tango

This is interesting and indicative of the manner of implementing Sec 35 of our Constitution 'on the ground': 14-jun-07 Community Policy Statement Working with Aboriginal Communities De Beers Canada* acknowledges the status of aboriginal people of Canada and their constitutionally entrenched rights. In working with aboriginal people, De Beers Canada will ensure that this status and their rights are respected, and will work to strike a balance between these considerations and other economic, social and environmental responsibilities. more ... http://www.debeerscanada.com/files_2/community_policy.html I'm wondering where all the usual naysaying voices are who usually attack Aboriginal topics with such vigour? Perhaps they truly are not aware of the current state of the law and are speechless?

Both are acceptable in law, for various purposes.

ONCE AGAIN ... I am referring to the 1500's, NOT the 1700's. It was in the 1500's that the Indigenous population was decimated, before the settlers came, and in preparation for them. I never suggested smallpox: I suggested whatever plagues were raging in Europe at that time, creating all those surplus (infected) blankets. No doubt some diseases worked better than others by this method.

Written words are often convenient fictions.

And it might exonerate him, along with the testimonies of the US soldiers that he could not have thrown the grenade. It's surprising to me that those most intent on villifying Omar are the ones with the least knowledge of the information available. Kinda smacks of intentional blind discrimination, doesn't it?

First of all, I am not an Indigenous person, but I respect that the 'pass system' was extemely oppressive to them. Secondly, Indigenous Nations are more that cultural groups since they have land rights on all of Canada. We have to learn how to live peacefully with this reality that is newly defined in our laws as the 'duty to consult and to accommodate' Aboriginal rights. I suggest that your confrontational and inflammatory approach is definitely the wrong way to go.

Obviously you didn't follow the trial (or maybe it was pre-trial) when it was in progress, before Obama got elected and shut it down: It was very apparent from the testimonies of US soldiers that Omar could not be convicted and could not have thrown the grenade. Soldiers present at the incident, and Omar's interrogator stepped forward in his defense. The day it was shut down, Omar's lawyer released the next piece of evidence publicly: That forensics showed the grenade was US issue.

Then please clarify how.

benny, that's not the thread topic. you are derailing. stop please.

And perhaps we should limit it to people who are in touch with their humanity. You're off the island, Argus!

It just occurred to me that opening a thread to discuss another poster is also bad etiquette, and GostHacked ... you're likely going to get your fingers rapped for your post. just fyi

Ah yes! SLAVERY! Wait! ... haven't we been there before?? I vote Argus off the voting list, just because of persistent assholery!!!

What? You and oleg are not yet "serious"? Seriously, benny, you do derail threads, and that is extremely bad discussion etiquette. If you want to address something off the topic of the thread ... open your own thread for the new topic. That said, I don't mind a brief banter interruption, so long as you don't derail the whole thread. And I do think a benny&oleg dedicated thread would be a hoot!

Is that benny-law?

It's not about Amherst: That was 200 years after the conquest of America, when 95% of the native population was exterminated (1500-1600). Forget euro history ... ask Indigenous elders. It wasn't just smallpox, but whatever plagues were raging in Europe, and lots of 'surplus' blankets. The missionaries and militia were just delighted to deliver them to native communities, then steal their land as they died.

Wow! I'm impressed. Cool. Of course, it has effectively been the law since 1982. However, governments for the most part have ignored it and so have many companies. This is (finally) the codification in provincial law of what has been constitutional law until now. Yes, there have been companies that have respected and consulted with Indigenous communities. Now the ones who haven't are finally forced to as well, following some of the 'best practices' of those who led the way over the last 25 years. I absolutely agree. Now can you explain to me how all of our environmental safeguards still allow the government to propose using 16 pristine northern lakes (and their watersheds) as toxic dumps for the mining industry? http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/mmer http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/...mned-lakes.html It's been my observation that the 'environmental safeguards' we have never actually interfere with the industry: Just pretty words on pretty papers signifying nothing. For example ... Simcoe County: Despite meeting environmental standards, all three previous landfills in the County are toxic nightmares.

I guess you missed this: http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/indian_polic...rve_period.html The pass system was at first to be issued only to “Rebel Indians”; however, Macdonald insisted that the system should be applied to all First Nations. In early 1886, books of passes were issued to Indian agents, and subsequently First Nations people could not leave their reserve unless they had a pass signed by the Indian agent and describing when they could leave, where they could go, and when they had to return. The pass system, however, was never passed into legislation and as a result was never legal—although it was enforced well into the 1940s. It was at the whim of the 'Indian' agents, and used to reward/punish as they chose. Many communities report it being used in that manner until the mid-20th century. I think it's incorrect to interpret "nation" as land-based: Nations are peoples - like Quebecois, Metis, Mohawk, Cree, etc ... are Nations. Certainly Indigenous nations have a land base - land to which they hold outright title - reserve land and land obtained through 'land claims' settlement, for example. However, Indigenous Nations also hold rights on all of their traditional territory, now recognized via the Crown's 'duty to consult and to accommodate' those rights on all lands held by a Nation at the time of 'contact'. Thus it isn't as simple as drawing lines and arming border guards, and such confrontational approaches are never the best solutions. I would suggest, instead, that we re-learn how to live together peacefully, in a country that properly respects the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of this land. And that may include paying a price for the use of their traditional and title land.

That's their decision, and that's why consultation is required, and accommodation of their land rights. Up until now, they've had no say at all, and received no 'royalties', etc, for the wealth taken from their traditional land. The operations often poison their water, soil and air, destroying traditional foods and ways of life ... and they had no say at all. That's changed now due to the Supreme Court.

De Beers worried about Mining Act changes Changes could drive away investors The Ontario Legislature Standing Committee hearings for the Mining Act, held in Timmins Thursday, also heard from the mining industry as it pertains to Attawapiskat. ... Gowans said the proposals “would introduce additional layers of uncertainty, bureaucracy and financial burden” for any mining company working in the far north and especially for those trying to work with Aboriginal communities. Gowans endorsed an opinion already voiced by the City of Timmins and the Porcupine Prospectors Association about the proposed consultation process with First Nations. Gowans expressed concern that the province wants to “download” the legal responsibility for Aboriginal consultations with mining companies and corporations instead of doing the job itself. “The language in the proposed bill appears contradictory to the consistent rulings of the Court that the duty to consult lies with the Crown,” said Gowans. ... Gowans said another concern is the arbitrary decision by the Ontario liberal government to block off 50 per cent of the lands in the Far North as not being open to any development. “These resources are where Nature places them,” said Gowans in reference to the need to search for more mineral deposits. more ... http://www.timminstimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1706510 My opinion is ... it's about time that Indigenous people had a say in the toxic mining operations that ruin entire watersheds. BOYCOTT DIAMONDS! I say. And see ... 'Duty of the Crown to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal rights'. Many references available. Here's one: http://www.aalec.ca/page?u=duty-to-consult

A good summary: ELMVALE, ONTARIO – On May 8, a group of women from Beausoleil First Nation set up a protest camp opposite Site 41, a dump being constructed near Midland, in Simcoe County. Their purpose: to protect the water in the aquifers below the site that has been found to be exceptionally pure. Since then, a fight that had been a local, rearguard action by a small group of farmers has caught the imagination of people across Ontario. Area cottagers – a powerful group in this backwater where Toronto comes to play on the shores of Georgian Bay – joined the coalition. A movement started to form. more ... http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/living/h...h/53582342.html And I will add ... support is being requested for this weekend's events and at the site, and for Monday morning's Simcoe County Council meeting where a vote on a moratorium will be taken.

See more references above, esp ... http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/indian_polic...rve_period.html The pass system was at first to be issued only to “Rebel Indians”; however, Macdonald insisted that the system should be applied to all First Nations. In early 1886, books of passes were issued to Indian agents, and subsequently First Nations people could not leave their reserve unless they had a pass signed by the Indian agent and describing when they could leave, where they could go, and when they had to return. The pass system, however, was never passed into legislation and as a result was never legal—although it was enforced well into the 1940s. The comparison is ... they were both forced apartheid systems.

Word of mouth. But I see it is also in the RCAP: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarch.../sg25_e.html#90 The pass system should be read against the backdrop of other attempts to interfere with Indian cultural life, as it was intended not only to prevent Indian leaders and potential militants from conspiring with each other, but also to discourage parents from visiting their children in off-reserve residential schools and to give agents greater authority to prevent Indians from participating in banned ceremonies and dances on distant reserves. And here ... http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/indian_polic...rve_period.html The pass system was at first to be issued only to “Rebel Indians”; however, Macdonald insisted that the system should be applied to all First Nations. In early 1886, books of passes were issued to Indian agents, and subsequently First Nations people could not leave their reserve unless they had a pass signed by the Indian agent and describing when they could leave, where they could go, and when they had to return. The pass system, however, was never passed into legislation and as a result was never legal—although it was enforced well into the 1940s. And here ... http://www.purichpublishing.com/?module=sw...mp;productID=33 The story of life on reserves after treaty is a story of power: the power of Indian Affairs. Indian agents controlled every aspect of life on and off reserve - the dreaded pass system and permission slips needed to sell farm produce, or not as it suited the agents; the instructors whose job it was to transform Indian hunters into farmers; the residential school system, and the questionable surrender of reserve land. tsk tsk ... you shoulda googled it first ...

I think it's more likely to be a calendar - benny's thought for the day. It'll be a parody, of course.

I think Oleg and benny should start a freewheeling oleg and benny thread, instead of tagging their frolicking mind wanderings onto other topics.

Royal assent is required for all legislation. How is that "complete independence"? I don't really care, but I think it's wrong for people to mislead themselves on this. If Canada tried to pass legislation to get rid of royal assent and all royal connections, you can bet the Queen would have something to say about it. In fact she did when Trudeau tried, and she won and the constitution has royal assent.