tango
-
Posts
1,641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tango
-
-
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.
-
OH MY GOD!!!!! DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANY BADASS LOCAL MILITIAS I CAN JOIN????
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! 
-
Yes - that is the problem. The SCC tried to avoid conflict with private titles by setting out a cumbersome process to demonstrate the aboriginal title still exists. I think they assumed that it would work like Australia where existence of private title automatically negates an aboriginal title claim. The trouble is subsequent lower court rulings have used the technicality that private land titles cannot negate aboriginal titles since they are provincial rather than federal statutes. This means we have a situation where private title and aboriginal title can co-exist and the "just screw the private title holders" is not a politically viable option.
Gordon Campbell tried to do deal with issue by promising to recognize all aboriginal title claims without further litigation but his assumption was there would be quid quo pro on the part of the natives when it comes to private title conflicts. He did not get that quid pro quo so the proposal was quietly dropped.
In short, the SCC screwed up. It thought its rulings would encourage negotiation but it has only succeeded in making further litigation inevitable. In fact, I would say conflict is more likely now because the SCC has created unrealistic expectations in the aboriginal community which cannot possibly be met.
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.
-
So my question is this how could young mr Khadr been shot twice in the back if he was buried in ruble as you claim. as Omar was the only one left alive on the battle field, who else could have thrown the grenade....the million dollar question?
All this proves is that it is made in the US and like i said everyone has access to such wpns, including Taliban and other terrorists....
My intention is not to vilify anyone or make defamatory remarks towards you just someone need sto set the facts right...i have provided you in the past with all the links to these very same remarks you've made.....and yet you presist on carring on the wrong path...
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.
-
This is a completely different definition from the SCC definition. The label might be the same but the legal significance is completely different.
I am suggesting that the SCC goofed with the aboriginal title definition it created and has made resolution of aboriginal claims more diffilcult but setting expectations too high (e.g. it leaves the false impression that aboriginals have 100% onwership of all land they claim and the only thing to negotiate is the hand over - the reality is much more complex than that because SCC created a situation where multiple entitles have valid legal title to land and exclusive right of occupation).
Because law is something we make up as we go along.
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?
-
QUOTE (M.Dancer @ Aug 19 2009, 05:02 PM) *
That and the reason to do it. I don't argue that there wasn't a native Cabot or Cartier....but their habitations were limited, often contested and well known.
Another factor to consider is the population of North America at the time. The range is 1 million to 18 million. For arguments sake lets say 9 million in all of North America.
North America was virtually uninhabitated.
There is no agreement on Native American population before europeans arrived some estimates go up to 50-100 million.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.
-
Unfortunately, he's not doing anything dissimilar than what Ignatieff would do. In fact, everything the conservatives have done has been with liberal support. Aside from personality differences, both are one the same side of most issues
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!
-
No, I want to see it happen right away....I have horded asswipe and beans down in the basement....paid for with credit cards!
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!
-
Happened to me once. You can look through the garbage and find out who originally owned it. Not only that, you can find out alot of private information too. I'm sure if your neighbour found out you were doing that, it'll stop pretty quickly.
I know exactly whose garbage it is, but she ignores me.
-
I boggles the mind that some people are opposed to and absolutely refuse to recycle and/or implement any sort of food composting.
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
-
It created this nonsense category of land ownership called aboriginal title which is 'like' ownership but it is not really ownership. If they really believed that aboriginals had exclusive title to the land they should have said that and let the political chips fall where they may. If all they wanted to do is provide a legal framework that would encourage the government to offer more generous settlements then they could have done that without the use of terms that were likely to be misinterpreted.
The net result is we have a ridiculously cumbersome process where the government has to fight aboriginal title claims in long court battles designed to establish which pieces of land the group in question actually used.
We would have been a lot better off if the SCC had limited aboriginal title to something that was largely symbolic while making it clear that the government was going to have to better than postage stamp treaty offers that were on the table at the time.
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?
-
If the alternative is an election every year, then give this clown his majority and let the other parties replace their useless leaders and try again in 4 years.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
IMO
We've had enough of this clown. Time for him to move on to the private sector.
imo
-
It means it is not your problem once the government issues the permits and that even if you did your own consulation it means nothing if the government has not done its own.
I can understand where you are coming from with the suggestion that private individuals should, in theory, be able to come to an arrangement with the local indian band without government involvement.
Things are this way because the SCC has ruled itself into a corner with this entire aboriginal title concept and it is trying to now limit its effect on private citizens for fear of a political backlash. This is what happens when you get judges you think promoting social change is part of their job description.
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?
-
If people think the duty to consult is enough to scare off big corporations imagine the hurdle an individual has to face. The problem with the duty to consult Aboriginal communities in my case was that no matter how much I personally consulted chiefs and councils in my region, the government (Province of BC) insisted on doing their own consultations as well. I was able to conclude mine in a matter of a few hours through phone calls, emails, a visit or two to the local band office or over coffee at the local deli. It usually took the province 5 - 6 months, minimum. After going through this humiliating frustrating process every year for 6 years I just finally gave up. I've concluded its virtually impossible for an individual to conduct just about any sort business involving the small scale harvesting of natural resources or the use of crown land. I think the only answer is to cede complete soverignty to First Nations so individuals like me can just sidestep the province altogether.
In addition to just creating a new level of government we also need to eliminate one, at least for really small almost micro-level entrepreneurs.
Thanks for that perspective. It's good to know where the process bogs down. Provinces are usually the culprit.
-
I voted other:
I see Canada as a welfare state - so - to have a little fun:
A fire was reported in a three family house midmorning Wednesday last week in downtown Toronto.
Sadly, there were many fatalities.
On the first floor lived an african family - 6 fatalities.
Out of how many family members in total?
On the second floor lived a muslim family - 13 fatalities.Out of how many family members in total?
On the third floor lived a white family of 2 - no fatalities.Please clarify ... were the entire families on the first two floors wiped out, or were some of them also not there?
-
Tango;
Your misleading not only the posters on this board but the truth as well. repeation does not mean BS becomes truth
defense team has one statement from one soldier that believes Omar did not throw that grenade....the have plenty that have stated they seen nothing, and more than one statement that states Omar must have thrown the grenade....nobody else was alive.... ....it proves shit.....You can have 10 people watch a train wreck and each statement will be different.
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.
How does Forensics prove it is US issue ? was a serial number recovered off the piece that kill the US medic....no what forensics have proven it this grenade was manufactured in the US, and is in use by dozens of militaries around the globe....and also available on the black market...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.
As for the interrogator, one of how many that questioned mr Omar, over his course of detention.....one out of dozens, including our own CSIS...whats the odds that this one guy, is the only interrogator capable of doing his job....capable of getting at the truth while the other dozens have not a clue on proper interrogation techs...or are totally useless at thier jobs....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?
-
QUOTE (tango @ Aug 20 2009, 02:36 AM) *
As I said, the funding they are asking for is not our money: It's money our governments have stolen from them.
One does not have anything to do with the other,Now you are truly being ridiculous.
You have no concept of the meaning of "good faith" do you? Good faith imposes an obligations on BOTH parties.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?
-
The jury duty is the most accurate comparsion. The municipal workers are paid by the taxpayers in the municipality because they represent the interest of those taxpayers. Same goes for the provincial workers. Similarily the aboriginal workers should be paid by the aboriginal group that they represent. The province does not pay for the municipal workers which is what you are asking.
Not the government's problem. It is acting in good faith. If the aboriginals with an interest in the land do not pay for enough people to represent their interests they are NOT acting in good faith which means the government does NOT need to consult further.
So? The duty to consult requires good faith on BOTH sides. Charging consulting fees means the aboriginal groups are not acting in good faith. If aboriginal groups really need the money they the can borrow it from the federal government pending the resolution of their land claims. But no matter what they are responsible for paying their own representatives.
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.
-
Could the forum moderators please create a designated category for "Aboriginal Issues"?
For example, if there is a new thread about aboriginal issues created elsewhere, the forum moderators could move the thread to the new "Aboriginal Issues" category.
I know that the actions of these aboriginal posters seem to be a form of extortion but frankly IMHO, they're not. I'd give these One Track Jacks a place to play - and methodically move their topics there.
While the Internet is open to hijacks, this forum doesn't have many extortionists. IMV, aboriginals deserve a designated category.
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.
-
and this is what i meant by jbg is a part time compassionate person who spends the other time apologizing forr war crimes.
I haven't heard him apologizing.
-
Governments have a legal duty to find jurors.
People often don't want to be jurors.
But the government does not pay them for their time.
It does not make a difference that everyone else is the court room is paid to be there.
There is no difference with the duty to consult. Especially since the duty to consult requires that both parties act in good faith. Demanding that governments pay their people means aborignals are acting in bad faith and that should be enough to allow governments to proceed without further input.
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.
-
Duty to consult Aboriginal communities
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
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.