jennie

Um ... hate to be disagreeable but there is a federal government Truth and Reconciliation Commission in place now. http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/english/truth_r...commission.html (not to be confused with the upcoming International Tribunal that was also mentioned previously) A call for a public inquiry would not presume the outcome by referring to genocide or intentionality, of course. It is a call for an investigation of the facts. Those issues would perhaps arise from the inquiry, or as it has been styled, from the government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is highly unlikely, of course, that a charge against Canada for genocide will arise from Canada's Commission, I certainly agree with that!

This article as it lays out the federal government's objections ... and the author's perspective ... a balance. Aug 22, 2007 04:30 AM Carol Goar Canada is one of seven countries blocking the quest for a universal declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The other holdouts are Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Most members of the United Nations would like to see the charter, which has been under discussion for 20 years, adopted by the General Assembly at its fall session. Sixty-seven states are co-sponsoring it. The UN Human Rights Council approved it last summer (over Canada's objections). Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy calls it a test of "Canada's influence as a credible and influential voice for the protection of human rights." As the vote approaches, native and human rights groups are appealing to Ottawa not to thwart the declaration. They've sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging him to uphold the rights of the world's most marginalized and vulnerable people. "Canada must abandon its campaign against the declaration before further harm is done to the safety and well-being of indigenous peoples worldwide and to Canada's reputation as a principled defender of human rights," the signatories say. They include Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations; Beverly Jacobs, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada; Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada; Ed Bianchi, aboriginal rights co-ordinator for a church consortium called KAIROS and a number of regional chiefs. The government's position is that the declaration is too vague to be effective. It also maintains that some of its provisions could be interpreted in ways that are inconsistent with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs cites six specific concerns: The declaration might be used to support aboriginal claims to territories already ceded by treaty. It might interfere with Canada's approach to settling land claims, which balances the rights of aboriginal peoples against the interests of other Canadians. It might be interpreted to give aboriginal peoples a veto over defence activities. It confers on indigenous people a right to conserve and protect the environment, which is not recognized in international law. It provides no guidance about the financing of aboriginal self-government. And it fails to state clearly that federal and provincial laws are paramount on matters of overriding national importance. This is nonsense, Axworthy says. International human rights declarations have never been legally binding. Moreover, this one has an explicit clause – included at Canada's insistence – stating that it must be interpreted in accordance with existing domestic laws. Until recently, Canada was one of the leaders in rallying support for the declaration. In the early years of the negotiations, some states wanted nothing to do with it, fearing it would give indigenous peoples rights and powers that would undermine their authority and drain their budgets. Canada worked tirelessly to bring these countries on board, explaining and defending the concept of aboriginal self-determination. Craig Benjamin of Amnesty International sat in on some of those talks. "Canada was instrumental in breaking the deadlock between state governments and indigenous peoples. We acknowledged the right to self-government. We said we don't find it threatening." Shortly after Prime Minister Stephen Harper was elected, Canada's stance changed. It voted against the declaration – with Russia – at the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006. It is now lobbying other countries to join its call for a re-negotiation of all the substantive provisions of the document. So far, it has found six allies. Several African countries are wavering. "We have grave concerns that Canada is encouraging states with appalling records on human rights to take positions against the recognition and protection of indigenous people's human rights," the petitioners say in their public letter to Harper. There is still time for Canada to change course. For more than a century, we have failed our original citizens abysmally. We have ignored their needs and stunted their development. The least we can do now is offer them the tools to do better. ................................................................................ ................................. TODAY'S NEWS FROM UN, NEW YORK Demonstration Against NZ, Australia & Canada Friday, 31 August 2007, 9:14 am Press Release: International Forum On Globalization International Demonstration Against NZ, Australia & Canada International Coalition Of NGOs Calls For Adoption Of The Un Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples Denounces Canada, New Zealand And Australia For "human Rights Hypocrisy" In Leading The Opposition To The Declaration Protests At Three Missions To The Un To Be Held On Thursday, August 30th, 2007 Press Conference And Rally In Front Of Canadian Mission To The Un At 12 Noon 1 - Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza (885 2nd Avenue At 47th St) To Be Followed By March To Missions Of New Zealand And Australia New York, New York: In an urgent effort in support of the upcoming vote (tentatively scheduled for September 13th) in the UN General Assembly on United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, over two dozen national and international NGOs in the United States and Canada have come to New York City to announce their support for Indigenous peoples rights and to protest the opposition to the Declaration being led by the governments of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Jerry Mander, Founder and Co-Director of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) of San Francisco, the convening organization and secretariat of The Emergency Coalition of NGOs in Support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said: "We are appalled by this action of human rights hypocrisy--especially coming from the governments of Canada and New Zealand, countries that are traditionally considered global leaders for human rights." Mander continued, "We call upon them to immediately stop their unprincipled campaign against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." ... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0708/S00717.htm ................................................................................ ........ AND A BROADER CONTEXT ... Canada's way Climate change is an environmental issue and a human rights issue, and this country has turned from the path of leadership on both counts Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Citizen Special Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Canada has long played a vital, yet humble, role as international leader. Leadership, however, is often lonely and difficult, and I fear we are no longer maintaining our nation's far-sighted heritage. Canada, it appears, is withdrawing support for the world's most vulnerable populations, many of whom reside within our own borders. The price will be our international reputation as a nation of decency and principle, as well as our legitimacy when attempting to influence global matters where we were once considered stalwart defenders of rights. This will likely come as a shock to many Canadians; after all, we pride ourselves on our staunch defence of the rights of the oppressed. Are we not a country of peacekeepers? Did we not lead the fight against landmines? But, I fear, on climate change, on the rights of the world's indigenous peoples, and in our sudden, knee-jerk attempts at asserting our Arctic sovereignty, we have taken an alarming step away from our national legacy. ... more ... http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/o...4f-79e160cf3578 ......................................................... For those interested ... this petition has gained 12,000 signatures since I last looked at it a couple of months ago. http://www.amnesty.ca/ip_un_petition/UN_indigenous_rights_petition.php This petition has been organized by the Grand Council of the Crees and Amnesty International Canada. The names and organizations collected on this petition will be used to promote adoption of the Declaration to governments around the world. GLOBAL PETITION "We reaffirm our commitment to continue making progress in the advancement of the human rights of the world’s indigenous peoples at the local, national, regional and international levels, including through consultation and collaboration with them, and to present for adoption a final draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples as soon as possible." -- 2005 World Summit Outcome , adopted by the UN General Assembly, 24 October 2005 In every region of the world, the survival or well-being of Indigenous peoples is threatened by grave and persistent violations of their fundamental human rights. A strong and uplifting United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is urgently needed to establish minimum international standards to inspire and urge states and others to respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples without discrimination. We call upon all states to support as a priority the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its adoption by the General Assembly. ............................................

Prove that megacorporations contribute anything to our economy. You may include what their workers contribute to the economy, but must balance that accounting with the profits that go to off-shore tax havens. Prove that there is any residual benefit to the Canadian economy. Short answer ... YOU CAN'T ... because the profits sucked out, the taxes forgiven, the environmental desecration left behind, etc. all result in a HUGE loss to our economy.

The American anthem being booed by Canadians caused quite an incident as I recall. I think they WOULD care very much if a US flag was on a football being gleefully kicked around by Taliban. It is all a matter of context, isn't it?

Prove that megacorporations contribute ANYTHING to the Canadian economy.

Well let's see ... Cambodians were forced out of their homeland and came to Canada, same with Somalians, many Afghans, Iraquis, Rwandans, El Salvadorans ... tell me who is forcing these people out of their homelands ... would it be ... the multinational corporations of the war industry? Yes, I think so. Full circle! You are a full blown racist, aren't you? I think you should be required to answer the question about your ethnic originas so we can explain to you why you are inferior to the wave of immigration that immediately preceded you to Canada, as suggested. Where DO you draw your line at who are acceptable immigrants? The Dukabors escaping persecution? The Jews escaping Hitler? The Italians escaping Mussolini? The Koreans escaping the Korean war? The Vietnamese escaping Vietnam war? The Somalians escaping civil war? Where is your colour line oh racist one? Enlighten us.

What do you call a man with no arms and no legs floating in the water? Bob. What do you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on the wall? Art. True, we get a laugh from offensive humour at the expense of others. However, usually in private where no one is directly offended. On the street at a public event, to make fun of people's religion ... is WAY beyond the realm of acceptable. I would like to comment on the priest jokes, though: I think where a pattern of guilt has been established, such humour has its place in discrediting a profession that has repeatedly discredited itself in the most vile way possible, without proper attention to the need for serious reform of its policies: Nothing but coverup. The humour is more of a political, societal statement of well deserved scorn, imo.

You are absolutely right about that, because of course Canada will stall as long as it can so obviously has not resolved this particular land dispute yet. However, can you tell me, since the Algonquins have never surrendered the land, or themselves, never signed a treaty, never received a thing from the government, always operated their band by contributions from members ... How could Canada have evidence of ownership of the land, if no transfer of anything ever took place?

Prove it. "It's really good to be the boss. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39067

In exchange for the release of the hostages, South Korea agreed to withdraw its small contingent of roughly 200 non-combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. It also pledged to prevent its citizens from conducting Christian missionary work in Afghanistan, where the overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim. An Afghan minister predicted this week that the deal would embolden the Taliban to kidnap more foreigners. But some analysts noted that the South Koreans did not concede anything new. The government already planned to withdraw its troops by the end of the year, and had discouraged missionary work in hostile foreign countries. The Taliban also did not secure the release of several Taliban prisoners held by the Afghan government -- the primary demand of the insurgents throughout the ordeal. There is negotiating and then there is negotiating ... and this was ... negotiating! I think they did a superb job. The kidnappers were looking for ways to give it up without 'losing face' and the south Koreans didn't give away anything at all. I suspect Bernier's bit of theatre was to convince the kidnappers they were getting away with something ... to help ensure they gave it up ... perhaps?

And create more danger for them and their families too ... I think many would like to have the security to grow and sell legally, but they just don't have that option yet.

Not mystical ... but definitely powerful, in proportion with the concentration of industries in fewer hands. As for corporate taxation ... I think those in the upper middle would like even more to see it increased, to take the disproportionate burden off them that is created by the artificial ceiling for top income tax bracket ... $250,000 taxed the same as multi-millions?? Give me a break!

Thanks for the opportunity to check this out ... One criticism of the Austrian school is its rejection of the scientific method and empirical testing in favor of supposedly self-evident axioms and logical reasoning.[6] Bryan Caplan has criticized the school for rejecting on principle the use of mathematics or econometrics which "more than anything else, what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals"[7] There are also criticisms of more specific theories.[8] Rejecting econometrics ... well I can see arguments for that. If one is always predicting on past data, one never considers the unique probabilities of fortuitous events, creativity, perhaps? But then relying on logical (deductive) reasoning has those limitations as well ... and "self-evident axioms" ... well ... I would have to see them to evaluate them I guess. Self-evident to whom? To me, an economic novice? An example? They will provide evidence of crimes to be investigated and brought to justice. These may be individual or collective, such as Canada's potential crimes against humanity. It is a necessary stage of justice ... the 'rule of law' in effect. I gather they needed the warmth? Ya ... real do-good that is ! ... Livin' in luxury, those kids ... Once our governments HONOUR TREATY AND TRADITIONAL LAND RIGHTS AND PAY OUR OUTSTANDING LEGAL LIABILITIES, then the government is free to give up trying to be so "helpful" ... in my 'legal' opinion.

Am I confused ... or am I confusing you? Are you talking about the government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission? I believe it was recommended by the RCAP as a Public Inquiry, and we know they do not indict individuals for crimes, so by demand it has already gone past the Recommendations in the RCAP: Records and evidence and reports of crimes will be turned over to the RCMP now. Recommendations The Commission recommends that 1.10.1 Under Part I of the Public Inquiries Act, the government of Canada establish a public inquiry instructed to (a) investigate and document the origins and effects of residential school policies and practices respecting all Aboriginal peoples, with particular attention to the nature and extent of effects on subsequent generations of individuals and families, and on communities and Aboriginal societies; ( conduct public hearings across the country with sufficient funding to enable the testimony of affected persons to be heard; © commission research and analysis of the breadth of the effects of these policies and practices; (d) investigate the record of residential schools with a view to the identification of abuse and what action, if any, is considered appropriate; and (e) recommend remedial action by governments and the responsible churches deemed necessary by the inquiry to relieve conditions created by the residential school experience, including as appropriate, • apologies by those responsible; • compensation of communities to design and administer programs that help the healing process and rebuild their community life; and • funding for treatment of affected individuals and their families. 1.10.2 A majority of commissioners appointed to this public inquiry be Aboriginal. 1.10.3 The government of Canada fund establishment of a national repository of records and video collections related to residential schools, co-ordinated with planning of the recommended Aboriginal Peoples' International University (see Volume 3, Chapter 5) and its electronic clearinghouse, to • facilitate access to documentation and electronic exchange of research on residential schools; • provide financial assistance for the collection of testimony and continuing research; • work with educators in the design of Aboriginal curriculum that explains the history and effects of residential schools; and • conduct public education programs on the history and effects of residential schools and remedies applied to relieve their negative effects.

The devil is always in the details of surveys ... of what the question is. I believe the 10% figure relates to the question "ever had a homosexual experience". "Consider yourself homosexual" is a more restricted population, apparently. We really do have a plethora of kafuffle considering that there is clearly not a threat here to anyone. I guess it's those fears of rampantly-spreading homosexuality that some people have ... (... Where does that fear come from ?)

I am beginning to think the native language here is s.l.u.r. ... second language slur ... gay slur ... ? If Christ was or wasn't gay or was even sexual ... is nobody's business anyway, in my mind. That's the law, I believe. Gay is not criminal. And if I, a woman, want to celebrate a female earth goddess more that the male biblical one, it's my choice. If someone wants to celebrate a gay Christ ... I don't see how it is a tribute to Christ to burn it. Not that I see Christ as a religious figure, just a courageous person. And 'gay' is not a slur but a simple fact of life for some. The s.l.u.r. is in assuming that it IS an insult to say someone is gay. So ... if you call me "old" and I am an elder, I might take it as simple recognition. If you sneer when you call me old, making 'old' a derogatory thing ... I might friggen paste ya! (Am I being too vague?) I have also acquired by family some Japanese Shinto gods, of which there are many ... many ... many ... all giving thanks for various blessings. My fav is God of the toilet. It is light hearted, but sincere ... thankfulness for the blessings of elimination. (ok so this may be age dependent humour ... ) Notice ... I have NOT spoken about pedophiles but I must now, for that is heinously criminal. Pedophiles are NOT homosexual ... they are opportunistic sexual predators who would violate a 100 year old man or a 3 year old girl, whatever opportunity exists or they can create.

Well, I think context has to be considered too. in the example of the footballs ... if American flag footballs with Jesus on them were being kicked around by Afghan resistance ... I can see some people getting upset. It would appear to be a deliberate provocation. I can see that it may have been in this case too.

I am interested in knowing the source of people's knowledge on this topic, as it seems well established. It seems to me that until the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and/or the International Tribunal provide some evidence are we not all whistling in the dark unless we are those affected or family, etc? I have my opinion too, but mainly I now look forward to hearing the information that will be made public to clarify these issues for all of us. As I said above, it is noteworthy that much of the information already received by the Truth Commission has come from non-aboriginal staff of the church schools, etc. That source of information will be particularly relevant to verification of incidents, etc. To get back to the topic, though ... the Indian Act definitely needs to become something different ... but how about if Canada just lives up to its treaty responsibilities first?

I don't think people on welfare and people applying for student loans are not going to have enough money to support themselves AND invest ... unless they have lied (committed fraud) to get the loan/welfare in the first place. I suppose it is possible, though, say if a person has been out of school for a year, applies based on his own income, but in fact has financial support from parents so doesn't really need the loan money. I am not sure. It is still fraud, though. Using credit cards, though is not fraud. Interesting concept. I guess I am just not money-minded, though, because it seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a few bucks!! (eg, 5000 standard credit limit@7%=$350 per year) I can make that in a day. Perhaps this is why I will never be rich!

70 out of 100, and I discovered some new things in my neighbourhood! However, the nearest bar may be only a block away but I am NOT likely to frequent a strip bar!!

I have heard the idea floated of public funding with mandatory provincial curriculum, but not the "one board" concept. That is very interesting! I think I agree. This is a change for me because I have been opposed to funding faith based schools until now, but I am beginning to see the wisdom .... levelling the playing field, equal opportunity in the faith of your choice, etc. Might be a bit expensive though ... ? What about the 'toni' private schools? Do they continue to exist outside the 'public board' ?

Argus I must point out that you are basing your judgment on very questionable assumptions about 'foreigners' ... more than questionable ... just plain wrong ... and damaging.

How so?

Hmmm ... I think there is a debate in that ... but the label isn't really the topic of interest. The issue is that it appears clear that Canada has totally lost control, as you say, of the corporations imo. That makes us very vulnerable to environmental destruction, I think.

Yes he did start calling you names. OK. I will keep in mind that he is a closed mind. Clearly his question was not sincere. I should have known, considering the slurs that accompanied it. Thanks for the tip! Always good to know who the trolls are on a new board! I shall avoid him in the future unless he shows himself capable of respectful discourse.