charter.rights

The Conservatives prove once again that they don't give a damn about democracy. The Bill passed and Harper promptly stated they wouldn't do it. It was a democratic decision that must be adhered to. Whether anyone likes it or not is moot. Personally I agree with it. In this day and age when we are prompted "never to forget" it is prudent to remind us all that every single death that occurs in war should never be forgotten. If we are going to morbidly line our highways and change the name of a major highway to the "Highway of Heros" then a small gesture by those that sent them to be killed should be required. "Lest we never forget" that war has a horrible price to pay. This isn't about flags. It is about young men and women who will never be seen by their families again.

Well yes there are...kind of... The Constitution Act Sect. 36. 36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to ( a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b ) furthering the economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and ( c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. (2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.(19) This more or less provides for the redistribution of wealth, from the "have provinces" to the "have-not provinces".

Never had that problem or never regretted anything I ever said. I was brought up to believe in the good nature of every human being and colour or race never entered my mind.....except perhaps on "The Jeffersons" which I always had a laugh at Red Foxx over his old age perspective.....

No Bryan. According to the Bible God gave people dominion over the animals and the plants, to use (or abuse) anyway they sought fit.

And now the whitewashing comes out.... Tories stand by MP Lukiwski after anti-gay remarks Before we know it Harper will try to spin Lukiwski into a hero and the NDP the evil villains.......

Disease and encroachment by the Iroquois diminished the Neutrals and Petun effectiveness as nations. The remaining Wendat had already left with the French for Montreal also being decimated by disease and encroachment. The Neutrals and the Petun knew that they would not have survived without the Confederacy help and since they were no longer effective as individual nations they were allowed into the confederacy under the Senecas. They were essentially adopted into their new nation just like the Cat Nation some 15-20 years earlier.

Stephen Harper will likely protect, offering some minor reprimand and calling the case closed. Actually, I believe this is just further evidence of the racist, xenophobic and homophobic underground that hides in the Conservative Party. Many of us know how borderline racist the old Reform portrayed itself to be and simply changing a name has no effect on fixing the root of the problem. I guess the real point to be made is I don't think it is likely that Tom Lukiwski has changed his mind about homosexuals. Getting caught is just a formality of pretending he is more sensitive.

The Neutrals....ah yes.... the Neutrals. There were absorbed into the Iroquois Confederacy, not as nations but as individuals. It is another historical myth that the Iroquois slaughtered them and the Petun. Oral history as it is accepted by the Supreme Court can be traced and tested. It comes from a number of parallel sources. Often the written documentation complements oral history post contact. Written history as examined also by the Supreme Court is inherently biased since it is often limited to the opinion of one writer. Where agreements have been written down the Supreme Court has ruled that is must be considered WITH the oral record of the agreement, especially when the writer was British (or Canadian) since all agreements are first oral and then confirmed in writing. Where the written document does not match the oral rendition it must be considered to hold less weight in determining what the contents might have been. It is funny that the louder that objectors to peaceful negotiation get, the more serious the government gets about finding a mutual agreement through negotiations. The Provincial government in Ontario in discussing the Planetex mining injunction as an example, have been clear that consultation and accommodation IS necessary and that First Nations have a right to be consulted fully. They have also agreed that their Mining Act is outdated and must be modified to include the principles of aboriginal title to land. It is also interesting that in negotiations occurring at Deseronto concerning the Culbertson Tract, the federal government has already agreed that 350 acres will be returned immediately,despite assuring the public that they do not give land back and only deal with compensation. Currently, according to the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte they are talking about loss of use for those lands and trying to find ways of buying out current land owners. This all seems to me that at least in principle the governments are trying to find ways to justice. As to complaining neophytes, few people outside of some hot spots take the complaints seriously seeing that rhetoric and not facts are emerging. Had say Caledonians not enlisted and supported Gary McHale and his many sh#t disturbers coming into the town in the beginning, they might have had some sympathy. But since McHale replaced facts with his type of tainted hype it would appear that those in Haldimand County have lost the battle for Canadian empathy. You do realize that a few disgruntled occupants of stolen land do not influence or change an election outcome. Sure you might raise a few eyebrows, but as John Tory discovered, you can't elect a government on wild claims of uncontrolled rioting and two-tier policing. Most people see through that bunk and for the most part it turns them off the politics and away from the people spouting it. As far as a federal election goes your threats are even less valid since right now the Liberals doing nothing with a lame leader and they are still running neck and nec with the Conservatives in most polls. This would suggest that the Tories policies are not in favour of the the majority of Canadians and that it is unlikely there would be much change if an election were held tomorrow. And if it was, settling lands claims, or even dicussing them would be far away from the political arena. Canadians in general are interested more what the government has accomplished and not what it hasn't. Land claim reconciliation is left for bureaucrats and implemented processes in order to keep them far away from public discussion and scrutiny. Land reclamations I believe are going to be a trend for the next many years as frustration in First Nation people festers. So while I appreciate your limited view of what is actually happening as opposed to what you wish would happen, it isn't close to the reality of the change happening in Canada. Even as late statistically with immigrant populations increasing, it is apparent that Canada is more involved in accommodating different interests than it is in trying to conflict or stop them. At some point in time the injustices of the past have to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. That's the reality. Complaining advances nothing but pettiness and ill conceived attacks. You would do better if you were talking to a wall since in the scheme of things it can't talk back and point out the flaws in your thinking.

"Who" is screwing the "majority culture with foreign imports"? It wouldn't happen to be that way because the majority wants it that way, now would it..... Thankfully, yours is a minority opinion.

Law evolves. Good thing we are not still hanging people for slighting a Lord.

Last year Grand River Enterprises paid $120 million in excise taxes alone. Of course this doesn't include the approximately 12,000 Six Nations people (4,000 employable - the rest children) who are living in urban areas and paying all forms of tax. Still think they are getting a deal?

Most people are actors playing roles depending on who they are dealing with - including bankruptcy lawyers. If everyone acted real and truthful there would be no need for lawyers and pimps. Unfortunately ego gets in front of truth.

Wrong. Aboriginal law usurps Canadian law - as a right. Why do you think those treaties and the Royal Proclamation 1763 are enshrined in the Charter and not in the lessor laws? It is because Aboriginal Law is untouchable. The myth has always been that Canada somehow inherited jurisdiction over aboriginals. They did not and native people have never capitulated.

Repeating your mistaken beliefs over and over again does not constitute a convincing argument. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over aboriginal law, or the rights of any First Nation because aboriginal rights exceed law. If what you were saying is true than law would exceed rights.

The Iroquois Great Law recognizes rights and freedoms and had long before contact with Europeans. So your wild theory that rights recognition as a European invention is bull. Rights have been recognized for thousands of years. The Code of Hammurabi - the first legal statute recognized certain basic rights - the right of justice for the accused, and the protection of certain inalienable rights. Native lands claims are solved through negotiation not the court system. The Supreme Court has upheld some principles in law when they were challenged by those First Nations that chose to sue the government. However, neither the government nor the courts set out the way the claims will be negotiated. And while the government has certain policies it says it adheres to, in the end even those are compromised.

It exists. I don't care whether or not YOU accept oral history. The courts MUST accept it and when the Supreme Court recognizes oral history equally with written evidence then that makes it valid, regardless of your petty disagreement. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was a law for US, to prohibit US from encroaching on native lands. It is as valid today as it was 250 years ago. The Supreme Court has told us that today it means that we must enter into meaningful consultation with natives when any development on lands they have an interest in - either by territorial control, never being ceded by them, or by future interest in land claims, or hunting and harvesting rights. That means NO DEVELOPMENT until they say so. That means NO DEVELOPMENT until they are satisfied their concerns and issues have been addressed - even it it means moving the project by hundreds of miles. The bottom line to the whole misinformation that started this thread is that 1. all lands are considered to be Indian lands as defined by the Royal Proclamation, 2. We must prove to the natives that the lands were legally ceded (according to the Royal Proclamation) and, 3. Where lands were lawfully ceded and the natives still maintain an interest, we must consult and accommodate their concerns until they are satisfied. Any action that does not follow these steps may be legally stopped by court injunction (if the natives chose to use this path) or by occupation preventing access and development, as an exercise of their sovereign and inherent rights to the land. There isn't a thing you can say or do about it....except perhaps to continue to whine.

The Iroquois Great Law still exists. The Six Nations Confederacy represents the longest continuing democracy in the history of the world. The Great Law is an Iroquois constitution and has no effect on plains or coastal natives UNLESS they choose to adopt it as their own. You can find copies of the written version of the Great Law all over the net. However, I'm told it is much too complex for simple English and the last speaker to recite it in full took something like 13 days to fully recite it. Iroquois does take precedence over British, American and Canadian for the Iroquois people. And their rights are inherent - on the land, over hunting and fishing and over their own destinies. Our law, the Royal Proclamation 1763 confirms theirs. I would suggest you check where that smoke is coming from. Your petty argument is going down in flames and blowing hard only makes it worse.

Historically the Conservatives have left government with greater deficits than any other party. They might say they are cutting programs but in reality they are simply diverting cash towards the sectors that are friendly to them. Can you imagine how much deeper in debt they would have left us if they had not cut programs as part of their plan? They're hiding the fact that they are stealing money from taxpayers and using for their own purposes. Flaherty is involved because he his Harper's patsy, just like he was to Harris. Behind every corporate fraud there is a slimy CFO. Alta4ever, The reason we need a strong central government is because provinces can't be trusted to look out for the interests of ALL Canadians. The purpose of that government is to redistribute the wealth, taking from the have provinces and giving it to the have nots, so that we can all prosper as a country. Without a federal government involvement provinces would become regionally divided and places like Edmonton and Calgary might prosper while smaller communities would have no say.

Silly nonsense. The Iroquois Great Law goes back way before the Magna Carta by nearly 2 hundred years and was a formalized constitution of the Six Nations Confederacy. They were the first to formally recognize that all people have inherent rights and instituted a participatory democratic government system that is unmatched in the history of the world. You aren't very well read now are you....

You're just being silly again. You have the inherent right to breath, walk and see. You even have the inherent right to write your silly nonsense here, subject to the limitations moderators have placed here. You have the inherent right to think and decide for yourself. Perhaps you are a masochist looking for someone to control and punish you? Then again based on your thinking mindset, it is likely you wouldn't even take responsibility for that. However, you have the inherent right to believe what you want to believe and that proves my point perfectly. Thank you.

We once roamed the earth without any borders. We once said exactly what was on our minds and decided how we would choose to live our lives. The church, then the government placed restrictions on those inherent rights. You have been conned. The Charter does not give you rights, in merely recognizes those that the government is not willing to restrict. A seed has the inherent right to find its fertile ground, as do animals have the inherent right to move anywhere they want. If the grass chooses the crack in the concrete sidewalk, most often it will prevail. If the animal chooses the city to rummage for food then most likely it will find what it needs and retreat to the forest. Only man has seen fit to restrict the grass or the animal and other men for his own gain. The very fact that you were born gave you the right to be here unfettered. If you choose to fall into the brainwashing of limitation, then only you are to blame. BTW Native people had rights long before the European had them. Democratic rights. Freedom of Speech. Hunting and fishing. Land and commerce. Even the right of retribution and political impeachment. Most of these thing we don't have today because if we truly cherished our rights and stood up for them, government would have no control over us and big business would have a problem with that.

You silly little man. Human rights weren't established by Europeans. They are inherent in all of us. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms only recognizes ~some~ of those rights but limits much more than it really regards.

They are establish by the Canadian government for the Canadian people. First Nations are not Canadian by default. Many of them are still sovereign allies of the Crown, operating under their own set of laws and customs. Our government, for whatever reason doesn't want to use the court system (probably because the courts don't support the lies, myths and fabrications our government has tried to represent as fact). Instead they created the Specific Claims Process, hoping that First Nations would be duped by the biased process. Most have not and now they have assertedtheir right over the land, the only choice the government has is to negotiate for some reasonable settlement. The validity of the claims is not determined by the government. It is determined by the First Nations who presents the evidence (which we have but have refused to look at). Its all in the records and there is little hope of us winning against the facts.

The health transfer results in $228 per person for one whole year. Do you think that is a lot? On the other hand the transfers to towns and cities equates to about $13,000 per year per person in Ontario. I'm not sure you are making the point you think you are. So let's take all of Six Nations as an example. I added up all the transfers that Six Nations recieved from policing to education to health etc. and it comes to $36,267,804 and with a band membership of about 22000 people that comes to about $1648.54 per person to cover all their infrastructure, health care, policing and educational costs. That represents 1/8 of the funding that mainstream communities receive AND on top of that cities and town have property tax to take care of other incidentials. Six Nations can't tax property because as a reserve land ownership in prohibited under the Indian Act and how can you tax someone for something they don't own? On the other side of the coin, Canada holds a misplaced trust fund that belongs to Six Nations that over the years has been misappropriated, stolen and embezzled. Not including any value of land under claim or any other claims, the appraised value of that fund (using INAC set interest rates from 1840 on) puts the trust worth over $80 billion. At 4.5% (compounded semi-annually) the interest alone equates to $3.163 billion per year that is not being paid AND is accruing interest at a phenomenal rate (compounded). So do you still have a point or has it been lost in the facts?

So Six nations received roughly $300 per person in transfers for health and band administration last year. This makes you feel normal? Could you put grandma in the hospital for $300 and how long would she last?