tango

Negotiations usually are. That's why they are necessary. Maybe they know something you don't about their own affairs, eh? Again, that's a matter for contemplation, negotiation or the courts. Verification of claims precedes negotiation of how legitimate claims will be settled. For example, in Ontario it has been determined that the Tyendinaga Mohawks have a verified claim to the entire Culbertson Tract, containing a few small communities and many private lands, as well as the reserve itself, I believe. Now the challenge is how to settle that verified claim. And that's a sticky point, of course, and lengthy negotiations, no doubt, beginning with Tyendinaga wanting the tract of intact and contiguous land, and the feds offering only money, and then not returning to the table, of course. No doubt it will be settled someday.

They are thread for all Canadians, because there are substantial and important developments going on in law, and it affects us all. The merry-go-round results from trolls who just want to disrupt, derail, dismiss, deny, vilify. Perhaps some better controls on that behaviour are warranted. However, these are not segregated threads FOR Aboriginal people, but about Aboriginal issues that all Canadians may need to understand, imo.

Caledonia Militia ... er ... PeacekeeperS ... er ... Peacekeeper http://www.marchforfreedom.com/smf/index.php?topic=466.0 Any member of the public who wishes to join the Caledonia Militia to aid in the enforcement of the Criminal Code is welcome to attend an information session at Cayuga Lion's Hall, Tuesday, June 23rd at 7 P.M. Hotheads need not apply. We're opposing terrorism, not engaging in it. We will follow established procedures on the use of reasonable force to remove illegal trespassers. Trespassers will be arrested and turned over to the OPP for the prosecution of their offences. Your community needs you. Call Dougie June 23: Today's meeting, bring your cameras! it'll be a rough one!

In the rest of Canada, where some land is not Aboriginal Title, the resolution, in theory, is to verify the claim and then substitute other land, and/or money, OR willing seller-willing buyer arrangements. In BC ... it's a problem, since no treaties means all Title. (And why on earth would they just 'fold'?) In Australia, a claim was verified for Perth, and I believe they anticipated substitution/compensation just like here, but I'm not sure what happened. Keep in mind that the SCC also ruled that there must be a balancing of competing interests, providing the ultimate tool for negotiations.

Why don't you google it yourself as I suggested Jan 20-24, or thereabouts, and find your own "path"!! I don't appreciate your insults, and I don't really care if you believe me or not, but that's what I read, and I followed it carefully. Didn't you??? It appears you read the earlier media accounts, not the accounts from the pre-trial that I read ... about the soldier seeing the pile of rubble before the grenade went off, then finding that Omar was under that same pile of rubble, injured: He could not have thrown the grenade because the pile of rubble had not moved. He was very clear about that. Then someone pulled Omar out of the pile of rubble, shot Omar twice, etc etc Obviously, soldier told the whole truth in court, at his own expense, and kudos to him. The grenade was established to be a US one from that fight because the 'Taliban' only had a different type. Since they were all dead (except Omar), they were able to verify all of the the munitions present. btw ... I believe he admitted shooting the adult in the head too ... at least someone did. Then Omar told them he was Canadian and 15 years old, so they did not kill him. And yes, they knew they were in deep doo doo, glossed the facts for the press, and still they/he stepped up and told the whole truth in court. Imo, Omar was not only legally a child, he is 'child-like' ... the baby of the family, a 'whiner', one might say. As his mother said when she saw the CSIS tape ("You're not going to heeeeellppp meeee"): "That's Omar ... he would always just cry." Terrorist? Anyone will defend themself when under attack, but a) he was in no position to do so under that pile of rubble, and According to his interrogator, all he wants to do is come home and play on his playstation3. c) I just don't think he has the cajones to be a terrorist, imo. But that's just my opinion from what I've seen and read. Others may differ.

Sorry ... I'm confused ... SCC says "100% ownership" SCC says "multiple valid titles" Is some of this confusion the difference between - land with no settler treaties (BC) and - land with settler treaties (most of the rest of Canada) ?? Or is that just confusing it further?

I think I found an explanation for the discrepancies: http://books.google.ca/books?id=yFahIv8mXj...sult&resnum =2#v=onepage&q=North%20America%2C%20pre%20contact%2C%20population&f=false (Weird link, but it works) Western Hemisphere (North, Central and South America) 50-100m North America 4m - ? (reduced to 1m by 1800) Soooo ... everybody's right.

I could do with a little less of Harper's cutthroat personality ... A spoonful of sugar may be the only difference, but it would be welcome. Internationally, Harper makes people shocked and/or furious everywhere he goes!

Better run out quick and buy some brown rice, b_c, if you want your a-wipe to last very long!! Also a full protein that way. What does $15,000 in a-wipe and beans look like? Hope it's not too hot where you are, or your cans will explode and you'll be eating off your walls! omigod! I just saw a dog and it circled counter-clockwise before lying down! We're doomed!

I know exactly whose garbage it is, but she ignores me.

Ya ... and in my community where we are limited to one bag of garbage a week, such people go around looking for neighbours who have NO garbage (only green and blue bins) and plunk their extra bags there, or at empty houses. Ticks me off!! For pete's sake, folks: how difficult is it! paper - plastic etc - food/plant

But the concept of Aboriginal title did not originate in Canada's Supreme Court: Aboriginal title is a common law property interest in land. It has been recognised in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and increasingly in other common law countries as well, such as Malaysia and Nigeria[citation needed]. The requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the land vary across countries, but generally speaking, the aboriginal claimant must establish (exclusive) aboriginal occupation from a long time ago, i.e. before the assertion of sovereignty, and continuity to the present day. The concept of aboriginal title was first promulgated in the United States Supreme Court decision of Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823). This decision changed the existing legal norm that the right of discovery by a European nation-state secured an exclusive right to treat with the Indigenous Peoples. The decision, authored by Chief Justice Marshall (see also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)) established the notion that legal title could only rest with the discoverer and that the Indian Nations has a right of use and occupancy as an encumbrance on the discovering nation-state legal title. Reading that last bit, though, I can see why some Indigenous people might also want to get rid of it. I've always wondered about that: How can pre-existing possession of the land suddenly become an encumbrance on the title of some new arrival? The Pope's Doctrines of Discovery? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Doctrine This has always seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. It was based on Christians being able to take over the land of non-Christians. How valid can that be in law?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! IMO We've had enough of this clown. Time for him to move on to the private sector. imo

The only issue I can see with individuals making their own arrangements is that the consultation/accommodation agreement has to be signed off by the province. The only reason I can see that they would not do so for an individual is ... prior committment to a larger corporation, or holding out for a bigger deal, maybe? Seems strange to me. In what respect do you believe the SCC is wrong, riv?

Thanks for that perspective. It's good to know where the process bogs down. Provinces are usually the culprit.

Out of how many family members in total? Out of how many family members in total? Please clarify ... were the entire families on the first two floors wiped out, or were some of them also not there?

One soldier who said he looked around the wall(?) to see who was there, saw the adult there and a pile of rubble, then he withdrew, then the grenade exploded. When they went around the wall, Omar was under that pile of rubble, injured. It was acknowledged to be difficult, but I believe it was the type of metal in the fragments in the soldier's body, and there were only the two types of grenades at that location. I don't recall the exact content of his testimony, but he didn't believe Omar was guilty, I know that. The amazing thing is that these US soldiers felt strongly enough to step up to his defense, when they didn't have to and are probably vilified for it by some other soldiers and possibly their command. That speaks volumes to me. It also speaks volumes that the people who want to vilify Omar didn't pay attention to the proceedings. You can probably still find it on google news: It was happening in the few days before the US election (Jan 24?). Now take back your defamatory statement, please.

OK, let's get it on! I don't know what I think, and I'm interested in what others think and know. This article is a good reference, and a good starter ... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health...article1258137/ The celebration at the Broadway Theatre last Sunday night even featured a birthday cake. It was, after all, the 25th anniversary of the Canada Health Act. Staged by the Canadian Doctors for Medicare, it was an earnest affair. But it was also a sober reminder that, despite Canadians' jingoistic love for medicare, they know appallingly little about its legal basis and its history, never mind its strengths and weaknesses. ... Under the terms of the CHA, if a province wants federal money it has to agree to satisfy five "program criteria" (often described as guiding principles): Public administration: The provincial health insurance plan must be administered on a non-profit basis, and audited; Comprehensiveness : The provincial health-insurance plan "must insure all insured health services" provided by hospitals or physicians; Universality : All insured health services must be provided on "uniform terms and conditions;" Portability : Insured health services must be paid (at a rate set by the province) even if a patient is treated in another jurisdiction; Accessibility : The provincial health-insurance plan must provide "reasonable access" to services and provide "reasonable compensation" to medical practitioners. In addition to these five criteria, the province must provide Ottawa with some basic spending information and "give recognition" for the funding in public documents. Finally, the CHA states that if extra-billing or user charges for medically necessary services occur in a province, those amounts can be deducted from cash contributions from the federal government. Those dollar-for-dollar penalties are a heavy stick, but one that is rarely wielded. Between 1984 and 2004, a total of $8.7-million was deducted from transfers to the provinces. During that same period, public spending exceeded $1.1-trillion. Today, there are more violations of the program criteria of the Canada Health Act than ever, but there is essentially no enforcement. The federal government - under the Conservatives as well as the Liberals - has abdicated its responsibilities under the CHA. All the stuff that's currently in the law sounds good to me: I definitely do not want to have a situation where some people don't get proper health care due to poverty: I think that's the underlying principle of our system, and I do not want that to change. And frankly, I'm not enamoured with the idea of health care for profit either - just seems tacky to me. I'm also very aware that the babyboom bulge is fast approaching the golden years of health care usage, and I'm not sure our system can cope as it is. Since, as the article says, the CHA is being violated anyway, doesn't it make sense to revise it to something we can all agree on and not violate? Some private health care services are available in some places, not others. Lots of ancillary health care services operate privately - eg, Homecare. Where do we draw the line? Can we operate successfully with just private, nonprofit and public care, as I would prefer? Are there services that could be removed from public and become private nonprofit, to improve wait times while not interfering with quality and continuity of care? MRI's and specialists seem to be really sticky points these days. I'm not sure why specialist are so backlogged, as I've heard that's what doctors want to do these days as there's more money in it than family practice (thus the shortage there). I really don't know too much about it, but would like to learn what others know. I do not think that better health care should be provided to those who can pay more money. Am I deluding myself? Why do we have such doctor shortages? We don't pay politicians all that much either, and we have no shortage of them! One thing I do know: Our public system is more cost effective than the US system. Think about it: We have one (single-payer) administration, and massive though it may be, the million-company health insurance in the US has many many duplications of administration. We have economies of scale, and that works. I read some research on that comparison years ago: Our system is cheaper per capita, with 100% of us covered, than the US system is with millions still not covered at all. But many/most of us also have private extended care coverage too. sigh I just can't make sense of it all ... but I'm afraid what we have is not sustainable through the boomers. However, it should be very smooth sailing for those under 40. help ... eta- Oh wait! Perhaps the answer is already here: http://www.canada.com/health/Doctors+debat...5076/story.html After heated debate about the slippery slope of pursuing private health care, Canadian doctors voted Tuesday in Saskatoon to push governments to look more closely at allowing competition for public health dollars. As part of a plan to create a “blueprint” to transform Canada’s health-care system, the Canadian Medical Association approved a resolution Tuesday to implore governments and health authorities to “examine internal market mechanisms, which could include a role for the private sector, in the delivery of publicly-funded health care in Canada.” “Competition is not a negative thing,” said Dr. Tim Nicholas of Aurora, Ont., speaking in favour of the motion. “Competition is good.” Competition is already happening in Ontario, where hospitals are rated based on how their patients fare, he said. He said more competition will help create more access in a system that often leaves patients waiting. B.C doctor Victor Dirnfeld told delegates they shouldn’t confuse the idea of competition for public health dollars with the introduction of private care. “What I see is the fear of the dirty word ‘private,’ ” he said. “We already have extensive private involvement in the publicly-funded system. “Let’s not confuse, and let’s not contaminate, the discussion on this proposal with the fear and anger of the private system.” Now how does that work?

Now you are truly being ridiculous. Absolutely. It would not be 'good faith' for the First Nations to begin the process if they know they cannot sustain it due to lack of funding. Likewise, it would not be 'good faith' for the province to tell the judge that they consulted, and accommodated Aboriginal rights, when they did not, due to lack of funding of First Nations' participation. Sooo ... what do you think the Judge would say, given that by law, it is the province's responsibility to facilitate meaningful consultation, and ensure adequate accommodation of Aboriginal rights?

I disagree: These are not Aboriginal issues - They are Canadian issues at the local, provincial and federal levels. I ask again ... What aboriginal posters?

Only in your mind, riv. Not in court. As I said, the funding they are asking for is not our money: It's money our governments have stolen from them. IMO, the developments cannot proceed. The courts will not allow it, as the government is not acting in good faith. The court won't accept failure of consultation due to lack of funding to do the work, because that is the province's responsibility. But why speculate and make ridiculous comparisons? You'll just have to wait to see what happens in your neck of the woods. And now that I see where you are going with this, I feel even more that the First Nations are using an effective strategy in requiring the funding up front.

What Aboriginal posters? I wouldn't recommend that. It will just become a target for racist trolls. If you don't want to discuss those issues, don't open those threads.

I haven't heard him apologizing.

The more valid comparison is as I stated above: Please tell me why First Nations governance should not be paid to review development applications when municipalities and provinces are? Please tell me why everyone else in consultation should be paid and not them? Sounds like the First Nations are inundated with applications they can't afford to review or consult on. Too bad about those applications. I guess they'll just have to sit there. And of course, the reason First Nations can't afford it is ... because their stolen land is tied up in federal land claims, and their stolen resources are ... well ... stolen ... and their trust funds are ... well ... embezzled by our governments. You see, it isn't our money: It's their own money they are asking for. And they have been asking for hundreds of years for their money, land and resource revenues back.