CANADIEN

Obviously, CR is not the only one with problem with facts. First Nations have already more than what they need? Considering the poverty, the helplessness, the crime, the illnesses that plague them and how the way they have been treated was and still is a contributing factor, I only shudder to think how things would be if they had less than what they need.

The only myth I have been suscribing to is the misguided belief that you making sense is anything more than an occasional accident. Canada IS a country. Period. So now it's just Southern Ontario? It used to be about half of the continent - according to you anyway. As for hatred, the only hatred I see here is yours for plain common sense. Your "citations" are nothing more that your own slanted and ignorant interpretation of documents. Legal responsibilities and obligations of the government of this COUNTRY does not change the fact that this IS a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. Whether you like it or not.

But it's clear he consider those committing these crimes to be harmless. They are not.

Yep. let's ban Muslims, and let consumers of child pornography go with a pat on the head.

The fight against child pornography is not about morality. It is about defending the most at risk members of our society, children, against one of the most vicious crimes, the rape, molestation and sexual exploitation of children. What is ludicrous is the comparison of child pornorgaphy with adult pornography. We are not talking about the Playboy channel, or hardcore stuff between consenting adults. We are talking about images of children being RAPED. Those who who access and download child pornorgaphy, even when they do not pay, are no different from people who acquire stolen property. They contribute to a vile and dangerous criminal activity. In the case you quote, the perp is a teacher, that is someone who is in a position of authority and responsibility over children. Not only should he rot in jail for a few years, but he should lose his teaching license. I do not have children, but I do not want people who think that there's something exciting about children being raped to be responsible for the children of others. A few years in prison is neither harsh, nor cruel, nor unusual. And I personnally wouldn't mind if it were spent among the general prison population.

This is not just merely questioning of someone whose identity was not sure. For THREE months, a CANADIAN was the victim of what was at best gross incompetence and at worst wilful foot dragging by coonsular officials. It should not take three months to check someone's papers when the person in question provides everthing when asked. The people who bungled that case should be fired. The minister who just sat silent and did nothing should be sacked. I do not care what party is in power. Sadly, there are some who are willing to just treat it as business as usual because their party of choice appears to be in power at the moment. As for the need to enshrine the obligations of consular personnel in law, Rae is right. Others have made the same call, including former diplomats.

The two keys elements you wilfully neglect are that the claims are made by First NATIONS, and therefore are not estinguished because those who were alive when the cliams were initiated are now dead, and we are talking about payments, not inheritences. Let's not get confused here. The distortion of the true meaning of democracy is yours. The ignorant at best, greedy and borderline racist "let's find any and all ays of scr&wing the Injuns once again" is yours.

I'm not a fan of Bush, quite the contrary. But a terrorist? Frankly.

And only an imbecile would conclude it is bad bad bad when it's done by the government in a democracy.

On that one, I agree with you most of the way. No denying we are changing the relationship though. Can only be good.

One of the problems with the notions of aboriginal rights is how they are to be applied, or more exactly how do they apply today. For example, many treaties regonized hunting and fishing rights on areas larger than the reserves, but most certainly that does not imply that an Aboriginal hunter can just go into my backyard and shoot rabbit (yes, I am exaggerating on purpose here). Similarly, the notion that development (or environmental destruction, as some may describe it) cannot proceed on disputed land unless there is an agreemnt is a false one - - it is disputed, after all. As well, the requirement for meaningful consultation with affected First Nations is exactly that, a requirement for meaning ful consultation. This is not an unconditional right of veto. Like everything else, Abogirinal rights are limited by the common interests of all. Finally, I find the idea that there is no land ownership to be wrong in its very premice. We are governed by a common law system (ok, civil law in quebec, but it does not treat land ownership that differently) under which land can be owned. Aborignal land titles proceed from a different view of the relationship between land and man, and we are (at last) doing reasonable efforts to accommodate it. But it is still whtin the frame of our law system(s).

Any religion-based system is incompatible with a democratic secular society. That being said, the outcry about the "demand" for sharia is making a mountain out of a molehill. First, there is more to sharia that laws regading sexual conducts, the position of women in society and the punishment of crimes. Sharia encompass civil litigation, property rights, etc. So, when people say they want Sharia law, what exactly do they want? A simple question with a simple answer does not revel the full complexity. Second, how many people, even among those clamouring the loudest for the establishment of sharia-based arbitration mecahnisms, have advocated that Sharia law become THE law for all Canadians. Very few indeed. Third, how far would the proponents of Sharia go to have their way? Based on the reactions to the rejection of the tribunal proposal in Ontario, not that far. Fourth, has an analysis of who in the Canadian Muslim communities say they want Sharia law? Were they born here, or selwhere? What is their gender, their age, their socio-economic situation?

You tell us. After all, your criticism of the two-tiered system we have in this country consists of pointing at the people treated as second class citizens and saying "it's their fault".

And of course, the moment they start rasing money for themselves by let's say, taxing property on the reserves, the governments will be quick to point out that its laws forbid individual property ownership on reserves. Won't change facts. Ever read the Indian act? Under it, Band Councils can hardly do anything without the consent of the federal government. Ten year olds are subjected to less oversight and less accountability on how they spend their weekly allowance. The First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act of 2005 is a step in the right direction, if only because it assumes that First Nations are able to manage their own affairs.

Now you got the proper answer. All you have to do now is to renounce Islam completely (and I mean completely), then leave this country to the white men because you are by definition a bad bad man. Or you can ignore the idiocy I just posted (on purpose) and get on with your life.

The issue is not the amount of many, but who it is invested. The current model, which take away responsibilities from Aboriginal communities, is a breeding round for corruption and waste. Yet calls from First Nations for increased autonomy and responsbilities are ignored or dismissed. Calling them nations is a statement of facts. Less we forget. They are treated like minors, put under tutellage, treated as if not intelligent enough to manage their own business. But it is their fault for not acting responsibly enough, right? I expected that type of bigoted drivel on this thread. I did not expect it from you. The ultimate goal of the Health Secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations is control by First Nations of how health services are delivered to their community.

The law making and law enforcement capacity of the reserves, where they exist, do not extent beyond the borders of the reserves Thanks for bringing that strawman into the equation, though. Not happily, nope. But you will excuse me if I fail to accept your excuses for not dealing on this issue in less than a fair manner. I sell land, I expect to get a fair price for it, and usually I will. The government expropriate my property, same thing. Why should Aboriginals expect less? You might have a point if you were arguing that the appropriate mode of compensation for land taken by the Crown without proper treaties was to providing the tools and resources needed for the development of Aboriginal communities. That you have little to say about that but rather raise straw men and ridiculous comparisons says a lot about your sense of fairness. It is not. Don't be fooled because I "fail" to view Aboriginals as greedy, undemocratic racists and to adopt your distorted view of what fairness is.

Considering that First Nations have been arguing for years for a larger level of autonomy, you will excuse me if I find your gravy train comment off the mark. Incorporation of reserves would indeed, if well done, benefit First Nations and meet their needs for greater autonomy. Given them a status comparable to municipalities would be the wrong way to do it, for a number of reasons: a - these are nations, not local communities; calling them municiplalities or hinting to powers similar to those of municipalities is a non-starter b - nunicipalities are mere creatures of the provincial governments, and can be abolished or merged whenever the provincial legislature decides to do it; their powers as well can be changed without them having a say on it c - municipalities often lack the type of powers that First Nations need to ensure their development, such as power over the education system, health services, cultural programs. The situation of First Nations is unique, and calls for unique solutions.

I was wondering when the other bit of non-sense would come. Of course, First Nations can enjoy self-government, as long as it is not self-government, right? they can decide on how to best preserve their culture and change it6 to fit today's world, as long as the decision does not belong to them. they can control their own school, their own economic development, their owen health system only as long as they do not control it. As land owners, First Nations communities can have as much control on its use as a non-Aobriginal individual or corporation have on the land they own, as long as they have less control. But all that, of course, is fairness, right?

Yiur argument is flawed in one major aspect. While the situation of Aboriginals is different from that of other Canadians, their relationship to the governments is not akin to that of Americans to Canadians. They are Canadians.

The owner of the land is the owner of the land, period. It is evident that where non-Aborigiials have acquired in good faith land from the Crown are not responsible for any wrongdoings by the Crown. Compensation to First Nations should not, and I shall not include, extinction of individual non-Aboriginals' property rights. As I said before, all that is missing now is a reference to Nazi Germany. As for your gross misrepresentation of my opinion, here it is, for the fourth time: Clear enough?

Don't sell yourself short. Based on your comments about how your old neighbourhood was whiter and better, it is fair to suspect that curbs on immigration are not the only thing you'd go for if you could. So tell us. How far should we go in racial profiling. Should we have curfews for Blacks, just park them behind barbed wire fences, or is it enough to just make it clear that some neighbourhoods are not for them?

the first English-speaking person I ever met insolted me for daring to speak French in public. And he was not the last one. Guess English-speaking Canadians are a bunch of idiots, right? Yet, you have no hesitation in arguing that our immigration policy should be based on the assumption that over 1 billion human beings think and act the same until proven otherwise. Wow. I live less than a two minute walk away from the oldest mosque in Toronto. Guess who will say hi the most often when meeting me on the street. Yep, the Muslims.