charter.rights

Toby is either a blatant liar, OR he is getting desperate OR both. In his earlier press release he said he would call for an inquiry IF and WHEN the petition reached 10,000 signatures. I haven't heard anyone claim they are anywhere close. Last I heard the best they could muster was 5000 signatures and very few of the were even from the Brantford or Caledonia areas. Instead they had to appeal to Kirkland Lake and other remote communities who have lots of trouble this year waddling out of their homes, checking to see if they can see their shadows and then returning to bed for six more weeks of winter..... This call for an inquiry has nothing to do with a call for justice or for investigation into wrong-doing. It is a personal vendetta by Gary McHale and his low-life friends against Fantino. He tried to hand hom legally and probably won't have enough money to purse the delusional lawsuit against the OPP, so now he is trying for public embarrassment.

I'm aware of your ostrich mentality. However, that still does not mean that I can't counter your fiction with fact.

Oh.......don't worry...what will happen will make the 2010 Winter Olympics something the world will remember for a long time.

Up until about 25 years ago there were weight and height restrictions to be police or fire personnel. They often automatically excluded women because most women were below those heights and weights. However, upon examination there was no need for that restriction since it was more important for weigh and height to be proportional instead of meeting a certain criteria minimum. There were also requirements for mechanical aptitude or certain skill sets a minimum prerequisites for entering into these professions. They were of course the types of skills that could be taught on the job or gained from some other work experience. It is entirely practical and reasonable to waive these kinds of requirements in order to tip the scales towards women entering into these professions. However, it does not discount that in many cases there are some physical issues that need to be dealt with for the individual's safety. The Charter of Rights and subsequent rulings by the ScoC have confirmed that it may in fact be necessary to tip the balance in order to dislodge male dominance (for the sake of male dominance) in any given career path. That is the law!

Your above is more hyperbole......bull.....make-believe....whatever you want to call it..... Six Nation residents who provided support for those that reclaimed Douglas Creek Estates were responding to the racists in Caledonia who were caught - on video and news casts - spewing epithets, hitting golf balls and inciting bad behavior. When one guy punched a CHCH camera man for filming a confrontation with another couple he did that on his own volition and was charged and convicted for his crime. When Doug Fleming started up his illegal smoke shop out of his truck he did that on his own, was not charged and did not represent the voice of Caledonia. There have been many individual actions that demonstrate bad behavior on both sides - some were charged and others were not. The police used their discretion to lay charges(as it should be). Racism is systemic in Canadian society and it lies just below the surface of much Canadian thinking (generally speaking). This is proven because the first reaction to most native issues hitting mainstream news is to, without any proof to the contrary, deny claims as outrageous, special interest or as pandering to "Indians". Lands claims are legitimate legal responses to histroical wrongs. They are not "over stated", "in the past", "irrelevent" or "insignificant". Such is the example cited in this week's Regional News This Week where that same Doug Fleming suggests: The Regional News This Week February 4, 2009. Classic photo The January 28 front page photo was a classic. Two beaming O.P.P Inspectors promoting a new law that bans smoking in vehicles carrying children. Those same children can venture out to the south end of Argyle Street, buy some contraband smokes and the O.P.P will look the other way. A person caught smoking in a vehicle carrying children under 16 can be fined $250. The people selling smokes to children are okay. Inspector Horvat said, "Youth are our future, so we need to do what it takes to protect their health." Inspector McLean should have quickly added, "As long as it doesn't upset the Indians." Doug Fleming Caledonia {no link available} His last jab has nothing to do with the Six Nations issues but it is an opportunity for him to lay blame on native people for Ontarians smoking in cars with children present. Six Nations does not sell cigarettes to children. This is not one isolated case but it invades the thinking and ultimately the verbiage of many Caledonians during the height of the Douglas Creek Estates reclamation. Once things calmed down and there is no more public authorization or cause for such bigoted outbursts, the language changes and the resentments go back underground. However, I may also suggest that there were many who held some xenophobic attitudes whom now admit to changing their thinking. Education, truth and real history being published helped change those attitudes. However, the kind of hyperbole that is promoted by those propagandists from out of town does nothing to solve or correct the problems in Caledonia. Rather it is intended to ramp up illogical emotional responses to fact and truth. I'm guessing that they like the buffoonery that such rhetoric provokes and are merely repeating their misinformation solely for their own entertainment. Small things amuse small minds......

If we believe the Bible then God is all of them, including but not limited to murderers, rapists, sodomists, pedophiles, adulterers, etc. The unjust, the filthy.... Revelation 22:11-13 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

More bull. No swastikas, power was disrupted once by unknown agent provocateurs, townspeople had numerous counter protests (injecting themselves into something that was none of their business) and children have been abused by their parents and community members by them over-reacting to minor incidents. As far as the loss of business goes in town, that is true. However, it is the result of racist behaviour on the part of townsfolk and many from Six Nations to this day refuse to shop (and spend their money) in Caledonia. Since about 40%-60% of their business was from Six Nations, Caledonia took a big hit. They have learned since then that in order to keep their businesses viable they have to patronize Six Nations people and try to make up for the racists and clowns that created the media circus a couple of years back. The fire (read one occurrence) on the onset of the Douglas Creek Estates reclamation, was a blockade as a defence of 150 OPP beating, tasering and pointing high powered weapons at 15 old people, women and children when they tried to use "Ipperwash" style force to remove the protesters. Six Nations responded with over 350 people and the barricades erected at various location was a counter measure to protect Six Nations people on Six Nations territory. Again you attempt to blame Six Nations people for the power outage (read one occurrence) is nothing more than wild speculation, and that is typically the purpose of agent provocateurs engaging in such actions. Nothing has been proven and no suspects have been apprehended. Assaults have occurred on both sides and most of them were provoked by the kind of mischief instigated by the likes of Gary McHale - who is on trial for one criminal mischief charge currently. Since he has been out of Caledonia by court order things have been relatively quiet and if not for the rallies and counter protests by Clownadonians it is unlikely much of it would have happened. Since this was an reclamation on property that did not belong to anyone in Caledonia, the clown's participation was solely to authorize some blockheads to exercise their racist and xenophobic delusions about native people. As well, to be fair the real blockheads at these rallies amounted to a handful of people while another 150 Caledonians just came out to watch. Most of them were not engage in the bad behavior we saw in the media. Lastly reclamations, protests and the occupations of land under claim are legal in this country. It is called proprietary estopple - a legal instrument that allows Six Nations to prevent development of land that has not been paid for or that has not been authorized for development. It is part of the consult, accommodate and reconcile requirements that the Courts have imposed on the Crown, and was reconfirmed as late as a November 2008 ruling on the Ardoch Algonquin claim. So with all the yahoos that showed up trying to turn it personal they were wrong. These protests, occupations and reclamations have nothing to do with them, and their presence there is simply to raise the tensions. Six Nations has every right to close down construction on land under claim and boot the workers off. That is the law!

What you say is hyperbole. The townsfolk in Caledonia and in Brantford to a lesser degree injected themselves into soething that is really not their business. The protests have been mainly against builders and developers who are building on land under claim. You do realize that under the law what Six Nations protesters have done IS legal? Six Nations does not take their case to Queens Park. Nor did they go to Fantino's home and threaten his family. AND the pepetrator of the transformer blowing up has not been determined yet. However, I remember reading somewhere that someone saw some OPP oficers running from the scene shortly after. It isn;t like the OPP or RCMP haven;t used agent provocateurs before.....

No. It is strategic.

No you didn't say the same thing. The fact that you do not agree with a woman's right to choose even abortion means that you deny her the rights she has under the law. Of course you completely glossed over point 5 and then quickly turned in to non sequitur ...as usual.... Women have rights under the Charter that require employers to modify their hiring policy. This is not a "special right" but a right defined by the Supreme Court of Canada to tip the scales in their favour in order to dislodge "the old boys club" that used to dominate the workforce. I would rather engage people in reasonable discussion than to use simplistic one-liners intended to support bigotry and misogyny.

So in essence you are conceding that you don't truly believe in women's equal rights: 1. Women hold the right under Charter law to freedom of thought and expression. That also means they have a right to decide for abortion or not without interference, choose a career in any field traditionally off-limits to them because of their gender and free to walk topless down the street if they so choose. 2. In fact women and minorities are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to compete for jobs where men traditionally dominated the workforce (such as fire-fighting and police services) and the hiring policies of these types of agencies are required to adjust the hiring policy and criteria to accommodate them where women are not represented in a proportionate number. As such it is their right to demand that the same criteria used for males be adjusted where it imposes a barrier to their employment on equal standing. 3. The point of the Catholic Church refusing to indoctrinate women as priests is not an issue with womens' capabilities but one where religion has an equal right under its traditions not to hire women for that position. Further, your chauvinist misogynist opinions aside, it is not necessary for women to be certified by the Church to teach the doctrine to say their children or others. It is in fact their right to become ministers of God if they so choose. However, they may be limited by the religious tradition within the Church. 4. Women do have a role in the home as the primary care-givers IF they decide. It is not up to her husband at all to decide for her. And if she chooses, she can allow her husband's wishes to help her decide. 5. Its good you brought up the Knights of Columbus since it is a chartered group and NOT a religious order protected under the freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is unlikely in the face of a Charter challenge that the KofC would survive its exclusion of women. However, your example of using a womens' health club as a similar circumstance is false, since under the Charter government can allow: "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" in order to protect the woman's secondary right to privacy and security. Other than for misogynist reasons there is no other purpose to exclude women from the KofC. I thank you for answering honestly to the point that you are in fact promoting bigotry against minorities and not the protection of womens rights as you claimed you were. And just in case you think you were tricked here I would ask others to weigh in on the fairness of the questions and whether or not they were simple and clear......

There is more to women's rights than being raped and beaten. In fact these aren't about rights per se but about society's failures in any culture and in any ethnic group. So just to see if you are honest about being concerned about womens rights perhaps you will answer the following: 1. Do women have the right to decide for themselves and determine which path in life they will take? 2. Do women have a right to displace a male counterpart in competition for a job, even if it means tipping the scale in order to provide women with equal opportunity in the workplace? 3. Are women capable of becoming ministers of God and promoting and teaching the doctrine of the Catholic Church? 4. Do women have a place in the home as sole caregivers for children? 5. Do women have a right to join predominantly male clubs and groups that were once off limits to them because of their gender? Although this is just a sample it might help us see where you are coming form if you are really concerned about womens rights, or whether or not it just bigotry against religion and ethnic minorities.

“We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians.” Stephen Harper Harper had his chance at the helm and he has done nothing but push an agenda against a weak opposition without any direction. Now there is no longer a weak opposition facing him. The coalition proved that. And even though Igantief abandoned the coalition, he pretty much controls the house as an alternative to government. I also believe that then next three months will give him a chance to make or break his career as leader. If he aligns himself with Obama, speaks with command and dignity (as he did in lambasting Harper during his announcement he would support the budget) and continues to put Harper in an untenable position as a centrist, I think he will succeed in getting more support for the party. After all it was Harper and the rest of the Reform party that arose from the arrogance, hypocrisy and bullishness of Mulroney. Chretien's image can be over come and it no longer represents the image of the party, just like Dions floundering image no longer has any influence at what the party represents today.

While this may sound plausible from my understanding of the problem it really stems from the loss of community - the kinds of things where support and services are provided. In return for joining gangs members gain a sense of belonging and worth. In the case of prison the same types of things happen where several communities exist. The same occurs in the homeless who develop their own communities on the street. No matter how difficult living on the streets, in prisons or on ghettos is, the community makes it tolerable.

I would disagree with the basic tenet of your conservative description. The the person as responsible for himself is a myth since laws created under Conservative governments tends more to be more imposing, removing personal accountability and removing more individual power than under a socialist government. While the Conservative movement suggests it believes in less government, the fact is they tend to create more complex bureaucracies even though they might be cutting services.

Extreme being far right of centre but not fanatically right.

I am hardly an extreme left winger. In fact I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal in my general political views. How ever I would more likely be described as a humanist more than a conservative or liberal and more likely I represent the centre more than ost people here. I also hold the swing vote in any election so I am the type that needs to see moderation before I give a party my ok. I have never been taken in by Harper's false persona but like many while Dion was in charge there was no hope I would vote Liberal. There is no doubt in my mind however, that you are an extreme right winger. Now that Iggy is in charge I sense the next vote will be going his way...unless of course he screws it up.

First of all Harper is a right winger - an extreme one like the Reformers he came from. The only difference is that with marginal support he has to appear coming into the centre in order to gain enough votes to get power. His whole goal in first term if you remember was to gain a majority - something he tried and failed at for the second term. The point is that through a minority position he cannot make the changes that he promoted as a far right winger. Iggy is not Obama, that is true. However, the move to the left in the US, and the savior image that Obama wears will rub off on Ignatief. By positioning himself as an Obama-like leader, Iggy will gain support - especially among the middle / moderate voters. Harper comes across as a bully and a dirty player. I sure once the Liberals with Ignatief at the helm start positioning themselves as "the alternative" Harper will lose support from all but the old cadre of the Reform. Harper is all about image. If he was about democracy and principles he would not have had a tight leash around the necks of his party MPs or silenced them on issues. Rather he was then and is concerned now about how these otherwise vocal right wingers would have sunk the moderate image he was trying to project. Harpers days are numbered. That's not too difficult to see.

Harper basically rose to form the government because there was no other logical choice. Against Martin the Canadian electorate could not condone a party that was perhaps involved in shady dealings. Against Dion, Harper still only managed a minority government albeit slightly higher...and that was against a lack lustre, poorly communicated last minute Liberal choice for leader. The Canadian public passed the torch to Harper only as an alternative to ~nothing better~ and only as a minority who should be working together in parliament. The problem is that Harper doesn't want to work together and would rather be the bully. Again he got away with it because there was no other choice for the Liberals. However, now that Ignatief provides that choice Harper's days are numbered IMO. While he will still capture the extreme right support of the former Reform / Alliance he will have a greater time capturing the centre right / centre left. Iggy provides the alternative and appearing with a centre right image might be the icing on the cake he needs to win an election. That is not to say there is a majority for them on the horizon, but I think there are enough people pissed off with the Harper that it puts Iggy in minority take-over mode.

Six Nations and other Mohawk Territories are not Canadian. They are sovereign nations allied with Canada. Some treaty First Nations do consider themselves Canadian. However the very existence and on-going treaty relationship suggests that they are sovereign nations, since one nation cannot treaty with itself. Native people don't collect welfare from the Canadian government. They receive treaty payment or transfers that are subject to our fiduciary responsibility. If a native is one social assistance then it is the Band that supports them, not our government.

Your simplicity in thinking is leading you astray. You have no right because as Canadians we have no property rights. If you have an aboriginal claim then it must be collective, not individual. The SCoC did not rule that individuals must be consulted. It said that First nations must be. Keep your violent tendencies to yourself.

Nobody beat anyone up. Stop with the simplistic inference. They simply locked the gate and prevented anyone from moving on or off the site. That's how easy and non-violent occupation protests are.

You are still either making things up in your delusion mind OR you are lying. No I did not say that the Church was full of pedophiles. I said the protection of pedophiles, drunkards and adulterers is rampant. Nothing more. Please take you meds before you post.

You need a history lesson. All those lies you have hear McHale tell are getting imprinted on your brain. Caledonia was NOT blockaded. The road in front of the Douglas Estates was blocked for a while but residents of Caledonia were free to come and go via the bypass, Argyle north or along Caithness east or west or any number of side streets. Yes you have a vivid imagination that is bordering on delusional. Are you taking medication for that?

Your simplistic scenarios are humorous and pathetic. No you can't block my door. YOU have no right. And since we don;t have property rights your attempt would be as lame as your argument. Caledonia wasn't blockaded. Six Nations territory was and only after the OPP used lethal weapons against women, children and old people. However, I do remember a couple of blockades erected by Caledonians so perhaps that is where your mistake in perception comes from. And then of course we have the famous "don't move the truck - make them move it" incitement that landed Gary McHale in jail. Although I wouldn't consider a force of two a real blockade.