jennie

He (Mayor Hancock) also wondered why protesters are bothering to target Quattrociocchi's development, which is small. Ruby Montour said Six Nations has concerns about developments going up "all over" Brantford. When protesters left the Grand River Avenue site just after noon, she said they would be checking in on other developments, including a housing development off Garden Avenue. My lack of clarity ... several developments in other areas of the Haldimand Tract, and quite a few visits already to builders in Brantford too. These are return visits. Floyd and Ruby Montour are very serious. The government has failed to consult, so developments are being shut down until there is agreement on land in dispute. You will get tired of hearing that ... "the government has failed to consult". Are we supposed to just pretend that law doesn't matter? I don't get it.

Canadian law seems to me to be reasonably consistent with International law, and it is all a matter of human rights, and it is the same human rights for all. "artificial"? ... no ... human constructs ... ways that humans co-exist. Call me when the Constitution is changing We BOTH know how soon that will be!

Indigenous rights are human rights and they are matters of International law as well. Your statement "do not exist outside" Canadian law is incorrect. Aboriginal rights exist in Canadian law only because they exist in fact, and cannot be ignored. Their inherent land rights cannot be disputed. Only the implementation can be played with.

Me too ... and the sting belongs to the government, imo.

You haven't been following the Algonquin blockade of uranium drilling, then, because the local landowners are supporting the blockade. The support is just starting to build, imo, as people come to understand that their goal is protection of the land.

Canadians are smarter than you give them credit for ... They know who is causing these blockades. Our governments that fail to act in good faith.

And you do? How does one get to that exalted position? But of course as I have mentioned repeatedly ... right now it is not the money that is the issue ... it is what is being done to the land while the government stalls the land claims.

I edited quite a bit out, not that in particular. He delivered a letter and never checked to see if he had a go ahead? While several other building sites have been shut down and the whole region knows it? C'mon... But he does have it right about all three levels of government approving, permitting and then abandoning the developers on land in dispute, and they are the ones who have the "duty of the Crown to consult and where necessary, accommodate" the concerns of Indigenous people about uses of their traditional and treaty land, according to the SCoC. The governments should be facing some heavy lawsuits over this stuff, I would think. Bad faith ... I can't quite figure out their 'hands-off' strategy.

ft ... who died and made you god of the 'single public system' ? (just a little joke there folks ... no particular god or religion implied or offended ... I hope ) There are Catholic Boards and Public Boards and French Boards and no doubt there would be other Boards. Public Boards do not accept responsibility for religious indoctrination.

“They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs,” Mr. Tory said at the Kamin Education Centre. QUOTE But Education Minister Kathleen Wynne – who is running against Mr. Tory for her Toronto seat – said teaching creationism alongside evolution would be a violation of the curriculum. She said Catholic schools are allowed to explore creationism but only in religion – not science – classes. QUOTE Ms. Wynne says Mr. Tory's comments show that he has not really thought out his policy and is just distracting from the real need to invest more in the existing public-education system. The rules are pretty clear ... because the parents and kids totally understand them ... studying, discussing and being exposed to world religions has an important place in our public schools. Religious doctrine has no place. Tory was suggesting CHRISTIAN doctrine presented as fact, outside of a religion class. That's proselytizing in the public school and it is not allowed. World religions, however, are a reality in our schools so study of them and cultures and foods, etc. is common throughout the curriculum and school life. I think he is toast. So is funding of faith-based schools ... unfortunately ... because it now carries the taint of his proselytizing faux pas. He has not done them a service. He is just too ... either too dumb or too dogmatic ... just has no common sense that man. Does Rogers want him back now?

I'm voting for a higher standard of social literacy. mikedavid ... do you mean the faith-based schools ... many of which are (white) Christian schools ... Is that what you meant by "ethnic"?

I have to say riverwind ... you were spinning along just fine until you just totally lost your thread of credibility on that one!! "Canadian by default" ... too friggen funny!!! No ... Canadian only by surrender ... which did.not.happen. There is nothing to say they are Canadian citizens unless individuals choose it to be so.

I saw news coverage of Ruby and Floyd Montour sitting in front of an earth moving machine yesterday. They are kind and brave and committed Six Nations Confederacy elders. Protesters stall development; warn that city is on 'collision course' with Six Nations John Paul Zronik / expositor staff Local News - Wednesday, September 05, 2007 @ 07:00 A dispute between Six Nations protesters and a city developer heated up Tuesday as natives occupied the site of a housing project on Grand River Avenue. A half-dozen Six Nations protesters moved onto the site at 10 a.m., demanding that work stop on four duplexes being constructed near Grand River and Jarvis Street. Two of the protesters entered a hole where developer Mike Quattrociocchi, owner of Mayberry Homes, hoped to soon lay foundations for the new buildings. Sitting under the shadow of a backhoe, protester Ruby Montour said the city put itself "on a collision course" with Six Nations by approving the construction project, which she said sits on native land. "I told the city when this man went for a permit ... that they should not give the permit because this land is under dispute," Montour said. "This is Six Nations land. "Developers getting permits from Brantford better remember: this land is ours." http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/si...ws&classif= ... Quattrociocchi said developers should "absolutely" be worried about protests at construction projects elsewhere in the city. He said the the municipality and higher levels of government need to take action to address Six Nations concerns. "I think it's disgraceful that individuals have to fend for themselves because the municipality, province and federal government are taking a firm stance on the fence," he said. "All levels of government are forcing me to fend for myself." The developer also said he's puzzled as to why Six Nations has singled out his development when two new housing developments are located within a short distance along Grand River Avenue. ... Well he got one thing right ... about the governments abandoning people. Here is a video of Ruby Montour from June 29. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6194247107440891215 ---- EDIT This post was the Opening Post of a multiple thread which was titled: Protesters stall development

Well you suggest an interesting metric but NO ... ABSOLUTELY NOT passing it directly to the consumer/taxpayer in GST ... NO. %GDPCanada It's about the land ... and the billion$ in resource$ ... going $outh ... every day ... And it'$ about Canada'$ 8 $traight budget $urplu$e$ ... directly from the resource industries on traditional and treaty land of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada. It is about desecration of the environment that sustains us all ... on LAND IN DISPUTE ... that is being plundered while it is being 'negotiated' ... Hauled away ... sold ... south ... every day ... on trains running across traditional lands. Clearcutting the Boreal ... paving Grand River country ... uranium in Algonquin cottage country (Ottawa headwaters) ... These are the issues we need to be taking a stand on ... NOW. Today ... well ... maybe tomorrow now ... Oh ... the poll ... Land Claims, Treaties and Self-Government " Canadians consider land claims to be the fourth most serious issue facing Aboriginal Canadians, behind alcohol/drugs, discrimination and standard of living. Large majorities in both the North and South consider the settlement of Aboriginal and Inuit land claims to be an important issue. " Having said this, Canadians appear fatigued with the land claims issue. Only about one in five Canadians agrees that land claim settlements lead to improved social and economic conditions for Aboriginal people. " With regard to treaties, 37% of Canadians believe that historical treaties are “sacred promises that cannot be altered but can be interpreted in a modern context”. A larger segment of the public (47%) believes that historical treaties are “agreements that need to be updated from time to time”. Finally, 14% of the public believe that historical treaties are “sacred promises that cannot be altered or reinterpreted in any way”. Notice 47+37+14 =98% who want to honour or negotiate. This is not the paper I was looking for, but it will do for now. They were ... Angus Reid 2002 - 68% of Canadians believe our governments should honour aboriginal and treaty rights. Ipsos Reid May and July 2007 - 69% ... then over 70% after the National Day of Protest for Aboriginal Rights, similar question. People just want to know the law is working. " Canadians offer lukewarm support for Aboriginal self-government. Only one in five citizens believes that Aboriginal people have a historic, existing right to self-government. Not many Canadians are aware that Aboriginal self-government exists. Still, a sizable percentage (47%) believes that self-government leads to an improvement in the standard of living of Aboriginal people.

Well .. no ... not exactly ... not at all really ... (There is no violence, so long as the police do not invade their territory.) It really is about the uranium mine (Sharbot Lake blockade), the clearcutting (Grassy Narrows blockade) and the sprawl development on the greenfields (Six Nations land reclamations) It's about land and life for all of us. It is too late to be concerned solely about what the money settlements will be ... or too soon perhaps given the government's speed of negotiation. It is now in a very immediate sense just about protecting their existing traditional and treaty land, some of which is settled by others who feel the same about protecting it, especially from uranium mining ... and dumping. These are the immediate issues. Not the money. We can deal with the money. It is the land issues that cause confrontations that our governments do nothing to resolve ... like consult as they are legally required by law, but don't. :angry:

Polygamous societies tend toward extreme authoritarianism and arbitrary government, with Draconian punishments to protect harems and control slaves and soldiers. Driven by millenniums of evolutionary pressure, young men will take extreme chances to find sexual gratification, so there have to be extreme punishments to control their libidinous passions. There is also a tendency toward permanent warfare, because plundering neighbouring peoples is the only way of satisfying the polygamous social system's limitless craving for women, slaves and soldiers. Polygamous, authoritarian systems may achieve imperial conquest and cultural efflorescence, but they do not favour the growth of democracy. Based on arbitrary power, radical inequality, harsh laws and endless warfare, the milieu is the very opposite of constitutional democracy, which must rest on the rule of law, equality before the law, mild punishments, and peaceable exchange in free markets. Simply put, polygamy raises reproductive stakes to levels that make it difficult for males to practise the self-restraint required by constitutional democracy. I can't quite keep a straight face reading this ... "Driven by millenniums of evolutionary pressure..." "there must be extreme punishments to control their libidinous passions" ... "makes it difficult for males to practise the self-restraint ... " Oh please ... Does he have any particular cultures in mind he would like to be just a little more clear about or he's just going to let all those names stand accused?? I think the last one mentioned was ... ummm ... Muslim. This is trash, imo. Polygamous societies tend toward extreme authoritarianism and arbitrary government, with Draconian punishments to protect harems and control slaves and soldiers. Driven by millenniums of evolutionary pressure, young men will take extreme chances to find sexual gratification, so there have to be extreme punishments to control their libidinous passions. There is also a tendency toward permanent warfare, because plundering neighbouring peoples is the only way of satisfying the polygamous social system's limitless craving for women, slaves and soldiers. OK every man who just read this is salivating hoping we become a kinky polygamous society ... right? Please tell me Tom Flanagan is not serious ... omigod.

I can't see Tory looking NDP ... but maybe his sudden largesse (at least in policy) with the extension of education funding has people wondering. I would be worried though, because RogersMedia always had great ideas but could never quite make money on them! A agree ... Purple shirts allround!! ... can't tell one from the other anymore!!

Take your meds and call me in the morning ... Seriously mikedavid you need to stop the blatant racism here please ... And the stereotyping and labelling of everyone in order to make up things they never said to suit your own perceptions. I am not an admirer of any political party, and I certainly never said the things you said I would say . You are taking this too personally. I do not wish to be addressed by you in the future.

You will have to run that by me again. Sorry ... "too examples" ... what? Where? not at that link ... sorry ... whose laws? whose constitution? Oh ... "constitutionally protected rights to land" ... I hear ya there ... that is something Canadians do not have, it is absolutely true. That is something we should take up with our government if it bothers us. Our lack of those constitutional property rights is a sore point ... but not a legal impediment to existing aboriginal rights. We should make the government answer for that, though, yes! I think the feds have pawned this 'property right' off on the provinces as their liability, though: Property deeds are 'guaranteed' by the province. Until I hear differently, I am assuming that is like insurance. Collectives ... hmmm ... family corporations ... they don't need constitutional protection ... nor ours! Whose laws?

CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO THE DECLARATION ON INDIGENOUS RIGHTS TO ACCOMMODATE 51 AFRICAN NATIONS AND ALLOW THE DECLARATION TO PASS AT THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY SEPT 13, DESPITE CANADA'S 'NAY' VOTE. THE CHANGES ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY 40 INDIGENOUS GROUPS. THIS IS A RESPONSE FROM ONE, first one I have seen, LAKOTA NATION USA: ........... Owe Aku Position on the Declaration Owe Aku acknowledges the enormous efforts and resources committed by our leaders and elders over these many years in drafting a Declaration that acknowledges our histories, our cultures, our relationship with our territories, our treaties, and, of course, the sovereignty of our nations. We acknowledge their spirit and faith in human rights. We acknowledge their wisdom in a seeking a just and balanced approach that would bring our peoples to international forums. Following our leaders and elders, we have participated in good faith, believing the words of the non-Native world that said we were a part of the process. Time and time again, we supported the compromises in the Declaration's preambular paragraphs and articles and finally agreed to the Declaration as passed by the Human Rights Council and submitted to the General Assembly. However, we know of no process that allowed Indigenous representatives to participate in any fair, equal or just process in the events leading to the present compromise being called the "9 changes." We have had no opportunity to comment, to accept or reject the changes, or to even discuss them with our people. The "9 changes" were, in fact, presented as a fait accompli, again with a series of "promises" attached to this latest surrender.. As people of the Lakota Nation, we see a continuation of the colonial process in which terms are dictated to us with the same outcome as the Doctrine of Discovery and the Law of Nations. Indeed, we were given information about 48 hours ago forcing us to support, oppose or passively agree to the changes. In our history, we have seen this tactic used many times. When colonizing powers want lands and resources our leaders have been isolated, cut off from the peoples' point of view and forced into accepting dictated terms. Since this is a Declaration of standards which, in effect, is a suggestion of best practices, and member nations cannot see their way clear to granting Indigenous peoples the same rights granted to all other peoples and acknowledge our equality as peoples; We therefore OPPOSE submittal of any version of the Declaration to the General Assembly other than the version of the Human Rights Council passed with the participation of Indigenous peoples. Kent Lebsock Owe Aku International Justice & Human Rights Project 917-751-4239 iamkent AT verizon DOT net lakota1 AT gwtc DOT net http://www.bringbacktheway.org

Thanks for the sp.

Willful transfer of property is exactly what it is about. There is no 'DNA privilege' beyond the right of inheritance that we all have. How does that work? Are status 'Indians' not already citizens?

I don't see riverwind saying there is no entitlement to compensation. She wants to know what the limit is I guess, which we can't know. Canadian taxpayers sometimes need to be reminded that we all benefit from the land and its resources, and that the land being blockaded is being defended from environmental destruction in all three cases ... Sharbot Lake ... Grassy Narrows ... Caledonia ... all ENVIRONMENTAL issues needing IMMEDIATE solutions. And our governments are not providing any real solutions. All they are providing is armed police.

geoffrey's opinion does NOT represent the majority ... 70% + want the treaties honoured.

I don't know ... did you INHERIT property rights from your family there? Do YOU have PROOF of it from the CROWN? (What did you mean "destroyed" by the Crown?) There is no question that Indigenous Peoples have land rights in Canada, and that those have not been adequately addressed. Obviously I cannot show you proof since these are matters of negotiation. I'll find a link though ...