jennie

A procedural error? Explain please.

Prisons accommodate a lot of special diets ... diabetics, vegetarians (probably not too well for vegans), milk allergies, maybe not nut allergies ... peanut butter is a staple. And religious diets as well as possible, but usually it's the two of this instead approach.

It's an anti-uranium thing. It has support inside and outside the city, I think.

What "past land sales and surrenders have been upheld"?

It's important to understand that. We are diminishing ourselves ... except perhaps in Newfoundland, now. Some country somewhere recently celebrated "conception day" a national holiday for ... conceiving children. Hmm ... that February McHoliday ... Family Day? ... or making family? Nice thing to do in winter. But ya, and we have a lot of baby boomers going to be old folks, and we need enough people to support that. I think that is the main issue.

That's an exemption: (b') if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

I would have to agree with that one UNLESS he said or implied that it would be immoral FOR HIMSELF. I think the dividing line is between espousing something for yourself, and placing judgments on others who do it. I like dill pickle chips, you hate them. Do you say you won't eat them, or do you say nobody should eat them? It's a matter of who it is directed at, in my opinion. Saying homosexuality shouldn't exist is offensive to those who are. If you are not, why does it matter to you? To them, though, as a population at whom hate crimes are directed, it is part of the atmosphere that validates that. Only in insane criminal minds perhaps, but denying their right to exist is a bit extreme even just verbally.

Is that because Harper is in power?

Absolutely.

my bad I see ... I didn't read it carefully enough I guess.

about how being ___ is sinful and that _____ can change. I am not sure it works with race ... jk

tax dollars funding homosexual activists He certainly libeled the teachers, if that was his spin on it. I wonder what the charge is? The Human Rights Act isn't clear to me tonight, but here it is. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/index.html

You raise a good point ... what is a crime and what is not: Criminal Code PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION Hate Propaganda Public incitement of hatred 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b') an offence punishable on summary conviction. Wilful promotion of hatred (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b') an offence punishable on summary conviction. Defences (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b') if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c') if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. Forfeiture (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct. Exemption from seizure of communication facilities (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section. Consent (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Definitions (7) In this section, “communicating” « communiquer » “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; “identifiable group” « groupe identifiable » “identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318; “public place” « endroit public » “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; “statements” « déclarations » “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.

I've been out all day after posting this. Quite an interesting conversation. Three interesting sections ... There isn't enough attention being paid to the everyday hatred, the everyday forms of racist or hateful incidents that occur," she says. "We need far more education so that the public can be inoculated against this kind of thing." That way, when people come across hatred on the Internet, they won't just click to another web page, but be able to recognize racist propaganda for what it is, says Mock. It's difficult to tell what's more dangerous -- the postings where outright bigotry is poured onto the electronic page, or the well-thought-out, eloquently phrased and researched points of view on immigration and the need to "protect" the purity of the white race. I haven't seen any statements about the "purity of the white race" in this thread, if that's what 'white supremacy' is. White Nationalism is the new and improved version, also about 'purity', wanting a nation for white people. (But they have never responded to my offer of a nice 'white' ice floe. ) Or maybe it could also mean maintaining a white majority, or white control even with a minority like (former) South Africa? "(They're) transforming their views from the poisonous 'We want to expel minorities and imprison or exterminate Jews,' to something like 'We're just concerned about non-traditional immigration sources,' which usually means non-white," says Richard Warman, an Ottawa-based human rights lawyer. "They try to throw sugar in with their poison just to give it a more palatable taste." ... Paul Fromm is considered one of the most recognizable members of the extreme right in Canada. On the Internet, he operates several sites of his own and is a common fixture on Stormfront and other similar sites. Fromm also speaks at rallies held by those who support white supremacist and racist views. He says those in the white pride movement recognize that in order to attract new recruits they must "tone down" existing members, whose method of expressing themselves is to belittle minorities with profanity. FREE SPEECH "We want to make everyday Canadians and Americans comfortable with these ideas," he says. "The way to do it is not to dress up in funny uniforms and scream at people." Oh ya? Is that how they used to do it? I can see why that didn't work. Not everyone posting on these sites or attending the rare meeting agrees with resorting to violent measures to deal with what they believe are the country's ills. ... Well I am certainly glad to hear that! "Not everyone who is a white supremacist is a neo-Nazi, and not everyone who is a white supremacist is a skinhead," says Edmonton police Const. Dave Huggins, who is recognized as one of the pre-eminent hate crime investigators in Canada. "There is a wide spectrum of being a white supremacist." Some are drawn to it because they like National Socialism, while others might be more white nationalist while at the same time saying they are part of the Christian Identity movement, he says. An element of their shared concern is a fear within the movement that European-centric countries, such as Canada, will be irrevocably altered culturally by an influx of immigrants from non-European countries. "If you can appreciate that mindset when you're dealing with extremists then you can understand how easy it is to recruit others because they touch into fears that are naturally there," says (Const.) Huggins. White supremacists must be exposed and brought to justice, but they must also be marginalized and the public inoculated -- particularly young people -- against their hatred, says Mock. I think the young people are doing ok, most of them.

Green, NDP support blockade; Candidates weigh in on First Nation protest outside of political riding Posted By SARAH DEETH Posted 1 day ago The ongoing First Nations blockade at a proposed uranium mine at Sharbot Lake, two hours east of Peterborough, is sparking a reaction from some local candidates. Peterborough Green Party candidate Miriam Stucky has expressed full support for the Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations groups who are opposing the mining. The blockade has been in place since June 29, preventing the company Frontenac Ventures from prospecting for uranium, citing environmental and land-ownership concerns. http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/Art...uth=SARAH+DEETH --- EDIT This post was the Opening Post of a previous thread once titled: Green, NDP support (Algonquin) blockade subtitled: Candidates weigh in on First Nation protest which is no longer accessible as a separate thread. As with all merged threads, all of the original posts from all of the threads are preserved and displayed in chronological order.

We are not abandoning the old system. MMP is just a simple add-on. It will mean that the number of seats a party has in the house will reflect their percentage of the popular vote. It simply corrects one flaw in our current system, which is that we can end up with an all powerful government that has the support of only a minority of the people.

The new face of hate The swaggering skinheads and marching jackboots have all but vanished, but make no mistake: The poisonous ideology of white supremacy is alive and well in Canada. Sun Media's Laura Czekaj probes the suave new look that belies an ancient animosity A meaty security guard blocks the entrance and waves a beeping metal-detecting wand over the suit-and-tie-clad spectators. Beyond the frosted glass doors in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing room stands another security guard, arms crossed, eyes trained on the spacious room, its mass is exaggerated by the few people occupying it. A tribunal member is running the show and lawyers are taking their turns spouting protocol. All the while, a man sits in the audience, his cleanly shaved head gleaming as brightly as his freshly polished jack boots, which stick out from under the cuffs of his black dress pants. This man is a visible reminder of what the neo-Nazi movement in Canada once looked like. A daunting demeanour paired with an almost uniform attire worn by shiny-domed males giving the Nazi salute and yelling "Seig Heil." But this man and the images he conjures are far removed from the white supremacist movement today. Marc Lemire is well-groomed, with a full head of hair, a sky-blue dress shirt and neatly pressed beige pants. His presence is non-threatening and appears much closer akin to a school teacher or computer programmer than a "white nationalist." ... http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...519174-sun.html I admit to some fascination with the white supremacists. They blare loudly about things that polite Canadians don't discuss. Are they right? Do a lot of people agree with them? I don't know. I wouldn't think so but I have been wrong before. I understand there are about 3000 who 'belong' to such a group across Canada, likely not enough for any kind of political power, but who knows if proportionate representationMMP becomes federal. They end up in front of the Human Rights Tribunal often because of the content of their websites which arguably promote hatred against (some) 'immigrants', aboriginal, black and Jewish people. Promoting hatred is illegal in Canada, though distinguishing it from free speech is a challenge. The WS's think they should be free to express their 'opinion' about people of other ethnicities. How do we distinguish 'promoting hatred' from 'free speech'?

In an interesting development, Six Nations elected Council Chief is getting into the act, and requesting a meeting with the Haldimand County Council. It is interesting to me as an observer, that while the elected Council Chief and the Confederacy Council do not see eye to eye much, the facts about the land never vary. http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/252783 Six Nations letter a 'signal' to talk The Hamilton Spectator HALDIMAND (Sep 22, 2007) Six Nations elected Chief Dave General stands behind a toughly worded letter warning that more native protests would occur, unless all development is stopped along the Grand River. In a letter sent to Haldimand and dated Aug. 17, Six Nations "reminded" council of recent events at the Douglas Creek Estates and another development in Hagersville. It recommended a halt to any approvals until land claims have been settled. "This would greatly help to avoid any future protests/occupations within our mutual territories," reads the letter, signed by Councillor George Montour, chair of the Six Nations Lands and Resources Committee. ... Trainer was so taken aback by the strong tone of the letter she initially thought it might be a hoax . But she is anxious to sit down with General to discuss its contents and clarify any misunderstanding. Trainer said the province now encourages her council to consult with the HDI as well as the Six Nations band council on development issues. Lars Eedy, spokesman for Aboriginal Minister David Ramsey, said local councils have to follow provincial legislation. "The province doesn't accept any additional layer of development approval," he said. [email protected]

:lol:

Well Six Nations is not whining. They are doing. But somehow I don't think they are doing what you want them to. However, if that has anything to do with getting educated and getting a job, they have, and now they are doing what they have to do.

You are the one wanting to make the point.

Well he isn't getting it where he is, for certain, amd that is no excuse for not bringing him home.

# Those tendering oral history evidence in court must be alert to whether the facts will be accepted as reliable and trustworthy and therefore relied upon by the trial judge. Reliability is a function of the source of the information (who is speaking the oral history), the nature of oral tradition within the relevant aboriginal nation, and corroboration with other oral facts, documents, or physical events. The ways of corroborating oral history evidence are interesting. Eclipses can date events, Lady Simcoe's diaries are a rich source of validation of some post-contact events here in Ontario, etc. There is a variety of information that can accompany and validate oral history. And the federal Courts at least have become familiar and have guidlines, but it is up to the Judge. VII. Test for the admissibility of oral history evidence The question of the admissibility of oral history was re-examined by the Supreme Court in Mitchell. Admissibility issues were discussed above with reference to Delgamuukw, but the court in Mitchell clarified the principles that should be applied by courts in order to receive and interpret oral history evidence in aboriginal rights and title litigation. In Van der Peet (at para. 68), the Supreme Court laid down two basic principles governing the admissibility of oral history: 1. Trial courts must approach the rules of evidence in light of the evidentiary difficulties inherent in adjudicating aboriginal claims (i.e., there are no written records; elders with knowledge have passed on). 2. Aboriginal evidence must not be undervalued just because it does not strictly conform to the rules of evidence. These comments meant that it would be easier to have oral history admitted as evidence, and that, once admitted, it ought to receive a more sympathetic ear when weighed or applied in the decision-making process. Technicalities should not obscure the important information brought to the courts in oral histories. The court's comments in Van der Peet were a direction to trial judges to "lighten up" on the evidentiary issues when it comes to aboriginal rights cases. The court in Mitchell reaffirmed (at para. 29) the principle that the rules of evidence must be applied flexibly in aboriginal cases, primarily because of the obvious and inherent problems of proving facts that pre-date colonization and the written record. In this regard, the court said that flexibility means admitting evidence of post-contact activities to prove continuity with pre-contact practices and to allow "the meaningful consideration of various forms of oral history". The court noted that underlying the principles of flexibility (and therefore fairness) are three concepts: 1. The evidence must be useful in that it must prove a relevant fact. 2. The evidence must be reasonably reliable. 3. The evidence can be excluded if the probative value is overshadowed by its prejudicial impact. etc etc ... http://www.cle.bc.ca/Cle/Practice+Desk/Pra...historyevidence I don't see anything about x100.

goddess ... please fellas ... I believe I made my point. He wants me to accept his statement as fact, but he provides no evidence so I don't have to. To recap: Posit has asserted that there is archeological evidence of Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy (Iroquois) people living on the north shore pre-contact, traditionally, several thousand years old. kengs said no ... but that is so far just an opinion.

me too.