CANADIEN

The way THEY have treated themselves? Not to deny tha tis there abuse, mismanagement and all in reserves at this point in time... But this a by-product of a system that was designed to destroy Frist nation identities and treated (and still treats) them as wards of the Crown unable to manage their own affairs.

Correction. YOU are committed the mistake of having the Proclamation of 1763 say things it does not say. The opening paragraph of the Proclamation is clear as to what land the British Crown laid a claim on - that is the land ceaded by France and Spain in the Treaty of Paris. From the English version of the treaty What the British Government considered it had sovereignty over is pretty clear. First about the 4 colonies vs 3 colines. No contradiction whatsoever - the forth colony was Granada Clearly, and there is no dispute to that, the British Crown intended some land to be reserved for First Nations, to be owned by them, and to be closed to white settlement. That being said, the meaning of "reserved under our Sovereignty" is clear - the British Government considered itself to be the Sovereign over the land in question. Have it considered itself to be simply the "protector" of the First Nations, it would have said so. Had it considered that the First Nations were Sovereign, it would have said so. Actually, if had had considered First Nations to be independant, sovereign nations, there would not have been this clause of the Treaty of Utretch, referred to in negociations between France and Great Britain in the 1750`s (original French text, trnaslation mine) As for the claim of yours that Indian land being separated from Crown Land means that the British Crown did not assert a claim of sovereignty, it is based on a misunderstanding of what Crown Land means in the first place. Crown Land is land OWNED by the Crown. Trying the Mitchell Map trick again? The Mitchell Map was in essence a propaganda exercise aimed at furthering British claims in North America against French territorial claims. It was no a confirmation of the sovereignty of any First Nations, nor was it intended as such. Even the exact title of the map makes the intent of its maker quite clear. The theory that the map was somehow a layout of ground work for the Royal Proclamation of 1763 would pre-suppose that the British already knew in 1750 (when a preliminary edition of the map was done) or in 1755 (when the work on the 1757 map was actually started) that there would be a war, and the the British would win (a rather doubtful proposition in 1757, when the French armies had their First Nation allies had the British run scared). It does not. The examples you point to clearly refer to LAND TITLES, that is to the OWNERSHIP of the land, a separate concept from sovereingty. If Lord Denning or the Supreme Court of Canada have clearly stated "First Nations are sovereign", please free to show it. Except when one actually read the Proclamation in context, and analyses the actions of the British Government towards First Nations as well as its stance during the ngotiations of various treaties first with France then with the United States. While it could be argued (and that's another debate) that the existence of treaties are proff of a soveriegn nation to sovereign nation relationship, such a proof cannot be found in the Royal Proclamation.

The blame goes to a lot of parties here: - the federal Government, which has let the issue fester for more than 150 yeara - the provincial government, and the OPP, who has failed in its duty to ensure the security of all people involved - the thugs who have used violence or the threat of violence (both Natives and non-Natives) That being said, the brunt of the blame rests with the federal Government. Claims by the Six-Nations that the land in question was not surrendered, by leased, were raised almost 170 years ago. Why has the issue not been solved? (and i am not taking positionj here as to whether or not the cliam is founded). What happened to the money that was held in trust from the lease or sale of Six-Nation land?

There are a number of myths that need to be put to rest: a) First Nation don't pay taxes. Actually, they do on revenues earned off-reserve. And some do on revenues earned on reserve (mind you, I believe that taxation for local purposes on revenues earned on reserves would be a good idea). Some recent First Nation treaties included clauses stating that there would be taxation on on-reserve revenues b - They're getting a free ride at taxpayers' expense. While there is no doubt that criminals and unscrupulous leaders benefit, the appalling conditions most reserves are in is not the definition of a free ride c) The Government is not bound by treaties, because hey, it gives the First Nations a free ride. The government is clearly bound by the treaties. While the old treaty model (or more exactly, its abuse by government) is not suited to the 21st century, any change should be negotiated by both parties, not imposed. d) The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes First Nations as fully independant sovereign naions. No, it does not. While the Proclamation clearly recognizes First Nation OWNERSHIP of land, it also makes very clear that the British Government of the time considered itself to be the sole sovereign power. To quote the exact text of the Proclamation: (emphasis mine) While there may be arguments to the claim that First Nations are fully sovereign, they are not to be found in the Royal Proclamation 5) Abolishing the reserves is the solution to all problems that plague First Nations. In and by itself, it is not. Abolishing the reserves and forcing their inhabitants to move from poverty there to poverty in large urban centres will not move them out of poverty. Strategies to lift people out of poverty are needed. 6) Reserves must be maintained at any cost. No they must not. Many reserves are and will remain unsustainable. Models of cultural/educational self-governance that does not involve a territorial base may work better in the long run for some First Nations than a model anchored on land that is not suited for human settlement. 7) It's all the fault of the "Whites". Not when you have some resevations rolling in cash and other living in Third World conditions, not when you have the chief of one of the poorest reservation earning more than Provincial Premiers while the physical and social infrastructure is crumbling. 8) It's the fault of the First Nations themselves. There can be no denying that the paternalistic (to use a mild world) attitude of Governments towards First Nations for more than a century is a major contributing factor to the scandal that is the living conditions of most First Nations. Nor can one ignore that the bloated and inefficient Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is a breeding ground for corruption, lack of acountability and waste. 9) The solution is assimilation. One of the root cause of the problems is a sytem that was designed to force people into assimilation. While there is no doubt that one cannot expect to live in 2010 the way his/her ancestors live (in most cases anyway), any solution that would deprive First Nations of their cultural identity is bound to failure.

The right to defend one's life without reservation does not extend to the killing of s person who doesn't pose a threat because they're in jail.

His point is that it's all a vast conspiracy to take over Canada and eliminate the English language or at least turn English-speaking Canadians into second class citizens. Never mind that it is non-sense, that at least one of the quotes is a little suspect, that he copied (stole?) the thing word for word from another forum site, and that he is secretely jealous because he didn't get to say those things first.

I have had my problems with the handling of Omar Khadr by American AND Canadian authorities. But you are right on the mark. We are not talking about an innocent child-soldier abducted then drugged and beaten into becoming a mindless killing machine He is no more a victim than a 15 year old who joins a criminal gang.

Really? People were also sure each and every people sentenced for child murder as a result of the expert testimony of Toronto's pathologist Charles Smith was guilty. Good thing that none of them could be sentenced to death, because the good doctor had made mistakes in 20 of the 45 cases he had testified on as an expert, leading to 13 convictions, many of them having been squashed since. A Royal Commission concluded in 2005 that the doctor was unqualified for the task involved, had committed serious professional mistakes and had actually lied or mislead courts on his competence, qualifications or even his findings. In Texas, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for the murder of his three children. The basis for the conviction was a forensic report that the fire that killed the children had been arson. Reports submitted before and after the execution by top experts in the field have concluded that the fire was without a doubt accidental, likely caused by faulty wires. judicial and administrative reviews of the case have been stalled by the State's Governor and attorney's. No amount of techniques or resources will change the fact that factors such as incompetence, errors in judgements or downright miscarriage of justice can and will happen. If anything, advances in techniques that have led to wrongful convictions being overturned make it clear that in most cases the problem was not the state of science at the time the crimes were prosecuted, but entirely human factors.

Like the Truscott case, perhaps? Even the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1967, had confirmed the original verdict.

How about 2012? Mind you, I remember hearing once about a Mayan priest being asked what he thought would happen after December 21, 2012, and answering "Dec. 22, 2012"

Actually, according to Leafless, we are only supposed to think in terms of percentage of the whole population of the country. So you should be asking him about the places where that 21% lives.

Good advice. Can we expect you to follow it and stop saying that French-speaking Canadians are only 3% of the population outside Quebec, since the ROC is not the whole of Canada?

Actually, he is absolutely right. You use the English language. He uses the Leaflish language.

Good to know. At least know there is no denying that your whining about "racist, Nazi" language laws, besides being peppered with cluelessness and prejucide, is a reflection of your envy at laws you would like to see in Ontario. Yet, Quebec language laws is what you want to see copied in Ontario.

Why don't you try going to the SOURCE, called, in this case, the Constitution?link Among other things, it reads: Quite clear (except for you, that is) and never changed or repealed by any other section of the Constitution. Me neither. But then, YOU are the one who keep calling for laws to "protect" the English language. Good old Clueless. When the "the Charter is wrong, it was imposed by Quebec" line doesn't work, revert to the "the Charter is wrong, Quebec didn't sign it" line. You would do a fortune on the Comedy club circuit. Of course, in your universe, past policies that BANNED schooling in a certain language are less restrictive than current law that gives Canadians the CHOICE of the Canadian language they choose to communicate with their Government. In the real world, people who have a clue know it's other way around.

There is not enough of a bilingual population to call it monolithic anywhere *g*. It could be ndeed argued that the use of both French and English is to a large extent regional - that being said, their use exist in many (most) regions of the country, which makes them national.

Same here. anyone who believes the majority thinks that Muslims are vermin fit to be put in prison is thinking his dreams for reality, big time. Hear hear

I would beg to differ. Both languages are in use in most of this great country of ours, and most importantly they are part of our national fabric.

Indeed, if I knew that English is a regional language, I would be disillusioned. The problem (yours in fact), is that anyone who has a clue understand that neither English nor French is a regional language in this country.

so is the word Nazi that you keep misusing. But thanks for confirming that you do not believe in equal rights. I saw above, and, no surprise, didn't see the actual ACT. No surprise that, as usual, you didn't bother going to the source. I did, which is why I know that, apart from some pretty vague statements about "helping" and "encouring" provincial governments that choose to offer services in both English and French, there is not a SINGLE line of the Act that mandates delivery of services in English or French by provincial governments or municipalities. Feel free to try to PROVE otherwise by quoting the ACTUAL textof the act

Mark the day, you got something right. Oops, I spoke too fast. Forgot that the rare occurances of your getting something right are immediately followed by a statement that proves how clueless you really are. Well... education is STILL a provincial responsibility. BTW, nice deflection with the "provincial governments had the right to do it bit". After all, the Quebec government too has the right to do what it curretly does (barring immigrants from English schools). The real question that you keep dodging is: how the existence (which you won't even deny) of such policies fit with your claim that English was never imposed?

What people chose to eat is a form of balkanisation? Frankly. As for languages... according to the 2006 census, about 500000 people (less than 2% of the population) knew neither English or French. Considering that most of them are likely very recent immigrants, that should put to rest the notion that "immigrants do not learn the language".

I remember one year ago or so seeing on TV a woman comparing Obama's health care plan to the Holocaust. Sheer lunacy.

He's not acting

And what place would that be? Where I live, I have not seen people in rags (except for the homeless) and with cloth around their heads. I have rarely met people unable to speak English, and while I know there are some people in my place who do not consider themselves Canadians, there is no lack of losers who would not consider them Canadians no matter what. BTW, the place where I live is called Toronto.