jennie

Fair enough.

I see. Well ... treaties are not the issue here anyway ... you brought them up. It is interesting how the UN developed the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples ... It simply consists of human rights from other UN documents.

whatever ... why does it matter to you?

The rights to fish and hunt and gather could be considered human rights, and they are in the treaties. I applaud your honourable intention in saying that treaties are "agreements that must be respected" but the fact is ... Canadian governments have never respected any of the treaties. If they had, there would not be the current land claims boondoggle. Since 1982 the Constitution has said "existing aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and confirmed". However, their existing aboriginal and treaty rights are not recognized to this day. Yes the suspension of human rights by the Indian Act must be addressed, but not in a way that infringes on their collective rights. I believe Harper is trying to implement individual rights in such a way as to begin breaking up and selling off the reserves. This is not acceptable to them.

85% of the radioactivity is already left behind in mine tailings anyway. The problem is uranium mining itself. LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND !!!

I have no quarrel with the complications of life for the self-employed - been there myself too. Not all self-employed people do their own books or payroll. I am simply sharing two incidents in my personal experience where self-employed people had grossly inflated ideas about the disposable income of regular salaried employees. I suspect these misperceptions are quite widespread.

There is a section of the Indian Act that suspends certain human rights, and that is Harper's concern. However, you cannot separate human and collective rights of Indigenous people, I don't think. Indigenous rights are their human rights. If they are to survive and thrive as Indigenous peoples, their collective rights (land rights, self-governance) must be respected too.

Here, for example ... "just how hateful that art display was" ... It is not an insult to say someone is gay if it is the truth, and said respectfully. So why is a gay Christ a "hateful display"? It is considered a hateful display because someone thinks it IS an insult to say Christ may have been gay. "Gay' is only an insult if it is used or perceived as such. I repeat: So-called 'pedophiles' are not homosexual or heterosexual ... they are omni-sexual if you like ... they will molest anyone who is vulnerable and available to them. They are simply sexual predators who prey on easy prey ... children, regardless of gender, or they will also assault vulnerable adults such as the developmentally challenged, aged or infirm, or probably a passed out sophomore on a beach too! Being a sexual predator has absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality, as so many posters here have implied. Those allegations are false and defamatory and disgusting and do not belong in intelligent civil discourse.

Who is on the Board? that is where the power lies, right?

I wouldn't jump to any conclusion about tax evasion as that is not the issue at all, and I am sure his were broken out properly. My point was ... because of what my gross salary was on paper, he thought I had more money than him while in fact, his disposable income was MUCH more than mine!! I have encountered the same thing with another self-employed friend: After years of believing he was hard done by and his employees were "robbing him blind", with some urging, he actually looked at his employees 'expenses' situation compared to his own and concluded ... "How do they live on that? How do they even feed their kids?" And yes, my farmer friend and businessman friend also have nice "pensions" in property and assets. My point is simply that there is a great deal of angst against public AND private sector employees from the self-employed sector that stems from having a different perspective and not understanding the real financial facts.

Hmmm ... posit ... looks like we left them speechless!! Chalk one up for the "middle of the road!"

ABSOLUTELY!! ... which is why our governments refuse to resolve the land claims in good faith, stalling them to continue allowing plundering of the land for its resources first. ... which is why we have so many blockades and so much activism. Think about the Algonquins: UNCEDED land ... gov has ABSOLUTELY no paperwork for that land ... ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THE MINERALS that they can produce. Gov refuses to settle (a very simple matter since the gov HAS NO CLAIM), instead the land is overrun with uranium drillers ... or it was until the Algonquins and local landowners stopped it. This is the illegal scam currently being perpetrated against First Nations by our governments ... ALL of our governments ... and MANY FN across the country. Interest tends to accumulate on debt that is not paid. For example, 145,000 pounds sterling taken from Six Nations' account to build the Welland Canal (and never returned) is now worth over $100m Cdn just in currency conversion, NOT including the lost interest and interest accruing as we speak .... billions and billions. That is a very small example ... one of the smallest of the 28 specific claims of Six Nations. As for your snide 'early immigrants' crack, in law it makes no difference: They were here (for thousands of years), it was their land. The ONLY 'rights' we have to live here are laid out in the treaties we made with them. How are we doing at adhering to those laws? (We are NOT ... so why haven't they kicked us out long ago?) I have never seen a starving Canadian politician either, but I have seen plenty of starving and abused Canadian kids. (wtf ??? You are way outta line using old-fashioned, discarded, ignorant racial stereotypes like that in supposedly 'intelligent' conversation. ) Face the facts. Debate the facts.

"bonuses"? That is something public sector employees never get. HOWEVER ... I realize now that I was making this point more about the self-employed (not just private-sector employees who, I realize, have taken a big hit in recent downturns). The self-employed often mistake public salaries for disposable income, which is just not the case. I am reminded of going to the bank for a mortgage and when I told the lender my salary, he perked up thinking I would be a potential investor, so he drew up some plans for that to "sell" me. Then he looked at my pay slip bottom line and turned white and said "They really hit you with the income tax don't they?" (duh... ya). There was no money for investments. I am reminded of a friend ... a farmer ... who expected me to pay for things because of my high salary. One day I asked him how much money he takes out of the farm as 'pay' per year. He said $40,000 (somewhat less than my gross salary). I asked what he had to pay for out of that (mortgage, vehicles, utilities, etc) ... He said "nothing ... a few groceries ... all of the expenses go with the farm". (Even a couple of holidays to attend conventions!) $40,000 'walking around money' after all living expenses is comparable to a public sector salary of about $150,000 !!! My 'take home' was the same as his and I still had to pay all my living expenses!!! (That relationship did not last, obviously. ) So ... apologies to private sector employees: My message was for the self-employed.

We think we can demand that they observe OUR laws, even on their own UNCEDED land ... while we fail to give even basic respect to their laws? This captures in a nutshell what has been wrong with Canada's approach ever since confederation, and it is an attitude that simply does not work to intimidate these generations of Indigenous people. If you read the treaties, they are much more respectful of Indigenous Law. What we agreed to, and what we did were two entirely different things. So let's talk again about just WHO has been breaking OUR laws!! Our governments take ALL the 'awards' in that department!! I do not believe we can any longer afford the disrespectful approach you espouse, economically, socially or civilly. If the law is unjust, it is a civic responsibility to oppose it, imo, as the wealthy landowners in Frontenac County are now doing by supporting the blockade (financially and physically) and by withholding their property taxes. No doubt they will be a very visible force in the coming provincial election campaign too, calling for a moratorium on the uranium drilling. That is still one legal avenue to stop this idiocy.

Check out the thread on the Algonquin and landowners blockade in the provincial forum. Landowners say "If FN are taken out, we will come in." And they are refusing to pay their property taxes. This is not just a native blockade. It is the whole community.

You missed my comment that I should cease investing "taxes" in my government if I want to effect change. As someone without the means to become a major investor, I think I will focus on withdrawing economic support from my governments instead, to force THEM to deal with the corporations. There are no rights in existence in Canada today that did not have to be fought for through protest and economic sanction. "The law is the law" only until the law is changed. Laws are changed through effective action. Economic disruption is most common and most effective. Blockading the uranium drilling site is effective economic action. Local landowners refusing to pay their property taxes in Frontenac County is effective economic action.

I think we have to stop looking at the short term costs of social services, and instead look at the long term costs of NOT addressing the developmental needs of children. In this case, "a penny saved" is not "a penny earned" but sometimes just a dollar that has to be spent later. some thoughts... http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/recastin.htm My view is that without a discrete cut-off, any decision about a poverty line is based on how much inequality and downstream social costs a society is willing to tolerate. In determining the cut-off, two factors must be considered. First, there is morality and social justice. How much inequality do people think is fair and just? How much do we want to help children living in poor conditions and circumstances not of their own doing? Second, there is the weighing of the costs of doing something today to equalize opportunity against the later costs of not doing much. The lower the cut-off, the greater the inequality of outcome, and the larger the economic and social costs tomorrow as fewer children make successful transitions to adulthood. A dollar saved today by not maximizing opportunities is simply a dollar of spending delayed until later. (BY SOME ESTIMATES, $7 IN SPENDING LATER.)It is ironic that while we piously speak about the need and urgency to bring down the fiscal deficit because we do not want to burden future generations, we don't consider the "social deficit" we are passing on as services and programs, and social assistance benefits are slashed. One child in neo-natal intensive care costs the health-care system $8,400 a week. If the child is there because the mother was malnourished and the baby was low birth weight, how much money did we save by depriving the mother of a level of social assistance adequate to feed her properly during her pregnancy? Our research using the statistics shows clearly that the 1.5 million children living below the LICO in 1996 are at a disadvantage. Their opportunity to succeed is signficantly lower than children in higher income families. So what does it take to address this problem? The CCSD believes that it must become an important collective endeavour to better equalize the opportunities for children to succeed. To level the playing field. A child's chances for a successful transition to adulthood should not depend so heavily on family income. I am not suggesting that we ignore the Low Income Cut Off. It is an important indicator of serious deprivation in Canada. But nor should we assume that once family income rises above the LICO, successful child outcomes are guaranteed. We need to put together our practical knowledge about how kids succeed, with a study of the data which indicates why kids don't succeed. This means taking a good, hard look at the slashing and burning of social expenditures today, in light of a growing gap in income equality in Canada. We need to set the discussion of child poverty within the context of successful child development, and remove it from the context of how many grains of rice a day it takes to keep a body alive. This is the approach that will help us to meet our collective responsibility. That is, to design a prosperous society in which downstream social, economic, criminal costs are minimized--and productivity, tax revenues, social cohesion and civility are maximized.

Yes that is the exception.

oops

Yes, apparently the law is not on their side, in the case of the landowners for sure. There is nothing ... and they are now refusing to pay property taxes too ... getting interesting for them for sure! If course, they might not want to buy those mineral rights now because if there is a moratorium which is still a possibility, the price will drop then accordingly, I would expect.

excellent post! thanks bk. I am going to remind some who may not think of it ... because I've known people who didn't ... From the salaries quoted ... SUBTRACT all income taxes (There are NO employment expense deductions for public employees.) SUBTRACT hefty employee share of hefty pension and hefty benefits (HEFTILY appreciated later, though!) And there are NO tips, no gratuities, no gifts, no "$hare$", no perks allowed ... period. Those salary figures do not imply what you might think ... disposable income. They do translate into hefty but wise investments in health and future care and financial stability. Is that because of a too "generous" government employer? Or just because of a natural selection process? Perhaps it is simply because the people attracted to public service are inclined to value that future-focus, and not mind giving up some disposable income along the way.

Well you see that's our difference of opinion right there because ... we export billion$ of resources from traditional and treaty land EVERY DAY without consultation or compensation. The land and its resources are literally being dug up, cut down, loaded onto trains and sent south ... trains ... on tracks ... that run across their territories ... again without consultation or compensation ... ... many MANY trains ... many many times ... ALL DAY EVERY...FRIGGEN...DAY. We are spending their money, imo, and saving some ... 8 straight federal budget surpluses, for example. When is the last time Indian Affairs was audited? I'd like to see that first!! Point taken, though, re auditing ... and the reports are always helpful ... if it was "government cash", that is, and what you imply by that ... but it isn't, of course: It is pathetically miniscule payment toward Canada's constitutional and treaty obligations ... Canada's outstanding legal liabilities to Indigenous Nations. AUDITING IS DEFINITELY IN ORDER FOR THAT!!! Know what Canada's accountants call our national debt to Indigenous Nations in the budget? "Land claims negotiations and (a miniscule number of) settlements". Know whose budget it appears in? Indian Affairs ... so it's attributed to "First Nations" funding. unhunh. slick ... propaganda. It is the number one request of the AFN ... to have Canada's debt to First Nations removed from their debit sheet. And while we are at it ... a complete accounting for the treaty accounts is WAY LONG overdue. What say you? ( ) mybad ... I omitted the word "quickly" ... she said "pay it off quickly..." ... and buy a solid classic, of course, and keep it. So are you making my point or what? If we are not auditable ... why would they be? Especially when it is ... imo ... a bit of their share of resources, if you like, or a bit of the interest ... on our (growing) national debt to the Indigenous Nations. (Note I will not say 'owing to Band Councils', or AFN as they are Canadian government.)

Ok so if I want to be 'heard' by my corporations and governments, I cease investing in them ... money, votes, taxes, public 'loyalty' etc. ...Is that my option?

Are you saying the corporations and government are 'one', running the country for their own ends?

This has been very interesting. Thanks. I will look forward to reading more from both of you.