not the same however typically they are used part and parcel in the reconciliation process. Having said that your idea of repudiate included to move forward after the apology and I simply showed that the church had already repudiated the earlier Bull by presenting the later Bull stating the indigenous were to have the same liberties. The only thing left at this point is symbolic apology. Again the people in the article choose the word repudiate because it gives them more leverage for crown discussions than an apology. This is all about leverage.

Just give me one....or do you see where this is going and are trying to deflect?

Here...let me clarify your inability to understand YOUR previous quotes: Which definition of repudiate are you claiming that I think is the same as apology. You only gave 3...

Look at your definition....lets count them. 1. refuse to accept or be associated with. "she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders" synonyms: reject, renounce, abandon, give up, turn one's back on, disown, cast off, lay aside; More 2. deny the truth or validity of."the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses" synonyms: deny, contradict, controvert, rebut, dispute,dismiss, brush aside; formalgainsay "Hansen repudiated the allegations" 3. LAWrefuse to fulfill or discharge (an agreement, obligation, or debt). "breach of a condition gives the other party the right to repudiate a contract" synonyms: cancel, revoke, rescind, reverse, overrule,overturn, invalidate, nullify; More Do you see those numbers.....1, 2 and 3. That means there are three ways to use it. And no...I'm not going to play your 'stupid' way. I prefer that people who are trying to make a point actually make one....if they can.