charter.rights

The 1849 rebellion was a direct contributor to confederation and democracy in Canada. Without it we would likely still be an aristocracy. The civil action was justified in changing the direction of politics in Canada.

Bullshit. Put up or shut up.

Bullshit. You have nothing. Your personal experiences are nothing but fantasy and innuendo. Third party management does not work out to the betterment for First Nations. It is a fact, supported by the Auditor General of Canada in the former AG Sheila Fraser's last 12 years of reporting to Parliament.

Outsourceing to Mexico starter 10 years before the stock market crashed and put GM in trouble. (Actually it was GMAC, GM's financial arm that was dabbling in those underwater mortgages that hurt them). In fact when GM received its bailout the financial burden in terms of labour was only around 12% of their overall liability.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. You make a declaration, and your are REQUIRED under the "Rules and Guidelines" to back it up. So either back it up by providing verifiable references or admit you made it up.

Mine isn't an assumption. However, the ball is in your court. You made the claim, and when you provide the citation I will refute with proper counter-references. Put up or shut up.....as the saying goes.

The Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal in 1849 was an important part of Canadian history and one of the primary reasons we live in a democracy and not an aristocracy. John Ralston Saul ....and it is applicable today as it was then. If a government gets out of hand, violating rights and trying make a dictatorship, then civil action is morally justified.

No. You made an insinuation based on a false premise - otherwise known as a fallacy argument. It has no merit until you make the proper citation, or decline your point. Backing up your claims is part of the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up. Get with the program or admit your assumption.

Nope. If Natives were in a PR exercise they would not be protesting in that manner they have. You can certainly say the last 10 years of protests haven't helped improve the public image of Aboriginal people. However, their brand of protest has been highly successful by interrupting the economy. That in turn squeezes us and we squeeze the politicians to do something about it. Your mention of Caledonia is another myth. No laws were skirted, and no one that committed a crime wasn't charged. In fact there were many charges laid over the protests on both sides, and many of the protesters from both sides received conditional discharges. What most people (and that would include you now you have shown your hand) miss is that our Charter Rights are held higher than domestic law. The duty of the police in protests is to keep the peace, avoid inciting a riot by making rash arrests, and record and catalog the event for future evaluation and charges. That not only happened in Caledonia but at Tyendinaga, Akwesasne and Brantford. At the end of the day justice was properly served and the police act in a reasonable manner.

That depends. Peaceful protesters are morally (and may be legally) justified to fight back a violent confrontation by police that violate their rights. The G8/G20 fallout is a good example.

MPAC sets the property value assessment for properties and the municipalities set the mill rate. So the tax rate can change from municipality to municipality, and vary between commercial single family residential and rental properties.

NOPE. At least not in Ontario (which is all that matters). Only land owners are responsible for municipal property taxes. Landlords ~may~ use some of the income they receive to pay the taxes but the burden is squarely on him or her. The renters live municipal tax free.

Name the band(s). Name 10 and I'll do my own research. However, under third party management First Nations always come out worse than when they went in and spend decades getting out of the debt and burdens that third party managers get them into. It is a FACT.

So you don't really have any, right? There is nothing successful that comes out of third party management. That is a fact.

Civil disobedience is as important to a functioning democracy as elections. The means to real in errant politicians lies with "The People" through such action.

However....when we combine native injustice with unresolved homelessness issues, increasing poverty, disproportionate wealth, increasing police state etc, then we have the makings of a revolution - that kind that incensed and angry mobs would burn the parliament buildings over. That can be justified as a civil remedy for failing government.

How about point to any First Nation where you ~think~ third party management has been successful. Chances are it is a myth also upon closer examination.

That's a myth. When reserves get put into third party management, the third party managers triple the FN budget and put them so far into debt that they won't be out of third party management for 15 to 20 years. The reality is the managers end up proving that the feds are deliberately underfunding the FN since with all their expertise they can't make things any better.

It is rebellion - something that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples predicted when their report was released in 1996. If we do not work to correct Aboriginal injustices and find a way to reconcile with Aboriginal people on amiable terms RCAP suggests that rebellion and civil unrest will follow. There are lots of ways to stage a rebellion. Although some Aboriginal youth have taken the attitude that death might be an easier preference to the kinds of injustices they suffer every day and if they choose their death, they say will take those that make life unbearable with them. "It is a good day to die!" Tashunkala (Little Horse), SihaSapa Lakota

Depends. But to a nation that instigates discord and injustice, and continuous undermines any peace effort, conquest would be a more effective route. Drawing from the Haudenosaunee Law whose society is built on the concepts of Peace, Power and Righteousness (if I got this right they are inseparable) their laws provide: The Constitution of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Nations They certainly don't play around with offending nations.

Not true. The rule of seniority is that you are offered the next job available that you meet the qualifications for. Layoffs are to occur in the lowest ranked position in the department and lower paying positions are bumped by those up the wage category in the same department or where the one with the highest seniority is qualified in another department. Thus a labourer with seniority in the public works department can bump a laabourer with less seniority in another department ONLY IF they are qualified for the position. A clerk does not become a supervisor because of the seniority rule. The practical side of this is that the City invests considerable amount of time in its employees in training and experience. Losing a qualified worker to layoffs is a travesty to that investment. Since most positions go from through the wage levels in 18 or 24 months, there is no cost benefit to layoff older workers over newer ones.

Peace requires equal participation. The Israelis have been faking interest for 60 years. What makes you think they are interested in making any compromises, especially since their complaints are race based.

It will never work. The Israelis have a hate hard on for anything not Jewish.

What most people miss is that Unions are not necessarily to blame for the increased wage4s and benefits.Public non-union managers - the ones who negotiate with the unions at contract time, have their wages and benefits tied to the union rates. There is no reason they would ask the union to take a cut, that will eventually mean that the non-union / management workers will have to take the same cuts.