Shwa

LOFL! That was a three-pointer and nothing but net.!

Been there and done that, although no twins by the time I was 22, just three kiddies. 5 in total, so I have done my bit!

I have to agree that a self-oriented consumerist lifestyle is one of the main contributing factors of a low birthrate, along with the dominance of urbanism. So there has to be a social change and re-orientation towards different values conducive to larger families. Everyone loves social engineering right? Perhaps one of the side effects of such a social value change could be the necessary awareness of some of the detractions of our present immigration system. One of the things I don't get is this fear that if someone - some party or minister - were to change the levels of immigration, there would be this whole racist outcry. I am sure there would be some cries of racism, and some of those cries might be warranted from time to time, but I don't think there would be anything near something to be too wary about.

What gave it away? The opening shot that included "banana republic dictators?"

Do you really think that they care about their credibility in your eyes or gaining your sympathy? Where was your credibility and sympathy when they were originally trying to settle this dispute decades ago? You didn't hear about it back then? Really? Of course, because it is only about the "tactics" now which, ironically enough, has brought your attention to what the issue is actually about in the first place. Is that about it? I guess the point is that your credibility or sympathy ain't worth much. But I would disagree that their tactics haven't gotten "people to listen" since they are now in negotiations to settle that particular claim. Another irony huh?

And what I am saying is that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits First Nations to obtaining a recognition for rights to, or a recognition of previous rights of, sovereignty - whatever definition of sovereignty or self-government particular First Nations and the Governmet of Canada can agree on. I think by now that is pretty clear, unless you have something else to cite. Do you?

S. 25 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, re: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: Furthermore, S.26 following states: Also, S. 35: So I wonder in what Supreme Court ruling states that the Indians can never make laws for themselves when it is determined that "real sovereignty" or "self-government" for First Nations has been an existing right all along. Indian Affairs calls it "self-government." Seriously, arguing that the Canadian Constitution doesn't provide for changes in the relationships between First Nations and the Government of Canada is a totally absurd position. Especially for those that cry the Constitution will need to be wholly scrapped in order to make a few adjustments. You know, like how the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement completely brought the whole country to ruin.

"Self-government" meaning what exactly?

Based on what? Do you have some unshakeable precedent to cite or is this just your opinion?

I get the sense that you are starting to flip-flop here, by using the modified term "real sovereignty." How be you explain exactly that means, and how the adjective modifies the term "sovereignty" to degree that is "pretty much not going to happen."

But here is the problem, as illustrated by Tootoosis. Whose "specific definition" of the word are you referring to? With Tootoosis, before there were any Indian "unions" of any weight, he was prevented - along with quite a few others - from establishing relationships between communities. He was prevented because of someone's "specific defintion" of this or that term. However Tootoosis and others overcame the problem. It really depends on what you mean by "sovereignty". You see this as a non-starter from your position, from your side of the table. But unless you are listening to the other side as well, and acting in good faith on the behalf of everyone, there is no negotiation to be had at all. That is the same sort of problem Tootoosis faced. He overcame it. One of the problems of negotiation, is that understanding of terms which is agreeable to both parties. The problem with running with a term whose meaning might not even be applicable to the other side, is that it leads to conclusions far ahead of the actual talks. Therefore 'sovereign nation' might have a much different meaning than a simple 'break-away' state you are seeing. And from a FN standpoint their understanding of 'soverign nation' might mean something more like a state, for example, like the US, where there is a certain degree of autonomy, but participation in the confederation. Nunavut is a good example of the sort of evolution possible within the current context of our Constitution.

That is an interesting starting point though, isn't it? Starting with one side's defintion as delusion. It is interesting that you should mention ambassadors, because this relates to the Saskatchewan Cree chief John Tootoosis. Surely you have heard of him? And the Iroquois passport is but one item. While the UN doesnt official recognize the Iroquois as a member nation, they certainly are well aware of them. I think most people would agree with your in this, however, this does not preclude a state of sovereignty does it?

There, there, Shady. Calm down boy... There, just like a good pup.

Good grief I had those same portions of the story in memory waiting to paste it! It really isn't 'free' speech when you have to buy a ticket.

Nah. More to pity than to scorn. The sad part is that our society still produces such depths of ignorance and weak minded schmuckery as evidenced by these two.

I did, and here is where it teeters on the rails a bit. Firstly, one has to be careful of making legal generalizations about all First Nations based upon the specifics of one or a few specific cases. In fact, one has to be careful about making any sort of generalizations about Native people as a whole, their lifeways, language, culture, etc., especially when such generalizations may impede legal processes. Practically no rational person equates Europeans as being responsible for the Holocaust even though the perpetrators were most definitely Europeans. Secondly, one also has to be careful in mistaking "Native culture" - at any point in time - as static or as an end-form somehow 'ready' for 'necessary' assimilation into what we might think as the mainstream. There is simply no evidence anywhere to indicate that Native cultures were ever static. In other words, it is a mistake to confuse acculturation for assimilation as it is to mistake appearances for reality. So these two points - a generalization about some fictional cultural stasis - the Noble Indian if you will - comes up against a legal apparatus that itself is specific and continually evolving over the past few centuries with regard to interpretation, intent and outcomes. What I mean by 'legal apparatus' is the entire treaty process as a whole which is known by all the treaties individually. For example, this process has spawned a department of the federal government as well as provincial bodies and other government institutions; it has spawned many policies, rules and processes to address those treaties. In other words - and this is very clear - one side of the treaty management process has been subject to evolution and development; interpretation and re-interpretation; vision and revision, etc. So it would only make sense that, if one side of a treaty were to apply their own definitions to this or that clause, the other side would have the same opportunity right? Did the US tell us that the various clauses of NAFTA will only be defined and interpreted according to the wishes of their courts and government? No, that would be ridiculous. The Americans, for their part, are perfectly within their right to mull over some bit or piece of NAFTA as they see fit, but whatever they come up with regard to definition or interpretation is only going to be, their definition or interpretation. What is important to realize here is that it doesn't matter how many Americans agree with their government's position, what counts the most in the treaty process is that Canadians agree too. Otherwise, the issue is unresolved or it goes to international arbitration. Now I am not suggesting that Indian Treaties need to go to international arbitration, but the first recourse is to recognize that both sides of any treaty process have the right to interpret, define, realize and negotiate the terms of those treaties within their modern perspective that they bring to the table. Up until about 50 years ago, it was illegal for an Indian to be a lawyer. That is, once they became a lawyer, they lost their Indian status and rights. I don't think this was actually enforced to any degree, but it might have kept quite a few smart folks from becoming lawyers and engaging the government on equal footing when it came time to negotiate land claims and treaty rights and such. The government became used to having free reign over what those treaties and claims actually meant and they did a good job of entrenching that view in popular Canadian thought. That is not to say they acted in poor faith all the time, but it means that real representation from the other side was not a regular occurrence other than to agree to the terms as dictated. But things have changed quite drastically over the past 50 years with regard to the 'Indian problem' right? Now, we have the other side asserting their right to offer their interpretation of what certain words and clauses mean to them with regard to treaties and this includes the words 'sovereignty' 'nation' 'protection' and any other word in a treaty we can point to and say, 'ah ha! but...' Regardless of how many of us may agree with some aspect of the governments position, the force of logic comes into play here. Over the years the federal government has greatly revised many of their definitions and positions on what the specifics of treaties mean; sometimes they did it on their own, sometimes the court force them to. So to quote what George III or Joseph Brant had in mind is meaningful only to the degree that the two sides of the process agree. Otherwise to reach an agreement with regard to treaty issues or land claims requires complex negotiations, rational compromise and consensus seeking in all cases. All of this should be done in good faith of course. Which leads me to my last point about Canada. There will never be a citizens-plus or a solving of the 'Indian problem' or the end of all treaties and reserves. Never. The fabric of our country is such that treaties, reserves, land claims, and such will always exist and be a part of our culture, and that requires Canadians to understand, or at least accept, things which may appear abstract and contentious to them. Similar in which we view the evolution of the social and political needs in any other province of our dominion. What we, as Canadians, ought to be doing, is charging those in the negotiation process to act in good faith for the benefit of everyone and not succumb to popular cynicism, petty appearances or economic greed.

Indeed a very large problem that doesn't seem to track as much as some of the smaller drug problems, like pot for instance. Although I am not sure if the article is talking about legalization of hard drugs per se, just more effort put into getting people off of them instead of tossing them in the can.

I tend to agree, but for clarity's sake the article did says "illegal drugs" which would refer to many kinds of drugs and substances including pot & ectasy.

Consider yourself pwned. No, I think the terms are all 'negotiation, compromise and consensus seeking.' This is the current state of the Douglas Creek Estates settlement process. Consider yourself pwned again. A simplistic fictional narrative to support one's personal lack of power. Notwithstanding all the dusty old gramma clan mother's who have more power in their concise actions than you do in all your internet forum whimpering. This is interesting in that you wish to subscribe me to your fixed-idea way of dealing with issues that are wholly out of your scope of abilities. It is another simplistic form of fictional narrative. However, raising the concept of my supposed "idealogical zealotry" in the same paragraph you defend your own conception of "standards" - backed by the dream police no less - is a hilarious irony. You just pwned yourself!

A topical story from today's Star: Why study says alcohol more dangerous than heroin, cocaine Governments don't do that, do they? But what the author does not calculate is the tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol that off-set that overall cost. I wonder if that was scientifically calculated too...

Thanks for making something very clear Jerry. You have provided a perfect example as to why Canadian history needs to be taught in Canadian schools since it was obviously missing in your day.

Yes... and, er, No. As the ultimate centrist, I declare there are no winners, we are ALL winners and everyone gets a trophy!

Ah, a previous statement by you in another thread makes perfect sense now: Awwww, now, see there? That is the deep rooted cynicism we have all come to love and cherish. You go Wild Bill!

I don't think so son; I prefer to deal with white guys & gals who have power, the ones that are intelligent enough to understand the concepts of negotiation, compromise and seek consensus. You simply don`t comprehend do you? The whole incident at Douglas Creek Estates was caused and dealt with by your "real people" standards. The same folks that drew up equity legislation and devised immigration rules. At least the Indians will stand up for what they believe in, all you are capable of doing is whining about it on the Internet. What - do you shake your fist at your screen too? "I'll show you, I've got standards!" You fool no one and like I said earlier: you've been thoroughly emasculated by women, aboriginals and immigrants.