-1=e^ipi

I guess I should have said that some forms of pantheism do not involve religion. Pantheism is simply the belief that universe = god. So if someone redefines the word god to mean universe, and they believe the universe exists, then they are pantheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism I was unaware that deism involved the belief that 'God gave humans the ability to reason', but I guess you are right about that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism But I still feel there exist forms of deism that are non-religious. Perhaps we should distinguish between classical deism (which has religious traits) and modern deism, which is defined on the World Union of Deists website as: 'Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.'

Oh come one, this is silly. It is one thing to say that some religions aren't so bad and may even be beneficial under some circumstances. But to say that no religion can cause abominable behaviour (due to say certain religious texts that command people to do bad things) is absurd.

Oh come on, really? There are plenty of non-religious theists. Deists and Pantheists are non-religious theists and they certainly exist. Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Newton are examples of non-religious theists. And many non-religious arguments will justify their position with arguments like 'well something had to come before the big bang and create the universe, so god must exist.' Of course these arguments fly in the face of occum's razor, ignore the fact that space & time and therefore causality came before the big bang, the fact that the big bang theory is still under some dispute, and just lead to the question of 'well who created god, and if god doesn't need a creator then why does the universe.' But to say that non-religious theists don't exist... I just cannot agree with that position. Interesting. Unrelated but may I ask what is your position on circumcision?

Still waiting for Tim to respond to Yes, this is protected under freedom of speech. Wait, are we talking about simply telling your children of your religious beliefs or brainwashing your kids to believe in your fairy tales without question. Because a lot of harm can come from the second.

Your comment was "They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis." The comment is ambiguous and can either be interpreted that you think they should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis, or that the AFN thinks that it should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis. So perhaps I misinterpreted you? Want to actually respond to my post that question the legitimacy of the idea that First Nations owned the land in the first place? Again define these rights and morally justify them please.

Strawmaning someone's position now counts as 'pointing out the fallacies' now? I understand you position. But I still disagree with how much legitimacy you give the treaties. I question the legitimacy of the treaties in the first place to make various laws today (even if they are being misinterpreted) due to a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I would advocate a position where you throw them completely out the window (that would obviously cause conflicts, riots, etc.). But I do not thing it is helpful to the discussion of native issues for people to give the treaties more legitimacy than they deserve. Even this is untrue. There have been plenty of exceptions to the rules of laws being against stealing or murder. Honor killings, killing of apostates in an Islamic state, killing of wives that have been unfaithful are examples of exceptions to laws against murder that have occurred in human history. As for not stealing, have you ever heard of expropriation? There are plenty of examples (especially after socialist revolutions) of the state just stealing property from private individuals. Again with the strawman. I have never claimed that the legitimacy of a law depends on the moral landscape of a society under which the laws were drafted. There is a difference between not ignoring the past laws and giving those past laws absolute legitimacy. I am not dismissing it. I just don't give it indisputable authority. You seem to take a false dichotomy position that either you dismiss a law or it has 100% legitimacy and authority.

Nonsense. Laws only have value if people follow them. And much like a marriage, if one party wants a divorce, then the marriage is over even if the other party wants to continue the marriage. Yes, too many people are satisfied with the status quo and resist change to make society better off. The best solution is to negotiate a new framework with all existing parties that ends in a situation where there are no more communal property rights and all Canadians are considered equal under the law regardless of ethnic origin. Trudeau only failed due to the lack of political support from Canadians didn't try in the end. Lol, really? You blame the failure to sign the UN decalration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the lack of a seat on the UN council? You know which four countries voted against the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples in the UN? Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States? Do you know why these 4 countries voted against the declaration? Because it is a racist document that goes against the idea of equality under the law and violates things like the American Bill of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All four countries have now changed their position to 'supporting the law in spirit but it is not legally binding' for political reasons however. Canada lost the UN seat for a few reasons. 1. Germany decided to enter the race so it because a 3 way race for 2 positions between Canada, Germany and Portugal. 2. Europe wanted more representatives so they all voted for European countries. 3. Canada had strong support for Isreal so the Muslim block (largest voting block in the UN general assembly) voted against Canada. 4. Obama and the Americans didn't actively support Canada's bid like the Americans usually do. Really the whole concept of 1 country = 1 vote at the UN is retarded. You can keep referencing the UN as much as you like but I do not acknowledge the organization as some indisputable determiner of rights.

Yes, this is the only question that should matter. So you claim that 'aboriginal rights' exist but you cannot define them? How helpful... Could you please reanswer my request? And by your last comment, are you admitting that you cannot morally justify these 'rights'?

I'll continue from my last post. In addition to the very premise of a racial group of people owning land where their ancestors are from being flawed, from the statement: "Natives used to own North America because that is where their ancestors are from. The British Crown made treaties with representatives of the native people to obtain the land now known as Canada. Because the British Crown had the authority to make laws for all British subjects and hence all Canadian citizens, even centuries after the unelected monarchs that made these laws have died, this somehow means that Canadian citizens today, be they native or non native, must support racist policies that would otherwise go against our modern values, even if it results in a lack of economic prosperity for native people on reserves due to a lack of individual property rights." There are a few other unproven premises: * The British Crown had the authority to make treaties with natives in the first place on behalf of all British subjects and hence all future Canadians This is quite flawed. For one, the British monarchs are completely unelected and gained their position not through merit but by birth-right. So how can these British monarchs be considered to represent the will of the British people? Certainly there were enough people in North America who disagreed with their monarch-representatives to start rebellions when the treaties were being signed (American revolution, Upper-Canada rebellion, etc.). And even if the British monarchs could be considered legitimate representatives of the British people, how does that give them authority to make laws (that cannot be changed as some posters here argue) that affect people hundreds of years in the future, when the individuals in the future never agreed to be represented by this monarch since they weren't even born at the time. Even if one were to say that the British monarchs were legitimate representatives of the British people & that they had the authority to make laws to affect people hundreds of years in the future, that does not necessarily mean that they are allowed to implement laws that are inherently racist and/or are against human rights or basic principles of liberal democracies. There are certain principles of liberal democracies and/or human rights (freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of press, equality under the law, etc.) which should not be violated regardless of who the representative of the people is (be they elected or unelected). * The representatives of the natives were legitimate representatives of the native people Again, similar to the issue of the British crown not being a legitimate representative of the native people, how can we say that the natives that signed the treaties were legitimate representatives of the native people? Were these chiefs elected? no. Did the entire tribe agree with the chief signing a treaty on their behalf? unlikely. But really my main point is that one cannot morally derive property rights. Because if you go back far enough, all property rights descend from property rights that were established by military force. Why does the United States of America have authority over the land and people inside the United States? Because the founding fathers of the american revolution established their authority by military force. Why does the Republic of France have authority over the land and people inside France? Because the french revolutionaries revolted and took that authority by force from the monarchists. Why does Canada have authority over the lands and people inside Canada? Because Britain claimed these lands & gave those lands to Canada. Britain's legitimacy descends back to the Norman evasion of England in 1066. And why, for example, can a citizen in the United States own their home? Because the United States says that this citizen owns the home (and the United State's legitimacy descends again from the american revolution). So you cannot morally derive property rights. But that doesn't mean that property rights should not exist. Indeed, property rights are very useful because the establishment of individual property rights helps to incentivise people to participate in wealth creating activities (If one can own a patent, one is more likely to develop new technology. If one can own a farm, one is more likely to work hard to grow food on the farm without fear of someone stealing their hard work.). In the case of native reserves, the collectivist property rights clearly are unhelpful to people on reserve (much like how communism doesn't work) because it disincentivises individuals to improve the land and it also means that individuals cannot use their land as leverage to obtain loans to finance development. Furthermore, the whole idea of determining property rights based on someone's race and having different laws for different races clearly violates the principle of equality under the law. So all you pro-status-quo people can keep referencing the UN Charter of Rights of Indigenous people, the proclamation of 1763, or the Indian Act as much as you want and make claims that we can never change things, but it will not make for a convincing argument.

Sigh, fine I state a few of them. Take the claim as simple as 'We signed treaties with them, therefore we have an obligation to uphold the treaties'. I see this claim or similar claims all the time in similar discussions. Of course I disagree with the whole 'we vs them' word usage that so many people seem to use since non-Native Canadians and Native Canadians are all Canadians. But anyway, let's word the above phrase into something more specific that is easier to analyze: "Natives used to own North America because that is where their ancestors are from. The British Crown made treaties with representatives of the native people to obtain the land now known as Canada. Because the British Crown had the authority to make laws for all British subjects and hence all Canadian citizens, even centuries after the unelected monarchs that made these laws have died, this somehow means that Canadian citizens today, be they native or non native, must support racist policies that would otherwise go against our modern values, even if it results in a lack of economic prosperity for native people on reserves due to a lack of individual property rights." Now let's examine some of these premises: * Native people owned North America in the first place This is very dubious and I would like you to explain how do we determine what are and are not the native lands of an individual. As I said earlier, the vast majority of native people descend purely from Siberians that crossed the Berring straight when it was a land bridge during the Clovis immigration 13,000 years ago. Yet you had a pre-Clovis immigration 15,000 years ago of Australoid peoples and the Solutreans existed in North America 19,000 years ago. Yet these pre-Clovis populations were pretty much entirely replaced by the Clovis peoples, so really most natives should be considered 'Third Nations' not 'First Nations' (admittedly the Ogibwe population and a few dispersed tribes along the pacific coast of the Americas, all the way down to Patagonia, could make a claim based on genetic evidence that a small portion of their DNA comes from pre-Clovis populations). Then you have the fact that the Paleo-Eskimo people only came to North America 3,000 years ago, so are quite genetically different than so-called natives further south. And the Inuit only left Alaska for Canada & Greenland in the 11th - 13th centuries (after the vikings tried to colonize Greenland and Labrador), replacing the Dorset people in the process (as in the Dorset population completely died out due to conflict). This makes the Inuit 'Fifth Nations'. Yet many people claim that the Inuit should have 'indigenous rights' based on where their Ancestors are from. So if people whose ancestors arrived from Alaska to Canada 800 years ago can be considered indigenous, then why not people whose ancestors arrived from France to Canada 400 years ago? Anyway, ignoring the whole issue of the Clovis people not actually being the first people of North America, how do we define the native lands of someone's ancestors? Surely not every single square inch of Canada was occupied by First Nations. So how close must an ancestor have lived to a location for that location to be considered one's ancestral land? 100 km? 200 km? Melville Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Island_%28Northwest_Territories_and_Nunavut%29) was never inhabited by Inuit people or First Nations and was first visited by William Parry in 1819 of Britain. So does that mean that the native population of Melville Island is British? If so then descendants of British people should be considered indigenous to Canada, no? If not then how close must an ancestor have to have lived for them to be considered descendants of first nations of a land? If we were to say that the distance is on the order of continental scales (i.e. if the 'first nations' were the first in North America then they somehow own North America), then would that also mean that the Koreans are native to China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, etc.? That seems ridiculous and absurd to me. Maybe it would be easier to say that all humans are native to Earth, therefore the Earth belongs to humans. And then you have the fact that the ancestors of some 'First Nations' in Canada are not actually from Canada but from the United States and moved to Canada after the revolutionary wars and even later than that since Canada was a more 'native-friendly' place. Then you have the issue of why do we not apply the same standards of 'indigenous people somehow own land that their ancestors lived near' to other populations. If my ancestry involves people from England, does that mean that I have indigenous rights to England and that Pakistani immigrants in England should give me money for living on my ancestral land? Should a person with Ainu ancestry have the option to live on a tax-free native reserve in Japan, where they are not allowed property rights and various services are provided to them from the Japanese government? Then there is the issue of how do you deal with mixed race people. Does a half native person have half the indigenous rights of a full native person, or the full rights? If it is the full rights, then doesn't a 1% native person also have full native rights? If it is half the indigenous rights, then shouldn't we DNA sequence every single Canadian to determine how much tax exempt status, fishing rights, hunting rights, etc. they should get? Or does this not seem ridiculous to you yet? Lastly you have the issue of what time-frame to take when determining whose ancestors are native to where? In history there have been countless migrations. If we go back 100,000 years, all humans are in East or Central Africa, so using 100,000 years ago means that all humans have indigenous rights to Africa but no indigenous rights to anywhere else. If we use 40,000 years ago, humans have spread to Eurasia and Australia but the Eurasian population has yet to significantly diversify into different races. This means that the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, the 'First Nations' etc. can all claim to be indigenous to most of Eurasia and no one can claim to be indigenous to the Americas during this time period. If we use 10,000 years ago, the Clovis migration has occurred so most of the descendants of 'First Nations' are now in the Americas, but the Paleo-Eskimo people have yet to cross the Berring Strait, so does that mean we can consider Non-Eskimo Amer-Indians to be indigenous to the Americas but not the Inuit? Or maybe we use 400 years ago as the base, in which case we the Quebecois are indigenous to Quebec. And how does the fact that most people of Non-African decent have about 5% of their DNA from neanderthals. Where do neanderthals fit into all of this? They are an entirely different species! Anyway, in order for the treaties and all these racist laws to have validity, the natives had to own the land in the first place in order to give the land to the crown under treaties. But this premise is seriously questionable and the only solution I can see to deal with all these questions is to forget the whole idea of people owning land based on where their ancestors are from and instead treat people equally under the law. Anyway, that is just one of the unproven premises. I'll write more later but I'm a bit tired. Edit: sorry for the many typos

No, you are strawmaning my position. Yes the laws and treaties were made during a time when many immoral positions were the social norm but that doesn't prove or disprove whether or no treaties, laws, Indian act, reserve system, etc. that result in the inherently racist laws we have today (which also contribute greatly to First Nations poverty due to lack of individual property rights) are moral or immoral. Rather, I point out that the morality and ethics of the time period under which these laws were created was very questionable so you should be skeptical about the morality of the laws rather than just go "Well, we have an obligation cause some guys signed some treaties with some other guys hundreds of years ago, and even though all the individuals who made the treaties and laws are long dead, we must preserve racist laws from the past cause rule of law should never be questioned". The reason racist laws from this time period are immoral is because they are racist, not because the time period they are from is immoral. Uhh... laws relating to stealing and murder change all the time. Canada does not have capital punishment for murder unlike some countries. Canada does not sever off the hands of those that steal, unlike those that practice Sharia law. More strawman argument... You seem to have a tendency to want to derive morality from some charters, laws, constitutions, holy books or whatever from the past... Why? Why can't the morality of something be argued on its own merits? Can you not reason your arguments without appeal to authority? Also, if you are effectively arguing 'the law is moral because it is the law', is that not a circular argument? Are you saying this helps your arguments? Was the time periods of the manga carta and the BNA more moral then when the treaties were signed? No. Look, the manga carta, the BNA act, the royal proclamation, etc. could be 10 trillion years old for all I care. The only thing that matters is their content, not their age. That question depends on the content of the constitution and only the content. Aren't you done your ridiculous strawman argument yet? So what? If the legitimacy of the treaties depends on the legitimacy of the Royal proclamation of 1763, and the legitimacy of the Royal proclamation of 1763 depends on the legitimacy of King George 3, and the legitimacy of an unelected monarch who got power through birth right rather that merit over some foreign lands on a continent he has never been to is questionable, then does that not make the authority of the treaties and other racist laws that are a result from this past questionable? I hardly call 100+ years ago 'modern times'. Strawmaning my position again. I never said that you said that you thought that they were a sovereign nation. You said that they consider themselves as a sovereign nation, so should be dealt with as a sovereign nation. I then asked the reasonable question if I consider myself a sovereign nation, should the government deal with me as a sovereign nation? The question was to show the ridiculous nature of your original claim.

Again with the 'them' and 'us' divisive racist language. All of us are human. All humans are related within 100,000 years. Could you please define what these rights are and justify why they exist and are valid/moral? And I would prefer you don't just copy-paste stuff from the racist 'united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples'. Also explain how you can implement these rights when dealing with people of mixed race.

Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes. Most of my points still stand. Address my points rather than gloss over a minor detail that some treaties were signed 100 years ago instead of 250 years ago; obviously not all treaties were signed at the same time. I do not agree with the legitimacy of the AFN. Furthermore, the AFN has an incentive to make sure any native issues never get solved, because if native issues get solved then the AFN is unnecessary (All the 'Indian issues' politicians make a lot of money from racist laws so have no incentive to improve things). The AFN organization is inherently racist. Can we have an AWN (assembly of white people)? Can we have an ABN (assembly of black people)? no? Then why is an AFN okay? And the whole argument that 'they consider themselves sovereign nations so should be dealt with as sovereign nations' is silly. If I consider myself to be a sovereign nation, am I suddenly a sovereign nation? People should be treated as individuals and we shouldn't divide people into groups based on race. You seem to have a lot of unproven premises in your 'arguments' that I do not agree with at all. If you want to be more convincing of your position then you will need to justify the various premises that you use in your arguments. Or perhaps you have never justified or even questioned these premises and simply took them as is because you agree with the dominant position in Canadian society? Perhaps if you begin to question some of your premises you will eventually understand my position.

Yes during the time period when there was slavery, blasphemy laws, criminalization of homosexuality and women were considered property. Laws made by people who were racist & sexist and didn't want to give native people the vote. The authority of these laws comes from some unelected monarch 250 years ago who got the position not by merit but by birthright. And the reason this monarch had authority over British North America is because the British simply invaded and took over the lands. Meanwhile, some of these laws, whose authority you do not question, contributed to the American revolution, such as the proclamation of 1763. If we consider these laws to have absolute legal authority, then shouldn't that mean we should consider the United States of America to be an illegal entity? I simply do not accept the morality or authority behind these laws. Rule of law is not absolute and should not be respected in extreme cases. Laws that allow for slavery, laws that are inherently racist (like the reserve system) or laws that prohibit freedom of speech of ideas should never be respected. And you also have the whole issue of 'first nations' not actually being first nations which puts the whole premise that 'they' initially owned the land in doubt (not that whether or not they are 'first nations' should matter since I disagree with the idea that the first people in a continent somehow own an entire continent and/or that this should translate into rights that are based upon race rather than individual property rights). I agree that many of the treaties are misinterpreted by the court, but I do not agree in the authority of the law in the first place. Are you implying that all natives do not consider themselves Canadian? If so your comment is racist. And stop using comments like 'them' and 'us'. We are all humans. We all share ancestors from Africa 100,000 years ago (actually most Native Canadians and Non-Native Canadians are related within 35,000 years). And furthermore, I do not care if someone does not consider themselves something, I only care if they actually are that something (I prefer truth). Native Canadians are Canadians, whether people want to admit it or not. Humans and Chimpanzees have a common ancestor whether people want to admit it or not. Most people who self identify as 'agnostic but not atheist or theist' when asked the question 'do you believe that a god exists?' are usually atheists that refuse to acknowledge the different between 'a belief in something' and 'knowing if that belief is true with certainty' because they do not want to be labelled as atheist for cultural reasons. I could go on.

I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today. Native and Canadian aren't mutually exclusive. One is a 'race', the other is a nationality. All natives with Canadian citizenship are Canadians.

If someone says that I am the anti-christ and work for satan, can I sue them for slander/libel? Or is that protected under freedom of belief in fairy tales?

Sad day for freedom in Canada. For issues like this, it is important to remember why freedom of speech should have so much value in society. Freedom of speech allows people to share different ideas, discuss them, debate them and as a result come closer to the truth. It allows new ideas to replace old ones, allows unpopular ideas to become popular and it lets people challenge the status quo for the betterment of humanity. If no ideas are protected and everything is open to scrutiny then ultimately the more reasoned and logically sound arguments should prevail. Only weak and poorly justified ideas need to fear freedom of speech. If someone purposely distorts truth or lies then it is against the best interest of society and in extreme cases should be considered a crime. This can include: - Someone yelling 'FIRE' in a movie theatre - Someone committing fraud - Cases of libel where someone is intentionally lying about someone else However, the following should not be illegal: - Hate speech - Blasphemy - Cases of libel where someone is not intentionally lying about someone else In the case of libel, the distinction should be made if someone is intentionally lying or if they truly believe their claims. If someone truly believes that Stephen Harper is a space alien from Mars (example), then they shouldn't be charged with libel for their ridiculous beliefs. Ultimately the best defense against both forms of libel is to use freedom of speech to defend against someone's claims. I would also like to point out that many religions are based on fraud (Mormonism, Scientology, etc.) but those religions shouldn't be banned because some of the followers truly believe in their bullshit religion and people should be allowed to disagree with the majority opinion, no matter how crazy their beliefs. Three other cases where I think that restrictions on freedom of speech should apply are: - Leaking military intel to other countries against the best interest of the nation - CEOS of different firms trying to collude and form a cartel in order to raise prices against the best interest of the nation. - Conspiracy to commit significant crimes such as murder In each case, the restrictions are justified because they are in the military/economic interest of the nation and neither cases involves the restriction of discussion of ideas on how society should function. This is a ridiculous position. You say that it's okay to limit speech if the statements are made. But by definition, if something is against the law it is a crime. Therefore, you are saying that any legal limitation is justified because going against it would be a crime. So blasphemy laws in Ireland or Pakistan justified?

Yes, also allergies are not always permanent. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/new-treatment-helped-kids-with-peanut-allergies-safely-eat-some-of-the-nuts-1.1662127

If you are talking about the monarchy, then I support the abolition of that. If you are talking about inheritance, that isn't a birthright, it is voluntary. For example, if I have a child and later in life die, I could make my inheritance give nothing to my child and instead give everything to Justin Beiber and a cat. If you are talking about something else, you will have to specify what you mean. That said, even if I were to agree that inheritance is a birthright (which I don't), there are many reasons to keep inheritance, such as its effect on incentivising people to work and be productive, and its effect on the long term genetic make-up of the human population (but this discussion would lead into a discussion of eugenics).

Oh come on, this is silly! The belief in god is a universally held human value? In that case you would have no issue changing the preamble to: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of universally held human values and the rule of law"? Okay, but now what do we do with the french lyrics? They are much harder to make neutral. Maybe the French and English lyrics should mean the same thing?

I think the statement is a bit unfair. There is a difference between individuals expressing their personal opinions about god or deities or the tooth fairy or whatever and having the state do it. The state should be neutral on such matters and should nether confirm or deny the existence of god. Do you not think that it would be silly if the charter preamble was: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of Unicorns and the rule of law"?

True, but people can misinterpret you, as they have done so.

Ah, yes, Canada. The land where "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" is the preamble to our charter of rights and freedoms, the land where the head of state is the unelected leader of the Anglican Church, the land where god is mentioned in the English national anthem and the cross & faith are mentioned in the French national anthem, the land where some provinces like Ontario use public money to fund a Catholic school system that is parallel to the public school system and results in cost duplication, the land where there are many different faith-based schools, some of which segregate children based on gender and if they are having their periods or not such as in the Toronto District School Board, the land where Islamic nutcases preach hatred of homosexuals to children in Edmonton schools that receive public funding, the land where freedom of speech is secondary to not offending 'someone's delicate feelings & beliefs in fairy tales' by Human Rights Commissions that try to silence people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. Yes... clearly the secularists are winning... *sarcasm*

Here is my position on the Monarchy and on 'the native issue': - Abolish the Monarchy - Abolish the Indian Act - Abolish the Reserve System - Abolish the Senate while you are at it - Convert communally held properties (example reserves) into individual property rights (communism never worked, and allowing people on Indian Reserves to own their own homes and leverage property for bank loans to finance development will help a lot) - Make everyone equal under the law with no excepts dependent on race or birth-right - Stop dividing people into groups and treat them as individuals Other comments: - The reserve system, having the government treat people differently based on their race, etc. just seems immoral to me, yet for some reason people that want everyone to be equal under the law are often called 'racists' by those that support the status quo or think that non-natives owe natives large amounts of money just for being in Canada. - The whole concept of treating people differently based on race is not feasible because how do you deal with people who are of mixed race? Are we supposed to perform genetic testing of each human in Canada and determine the percent of their DNA that is native? If I am 2% native, does that mean I deserve 2% of the rights that a 100% native person would get based on their ancestry? - The term 'First Nations' is not correct. Most of the 'first nations' descend from people who migrated to North America during the Clovis migration 13,000 years ago. But it's more complicated than that because there were pre-clovis people (Australoids who resembled the Aborigines of Australia made it to the Americas 15,000 years ago and you have the Solutreans who existed in North America 19,000 years ago and have skulls that resemble Europeans or Indians from India). The Paleo-Eskimo people only made it to North America 3,000 years ago, and the Inuit only came to Canada & Greenland in the 11th-13th centuries (after the vikings tried and failed to colonize Greenland and Labrador). So the premises used by people to justify the status quo are questionable. - Who gave King George 3, some unelected foreigner who lived 250 years ago, the right to create racist laws that affect people in Canada today? - TimG, please be more careful with your language because some of your comments can come off as racist. For example, use "Some Natives" rather than "Natives" when describing your claims about individuals that feel they are entitled money from the government based on their ancestry.

Anyway, if you are that paranoid about radiation, I suggest that you never use an airplane as you can be exposed to up to 30x the background radiation that you would get on the surface of the earth.