jennie

Ok ... where is your evidence that there are people available and able to do those jobs who are simply not willing?

Only when WE have already violated the laws: The blockades, in all 4 cases in Ontario, are there to prevent invasive uses of their land that they do not want on their land. The governments approved these uses without consulting with the Aboriginal communities affected. The government, representing the 'Crown' has a legal "Duty to Consult and Accommodate" prior to approving uses of traditional and treaty land. The government has failed to consult with them about these invasive uses of their land, evading the law instead. Thus, they blockade to prevent illegal, unapproved uses that have drastic consequences for their land and their lives. Until Canada and Ontario obey the courts and consult with them first, imo they have every right to blockade.

What they had is a normal event among young people who have grown up, gone to schools together and developed a common culture. People are very adaptable, though. They can have two cultures as easily as one, and a country that can celebrate all of the cultures of its people is a healthy country. A country that demands that people set aside their heritage is certainly culturally impoverished, anti-democratic, paranoid and neurotic, and arguably racist.

I heard what I have been waiting for: The Muslim community saying "Why didn't Elections Canada just consult with us? We are used to lifting our veils at the border or anywhere else identification is required. It is not an issue for us." Elections Canada really screwed up on this one.

I don't know about the stumpage fees. I know that the 'replanting' they do is for harvesting later, so ... First they spray with pesticides and herbicides to kill EVERYTHING else. Then they replant only fast growing species for quickest harvest later. The forest ecology is polluted with toxins that run into rivers, lakes and the water table itself. The aboriginal people living there get sprayed too, btw, causing learning disabilities and other health issues. I believe they recently found a link between certain toxins and diabetes, so we will soon see the research that shows the effects all this mining, logging, etc is having on the health of First Nations people. The fish and wildlife are affected too, and thus the traditional way of life of Indigenous people is totally destroyed by logging operations on their traditional land. Replanting is not an environmental program, but an industrial one.

hunh?

I liked it too ... mostly ... I liked that you and your friends don't dwell on it or even notice it because you share a common Canadian culture. I don't like the idea that we should be "promoting people putting aside their heritage and race" totally, though. I think that is a matter of free choice and I think we all benefit from keeping many cultures alive too.

Yes you mean ... the CANADIAN aboriginal 'governments' .... formerly known as 'Indian' Agents ... they administer Canada's Indian Act. Those 'elected' Band Councils are Canada's creation ... Canada's problem. If you don't like them, think they are corrupt, talk to the Minister of Indian Affairs, Chuck Strahl. They are his responsibility, those are his problems. Canada created the system, installed the Indian Agents who provided a shining example of corruption. With some exceptions, they are not generally the people of the barricades, not the people now willing to confront our governments, confront us, to demand justice and respect in land disputes.

Those who feel everyone has the same opportunities to succeed haven't had the 'opportunity' of being born without them. It is easy to take your own privileges for granted when you don't know what it is like to be without them.

Catholic group exposes dirty side of Canadian mining operations Sep 08, 2007 04:30 AM Stephen Scharper Is mining a religious issue? For many Canadian Christian organizations, the answer is a definitive yes. One such group is the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP), the international development arm of Canada's Catholic bishops. Last fall, CCODP launched a report entitled Calling Canadian Mining to Account, encouraging mining companies to adhere to the same environmental and human rights standards abroad that prevail at home. Collecting more than 150, 000 letters, they also urged Ottawa to actively monitor Canadian mining operations, particularly in underdeveloped nations. According to CCODP, Canadian mining companies have been implicated in documented cases of human rights violations and environmental tragedies around the world. These include toxic dumping, the despoiling of protected areas, forcible displacement of indigenous peoples, and threats and intimidation of local communities. Christian activists contend that this is not a case of "a few bad apples": Canadian mining firms, they assert, have been involved in human rights abuses and environmental disasters in more than 30 countries. http://www.thestar.com/article/254421

I said I don't like them, perhaps I said I don't trust them. (I am Canadian, eh?) ubiquitous? what?

You mean they are not worth MONEY in the ground. They are part of the earth's living systems, which we do not understand well enough to sustain them ... sustain life ... on earth. Did you think the earth was just a gift for capitalists to plunder? I don't think so. The earth is a gift to sustain life. However, the earth can only sustain our lives if we sustain the earth's life systems.

Explain your anger that leads you to wish death on people ... who is Gary Powers?

Why is it so important to you pliny to cast me as someone who "hates government"? Your efforts are getting quite laughable as the post you quoted contained neither of the words 'government' nor 'hate'. I was, instead, saying that we should not leave care and control of our forests in PRIVATE hands (implying, instead, keep it in public hands ... i.e., government.)

And you believe in Canada we are helping those who "will not"? What evidence can you provide to support your assertion?

Why don't you? Didn't you say you were a Yank? In that case our public trough is none of your business. Besides there has never been room for Indigenous people there ... it is too jammed with politicians!

"ALL PARTIES"? Who do you speak for geoffry?

The question is not "which countries" but "how have they done it". Does colonizing, wiping out millions of inhabitants and stealing their land and their children while hypocritically signing peace treaties with them in bad faith sound like a proud foundation for "a decent standard of living and extensive good, democratic government to so many" What about the "few" who are left out? ... those whose land PROVIDES our decent standard of living ... top o'the world, in fact, while Indigenous Peoples of Canada 'enjoy' a standard of living in 63rd place in the world. 'Pride' in the illegal and immoral 'conquest' of Indigenous lands and resources in Canada is the pride of sociopaths. It is the kind of 'pride that goeth before the fall'.

Well said, vseeker! tsk tsk Aug91, you neglected to learn what the laws are before trashing them. All attacks ... no facts: That's a number one booboo on a boardboard ... faux-pas on a forum ... messup on a message board ... tsk tsk Corrections CANNOT release the photo to the public, but only to the RCMP, on request. It is RCMP discretion whether to release it to the public, not Corrections. The news slut asked the wrong source then flipped out when they couldn't accommodate that day's IMMEDIATE deadline, and made it a story about Corrections"refusal" to produce that which they could not legally produce.

500 days ... there is a light at the end of the tunnel. ... I hope it isn't another train. visionseeker, Bushieboy's handlers ... the corporate war industry profiteers ... they know this is going to happen. I can't believe they don't have a contingency plan. What do you think? ............................ LOTS of news about the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous peoples today Here's a google search ... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...;ncl=1120435752 and some excerpts ... RIGHTS: South Stands with Indigenous Peoples at the U.N. By Haider Rizvi UNITED NATIONS, Sep 7 (IPS) - Despite continued opposition from the United States and some other major powers, the United Nations General Assembly seems poised to adopt the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Peoples' Rights later this month. Indigenous leaders told IPS Friday they were optimistic that a vast majority of the 192-member General Assembly would vote in favour of the resolution calling for the recognition of the rights of the world's 270 million aboriginal people. The proposed declaration was set to be adopted by the General Assembly late last year but due to strong objections from certain countries, it was repeatedly set aside for further negotiations. In addition to the United States, the countries that refused to endorse the declaration included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Colombia, Suriname, Guyana and a group of African nations led by Namibia. While many amongst them remain in opposition, there are strong indications that almost all the African countries are now fully supportive of the declaration. The African group changed its stance after a majority of the 16-member U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues agreed to accept its demand for changes in certain parts of the text dealing with the concept of "self-determination". The declaration calls for recognition of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over lands, a principle fully recognised by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, but deemed controversial by some who fear that it could undermine the sovereignty of states. In return for their support, the African countries wanted the declaration to mention that it does not encourage any actions which would undermine the "territorial integrity" or "political unity" of sovereign states. Despite the fact that the African viewpoint has been incorporated into the amended version, the draft declaration remains assertive of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their land and resources. "It is subject to interpretation, but we can work with this," Les Malezer, chair of the Global Indigenous Caucus, told IPS. Like many other indigenous leaders, Malezer, a longtime aboriginal rights activist, initially did not approve of amendments in the draft. "If a few states did not accept the declaration, then it would be a reflection on them rather than the document." said Malezer, in a veiled reference to the position taken by the U.S. Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Many indigenous leaders charge that, as they have in the past, the U.S. and Canada were still trying to apply pressure tactics on economically weak and vulnerable nations to secure their votes against the declaration. "They have been dictating to developing countries," said Joseph Ole Simel, coordinator of the African Regional Indigenous Caucus. "However, the Third World countries have now taken a very progressive step in terms of commitment to the rights of indigenous peoples." ................ Those in opposition see the draft declaration as "flawed," mainly because of its strong emphasis on the right to self-determination and full control over lands and resources. In their view, they would hinder efforts for economic development and undermine the so-called established democratic norms. This tension is also reflected in other areas of diplomatic discourses, including the U.N. treaty on biological diversity and the World Trade Organisation, in terms of the needs of neo-liberal economic order and the argument that indigenous people have the right to own and use their resources without interference. The biodiversity treaty, for example, not only recognises the significance of traditional knowledge, but also calls for a "fair and equitable" share of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises. The United States has refused to sign on to that treaty, while some of its allies who are against the declaration have expressed their reservations about how to implement the principle of "fair and equitable" distribution of resources. ......... The General Assembly move to consider the declaration comes at a time when more than 100 political leaders from around the world are preparing to arrive in New York to attend a high-level meeting on climate change. For many indigenous leaders, this is a historic moment. "We have been doing this work for more than 22 years," said Vicky Tauli-Corpus, chairperson of the Permanent Form, hoping that this time the General Assembly would say yes to the declaration. (END/2007)

I can see one problem ... I don't think you really mean "stewards of Canada's FORESTS" ... I think you mean stewards of the PROFITS from Canada's forests. There's a big difference. And perhaps it is because we need the Boreal forests to help us to continue to breathe in our increasingly polluted environment, and we don't trust profitmakers to respect that. It appears to me the immediate way to correct the problems you cite is for the province to increase its stump fees. But of course it is a mess again now because of the pine beetle. Aboriginal people told them ... "You have to burn it to stop them." But the private companies want to log it for money instead. Last I heard the beetle is getting ready to turn right from BC, poised to sweep across the entire northern forest. The private companies would rather risk the life and health of all Canadians than burn a bit of forest to save the rest? Just because they can sell it for a buck? That's private 'stewardship'? No thanks.

There is nothing there that is not already in Canada's laws, in those articles or others, imo. There is a Canadian delegation with knowledge of our laws and treaties, like the Jay Treaty visionseeker mentioned, who would have had input to that. There is no legal reason for Harper to refuse to sign this Declaration. Harper refuses to sign and tried to undermine it because he also refuses to accept Canadian law: the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, imo. UN-New Zealand This May at the Forum's annual session, Ms. Tauli-Corpuz said that there was a widespread misunderstanding that the declaration places indigenous peoples in a special category. "The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - it's really an instrument that interprets international human rights law in so far as it applies to indigenous peoples," she said. "So it's not a document, it's not a declaration that creates new rights." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0709/S00195.htm

Ah come on you guys ... have a heart ... for us muslin wearers. We are not revolting at all! Just protesting ... synthetics. Thanks for the interesting information Higgly.