Accountability Now

Just to be clear....Canada is in the bottom half for NET JOB CREATION (Difference of Employment Rates over the 2008-2012 period. Canada remains in the top 10 for Employment Rates.

Thats right. I care more about current issues that debating on theoretical stuff from the past. Rights....as in it was theirs. Europeans would say ownership....First Nations might say territory. I don't know all of the tribes that historically roamed every part of Canada. I'm sure they had large territorties but still some area were probably untouched as there wasn't a ton of natives (even with 30 million people today we don't really inhabit all the land) I would assume the Inuit would have inhabited the NWT.

Practically in every treaty they signed. I've only quoted this to you about five times. Would you like me to quote it again?

So your premise is that you don't agree with it. Prove why you don't agree with it....if you want. I don't really care either way. I have yet to say if I agree or disagee so I have to do nothing. Just another fine example of how you fly off on tangents just so you can have something to talk about. They had rights to the land or sovereignty because there was no one there to challenge it. With that being said, I am referring to 'they' as the collective First Nations or natives. The reality is that individual tribes most likely reliquished rights to given areas all the times as they would wage war on each other. As a group however, they started to reliquish their sovereignty with each treaty they signed. Ok....I said you attempted to justify it in two ways but according to you all that babbling about immoral laws in immoral times really had nothing to do with anything.Thats fine. Your real justification as bolded in red font above was also addressed as the second of your two justfications. As shown here Thank you for admitting that your first point was nonsense. However your second point has been attended to a number of times with the my arguement that the people who make and uphold laws today have continued to uphold these laws. So you can no longer go back to the people who wrote this law and blame them as its been 32 years since our last consitiution where elected officials continually endorse these laws. And of course thats being generous in assuming we only had elected control since 1982. This is just like the US ammendment with the right to bear arms. That ammendment was drafted in a time where US was at war with Britain and it was put in place to allow its residents to protect themselves from any invaders. I think its fair to say that time has passed but the law makers in the US continue to back this ammendment. They can no longer blame their forefathers for this....they own this one now. Just like current day Canada owns the treaties. If we don't want them, then we have to change them or get rid of them. Doing nothing is acceptance. Not really. You realize that cutting them off cold turkey would only cause riots which is why I would suggest taking the more literal meanings of the treaties as this would create a phase out program rather than a cold turkey one. In then end both of us agree the treaties should be honored to prevent riots. Show me where I have done this. I think its quite fair to say that you have shown the tendancies to mixing things up and misinterpreting not just sentences but actual words. Perhaps you are still confused?

I don't need to prove your premise. That's your job. No. The rights to use land or landownership comes from sovereignty....the supremacy of authority as excercised by an independant state. Essentially I believe that soverignty is the ability to protect your borders. A good example of Canada's soverignty came to light in the Artic when US and Russian subs were sailing in our waters and we knew nothing about it. As such if we can't protect that area then is it really ours? Of course in the past it was simply about a country waging war on another country and taking their lands. In modern times we have global alliances such as NATO and the UN that serve to protect the sovereignty of smaller countries. So its now a lot more difficult to just take it. Getting back to the native issue, when they signed the treaties they agreed to accept Canadian/British law and to be dependent to the Canadian/British government....as such they relinquished their sovereignty and therefore their rights to the land. That's why I find it funny (ha ha funny...not strange) when I hear of native groups wanted to talk nation to nation. You can believe what ever you want which appears to be the case becasue even after me saying that I don't believe their rights to the lands exist you still persist on asking me to prove they do exist. Wow. If you want to know why natives think their rights to land still exist then I can't tell you that either. Again...I think they believe they never relinquished their rights which I believe to be false. I didn't just state it was flawed, I gave you examples to show you that it was flawed. Now...where is this so called response to my counter arguement? All I see you doing is babbling on about the difference between a claim, postition and justification. I see nothing in terms of a response that adds something new. I even asked "If you have another justification for your baseless claim then present it, otherwise put your tail between your legs and run off." So what can you do? You can present some other justification that you haven't pushed forward yet or walk away. Your choice. So you agree with me that the treaties should be honored. Good. That wasn't so hard now....was it? Umm...no...you just haven't been able to keep up. Go back and see what I said about our current law makers upholding these laws. Lawmakers that are elected. Law makers that can change these laws if we desire it. Laws that can be questioned and changed if necessary. Perhaps you should take a day or two to review and then get back to me. The reality is that you clearly have something you want to say and are just looking for an audience to say it to. As such you pick out the teeny tinyest spot in people' statements and then go off on that tangent when the whole time you gloss over the important bulk of what has been said. I didn't think you would struggle that much with English. Most people on here wouldn't have this issue.

This is one that you need to print off and put in a frame as it truly highlights your perpetual fails. Originally, you claimed that I was IMPLYING that the authority of these laws SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED. I then reposted my original post and asked you where in that post I said or implied that we should not question it. Hell....I even put your comments in red to make it easier on you and that still didn't work. For the umpteenth time, it is ok to question the treaties or any other laws we have today. And people in the CURRENT system can also use force to change the way things were done in the PAST....IF NEEDED. Again...the system is built on the past but not confined to it. You're still trying to figure out what a strawman is. I don't think you're ready for ad hominem. You really struggle with the English language....don't you? I thought it was just your reading comprehension but in fact its that you don't understand that words can have different meanings. Let me provide you with the definition of 'funny': Funny: 1. Causing laughter or amusement; humerous 2. Difficult to explain or understand;strange PS. I highlighted the one in red to give you a hint of which version I may have been using. Or would you rather have me spell this out for you? Ah....now after pages of you bumbling and stumbling around you finally figure it out. Perhaps if you would actually read what I said rather than jumping off on your self serving tangent you would have seen that I was never stating that their authority was absolute even though you wanted me to say that so that you would have something to spew on about. Again...reading helps you understand. I suggest you try it sometime.

Are you serious here? Your claim was just that...baseless. I hardly approached it when you first said as I just commented that I don't really question their authority. No attack or misrepresentation at all. BUT THEN....you go off defending your baseless claim using these two justification points. 1. Illustrating that these people created and lived in an era with other immoral laws 2. Illustrating these people were not elected and properly entitled based on merit. As I showed both of your justification points are flawed which therefore makes your baseless claim flawed too. If you have another justification for your baseless claim then present it, otherwise put your tail between your legs and run off. Do you drink a lot? The fact that you would make this statement clearly shows that you can't comprehend anything that has been said. In fact I have clearly stated that I am against the reserve system, the Indian act and I am in favor or reexamining the 'racicst laws". I highlighted your post because you even quoted my post that shows where I said this: Again...you get so riled up about me saying that we should honor the treaties but yet you COMPLETELY and TOTALLY gloss over what I say about how we should honor them. If we honor the treaties to the word they were written then it would make them leave the reserves and the pass over the treaties. As you mentioned, you can't just cut off the treaties as it would cause chaos.

Oh and the drama flares up again. Sigh....whoa is me! Oh the insanity of it all!!! I understand that you have problems reading even the clearest of statments so I guess I should not expect you to understand the tone of statements. However, you were the one trying to chastice me about the "us" versus "them" when this statement first came out but now you are saying that I am on their side and agree they should be treated as a nation. Can you please get it togehter already. No...I disagree with the premise that First Nations own territory...something that you based your whole long winded post on. First off....having rights to use the land is different than owning the land. You have the right to use crown land for hunting or fishing or to even purchase the mineral rights....that does not mean you own the land. Secondly....you clearly don't understand the dichotomy involved here. An agreement was struck by two groups who had different meanings of what was happening. As such you need to explore the plausiblity of both sides. The British believed in land ownership and the Natives did not beleive in ownership but the right to use the land. So saying that we own the land doesn't actually work within the frame work of this agreement however saying that the natives ceded and surrendered all rights to the land does as it satisifes both sides as the Brits get the land and Natives don't. As for the moral justification.....there is no moral justification. A deal was made by the natives based on looming pressure of continued settlements from the British and attacks from the Americans. They made a best case decision not based on morality but for something that would keep them from extinction. You could argue that the British weren't morally in tact for making such agreements when they could have just all lived happily together but the reality is that if the natives were to continue on as their own nation and the Brits did the same then that would have made both sides more vulnerable....moreso the natives though. As such it probably was the best moral decision based on the circumstances.

Sure it does. We've been talking about laws and lawmakers in Canada and you deviate over to human rights issues around the world. Apples to oranges or as you like to say...strawman! As for my claim...it was against the law back then to steal or to murder just the same as it is now. So no retraction needed.

No...your position from the start was this: Your justififcation to your position came in two separate ways: 1. Illustrating that these people created and lived in an era with other immoral laws 2. Illustrating these people were not elected and properly entitled based on merit. When I commented on this you went off on a tangent talking about all the immoral laws and the periods for which these laws played out. So I responded in kind to show you your fallacies in the context of those immoral periods and laws. I even addressed your second justification point by showing that we still have these treaties and laws in place today which have been upheld by our current constitution of 1982 from which elected officials were used. As such your second justification, which you now claim is your main one, is false as well. Is this ANOTHER one of your famous misinterpretations? What I actually said was: I never said that THE LAWS regaring First Nations should not be questioned (but don't let me stop you from making your strawman). I said I don't really question the authority of the people that originally made them. AS IN....its not really that important in the grand scheme of things. We can and should question every law to ensure we continue to make laws that are right based on our current moral standing and knoweldge base. The fact is that these people made such laws that are STILL in power today. As such, you can question their authority as much as you can question the authority of the same law makers today. Ok...look at your examples....American Revolution (USA), French Revolution (France) Norman Invasion (England), and Japan. Of those four examples, three of them are free to make whatever changes they want to their consitution with the only exception being Japan. They could even rewrite their constitution if they wanted to. Japan is the only exception and its because of war time measures that may not be as firm as once thought (I don't know this for sure...). I would question if the UN or the US would really be against Japan re-taking control over its own governance at this point. The other three examples have current election process every number of years where the people elect a group that will carry out laws AS PER the will of the current day people. Take the US for example....one of the ammendments of their constitution is the right to bear arms. We know that this is a highly contentious issue that has a possibility of being altered because the CURRENT day people want it to be so regardless of what was imposed by their forefathers. As such, the authority of all laws DOES NOT depend of past laws but is built off them and made better. But in no way is it held captive to those past laws so don't confuse it as such. As you allude to....I would question the morality of the law but since I don't live in Saudi Arabia, I cannot question the law itself. Of course, I find it funny that this law has stood for so long and their own people don't question it. Perhaps the majority of the people are in agreement with this law regardless of how a few westerners like you and I would feel. If it was so bad and so immoral then one would expect the people to rise up. Of course, that notion may again be only applicable to westerner like us. And as shown above, we have the CURRENT power to change those laws making their past authority trivial which is why again I don't question their authority.

Misinterpret or just couldn't keep up? Go back one step in that exchange and you will see where I said this quote below. Again....reading will help you understand. This is hilarious. There is no legitimacy because even First Nations didn't believe they 'owned' the land in the first place! It wasn't an issue of ownership it was an issue of territories and who got to use which lands. Europeans were the ones to impose the idea of title to the land which is something that native activists claim was foreign or misunderstood by the First Nations. As such your attack on the legitimacy of First Nations ownership stops right at the beginning. In my opinion, the native cheifs knew what was happening when signing the treaties. They knew that their rights to the lands were taken in these treaties and they did this willingly as a result of the current situation. Not only did you have the Brits continually expanding from the east but you also had the Yankees coming from the south. Ultimately the natives were used as pawns by British in order to fight off the pending Yankee invasion in 1812. This was a sign for the natives that the 'white' man was not stopping and that the best route for their survival was treaties. This unification happened under British law and ultimately made our country. There were two possible scenarios for the natives... team up with the British and take what they would give them OR die at war. If it wasn't by the hand of the Brits then it would have been the Yanks. Either way....they knew their time was up. Just my opinion of course.

Strawmaning someone's position now counts as 'pointing out the fallacies' now? No. Let me show you from this site (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) Description of Straw Man The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. You provided position X stating that "I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today." Your position from the start has been that they did not have the authority to make these laws. I responded by saying "They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority". I wasn't even offering a position Y and any rebuttal was anything but exaggeration or distortion. You then provided your own distorted Position Y as to why Position X is correct in saying that because other laws considered immoral today were crafted during the same time as the treaties, then that means these people didn't have the authority to make these treaties as shown by "Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes." I then pointed out the fallacy of Position Y by showing you that not all laws created by these 'immoral' people were in themselves immoral just because you pointed out a few immoral laws that existed at the time. Its not an all or none thing....as such their authority can not be based on a changing moral landscape. I also went further to directly refute your opening Position X by showing that the current law has nothing to do with the past authority. If a law still stands today then it still has authority until the day it is changed. As such I don't question their authority to make the laws since our current lawmakers continue to uphold the law. I'm fine with questioning the law itself but saying they didn't have the authority is flat out ridiculous. You even came full circle on this one by stating "The reason racist laws from this time period are immoral is because they are racist, not because the time period they are from is immoral." I agree with what you say HERE but I'm not sure why all the verbal diarrhea over the other immoral laws and the authority of the people at the time. I guess your strawman got away from you....hey? I understand you position. But I still disagree with how much legitimacy you give the treaties. I question the legitimacy of the treaties in the first place to make various laws today (even if they are being misinterpreted) due to a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I would advocate a position where you throw them completely out the window (that would obviously cause conflicts, riots, etc.). But I do not thing it is helpful to the discussion of native issues for people to give the treaties more legitimacy than they deserve. I'm giving the bare minimum of legitamacy. I admit that our forefathers signed this deal and that we should honor it to the word the deal says. Have you read the treaties? They are fairly clear on the natives ceding and surrendering all rights to the lands and outlining what is to be done. Again...I believe they were deisigned to do so because the Brits thought the natives would eventually assimilate and these treaties would be gone. My stance is that if the natives want their treaties....then fine....let them have it but to the word they were written. Not some interpretation by some bleeding heart. Even this is untrue. There have been plenty of exceptions to the rules of laws being against stealing or murder. Honor killings, killing of apostates in an Islamic state, killing of wives that have been unfaithful are examples of exceptions to laws against murder that have occurred in human history. As for not stealing, have you ever heard of expropriation? There are plenty of examples (especially after socialist revolutions) of the state just stealing property from private individuals. Are you serious? We're talking about Canada and the evolution of laws here and you are now stretching and distorting this to HUMAN history? Wow...now that is a strawman. Lol. Try and keep it on the tracks already! Again with the strawman. I have never claimed that the legitimacy of a law depends on the moral landscape of a society under which the laws were drafted. No? If not outright stated, you sure implied it and backed it up over and over again. Um...no. I have been very clear that our laws have evolved over time and that we are constantly building off of the foundations of what you called immoral times. Some laws have changed and others have remained. I only used the dichotomy above to show you how ridiculous you were in trying to prove that the treaties were immoral just because they came from a time when other immoral laws were in place.

Sorry drama queen....didn't mean to be a bother!!! Again...read my comments about treaties and you'll know why I say this.

No strawman involved. Just pointed out the fallacy in your argument. You even acknowledge it above by stating that having immoral positions at the time doesn't prove or disprove these laws as being moral or immoral. That was my point. The laws themselves are separate from the people who drafted them. Clearly they had the authority back then to draft these laws and the fact that these laws exist today means that their authority continues....like it has with other parts of our constitution. With that being said, I am not in favor of the Indian Act or reserve system. If you would have read my first post responding to yours you would easily see that. Like I said, I have no problems with the treaties they signed. The treaties were intended to allow development in a safe manner. Moreso, I believe the intent of the British signing those treaties was for it to create a system of assmiliation over a while. I don't believe they ever thought we would still have this today. So when I say we should respect the treaties, I mean to the word of the treaties. They get $5 per year. They can have their reserve land. They can even hunt on our land. But ultimately they have no other rights to this land and can't dictate what we do with it. If these treaties were ACTUALLY held up then the natives would have abandoned them long ago. Instead we have some vauge interpretation that allows this to perpetuate. Actually no. The punishment for these laws have changed however it has always been against the law to steal or murder. Nothing changed there. No. I was showing you that our CURRENT system is still based on these past systems. Unlike you I am focused on the individual laws and not the time they were drafted or the moral landscape at the time. You seem to dismiss the people that drafted these laws simply because they live in a time where women or natives couldn't vote or where homosexuality was illegal. Oh...and no....I don't gather it from holy books or consitution. I am very aware that laws can be changed and should be reviewed constantly to ensure that we are doing things morally. However avoiding the fact that our current consitution is based on such past immoral representations is purely foolish. You are the one dismissing laws because of their age. Remember...the 250 year thing! I simply stated that we still have some laws from that time showing that age is NOT an issue. Its actually 100 minus...but who's counting (we know you're not). With that being said, we have continued to uphold these laws so they are renewed every year....meaning they are current until we decide to make them not current. Age has nothing to do with it. First....show me where I said they should be dealt with as a sovereign nation. Please I beg you to show me this. Second....in your quote you admit that I never thought them to be sovereign nations.....so why in your wildest dreams would you think that I would think they should be treated as sovereign nations????? Please read. It helps you understand.

I agree with you and I think you can see that in my post that I just made above and reposted here: Even in the first two words of your post you state "many laws"....NOT ALL laws. The other poster is trying to claim that because some laws were changed that all laws were immoral and still are immoral. Like you said, we have the ability to change laws in this country. So if these laws we currently have are truly immoral then we would have had over 40 years since the decriminalization of homosexuality to change them yet the treaties still stand as binding law. The only thing that has changed is our interpretation.

Ya Jacee....stop being racist!

So because the native people/women couldn't vote and homosexuality was a crime, then that makes ALL the laws at that time immoral because these people were apparently immoral? That is insane. People at that time were moral....in that timeframe... until they learned that CERTAIN laws or parts of their system needed to change...which they did. That doesn't mean the unchanged parts were immoral. These same 'immoral' people made laws about stealing and murder and they haven't changed those laws have they? According to you, since the decriminalization of homosexuality didn't happen till 1969 therefore any laws before this time were immoral. Or since we got a new constitution in 1982 then all the laws and people who made the laws before 1982 were immoral. The fact is that our laws are built on these foundations and only the immoral laws or the ones that need to be changed are changed. Canada's constitution was based on the Magna Carta and the BNA....both predating your imposed immorality time periods. Does that mean Canada's current constitution is immoral? This statement particularily applies to your claim about these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763. So what!They were written in more modern times. Just like the Constitution of 1982 was written in current times BASED on the Magna Carta and the BNA. I am not saying I believe them to be a sovereign nation....I'm saying they believe it. I guess you had a hard time picking that up? Feel free to point out one or all of these claimed unproven premises and I will address them in turn. Perhaps you should have done that before taking off on your 250 year old laws tirade as that certainly got you nowhere.

Yes...thank you for the excerpt from Tamara Starblanket which obviously came from a non-biased site. Lol. Why? Because I'm not first nations?

You do realize that the numbered treaties were signed from 1871 to 1921...less than a hundred years ago. And there's the famous race card again. The 'they' I'm talking about is the AFN (Assembly of First Nations). They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis.

They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority. I just question the current courts interpretation of what both sides intended. I agree with you but you should ask a Native if they are Canadian. Remember....they like to deal with us Nation to Nation.

I understand that but what is more enticing? Staying on the reservation and not paying taxes or travelling a far distance to work because of the location of your reservation and paying taxes. The reality is there are more jobs off reservation but you need to travel and pay taxes....which would both be a deterent. So it gives this person a choice....to work or not to work. Obviously there are lots of natives that do work but they also have high rates of unemployment which I believe is a result of this enticement. As such the treaties end up hurting them in a round about way. Any person confined to this system would do the same.

What taxes do they pay living and working on the rez?

The reality is that treaties were signed and I can respect the fact that we should honor them. However, the problem is two fold: 1. These treaties have been grossly interpreted to the point that doesn't make any sense. Often the courts will use the intent rather than what was actually written which has typically been to the favor of the natives. 2. The treaties are actually hurting the natives more than they're helping them. There are some reservations that benefit from resource sharing or other economic inputs but for the most part, reserves are located in the middle of no where with no real economic prosperity or freedom available. The only basis of survival is to rely on the government which of course only gets them a portion of what they really need. The enticement of living on the reserve and not having to pay tax and to collect these other 'god given rights' resulting from the treaties keeps them there when most other people would have packed up and moved a long time ago. Add to this, no one owns the property or has the ability to own property on the reserve system which I feel leads to a demoralizing effect on one's self. You are always like a kid in your parent's basement. This is the exact problem I have with the somewhat recent Metis ruling giving them the same rights as full blood natives. If you are 50% native and 50% european then shouldn't then why you get 100% of the native benefits. How about 25% or less native? At what point are these people more Canadian than Native?

Being the most northern city in the dreaded travel burdened Western Conference does not help but I do think that is the last factor involved when a free agent decides to come or not. First being the pay. Look at Ference...he wouldn't have got the money he did anywhere else so of course he's going to come this way. Second is the organziation/ability to succeed. These guys are pros and want their names on the cup. Like you said, they'll tolerate the lack luster locale for that shot. Last comes the location. I don't think Minnesota is much differnt than Edmonton and they landed two of the biggest free agents in 2012. Add to the fact that locations like Phoenix, Florida and Tampa haven't exactly been havens for free agents. Chicago and Pittsburgh didn't start getting free agents either until they drafted and got a decent management team.

I don't know if Eakins is part of the problem or trying to deal with the problem (being upper management). Let's face it.....he was given 'the choice" as to who he wanted as assitant coaches and he chose to keep Buchburgr and Steve Smith? Come on....that is clearly ol' boys looking out for each other. From what I have heard a lot of players don't wnat to come to Edmonton because of the upper management. It might be tough signing some decent free agents with that looming.