jennie

I think it is similar ... maybe across the country ... notice we have no 'right to property' in our Constitution. But these people are pi$$ed ... these are top end retirement and executive acreages on the lakes and in the hills ... this is 'Cottage Country' (commute to Ottawa) ... etc. They paid for the view and the pristine wilderness and solitude, and they are ... well ... pi$$ed by the thousands ! So the property tax revolt is on. It occurs to me that perhaps these people can afford to buy the mineral rights back from the miner ... don't know ... but I'll bet the price is climbing now! Maybe that's the plan. The Algonquins, of course, don't have a choice of selling out ... this is their ancestral homeland for which they are responsible. period. The land'owners' are likewise determined not to allow the area to be invaded by uranium mining. It's an amazing dynamic ... very cool, imo. The lib and pc are 'pondering' ... The lib will have to take the government line, of course, which is they can't comment on a matter that is before the courts. They could have commented during the consultation they were supposed to do, but didn't. Govs prefer to let it get scary rather than have to consult. The pc will defend the miner ... unless he stands to lose his local voters that way, perhaps.

I think it is wise to fund ALL children in ALL schools according to the criteria, but we have to be careful about the public system 'assuming' the responsibility for providing or delivering religious doctrine: The public system is forbidden to deliver religious doctrine, only instruction in comparative religions is allowed. We want to be sure that providing a publicly funded a 'choice' of attending religious schooling doesn't become a 'right' in every neighbourhood ... I think ... or do we ... ? In any case, I think we need to be careful to ensure that public board's do not end up with responsibility for religion.

Nobody is shoving anybody anywhere. That is the point. This is totally a matter of free choice and freedom of religion .... freedom of culture. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. People have already made the choices ... the schools exist, the kids are there. Your assumption that people should not "cling to their old ways" is just.plain.wrong. . This is exactly what Canada IS about ... freedom to keep your heritage culture and have Canadian 'culture' too! It's wonderful this way. We're a mosaic, not a melting pot, remember? (Where did YOU go to school that you don't know this???? ) I would like to see more interaction among school communities - public, Catholic, private - i.e., neighbourhood connections. I think these things are happening, but would happen more if all were under provincial jurisdiction, perhaps.

That's just silly. All help welcomed. Education and national resources are very helpful.

Background: Landowners in Frontenac County (40k n of Kingston) woke up one day to find trees downed and their property staked for uranium mining. They were not amused to find out that under the Mining Act, they have absolutely no rights, even if uranium is found and a mine is built on their property. The local landowners went to the Algonquins for help, knowing that staking had occurred on traditional Algonquin land too. Landowners and Algonquins have been blockading the site since June 28, preventing the mining company from its work. A judge recently granted an injunction to the mining company for removal of the protesters. They are determined to stay ... http://www.newsweb.ca/2007/07'34_Aug_30/Candidates_mining.html Candidates deepen positions on mining in LFL&A By Jeff Green A veritable media scrum took place along a lonely stretch of road north of Clarendon this week, with CTV, Global, CKWS and CBC radio vying for a word from OPP officials and local Algonquin leaders. It’s fair to say the attention is unprecedented. The events at the Robertsville mine and the adjacent 30,000 acres encapsulate concerns about surface and subsurface property rights, uranium exploration and mining, and aboriginal land issues, and they have been the subject of particular interest to four men: The candidates for MPP in Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington. Ross Sutherland (NDP), Ian Wilson (Liberal) and Randy Hiller (Conservative) all appeared at an all-candidates meeting focusing on the Ontario Mining Act in late July. Since then, they have all been thinking long and hard about where they stand in regards to what is happening in North Frontenac as they prepare for the official election campaign, which kicks off on September 10. Rolly Montpellier, (Green Party) is late entering the campaign, but he brought his party leader, Frank DeJong, to the Robertsville mine on August 27. DeJong said that Green Party policy calls for a “moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in Ontario, as is in place in New Brunswick. We also call for subsurface and surface rights to be re-united.” Elaborating on their position regarding uranium mining, DeJong said that there is only a 20-year supply of high grade uranium, such as is mined in Northern Saskatchewan, “and after that, low grade sources, like the ones in North Frontenac, will be used. But it takes so much fossil fuel to process low grade uranium that it would be an economic and environmental disaster.” Ross Sutherland (NDP) was the first candidate to take a stance in support of the Algonquin occupation, coming to the site on June 29. He also called for a moratorium on uranium mining and nuclear power generation. Recently, Peter Tabuns, the NDP environment critic, called for Dalton McGuinty to cede to Algonquin demands in North Frontenac and agree to a moratorium on uranium exploration. ... I am glad to hear that all parties are getting involved, and this is becoming an election issue. Certainly I think McGuinty should use his option of putting a moratorium on mining there. I didn't realize he had the power.

I think you have just confirmed my worst fears.

We have had privileged DNA is this country forever, specializing in stealing indigenous land. I have seen auditing statements for a FN Band - on their website - so I don't know where you get your (mis)information about that. I am not well-informed enough to comment on big trucks and houses ... well come to think of it someone did tell me that since they cannot get mortgages, they buy expensive cars, pay them off and use it as collateral for a loan to build a house. I think that may be one of the gross stereotypes that abound. Tom Flanagan could not enlighten you about that either, since he prides himself on writing aboriginal policy without ever being on a reserve. Therein lies the problem with the way Canada always goes about making policy for indigenous people: It is written without their input or in spite of what they say, and then imposed on them, seldom addressing their real concerns or needs. I have not yet seen one of Tom Flanagan's ideas that was geared toward independence and economic development and respect for indigenous cultures. They are all about breaking up and selling off reserve land and otherwise seeking to destroy collective rights and promote assimilation. Correct me if I am wrong on that ... I also think it is easy to sit in an ivory tower and have 'great' ideas, but if they are not feasible and cannot be implemented, they are not worth much. Interesting idea about giving the money to the people and taxing it back. That could be done for our provincial grants to municipalities too. I wonder why it isn't if it is such a good idea?

Yes, I respect Jim Prentice and no I am not a conservative hater. I am not an admirer of politicians in general, and that extends to the Band Councils. Yes some activism is coming from the Chiefs, but only under great pressure from their people. The real activism is coming directly from the people, especially more traditional people, who see their future in self-determination and justice from Canada on land and compensation issues, not necessarily just in more government funding (like the Kelowna Accord). I agree that there must be accountability to the people for the Band money, and that all people must be covered by human rights legislation. That requires some thought and consultation with them, though, to make sure their collective rights are also protected. Harper disrespected that trying to push it through this summer, but he was not successful. I am really of two minds regarding the UN Declaration. I fully support it. If the Liberals were in power, there is no question they would sign it, just to keep Canada 'under the radar' ... out of the UN's line of sight re human rights violations. Harper has chosen to take a stand against it, which I think looks kind of odd since we have the same things in our own laws already (though not adhered to). It is raising red flags at the UN and among other countries, so there will likely be much more international scrutiny of Canada's human/indigenous rights record and behaviour in the future. If that is Harper's purpose for taking this approach, then I applaud him: we certainly do need to resolve the injustices and pay our liabilities to First Nations, and if international scrutiny helps, then I approve. So ... I guess it will all come out in the wash, as they say. I have heard it said: It is easy to implement human rights for MOST of the people but much more difficult to do so for ALL of the people. I think that is where Canada stands right now - a human rights 'leader' for most of the people, but a human rights offender for indigenous people. Since much of the billions in resources that feeds Canada's economy everyday comes from traditional and treaty land, it is easy to see how we can afford to implement human rights for some. However, the money that fuels our economy and our standard of living and our rights ... is taken from the economic health and prosperity and rights of indigenous people. That is the dilemma we have to resolve. I have also heard it said that Canada's economy is too dependent on resource wealth. I think that is the hangup - we are riding the 'resource gravy train' to 8 straight budget surpluses and no one wants to stop it, even though we are trampling all over the rights of Indigenous people, desecrating their land and not sharing any of the resource wealth with them despite their land rights. We need to make a full commitment to settling all land disputes promptly. The 'negotiation' process used by the feds was designed to stall land claims, not resolve them. We need a collaborative approach, not adversarial. We also need to make a commitment to consulting with aboriginal people regarding any plans that affect their land, as is required by law (and not done). And we need to get off the resource gravy train before it crashes, imo.

We are making progress lately, it is true. Only because First Nations are demanding it, though. There would not have been the speed of changes this year without their activism. The Declaration is consistent with Canadian laws. Problem is our federal and provincial governments have not been behaving in a legal manner on First Nations issues. Harper doesn't like Canadian laws - Charter and Constitution - and does not adhere to them. Not signing the Declaration is a personal declaration itself that he intends to continue breaking Canadian law. To be clear: The current activism is due to Canada's failure to consult (as per SCoC) with First Nations regarding developments on traditional and treaty land - i.e., land in dispute and caught in Canada's land claims boondoggle. The boondoggle was created for that purpose: To stall settlement until resources are extracted from the land or it is otherwise developed. We all know that. We all know our governments are acting illegally. I credit Harper for being truthful about his intent, but I cannot respect his purposes of continuing the practice of acting illegally and trampling rights of aboriginal people. However, I am glad this issue has put Canada front and centre internationally because there will be more exposure of malpractices and more pressure to follow the law ... I hope. Pretty sad when the best thing you can say for all your governments since Confederation is "I hope someday they will obey our laws."

I am not sure I would again suggest pliny "look at" anything to do with aboriginal people. He either doesn't know or doesn't care where the line is for socially acceptable comment. What bothers me about this attempt to abolish the Indian Act ... is that it is something once again being imposed on aboriginal people that they did not choose. Because it is the CTF, we know it is a Tom Flanagan style agenda. That means it is about "Oops sorry we got your land and resources ... come and be 'just one of us' and we might share some of it with you." What I would truly like to see before we start throwing things out without any consultation is a real commitment from the government to resolving the comprehensive claims involving large tracts of land and self-determination. If the government could move on that, and then consultations could begin about 'throwing out the Indian Act'. I think the CTF has it backwards.

Canada came up with the document. We were the key player ... for over 20 years. It is entirely consistent with our laws. I think we might want to concern ourselves about what the world thinks of Canada. Afterall, we do business there. I understand that there is a new clause being added to the document about "territorial integrity" that will resolve the issues raised by the African countries, allowing it to pass in the General Assembly despite Canada's objections. http://raven.kisikew.org/pdf/SCReport_070831.pdf

btw ... Your racist rant at me - (above) when you thought I was aboriginal ? It offends me. Might have to put in a grievance. ya really

Who said ban? I think some 'size' controls are in order though. Too much concentration of wealth in too few hands is not a healthy economy. I think we should maybe start with the media.

Furthermore ... Politics is everywhere! Genocide is the attempted destruction of the culture itself, whether by death or dispersal of peoples. Individuals may survive, but they would be absorbed into the dominant culture. Not sure what you mean here ... in Canada you mean? A law? I agree absolutely. I think it is fabulous the way different cultures are retained in Canada, while we all share a common culture too. Funny thing, some cultures are retained here in more traditional fashion and more vibrant than the modern culture of the homeland has become. And I do think it is wonderful how aboriginal culture seems to be reviving too.

Nice rant. Wrong audience. Wash your mouth out with soap, young man. That is not typically how it is used. I would suggest that is integration ... different heritages retained, people integrated. Doesn't matter to me much though, if you feel strongly about it. I want you to be clear on who I am and who I speak for and who you are speaking to: I am (Irish) Canadian, not aboriginal. These are my opinions. You forgot my favourite part of our Euro-heritage ... heads on pikes! That's why we Euro-colonizers developed scalping ... it was too heavy carrying whole heads the long distances in Canada, I guess! puke?

The Declaration is made up of 'human rights' existing in a whole bunch of other documents, just pulled together in one declaration. See I think this is just the same type of situation ... maybe it's not about Harper getting elected, but it is about public perceptions of him ... and especially perceptions of Canada. No we don't have to get 'elected' in the world, but we do want to do business there, I think. Making 'much ado about nothing new' may not make us too 'attractive' to the world.

There is a human rights bill re aboriginal people in preparation in Canada. There have been concerns for some time at the UN, too. But you are right ... human rights are human rights ... Indigenous people or otherwise ... that's what the UN found when they looked at the question. I gather what the UN did was search all UN agreements ... 'covenants' ... to see what human rights were already in effect for all people, including Indigenous people, and any other documents relevant to them. Sure enough, they found enough existing ones that they didn't need any new ones. They just pulled them all together in one document ... the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is simply a 'declaration' of existing rights. Then the UN Human Rights Committee made some country visits to 'try out' the document including Canada, and reported the findings ... in this report E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.3 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05...pdf?OpenElement UNITED NATIONS Economic and Social Council 2 December 2004 COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Item 15 of the provisional agenda INDIGENOUS ISSUES Human rights and indigenous issues Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen Addendum MISSION TO CANADA* Summary This report is submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2004/62 and refers to the official visit paid to Canada by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people from 21 May to 4 June 2004, at the invitation of the Government of Canada, where he had conversations with federal, provincial and territorial authorities, representatives of Aboriginal peoples’ organizations, members of the academic world, and members of Aboriginal communities in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario and Nunavut. He had previously visited several First Nation communities in May 2003. Based on the information gathered during these visits, he presents the present report on the human rights situation of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Aboriginal peoples, who include First Nations (Indians), Métis and Inuit, represent 4.4 per cent of Canada’s total population of 30 million inhabitants. The Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes their existing Aboriginal and treaty rights that have been subsequently reaffirmed by the courts. In recent years, some Aboriginal nations have negotiated new agreements with the federal and provincial governments concerning land claims and self-government arrangements. In its new Aboriginal policy of 1998, known as “Gathering Strength,” the federal Government has pledged to strengthen the relationship between Canada and the Aboriginal peoples. The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by Canada’s commitment to ensuring that the country’s prosperity is shared by Aboriginal people, a goal to which the federal and provincial governments of Canada devote an impressive number of programmes and projects and considerable financial resources, as well as by Canada’s commitment to close the unacceptable gaps between Aboriginal Canadians and the rest of the population in educational attainment, employment and access to basic social services. Economic, social and human indicators of well-being, quality of life and development are consistently lower among Aboriginal people than other Canadians. Poverty, infant mortality, unemployment, morbidity, suicide, criminal detention, children on welfare, women victims of abuse, child prostitution, are all much higher among Aboriginal people than in any other sector of Canadian society, whereas educational attainment, health standards, housing conditions, family income, access to economic opportunity and to social services are generally lower. Canada has taken up the challenge to close this gap. Ever since early colonial settlement, Canada’s indigenous peoples were progressively dispossessed of their lands, resources and culture, a process that led them into destitution, deprivation and dependency, which in turn generated an assertive and, occasionally, militant social movement in defence of their rights, restitution of their lands and resources and struggle for equal opportunity and self-determination. etc ... So yes ... Canada is trying to do something about it itself, and could help worldwide too like we usually do. Not sure why we're not.

How is that different? Except the voucher thing of course ... which is just a way to take money out of the existing system.

We have integration of peoples of many different cultures in Canada. Assimilation is an ugly word that means everybody becomes like the dominant culture. I don't think that is how we do it. It is interesting what is happening in some Indigenous communities right now, because the traditional culture is being revived by the young people. It is not dying out but becoming stronger, after many years where it was illegal, of course.

I didn't say that. Are we still talking about Indigenous rights?

My point was 'what is best' for aboriginal communities is up to them to decide. Some people choose to assimilate into the dominant culture. Some don't. Forced assimilation would be genocide.

One 'lobbies' other countries to vote against it in the General Assembly, as Canada has done.

I am a bit confused about what you are proposing, and what Tory is proposing. I assumed we were talking about bringing all the schools under provincial jurisdiction. I certainly was not talking about one megaboard ... good god! What a monster waster of money that would be! ! I think you are waaayyy off base suggesting that. There are no economies of scale to be had that will offset the cost of the changes and a new bureaucracy, horrific staffing costs in transition. Material costs are only about 20% of the budget anyway. Please!! Let's stick to something that is feasible. There already are costsharing agreements among boards. I find your slam at the Catholic boards in bad taste. We already have a provincial 'umbrella' body ... it is called the Ministry of Education. There is no reason why the current boards cannot continue to exist, and perhaps new boards be formed for the faith-based schools. Much easier and MUCH less costly to implement.

That only appears once. The rest are means of preventing the health, growth and development of the group - i.e., causing the .group' itself to cease to exist as a recognizable group. Thus, if you take all the children and raise them in a different culture, that is genocidal as your intention is to destroy the group itself, etc. * Killing members of the group * Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group * Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part * Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group * Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group I often hear/read people saying the reserves should be shut down and all natives moved elsewhere. That is a highly questionable suggestion, I think, from the perspective of genocide as "trying to destroy the group itself". However, we are pretty far off the topic of the 'Indian Act'. I find it odd that someone like the CTF thinks they 'know what is best' for aboriginal communities. Seriously ... how presumptuous ... tacky, imo.

I did mention that there was a tribunal by that name, but I have not claimed genocide, I have repeatedly stated that I will wait for the evidence and the processes. This is an interesting clarification, from your link ... it appears that genocide requires an "intentional policy", which I believe was the case in Canada at one time. The UN panel investigating Darfur concluded that though there was the deliberate targeting of civilians in Darfur using murder, torture and sexual violence, the Sudan government had not pursued an intentional policy of genocide.