jennie

Absolutely!! It will be interesting to see how Harper manages to save face on this issue because he will find out that there are many reasons why Canadian voters do not show their face (eg, they are on a beach in Mexico, voting by mail), and thus many reasons other than Muslim women to allow voting without physical identification. It is again embarrassing for Canada that he has targeted a vulnerable population for harassment.

Our allies, the original people of Canada, made peace treaties with us in order to 'defend their land', AND to allow us to live here with them legally. "Never able to defend their land" presupposes that we were physically attacking their land, which never happened in Canada. Since we had signed nation-to-nation treaties with them, as allies, Canada was reduced to deceit and fraud in order to steal the land. It was illegal then and it is illegal now.

That 'slippery slope' argument is a slippery slope itself. Laws are made or not made based on evidence, not such speculation. However, I note that the current criminal case involves the leader of the community pressuring the child bride and child groom, who married against their will to have sex in order to multiply. He is charged with '"counselling rape'. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, to see if non-consenting minors in such communities are protected.

http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp You can watch the vote in the UN General Assembly live on Thursday, 10 am, as the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples passes, with or without Canada's support. kimmy? Any further comments on the Declaration and individual rights?

My I borrow yours for better 'coverage'

MHMMM? ... So how is this different from my "fostering stupidity" idea of extending public funding to faith-based schools?

I have an idea ... we can go to the polls wearing our bras over our faces!! And hand in our mail-in votes.

Well said posit. Now let's hear McGuinty say something about how his government WILL consult with First Nations regarding traditional and treaty land, because he has NOT said it. Howard Hampton had said it, but for it to happen, McGuinty will have to go public about it.

They will have a challenge wording it so that SOME PEOPLE can vote without facial recognition (eg anyone who choses to vote by mail), but MUSLIM WOMEN MUST SHOW THEIR FACE. I don't know why they bother with the taxpayer cost of changing the law when they could just announce that Muslim women MUST vote by mail. /sarcasm

I must have missed that too, though I have heard that mentioned before, I think. Is it possible both are possible?

Well, I am sure your multi-cultural Canadian 'friends' would love you now!

I don't think our governments can "confiscate things with force". If they expropriate land, they pay. Force is not likely.

No, mikedavid, she's disappointed because people assume she is caucasian, and think it's 'OK' to make racist remarks around her. She is not caucasian, and she is offended by their racist remarks.

Why do you say funding all religious schools publicly "is impossible"? It isn't. They can be funded on the same basis as the Catholic schools: funded for Ontario Curriculum education, but not for religious instruction: That would be an 'extra'.

There is still DNA evidence of Indigenous Peoples from two different migrations in the present populations in North America: a smaller early migration to the south, and later a larger one from the north. Some Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) people have some of the unique genetic markers of the southern (early) group. This study was just completed in the last few years and I read a report of it, but I can't find it anymore. If anyone has a link, let me know.

I think it just did!

We have the right to inherit property, as individuals or collectives, as we also have the right to form collectives if we choose. As for what lands remain of their inheritance, that is what the land claims system is working through right now, by considering the documentation ... the evidence of ownership. If you belonged to a collective that had its inherited property taken by the government without compensation, and if you have documents and proof, then yes you could. You have that right. I believe some Jewish people and other people who were occupied or displaced by German expansion are still getting reparations for property taken from them in Europe during WWII, based on whatever evidence they can provide. They have that right. You have that right. As for government regulation, it is a question of "Whose government?" Canada has never recognized 'Status Indians' as citizens, so that kinda blows that issue right out the door! (Gone.) Fact is, as unconquered peoples who have become minorities in their own land, through colonization and domination by 'others', they have the same right to determine their own governance as you and I would in that situation. They are not required to become Canadian unless by choice, under International law: Canada cannot force them. This has happened to other peoples in the world, besides Indigenous peoples. That is why those conventions already existed in UN documents. All of these conventions come from UN human rights documents that apply to everyone who needs them. None are specific to Indigenous Peoples. They are just gathered together in this one document now as an educational and monitoring tool to promote equal human rights for Indigenous Peoples too. This is necessary because their human rights are often violated all over the world, and Canada is no exception. So ... check again ... you have all the rights they do. You just haven't inherited the property they have.

Ya we get it ... but just wait til they get filled in on the details: Sometimes MP's aren't familiar with the complexities of the discipline they are trying to control for political gain, until it is explained to them by the bureaucrats who do the job. 1) 80,000 vote by mail without identifying themselves. (They write a sworn statement instead.) Some vote with faces bandaged, scars or deformities covered, etc. Facial recognition is not required to vote, and if Harper tries to make it necessary just to harass Muslim women, wait til he sees who else objects!! So ... if some are allowed to do it, it can't be denied to others. They could all just stay home and vote by mail. HOWEVER ... 2) Muslim women have not asked for this privilege, do not want it as they are accustomed to lifting their veil at the border etc. It is not a big deal to them. WHAT IS A BIG DEAL TO THEM IS THIS ... what tbud said ... 3) Just another ploy to attack muslim culture by our rascist, ignorant leadership THAT is EXACTLY what bothers Muslim women about this: This is just another trumped up excuse for another disgusting and ignorant and prejudiced attack on their religious beliefs and their culture.

Catchy title ... a series ... might be interesting. We have heard about the number of people in Canada illegally. I wonder how many are, like this woman, given various permits, etc. and led to believe that she was ok. And of course others may have caused trouble, not denying that. But it will be interesting to see how many 'illegals' are found to be just ordinary decent people leading ordinary decent lives, with at least some official permissions. Do they ever rescind deportation orders? Liberia's history is interesting too. HOMELAND INSECURITY PART 1 OF 3 Arrested: Old deportation order brings shock, pain Sunday, September 2, 2007 9:23 AM By Todd Jones The Columbus Dispatch http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/conte...2/homeland.html After 24 years in America, a Columbus woman faces possible deportation to her native Liberia. As the case of Bernice Bryant shows, complex immigration laws can cause confusion and heartache. Bernice and Sundaga "Sunny" Bryant, outside their Far East Side home, met in Ohio in 1994. Doral Chenoweth III | DISPATCH Bernice and Sundaga "Sunny" Bryant, outside their Far East Side home, met in Ohio in 1994. <a href='http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/02/map.html'>Liberia at a glance</a> Liberia at a glance Web Extra # Case timeline The Hot Issue Should Bernice Bryant be allowed to remain in the U.S. or be deported to Liberia? 61% Remain in the U.S. 38% Deported to Liberia 1% No opinion Reader Comments (1- 3 of 259) Click here to vote and comment Sep 10, 2007 11:26 AM Deported to Liberia It's a very sad day in our country when people choose to answer a question like this with "Remain in the US". It is un-America to slam our laws and promote illegal immigration, even if you are a friend to this person. Maybe you should have been a better friend and helped her gain her citizenship. Her husband understood how to do it, so why didn't she. With terrorism today and illegals immigrant numbers growing we need to be vigilant in controlling immigration for the safety of Americans. Sep 08, 2007 09:12 AM Remain in the U.S. Bernice should be allowed to stay.This is the fault of our government and immigration laws--their failure to follow through on a case. If they deport this person after all this time I think maybe they should return the tax money she has paid this government all these years. Sep 08, 2007 08:41 AM Remain in the U.S. She was given temporary status and told that she was fine. I'm sure that if she was told differently then she could have followed the same process as her husband and be a full citizen. She should be allowed that opportunity now.

This is not the only circumstance where face coverings and voting collide. Other examples included bandages, scars, deformities, etc. In other words, the rule was written that way for a reason ... for when perfectly innocent people have good reason for covering their face in public. I voted once without photo ID. I had to swear and sign. Big deal.

Well I tried to find coverage of this important national issue in the NATIONAL Post, but a search of "indigenous" revealed only stories about mining (effects of those pesky Indigenous people, living on their own land and interfering with mining profits!!)... and a few travelogues extolling the virtues Indigenous culture!!!) Oh how I love the irony!

It wasn't in the google search when I did it. Joe Quennell is an off-reserve person advocating for his own rights, which is fine. However, there is no reason to imply that collective rights take away from individual rights because they don't. Unfortunately, our governments use divide and conquer strategies that have set off-reserve people against those on reserve. There is no contradiction or competition between collective rights and individual rights because collective rights are just the rights of individuals to assemble in whatever groups serve their purpose. We all have the right to be a 'collective'. There are NO NEW HUMAN RIGHTS in the Declaration. It is simply a Declaration of the human rights that we ALL have, stipulating clearly that these same human rights MUST be applied to Indigenous Peoples too. Human Right for All: NO EXCEPTIONS!

... which Elections Canada could have entirely avoided if they had talked to the Muslim people affected. What a shame. Now people are using this as another excuse to vilify Muslims, when it was not them who made it an issue. I think Elections Canada should apologize to the Muslim community for its error.

Read my post above: It was NOT the Muslim people who requested this. It was Elections Canada acting without even consulting with the Muslim community.

Just an update on the thread topic ... Canada and the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...=N&start=10 The headlines tell the story: Canada bruised in rights fight Canoe.ca, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 By CP OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed ... Canada slammed over UN declaration Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Canada blasted over policy on natives Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA–Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Elisa Burchett: Major Shift in Outlook for UN Declaration on ... UN Observer - Sep 6, 2007 2007-09-06 | “We analyzed the document and we believe that this does not fall below existing international human rights standards. ... Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... UN set to adopt native-rights declaration (anyway, regardless of Harpers melodramatics.) Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA — The United Nations is set to adopt a new Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People despite what critics say was aggressive opposition from Canada. ... I wonder if Harper thought the UN would just do what nice little Canada said. What an idiot. Now he has made us look like aggressive human rights violators to the whole world. Since it is true, I think this is a good thing! The UN will be scrutinizing his every move wrt Indigenous Peoples. This can only be helpful to Canada in the long run, to make sure that we are handling land repatriation legally and honourably. OK ... imo this is a good outcome. Harper did what Bush told him to do and it backfired, resulting in a GREATER likelihood that we will have to act within the law. Do you think perhaps that this was Harper's agenda all along? Nah ... couldn't be ... he's not that smart.