charter.rights

So you are saying it would be ok for the rich to hide their wealth or illegally smuggle out of the country to avoid having to pay a greater tax amount? True capitalists would not have a hard time giving some of their hard earned wealth to support less fortunate. The real criminals are the corporatists who steal our money, that of their employees and of investors and then claim they are in need of their full paychecks. In a true capitalist society shareholders would have demanded the executive get canned right away and then would fire all the Borad of Directors and replace them with people who would really look out for their interests. But then again we lost capitalism along time ago and instead replaced it with the kind of corporatism that sees top executives paying themselves with our tax money, or banks who boast that they are still making huge profits while gouging user fees for doing nothing directly out of our accounts.

Not when we put in loop holes to hide the tax. Taxes are a middle income burden and proportionally we pay far more tax than someone with a $500k and up salary. The rich get a free ride for the most part.

Even if they never really worked for it but gained it through usury? You are assuming that those with gobs of money really worked themselves into it. Many were either mentored or given a financial helping hand and many have burned quite a few people in their climb to the top. Few people at the top, born into privilege ever really work for their money. Major investors actually gain their money through usury. Would you exempt them?

Not all all. The court has mandated consultation that is required under the law. If there is no agreement, then Ontario and Brantford lose because the court will have to impose a verdict that MUST protect Six Nations' constitutional rights. If they hammer out a deal and present it to court, Six Nations wins because it becomes 1. a recognition that they do have rights that need to be consulted, accommodated and reconciled, 2. the order they received from the court gives them more ammunition to stop more development elsewhere along the Grand River and demand consultation and, 3. the injunction process becomes a lost tool to defend the errant municipalities and the province and keeps the police out of the "rule of law" issue. And if for some reason any party wants to appeal the non-judgment or the imposition of a judgment that doesn't go in favour of Brantford, it is unlikely given the Frontenac test, that the SCoC will allow the appeal. The Frontenac Test 136. In Frontenac , the Court defined the pervasive theme in every case where an injunction is sought with respect to Aboriginal land. In each of those situations the Court must reconcile the competing interests: 137. The Court of Appeal therefore held that the government must consult and negotiate with aboriginal communities, in an attempt to reconcile the competing interest, before seeking an injunction that will affect those rights. As the government had failed to do so in Frontenac, the Court concluded that: ref. The Amicus Cureai Factum

Brant never made the deals nor had the authority people seem to accuse him of. In modern day reports, the Joseph Brant that people like to bring out in discussion is a mythical figure who wasn't smart enough to know he was being taken. To the contrary, not only wasn't JB taken in but as we are seeing today there were enough documents and knowledge preserved to prove he could not be swindled out of land and that the agents and governors in the Crown were fraudulent and untrustworthy representatives. As I said, the Amicus revealed the skulduggery in just a couple of weeks. The British of that time were neither sophisticated enough or intelligent enough to get away with the kinds of slimy dealings they were attempting to pull off.

Although the final death knell has not yet been rendered on Brantford's injunction, it has pretty much been dismissed as an option by the court. The Amicus has already presented enough evidence about how it cannot succeed by law. What is the court to do if Six Nations is a willing participant and presents a reasonable solution...like the HDI as their agent....like development fees being paid to Six Nations...like a tax sharing....like jurisdiction sharing....and the province and Brantford refuse to budge past their obvious long stated position that all surrenders are valid and Brantford does not need to consult? The court has accepted evidence to both and has been clear that Brantford and the province must consult. If this negotiation fails I'm am pretty confident that it will not be because Six Nations has not been a willing participant. And if failure occurs, and no injunction can be upheld, it will authorize a protest entrenchment in lands not only in Brantford but up and down the Haldimand. The court - who is the Crown's representative - cannot ignore its fiduciary duty to Six Nations...meaning it must first and foremost protect Six Nations constitutional rights over and above any domestic law (a directive of the SCoC). That would mean according to the recent BC Supreme Court, that all development must stop until lands claims are sorted out and Six Nations rights have been fully respected. Moving forward without a basis in law would find the province and Brantford in contempt and it would be likely that the Six Nations injunction and lawsuit against Brantford would succeed. A simple injunction case decision certainly is not the end all, but there is no doubt given the direction that the SCoC has laid out, that Six Nations would prevail on any and all appeals. Simple is often all it takes when defining rights. Just remember how quickly the Frontenac Ventures appeal was dismissed in favour of Ardoch Algonquins and toady just months later it is being referenced as another test of aboriginal rights under the Charter. It wasn't even as complicated as an ill-conceived injunction but over the penalties arising from it. Six Nations also has the Amicus Cureai factum entered into evidence that provides sufficient knowledge that Six Nations did not surrender, nor intent to surrender a number of tracts in Brantford, and the most contentious Plank Road, which the federal government has stated over and over again they believe is valid. If an Amicus can reveal such a simple error in the federal government's case, do you think for a minute that the SCoC wouldn;t have just as easy a day of it? Yes the Casino does sit on unsurrendered Six Nations land. At the very least they should be receiving the entire tax benefit from it...just as if the province built a casino on what turned out to be within Manitoba provincial boundaries. An error does not negate the transaction in its entirety but requires the court to find compensation of equal or better value in resolution.

I'm pretty sure that the talks will be serious since it has always been (and I mean always in as long as we Europeans have been coming) that Six Nations has expressed their grievances over settlement on their land. We have ignored them and dismiss their claims despite entering into numerous agreements guaranteeing that we would respect their independence. The issue for the court is not directed at Six Nations but the judge put the onus on the province and Brantford to negotiate in good faith to reconcile Six Nation's jurisdiction over the land and their apparent claim that they cannot stop development. There is no question now that Six Nations can continue to protest and stop development without the fear of injunctions or police action. However, the court has put both the province and the city of Brantford in a precarious position. Being compelled to negotiate means that if they do not cooperate with SN to come up with a mutual solution, one will be imposed and it is likely that such an imposition will not go favourably towards the Crown or the City. If either the province or Brantford do not come with an eye to compromise and agreement then they will be found to not be acting in good faith - in which case SN will have every right to stop up all development without interference. By negotiating to any settlement with SN they have to admit that the claims for the entire Haldimand are valid, and that would require the province to force all municipalities in the Haldimand into the same position Brantford finds itself in. Lastly Brantford's development expansions will essentially be halted since SN claims that a number of tracts were never actually surrendered not only gives them jurisdiction (and therefore be required to consult), but gives them ownership, or an immediate requirement for lands claims negotiations that will halt all development until there is a complete resolution (BC Supreme Court recently set this precedent). So in my view Brantford and the province are legally stuck in a case of giving up authority over development in Brantford and permitting future work stoppages or giving up jurisdiction to the entire Haldimand as a requirement to consult before any development is permitted. Having read Six Nations claims a long time ago it was apparent that once the courts recognized their claims, Six Nations would be sitting in the superior position. Holding ownership and jurisdiction over the entire Haldimand Tract puts Haldimand County and every other municipality as well as the province, in a position as having to placate SN in order to retain even an ounce of authority. And once SN claims are recognized and the kinds of settlements that will make bankers blush occur, the rest of the natives in Ontario and in Canada will begin to follow suit. While I am concern about the cost for financial compensation that will no doubt be included in any settlement I believe that none of this will be amicably settled until SN has received a substantial land return - something the province and the federal government have been trying to avoid for centuries.

Getting rid of money won't help if its is driven by government. Then they'll just tax our souls....perhaps feed the sick and old people into government furnaces to heat the Parliament Buildings.... Rebellion is a grass roots exercise and would represent the path we need to take against taxpayers not propping up business, as well as institutional spending. The return to a barter system is certainly a grass roots movement and so is the underground economy. However, in order for it to become universal we would have to have everyone stand up against the tyranny of government...which is what we could call the present bailouts, since the government is really borrowing and giving handouts of our present tax base and our future tax burden. Yet people believe the government when they say that the bailouts are protecting citizens. They are really just protecting the top-end investors. Does anyone actually believe that it the economy collapsed that there would not be a need for production of food, clothing, furniture, and other essential goods and services? These are grass root industries that would easily be revived once the foreign goods and major companies have sunk into the ground. Getting rid of money just means that in a capitalist system we would have to authorize government to steal directly from the bank, or from our paychecks without any recourse.

Well there is one way for the PCP to guarantee that the Liberals will be in power in Ontario for the next decade: Conservative icon emerges from exile to help candidate Hudak Just let Mike Harris back the leader of the party. By the time Harris escaped from provincial politics there were many people wanting his hide for tearing up our institution and being involved in killing people. If Hudak gets in then I would suggest that he will just be another Harris clone. Having Mike Harris work on Hudak's campaign would be like having Stephan Dion back Joe Clark.....one of these things is not like the other....and we don't need another Ontario tornado involved in politics. The Ontario Liberals have a sure thing if Hudak gets the party leadership......

Mulroney doubled the national debt during his term.

No matter what you call it, when government has to prop up business it is no longer capitalism. The death of capitalism is at hand. However, corporatism reigns supreme. When they have squeezed the production, squeezed the workers, squeezed the investors for more money and still they have to squeeze the government to give them our taxpayer monies that are supposed to pay for our future, then we all know that corporations should no, longer be in control of their companies. We need to invent something else. The American Dream has turned into a nightmare. I'm not suggesting that we turn to socialism as a solution, because it requires workers to input. Workers have no means to input any more and with the Baby Boomers set to retire the burden under the past capitalism requires us to bear a bigger burden. However, we do need the kind of communal system where barter is an accepted practice and we thrive in an egalitarian society. The cost of investment can no longer be sustained since the world production of oil is peaking, and the over-production of goods no longer have expanding markets. Something must be done but we cannot allow government or business to lead the way. Instead change must come from the grass roots and we must look to our basic necessities for a clue of where we should start. In my view this is just one more collapse of a segment of our civilisation that will never recover. The signs are in the failures of our institutions: government, education, health, justice and now finance. What's next?

As far as I can tell the judge is in the dilemma that the by-law which triggered the injunction was illegal and by principle it renders the injunction invalid. However, there is a limited cause for Brantford to suffer some harm if protests continue, as is there is also harm that Six Nations could suffer through Brantford's refusal to consult. The balance between the two makes it necessary for the court to examine any possibility before rendering a verdict one way or the other. The only way to find that out would be for all parties, including the Province to enter into discussion over the merit of the claims and to come up with a process where development might continue while full consultation is taking place. This was presented as an option to the Court by the Amicus Cureai. However, on a pure legal basis I think the court is in trouble since they could not issue an injunction even if they wanted to, given that it has been handed down by the SCoC that no injunction is possible until the court is satisfied that full consultation has taken place. To me that leaves the court with only one option - denial of the injunction - leaving the need for protest induced consultation to Six Nations, Brantford and the Province, independent of the Court's supervision. I think any other decision may trigger an appeal to a higher court.

By way of your birth certificate your parents signed on your behalf you are a contractor.

It is part of the social contract we protect as a nation, as a province and as a community.

Nope. You can;t swing that argument in any place in the world. While I agree that all humans are born with certain inalienable rights, the ownership of property is not one of them. The BEST that we can muster in Canada are common-law rights which are essentially granted by the Crown. However, in delaing with common-law rights we must also be away that natives have an aboriginal and treaty right which over-rules any common laws that may apply. Nor would we want property laws in the way you want to promote them. The state must always have control for the benefit of the community, province or federation lest the pollution you could create affects us all. Our rights to freedom must always be balanced aginst the right of the individual. Unfortunately whether for powerlines or highways the legal right to expropriate comes with a requirement for proof that it is in the public interests. No matter a farmer or developer cannot hold out for "his price" if it is unreasonable and justifiable. Therefore as a general rule the government offers market value for the land, and that is reasonable and just.

It is not up to an inquiry to find criminal responsibility unless it is written into the terms of reference. We have investigators and courts to do that. I guess you haven't been to too many inquiries or know much about them. Who cares about the Koebels? The Commission found the the provincial government under Harris complicit. Trying to divert from that fact is just lame.

Harris slipped out from a number of issues he contributed to. However, Commissioner Dennis O'Connor concluded that the Harris government was partly the cause of not preventing the spread of e.coli. Had the regulation been in place and the funding been in place and the training been in place there is little likelihood that this would have happened. But it did and combined with the Koebels not doing their job and not being knowledgeable, the under-funding of the MOE and the cutting of mandatory testing contributed to it. That was the finding of the commission. You can dispute it all you want but you can't divert the blame from Harris' government policies. The commission ruled its involvement contributed to the Walkerton tragedy as a matter of fact.

Oh but your lawyer friend did not make the findings, so all his biased updates aren't worth a hill of beans if they don't match the published report.....which obviously they don't. Since Koebel pretty much didn't know what he was doing and was unqualified to be doing the testing, the outcome would have likely been the same. The contamination did not come because he was drunk. It was caused by his inability to interpret the results as being serious, allowing the contamination to go on for so long. It was also the result of no one over-seeing or regulating the testing procedures because of Harris' budgetary cutbacks. READ THE REPORT! It is all there!

You might want to look up the law - even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - sunshine. She cannot be compelled to testify even if she is the victim. Now that IS the law. If you don't like it then maybe you can leave, instead. I would rather have more people like of her and less of people like you in my country anyway.

Most treaties surrendered lands but also entrenched rights for hunting and fishing, as well as some resource rights. That gives First Nations the right to be consulted where those aboriginal or treaty rights may be affected by development. The courts have held that having hunting, fishing and resource rights on ceded land also gives individuals the right to earn a modern moderate income from the land and collectively gives First Nations Bands a right to be consulted. While I agree that too many levels of government is not a good thing, we have also been ignoring these legal rights of First Nations for 200 years or more when our government and the British before them guaranteed that they would be able to use the land forever, and then promptly reneged. We also find that First Nations are getting the shaft in the modern treaties negotiated since 1990's that provide for a say in development and a share in the profits from resource management - something our government again has ignored. Constitutionally, First Nations governmental obligations sit right up there with the federal government's responsibility to us. I say it is about time that we start respecting our legal and Charter obligations. If we are going to succeed as a nation for the next 100 years or so we'll have to reconcile not only the historical treatment of native people but also their future prosperity that was entrenched in (or will be entrenched in) treaty and pre-existing aboriginal rights. Holding up development for years while the federal government refuses legitimate claims does nothing to benefit us or them. And just like conservation authorities and environmental assessments were seen as obstacles to development, once there was a process in place to deal with those concerns there was little delay in moving forward.

It isn't what I believe but the findings of the Walkerton Inquiry. I guess you didn't read the report. Had Harris not gutted Ontario Ministries we would be a whole lot better today, including education, health care, MNR and MOE. His thoughtless hacking at funding created a downturn in the quality of all those services that we are still suffering from today. His Common Sense Revolution was neither built on common seens or was a revolution in thought. It was just ultra-right wing thinking given a majority mandate and it all went terribly wrong.

It gets worse...since the BC Government is proposing legislation recognizing aboriginal right and title over all lands in BC. By doing this every development is automatically triggered for consultation and so First Nations will no longer be required to prove in court that a treaty or aboriginal right exist. This is basically how it has always legally been but governments have forced FN to go to court to argue against development all the while development proceeded. Once buildings and infrastructure was on the land the only way out for FN's was to take a settlement in lieu of their own unsurrendered land. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...l-endorsed.html

It was Harris' government that cut the mandated provincial lab testing of municipal water supplies and instead left it to municipalities to deal with private contractors on a minimally regulated basis. So he is to blame for the tainted water every bit as much as Keobel brother's. Had the requirement for testing not been sloughed off it is likely the Ministry of the Environment would have caught the unqualified collection of samples or the E.Coli contamination, or both before people died. "I conclude that the budget reductions had two types of effects on the tragedy in Walkerton. First, with respect to the decision to privatize the laboratory testing of drinking water samples, and especially the way in which that decision was implemented, the budget reductions are connected directly to the events of May 2000. Second, in the case of the MOE’s approvals and inspections programs, the budget reductions are indirectly linked to the events in May 2000 in that they made it less likely that the MOE would pursue proactive measures that would have prevented or limited the tragedy." Commissioner Dennis O'Connor Chapter 11 Walkerton Inquiry

Hey! Good Idea! I even have a name for it.... The Reform Party.....

Nope. Your imagination. But I don;t expect you to be clear enough to recognize it.