tango

Oleg, I think I love you. To bring people up to date ... First of all , let me say (Wild Bill) that in 3 years of activism since retirement from the public service, it has become very clear to me that on decisions such as this, the power is at the local level. The province will not override a decision of the County that has already passed the provincial environmental assessment process: That would be admitting that there's something wrong with the provincial process. The division of powers among the 3 levels of government is pretty clear, and it is the foundation of the confederation of Canada. The local issue has become ... Who at Simcoe County offices authorized the injunction against the protesters? Because it wasn't the Council ... http://www.barrieadvance.com/barrieadvance/article/143242 http://www.barrieadvance.com/barrieadvance/article/143242 The decision to pursue court proceedings and an injunction was likely made by legal counsel and CAO Aitken, Knox told the court. “I believe the decision was made by more-senior people than myself,” he said; he reports directly to Aitken. “I don’t know whether any politicians were involved. I wasn’t involved.” Aitken said he, in consultation with the head of council, made the decision. AHA!! There it is ... The head of Council ... that would be Tony Guergis, politician and Warden of Simcoe County. I have a song for Tony Guergis ... goes like this ... na na na na ... na na na na ... hey hey hey ... GOOD-BYE. Another contentious matter remains the freedom-of-information request regarding a hydrogeological model. The county continues to defy a provincial order to release it. Aitken told the court the FOI matter was handled by the clerk’s department, adding however, all such letters would be signed by Warden Tony Guergis. There it is again ... Tony Guergis ... The same Tony Guergis who was elected on a platform against the dump ... and then changed his mind after the election. Dump site 41? NO! Dump Tony Guergis! YA! Dump site 41: Councillors who voted in favour of the dump: In favour: Cooper, Sandra (Collingwood, DM) In favour: Dowdall, Terry (Essa, DM) In favour: Dubeau, Anita (Penetanguishene, M) In favour: Ferguson, Ken (Clearview, M) In favour: Guergis, Dave (Essa, M) In favour: Guergis, Tony (Springwater, M) In favour: Jackson, Brian (Innisfil, M) In favour: Leroux, Doug (Penetanguishene, DM) In favour: Little, Doug (Adjala-Tosorontio, DM) In favour: MacEachern, Mike (New Tec, M) In favour: Milne, Rick (New Tec, DM) In favour: Roughley, Dennis (BWG, DM) In favour: Savage, Alicia (Clearview, DM) In favour: Sled, Phil (Severn, M) In favour: Wauchope, Gord (Innisfil, DM) In favour: White, Doug (BWG, M) Email them. Only one of them has to change their vote on Aug 25 for a moratorium until the next municipal election. Email addresses are in a previous post, but are all formatted like this: [email protected] So ... what was that you were saying bush_cheney? The dump site will go through? Not a chance in H-E-double hockey sticks!! The wailing and gnashing of teeth has already begun, and politicians as well as eating our young, also eat each other. Sayonara dumpsite 41 !!

dp

I think that is just getting started, and that's one part of a solution. http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ However, there are many Indigenous people who want nothing to do with our government that has oppressed them.

From your link: The government argued before the appeal court that it should have "unfettered discretion to decide whether and when to request the return of a Canadian citizen detained in a foreign country." It is "a matter within its exclusive authority to conduct foreign affairs," said government lawyers, according to court documents. But the appeal court ruled "there is no factual basis" to conclude the order presents "a serious intrusion into the Crown's responsibility for the conduct of Canada's foreign affairs." "The Crown adduced no evidence that requiring it to request Mr Khadr's return would damage Canada's relations with the United States," wrote Judge Marc Nadon in the two-to-one decision. Thank goodness the court is still responsible for the law. Otherwise, Harper would be free to 'dictate' as he would like to. There certainly still is value in the checks and balances built into the system, to control the maniacal tendencies of such as him. I'm curious whether Harper will appeal to the Supreme Court. What an idiot he is making himself!

I agree, craig. It's appalling the way Indigenous lands have been contaminated. And we are now finding out just what the health effects are for them too. However, these things also apply to us as unaccountaqble companies have contaminated our cities, towns, villages and rural areas too, including the water supplies, ground and air. There are many concerns that we have in common with Indigenous people.

Speak for your own courts please. Generalized insults against ours are not acceptable. hunh???

I posted the information so you can see for yourself how Aboriginal rights are being applied today. Read it over again for clarification. It is the Supreme Court that is responsible for clarifying how Aboriginal rights are to be applied today, and it has done so and continues to do so. Brantford, and dump site 41 are the current focuses in Ontario, now in front of the courts. And the Supreme Court has said that injunctions cannot be granted against Aboriginal protests until there is an agreement in place with them about land use. And yes, the agreements will consider the common and competing interests of all parties. Again, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of whether the agreements are adequate. I never said there is no "land ownership". However, even with a property title, there are limitations on one's use of the land: Mineral rights on your land, for example, generally remain with the Crown. Planning and by laws determine the uses of your land. etc. And the Constitution (via the Supreme Court) now limits the development of land until agreements accommodating the rights of Indigenous Peoples are in place. This is a relatively new concept in Canadian law, and may people are not aware of it. That's my reason for raising it here for information and discussion.

And there's something wrong with wanting to preserve the land so it can sustain future generations? I would think that's a value many of us share with Indigenous Peoples ... ... except those who value money over life itself, of course. (And how stupid is that!?! ) Point being ... this is the current state of the law in Canada. Love it or leave it eh! (Oh ... right ... you don't live here anyway. )

Interesting discussion again, but the same old one, some pure racism and some just ill-informed and some better informed. I was hoping we could move beyond "Siberia" to information and discussion of the situation as it stands today. For those who didn't bother to inform themselves ... and whether you agree with it or not ... our legal relationship with Indigenous Peoples today is this: 'Traditional Aboriginal Territories' are those that each Nation inhabited or used at the time of 'contact' - some shared, some exclusive. The federal government generally knows what these territories are, has mapped them, with some irregularities and disagreements but nonetheless, acceptance of the principle of 'traditional territories'. Sec 35 of our Constitution 'recognizes and affirms' that Aboriginal Rights exist on all traditional Aboriginal territories. The nature of those continuing Aboriginal rights depends on the treaties applied to each. All land in Canada, including lands occupied or used by non-natives by treaty, are nonetheless still subject to Aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified: http://www.lawsonlundell.com/Resources/New...nd-Accommodate2 Where disputes over land use arise, Aboriginal rights are asserted, and injunctions are sought to prevent Aboriginal protests, the Ontario Court of Appeal applied the 'duty to consult and accommodate' as follows: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2...008ONCA0534.pdf In the case of the Ardoch/KI protests of mining developments, this decision "set aside" the sentences imposed as a result of the injunction, because the Crown had not consulted with them. In Brantford, the court did not grant a permanent injunction against Six Nations, but instead ordered the City, Province and Six Nations to "consult, negotiate, accommodate and reconcile" their competing interests. At dump site 41, Aboriginal rights have been asserted but protesters have nonetheless been arrested and charged and jailed due to an interim injunction, now being challenged in court based on the case law presented above. This is the state of affairs today. I realize that my initial post article was inflammatory and led to the same old claptrap about who should "leave". However, I think we all understand that no one is leaving, and clearly there is a lot of interest in this topic. It would seem appropriate, then, to inform ourselves of the current state of the law and to discuss the implications for us all. I hope we can agree that there is some value at discussing these present realities. Because the implication is this: Until the 'Crown' (province) has facilitated the negotiation of an agreement with the relevant Aboriginal communities to accommodate their rights and interests, no development can proceed if they object, anywhere in Canada. The onus is clearly on the provinces, who approve all land uses, to ensure that the process includes the accommodation of Aboriginal rights prior to that approval. And it really doesn't matter whether we agree or not: It is the law in Canada. It is also, by the way, the only law available in Canada to fight against environmentally disastrous development.

Keep your rose tinted glasses on dancer! You're going to need them! Better still ... pluck out both of your eyes so you don't have to see the truth.

I'm talking about Canadian law, bc. I don't know your context so won't comment, and I'd prefer to stick with Canada because we have a particular issue coming to a head here that requires education of the public.

That's an uninformed response. Obviously you haven't informed yourself of the law and have no clue about the relevant economics either. About time you did.

I'm sorry Army Guy, but neither have you. The soldiers believe their mission to help the Afghan people is honourable. I agree. However, that is not the real purpose of the mission, and we are naive if we try to believe it's all about helping the Afghan people. It isn't. It's about corporate powers helping themselves to resources, once our soldiers have cleared the way for them. It isn't about spreading democracy: It's about spreading corporate power and control.

This is the first time I've seen it put so bluntly, and I can't say I disagree. Pay up or leave: our duty to the Aboriginal people Peter Adam; 12/8/09; Peter Adam is principal of Ridley College, an Anglican theological college in Victoria. This is an edited extract from a lecture delivered on Monday. Australia is a particularly clear example of the continuity of indigenous ownership and possession of the land. While European nations returned African land to indigenous ownership, that has not happened in Australia, New Zealand the United States or Canada. The British left India, the Dutch left Indonesia. Why has it not happened here? The practical answer is that the indigenous Indians, Africans and Indonesians were clearly in the majority, whereas in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, they are not. However, that is to say that genocide is to be rewarded. It would in fact be possible, even if very difficult and complicated for Europeans and others to leave Australia. I am not sure where we would go, but that would be our problem. more ... http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pay-up-or-le...uv.html?page=-1 At this point in time in Canada, the issue is front and centre: Our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that our governments have a duty to consult and accommodate the rights of Indigenous Peoples on all of their traditional land - ie, all of Canada. Before responding, please google "duty to consult, Aboriginal" for Canada. If you are not aware of this issue, then you may be shocked and shaken by the implications. It's huge. IMO, it's a very good thing, because at present only Aboriginal people have the legal power to stop developments, landfills, mines, etc that are destroying our environment and us. Dump site 41 is a current example. (See thread in 'Local')

County officials scolded for suit against protesting farmer Posted By Posted 6 hours ago We are very concerned that the County of Simcoe is proceeding with civil action against a Simcoe County farmer without following proper procedure. Anne Ritchie-Nahuis is being named in a statement of claim for unsubstantiated damages increasing by $80,000 a week. It appears there was no county council meeting where councillors could debate this extraordinary legal matter. We want to remind you that the agriculture industry in Simcoe County has over 2,400 farms, cash receipts of over $326 million, and employed over 9,800 people in 2006. We find it deplorable that you would raise this civil action against a farmer who is exercising her democratic right to protest peacefully against a threat to the agriculture industry in her area. We would hope that you would reconvene county council, as soon as possible, so that this civil action will be dropped. Dave Riddell, Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture, representing 1,680 members more ... http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDispla...97901&auth= Man, if this County Council doesn't quickly get their act together, the half of them trying to bully through the landfill will find their political careers over! I expect there will be fallout for Ontario Liberals as well, as they have remained mute on the subject.

It's "Ma'am" to you, sonny. To my knowledge, they aren't building it yet. Take your pick. There are plenty of maps online. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/329277..._fab90b095b.jpg

If there are kids, that leaves them at the mercy of the abusive woman, so some men don't. If there are no kids, leaving an abuser can be dangerous: That's when abuse can become stalking, harassment or worse.

I agree. Elizabeth is way off base. 'You pay' facilities are happy to take your money. That is a more common occurrence in Canada, though. However I've discovered that if you persist they'll do what you want, as they don't want to be sued for malpractice. I went to emerge after a skating fall and was told nothing was broken. I thought they were wrong, (pain, lump of swelling) and insisted on a cast. Sure enough, a few weeks later they did another xray and found the fracture, by then healed. They even admitted it!

Thanks. I'm well aware of the disastrous effects of Canadian mining companies in other parts of the world, Barrick Gold, for example. I hadn't heard of any involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan, but can't say I'm surprised. Sorry, didn't mean to dis only US resource corporations. They're all disastrous, imo. Point being ... imo it isn't about the Iraqi or Afghan people, but about corporate profits. Only the soldiers on the ground actually care about the people.

Simcoe County Council is made up of a number of municipalities/town councils, some of which are now voting against the dump. Warden Tony Guergis campaigned against the dump, and then changed sides after the election and is now the biggest obstacle to stopping the dump: Councils line up against dumpsite SITE 41: Warden slams 'purely political' opposition Posted By IAN MCINROY, SUN MEDIA Three municipalities have endorsed Tiny Township's call for a halt to construction of a dump site at Site 41. Midland council unanimously passed a motion recently endorsing the township's resolution calling on Premier Dalton McGuinty to declare a one-year moratorium on construction at the landfill, located in Tiny. Monday night, Springwater council and Barrie councillors gave initial approval supporting the resolution. Tiny Township Deputy Mayor George Lawrence said there are too many uncertainties to support the landfill. The township has sent the resolution to all 16 county member municipalities, as well as Barrie and Orillia, seeking their support. We want to stop that landfill and take a good, long, hard look at what the implications could be if it fails," he said. ... The one-year moratorium would be a waste of time," said Simcoe County Warden Tony Guergis. Wait until this, wait until that. It creates more expense for the taxpayer, creates more pressure on other landfills, and there is an environmental cost of trucking waste over long distances," he said. ... Barrie's support of the Tiny resolution is purely political," Guergis said. ... I wasn't surprised," Guergis said. There are tremendous pressures on the elected officials of Springwater Township in regards to Site 41," he said, adding the landfill isn't even in the township. ... Simcoe North MPP Garfield Dunlop said opposition to the landfill has been overwhelming," especially since the Council of Canadians and First Nations became involved. ... I know they've spent a lot of money on this, but there is no guarantee the liner won't leak or the site won't have a negative impact on the aquifer," Dunlop said. more ... http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1695992 Reminder ... Information session in Toronto tomorrow (Thursday). Details in previous post. This can affect all of Southern Ontario from Georgian Bay to the Oak Ridge moraine (Alliston aquifer).

I'm aware that abuse of women by men remains a major problem in our society. However, I'm personally aware that the reverse often happens and it seems to be an unspoken issue on 'some' discussion boards and raising it at all can get you banned. What about here? I could tell several stories but I'll start with my next door neighbour with whom I share a wall. Last night, screaming profanities, she threw her boyfriend's stereo out the door. This morning I woke up to the same sound of her screeching profanities at him at 6:30 in the morning. (In case you're wondering, no one else in our pleasant and quiet neighbourhood acts that way.) She routinely intercepts his phone calls from his kids and doesn't tell him they called. She frequently pulls out all the phones in the house and hides them in the trunk of her car, messing up his chances for work as well as his family/social connections. She treats her son the same way - terrorizes him. With any response/reaction, she calls the cops on him, her son, his girlfriend, or anyone in her path. I've lived here 6 years, and with one man after another it's the same thing, and when there's no man in the house, she picks on her son. I gotta say ... women like this who abuse men do a lot of damage to the women's movement, and so does not being willing to talk about it. Maybe I'm just venting because she woke me up at 6:30, but I'm curious about the opinions of others here. Is this abuse? Do men consider this abuse? Do they speak out about it?

Correction accepted. Yes I'm sure.

Them too. Names of companies and details of their involvement please?

I'm curious about this last statement. Can you elaborate a bit more on this? Are you talking about inappropriate sexual behaviour or sexual abuse by parents/older sibs?

I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps it's a matter of misinterpretation. As you said and I said, questioning everything is our responsibility (and the soldiers). It should not be interpreted as lack of Canadian support for the soldiers day to day work: We know they are doing their best for the Afghan people, and we want it not to be in vain in the long run. "Act" how? How do you feel I have done that? I don't think I did, and it certainly was not my intention. Sorry but ... it's a US military/corporate mission. Canada's role there is punishment for Chretien's refusal to go to take over the oil wells of Iraq. Harper's sop to Bush was to send Canadian troops to Afg. to clear the route for the oil pipeline through Pakistan. There is absolutely no question that the Afghan people need help to rid themselves of the Taliban, and that our soldiers' actions in trying to do so are valiant, honourable, well intentioned, professional and successful. However, the overall purpose of the whole US led Iraq/Afghanistan mission is still of highly questionable merit. We no longer accept the word of the corporate community about what is best for the world because they have demonstrated many times over that their purpose is to take money out of the pockets of the millions and put it in the pockets of a few. That's the dilemma of the Canadian people. If we stay there indefinitely, the future of the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is guarding the US corporate oil pipeline from Iraq to India. As for funding ... I'm not well informed of this aspect, and not aware of funding being voted down. Please clarify.