jennie

MikeDavid doesn't count. I can't respect the opinions of someone so strident in imposing his political opinions can't even be bothered to vote. Goodbye MikeDavid. Nothing you say has any credibility worth responding to.

The 'environment' is not a single issue: It is the focal point of all issues, preserving the earth in order to preserve human life. The economy must serve the needs of the human environment. Otherwise, it has no purpose.

When you choose the country, you take it warts and all. If you didn't do your research ... buyer beware! It appears to me that what we are ALL saying in this thread is that "reasonable accommodation" can include such things as dress (including burkas and turbans,etc), religious holidays, etc. but NOT anything that infringes on the rights of other people. Thus, it does NOT include the right to rape, circumcize or commit ANY criminal offences. Does that capture it?

And it is a part of the province that I am attached to, so I am absolutely delighted at this 'Green' belt turn of events! Not that I am necessarily a Green supporter, but a breath of fresh air is welcome I think. We are talking about new generations of farmers now, many of whom have degrees in agriculture. I am positive there must be a heavy environment focus in ag these days. We are also talking about more and more boomer retirees, e.g., BlueMtn-Collingwood-Wasaga's ski-sail-beach community) who, having made their money off it now want to preserve the rest of the environment for themselves.jk They are also filling up their cottage-country retirement retreats year-round. The 'environment' may be a single issue, but is it our human environment we are talking about, the one that supports human life. All else must necessarily flow from that. That is what the Green Party is prepared to address, as I understand it: How do we sustain our environment ... and thus human life (duh) ... in the free market? (I see green kengs thinks they are anti-capitalist ... I would have to see the evidence for that.)

Oh puleez That is true neither south or north of the border.

I am disappointed in you kengs. I thought you were perhaps a more objective academic than that. Your response is to avoid acknowledging this information. You are not alone. Most Canadians don't like to discuss this aspect of our history. I am hopeful that most Canadians will become better informed over the next couple of years, as the federal government's 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' is in progress. It is an important part of the settlement, the part where Canadians are told at least some of the truth. A few points: - In the residential schools, sexual abuse occurred as much to boys as girls, perhaps more. (Nothing to do with feminism.) - The death rates in the schools averaged 50% or more for decades, according to the government's own data. - Rape is a common war/ethnic cleansing tactic, used to terrorize the population. - It is commonly agreed by many historians that at least 50,000 children died in the residential schools. Reports indicate many were buried near the schools, some in mass graves. The deaths have not yet been investigated ... ever. The federal government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission says it is beginning to do so now, after Minister Jim Prentice was confronted by the media on the topic. This is a documentary about one man's experiences related to residential schools. He is a minister: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-66...epentant&to

I am not suggesting that it be a 'crime free for all', and of course raping a child is a horrific crime. I am saying that I think 'reasonable accommodation' means considering each case on its merits ... If we allow this rule to bend, what are the implications, who is affected and how, etc. If it does not infringe on other people, then I see no reason for sticking to a rigid and unworkable position. As I said, accommodating new immigrants is what Canada has always been about. Why should that change now? And if we are no longer going to accommodate anyone for anything, then get those darn rickety dangerous Mennonite buggies off the roads, or explain to me why not.

Methinks anyone who wants to avoid paying CPP can easily do so by going a couple of hours south.

Mr. Layton: In the matter of Indigenous land rights, neither the Liberals or Conservatives, provincially or federally, have followed the Supreme Court's rulings on the Crown's Duty to Consult. The result of this failure to consult is five aboriginal blockades of land use projects across Ontario, and numerous others across the country. The Ontario provincial NDP, however, has made commitments to honour the 'duty to consult' with Indigenous communities about land uses on their traditional and treaty lands, and to pursue revenue sharing agreements. Will the federal NDP also commit to supporting meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples regarding all uses of their traditional and treaty lands, and respecting their interests in those lands?

I see no reason why we need to be rigid about this. We need to look at each situation on its merits, as has happened. How can we say Canada is a country of 'freedom of religion' if we are not willing to accommodate 'certain' religious practices, when doing so is not really a hardship? I am not in favour of such a rigid approach, and I don't believe it is the tradition of Canada. We have accommodated Dukabors, Mennonites etc, and those Mennonite buggies are a hazard on the road! Can you imagine the uproar if it was Muslims driving those buggies? Let's keep things in perspective. Canada is not made of glass and it is not going to crack open if someone wears a burka!

Yes, that's what I have read too, no improvement in quality and higher administrative costs. Health care in the US, for example, is much more expensive than ours when all costs are calculated. Because of the duplication in administration - public, private, the entire system is more costly but the extra cost of private health care is in providing administration, not health services.

M. Dancer, the Greens are definitely capitalist, with neo-Liberal ideas about the 'marketplace' so they are not traditional 'lefties'.

Isn't that interesting. I had heard a movement afoot in that area, and I am amazed to see how clear it is! Most of the farmers in the province have had a sign saying "STOP development" on the farmland, something like that, so that is a big 'green' issue there. I was told there is distrust of Stephen Harper in these areas because he silenced their elected representatives. These lifelong conservatives think that is a dangerous oppression of the democracy they fought for, and it frightened them. Thanks kengs.

Do "we" own firearms? ... fertilizer?

Intifada is an Arabic word for shaking off, though it is generally translated into English as rebellion. It is ironic that the young woman's t-shirt statement - shaking off oppression - was a very American thing for a high school kid to do: a "Girl Power!!" statement. Very ironic that this is seen as a threat and a reason to fear, when it likely represents a celebration of the reason her family is in NY: opportunities for her. Sadly ironic, it must seem to her, to be again oppressed.

Well that is interesting... but stupid. That would mean both the poor and the rich who pay no income tax would not be able to vote? mikedavid you have a lot of growing up to do.

I have seen a person on a discussion board ask people to please stop saying 'Indian' for aboriginal because the person really was Indian, from India, and it was offensive to him. So, there are two groups of people who are offended by its use, and our government that continues to use it only as part of its systemic denigration and racism program. That is reason enough to change your language. Otherwise, I think I will call you 'li'l jeffie' whether you like it or not.

The points system is not a "test". It asks, for example, whether you speak English or French, what education you have, etc. and assigns points accordingly. Please keep your personal comments to yourself. and ... everybody voting today?

I heard today that some Hollywood types are uniting in support of Burmese monks.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2409.html Interview with Evo Morales, peasant leader and accused terrorist Bolivia is on the brink of civil war because of US drug war policies, and Evo Morales is at the centre of the conflict. An elected Bolivian congressman with the most votes in Bolivian history, former nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, leader of the Five Federations of Lowland Peasants and President of the Andean Confederation of Coca Leaf Producers – Evo Morales is a figure as important to Bolivian history and politics as Che Guevara, the radical leftist who was assassinated by CIA-trained and coordinated forces in 1967, and who has since become a legendary icon to Latin-American indigenous movements. Morales now stands accused of being a "terrorist," but he gave Cannabis Culture this exclusive interview, with our set of questions brought to him by Bolivian journalist Ivàn Canelas. What follows is translated from the original Spanish. Cannabis Culture: Are the war on drugs and the war on terrorism much the same thing? Evo Morales: The drug war and the war on terrorism, from our perspective, go together. Before it was communism, then they moved onto the war on narcotics, and now onto terrorism. They are all pretexts and excuses of the US for relatively peaceful control in many countries, though in others they assume the level of a low-intensity war. Q: Could you explain the difference between coca leaves and cocaine? [Coca] is not the same as cocaine. Coca leaves aren't damaging. The ones who convert it to cocaine are the narcotics traffickers, and perhaps those are the ones who should be detained. The farmers are victimized, while narcotics traffickers are happy in the city with the US doing nothing to sanction them. Their fortunes accumulate in Miami banks, and the US doesn't do or say anything. Q: Is the war against terrorism an excuse to destroy Bolivia's coca producers? Yes. Not only the coca producers, but all social movements that are against the model and against the system. Any social struggle will be classified as terrorism… and all will be excuses to avoid the social protests of thousands of people who are against the present system and US politics. They've accused us of being terrorists, with their only interest being to affect our fight, and only because we are brainstorming the social movement – the fight of the indigenous pueblos [villages, groups or peoples], for land and territory, defence of the coca, natural resources, amongst others. These fights irritate the present system because they oppose the model forced and imposed on Bolivia. They intend to continue exploiting our resources – our petroleum, gas and others – in ways that serve only the transnationals and not the people. Q: Could you comment specifically on US interest in Bolivia's oil and gas? Especially with gas and mining, they want to take the national parks and forest reserves before they fill up with so-called Indians and landless people from the countryside and the cities. I don't doubt that in the future, the requirement of (US aid) certification will not just be a drug war, but the ultimate handing over of all these lands. Q: Do you believe that the US wants to steal your land? That's their intention. Because the Chapare is strategic to their interests, including military interests, they want to impose their model of economic misery upon us, and we will not accept that. We fight not only to maintain our culture, but our tradition and wealth. They don't accept that we have a relationship with our land. Instead, they aspire for us to be agricultural labourers. That is to say, they aspire for us to work for others.They want to tear us away from our culture. That's why they try to give indigenous struggles, the defending of our villages and lands, a bad name. We are determined to fight for our culture so that they don't take our land and enrich only a few in return. Q: How did you feel when you were accused of being a terrorist? I didn't care. I know I am not. I fight for my people, my culture and so that the farmers can live better. If they say we are terrorists, it is only an excuse to repress us and kill us. Q: `Any social struggle will be classified as terrorism...` Are you peaceful? We have always been peaceful. We don't attack; we defend ourselves. The government transports military troops and police to the Chapare to kill us, and what can we do but defend ourselves? ................................... Absolutely no different than Canada, where Indigenous lands are held hostage and desecrated for bargain basement priced fossil fuels and jewels for American consumption, aided and abetted by Canadian governments.

Certainly they are different, but the processes would likely be similar regardless of who you are. If you determined that family land had been expropriated but never compensated historically, the sale is null and void. I believe you have the right to pursue that too. What I am getting at is that there are no special 'DNA based rights' for Indigenous Peoples as some suggest. They are the same rights we all have, but their rights have been oppressed until now. And yes, it is simply the right to bequeath to whomever you choose.

Alberta oil thirst leading to disaster: author Updated Tue. Oct. 9 2007 1:07 PM ET Andy Johnson, CTV.ca News Staff The author of a new book on the future of Canada's oil industry says Alberta is destroying itself in its rush to extract every drop of fossil fuel from the oilsands. William Marsden, a Montreal journalist and author of "Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care)," appeared on CTV's Canada AM on Tuesday. He says Alberta is giving up control of its oil assets to foreign investors and private business, with little effort to ensure its economic or environmental future is protected. ... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071009/alberta_oil_071009/20071009?hub=Canada Environmental armageddon? pretty strong words. I can't help but think, though, that if we got over our reliance on fossil fuels we could live more independently. Solar shingles, micro-turbines, little electric city cars, just a bit bigger than a shopping cart ... it is becoming so doable. Think about it ... if we had to use electric cars in urban areas (currently under $10,000) we could indulge our fondness for drive-through shopping without guilt!! That would be heaven! I did the Thanksgiving trek to and from cottage country, stopped at a Tims/gas bar. omigod. Trucks and SUVs idling in lineups everywhere. Wasn't it in "1984" that we were supposed to get electronic highways that you hooked your car into? Cos this is friggen ridiculous!

Back to topic ... MMP: the real issue is representation of the popular vote ... our choices of parties ... in the legislature. Under the current system, we can have a government with absolute power to pass anything they want, even though they were only elected by a minority (less than 50%) of the people. MMP will mean that the percentage of seats for each party in the house will reflect the democratic vote of the people across the province, as well as the constituency seats. My thoughts: Fewer constituencies means more need for specialization, perhaps, so list member might, for example, have 'portfolios' across the province, to provide better and faster legislative service on specific issues, like environment and municipal planning and Indigenous Peoples' rights ... where the needs collide in Ontario right now. Thus, in the current provincial election (according to the polls) under the current FPTP system, with 44% of the popular vote, Dalton McGuinty will have 63 seats, a majority in the house (out of the current 107? 106?) and a virtual dictatorship for the next four years, as passing laws through the legislature becomes just a rubber stamp. imo It isn't a huge impact, though, if my calculations are right. I am assuming 107 current seats, 129 MMP, and the current poll results: FPTP Current system First past the post 107 seats 63/107 59%of the current 107 seats MMP Mixed member proportional Constituency (Riding) seats 90 59% of 90 53 of 90 constituency seats Party list seats 39 44% of 39 17 of 39 list seats Seats in the legislature 129 70/129 54% of the MMP 129 seats

The so called 'privilege', is existing aboriginal and treaty rights, directly related to the areas inhabited prior to contact. That's what the issues are about. 'Indian' status is a concept designed by the government purposes of the archaic and offensive 'Indian' Act.

People who like to flog the 'race-based privilege' card refer to 'rights by DNA'. My point is that everyone can have property rights by DNA, if your DNA owns any property. What remains to be seen is the legal disposition of land with existing aboriginal rights or title. I do believe the laws should be upheld, whether in the courts or in negotiation. Don't you agree?