jennie

I don't think you understand the concept of aboriginal 'warriors', so I don't think you are qualified to judge.

Weapons charge, not gun ... it was a pair of brass knuckles, but that is not the person still in jail. No it was not a lengthy criminal record. Exaggeration, fearmongering, intentional lack of understanding, malicious gossip. Right up there on the propaganda scale!

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological Since you cannot validate your statement of "facts", I can dismiss your opinion as such.

14 year old girls are fighting for the land. They are very committed warriors. There were two at Kahnawake, thrown off Mercier bridge, and one at Oka stabbed.

I say we bring him home and provide services here. What's the big deal?

Well you haven't "seen" much if you haven't noticed that many of the warriors are women. The Clan Mothers and the women have responsibility for the land.

So the case for electoral reform, it seems to me, is one that conservatives, if not Conservatives, should find appealing. It is a cause that has tended, historically, to be identified with the left, not least in the current referendum debate; many conservatives have accordingly rejected it. Yet it is not the left that has suffered most under the current system. It's the right. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...90b8838&p=1 He is saying that under FPTP, the only party that wins is the party that stays in the 'mushy middle', and that FPTP plus MMP will allow for a broader range of views and that will benefit conservatives (and others) ... I think. Interesting. It does seem like our elections have become a race to the mediocre middle. With MMP, extremists won't gain power, but a broader variety of views will be part of public debate. I admit it bothers me how elections are 'rigged' ... I don't mean rigged really, but ...when 25% of the vote can take a riding, and the vote is 'nailed down' and 'gotten out' ... it is just strategy now, not people's votes or people's views that count. I am just speculating here, but a broader range of views in the legislature might improve the quality of the debate. I certainly hope so because it is so bad now that schoolkids are disgusted by the 'bullying'. (Wear pink!) There might be more substantive discussions of content, rather than political preening and posturing and taunting and ... bullying. I watch it and it's deteriorating rapidly. I think it will be a breath of fresh air, a dose of public scrutiny for our politicians. And who knows what interesting alliances might come about on various issues ... kinda like the way people are: I agree with some people on some things, other people on other things. I think it could lead to more goal directed debate on issues of substance instead of political posturing like now. It ticks me off to watch them in the House dismiss the question with a bit of fluff, and then spend the rest of their time primping for reelection: MY time that I am paying them for and it seems all they do in the legislature is CAMPAIGN. Ticks me off! They do not do justice to the issues, and they play politics on taxpayer time. It seems a more intelligent system to air and consider all possible solutions to build the best ones together using everyone's knowledge and abilities, rather than try to make everything fit into a three particular dogmatic views and come out looking different and demand that we make choices. Human being have more similarities than differences. Basic human needs, for example, which is what politics is really all about: providing for our basic human needs for now and the forseeable future. (Try acting human when you've got nowhere to cr*p. Seriously, think about your toilet not working. Then how much does it matter if your neighbour is a communist? Eat, pi**, sh*t, sleep, that is what humanity has in common. ) Collaboration toward shared public purposes is a much more efficient use of human resources than reinventing wheels in competition (which has its place in innovation and elsewhere). The nice thing about it, and I think a major consideration, is that it is an addition to a familiar system, a tryout in my mind. I would like to have some say in how the 'list' MPP's duties are defined ... or refined over time. I think they should have constituencies OR an overriding portfolio agreed upon by all of the people - eg Environment ... just rambling and speculating here ... It's not like we can't make them take it back if we don't like it!! We ARE the people ... right?!?!

The 'Rock at Whiskey Trench' video is posted in this thread. One of the young woman in question is interviewed. At Oka, a 14 year old girl was stabbed within half an inch of her heart, by a soldier. Not saying this is the norm, but it happened. It is very curious to me: Many Canadians wonder why Aboriginal people don't want to 'just fit in'. Who would want to 'fit in' to a country that villifies and attacks your rights and your children? It boggles my mind.

And you are qualified to make these judgments ... how? Because what you have described here bears no resemblance to what I see, and I do see regularly. I really don't think you have any knowledge at all about these things you spout off about.

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological, I am interested in the modern archeological evidence, but you have provided no links.

Because they were British, transferred to us, not developed here.

The US military court found that he was NOT an unlawful combatant. I find a lot of imaginative making up of 'facts' and fearmongering on this page, but not a lot of insight into the real issues. A lot of ill will, but not a lot of humanity. A lot of ignorant and inflammatory speculation but absolutely no knowledge of the psychological issues involved. I would suggest that those of you whose knee jerk response is to recommend execution would be happier living in a more totalitarian country. You obviously do not have even an inkling of what democracy and freedom and humanity are about. -fini-

Go for it. However, taxes are tied to output and profits, so I don't see the argument. Alberta happens to sit on tar sands. Ontario on real estate. Newfoundland formerly on fish, now oil. It matters not. The resources of the country belong to us all, and we rely on them far too much. imo

If there were so many influences, why would they NOT have considered the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee? That would seem rather foolish. Of course they did. However, the racism of the time may prevent them from recording it. Are you familiar with it? http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

There are two legal issues: 1) Federal government settling the land claims. (There are 28 claims. None are settled, though an offer was made for 4 claims.) 2) While that is in progress, Federal and Provincial governments must consult with Six Nations about all development on the disputed land. The second is where we are running into problems. The province continues to issue development, mining, logging, quarrying licenses FOR LAND THAT IS ABORIGINAL TITLE, or where title has not yet been determined. How can the government be negotiating in good faith when it is also trying to 'steal' the land for its own profit during the actual negotiations for that land? One can only conclude that the government is trying desperately to maintain control of land, by fair means or foul. In other words, the government is still all about fraud and theft, and not about honesty and fulfilling our legal responsibilities. The government has acknowledged sexual and physical abuse in the schools, only as a result of losing lawsuits. There are many many more things the government still has to answer for. The death and disappearance of children in the schools has not been addressed. Our government, in my experience, does the absolute minimum and only when forced to, regardless of whether it is breaking laws.

I am referring only to doing the LEGALLY right thing. Now answer my real question: Do you support encouraging our governments to obey Canadian laws?

obc What an interesting history you have. Yes "society has allowed the natives their chance to fit in". By now,those who want to have done so. Many have not, and still follow traditional spiritual ways and are still strongly connected to their land. Canada does not have the authority to demand or force assimilation. We are the country of freedom, so how can we 'force' people to 'want' become mainstream Canadian. It makes no sense. The laws are such that aboriginal and treaty rights must be upheld. It is a different context than you grew up in no doubt. The youth of these generations of parents know their rights and they will not allow Canada to be a hypocrite. I think this is a very good thing. Also, it has been shown that youth suicide and other social problems are highest in communities that feel the most helpless to control their own destiny. In communities pursuing land claims and self-governance, suicide rates approach zero. 'Taking back their power', taking back their land and traditional governance and control over their economic future is powerful medicine, it seems. It is a different time now, a time when it is recognized internationally that the colonizing powers must accommodate the rights of those they colonized. Canada is no different, no better, no worse than most other countries in this respect. Canada has a long way to go, though. However, the court decisions keep piling up and reinforcing the fact that Canada must respect Indigenous land rights, so things are improving by leaps and bounds right now. It won't go back. It is a new world. And the strength of the Aboriginal communities who stand up against developers, mining companies, logging companies, etc. is strength that will help us all, perhaps prevent environmental disaster. History will show that we owe them a great debt.

I compliment you for presenting the other side of the debate.

I am not native. I am just a Canadian trying to get my government to obey its own laws.

Wow! Thats deep man? So what the hell exactly are you trying to say in your own incoherent way? We have to live here in peace. No one is going anywhere. Thus, we have to honour agreements, maintain integrity in our relationships, or at the very minimum obey our own laws. Otherwise I believe Canada's structural faults ... failure to honour and address its legal liabilities to Indigenous Peoples ... will continue to endanger the peace for all of us.

Not me. I demand that my governments uphold our laws. Indigenous people speak for themselves. Don't confuse me with wherever else you got all those mangled stereotypes.

no you.

Pardon my manners ... "this is unacceptable" IMO.

Angus I have to say that as mongrels go, YOU take the cake!!

nah not good sarcasm ... just in bad taste.