Adelle

Hey, there's nothing wrong with Steve that a majority government won't fix. Of course, the same can be said about any of the other leaders as well. Just ask them.

Ah, yup. We know he's guilty, we just can't prove it. It is so easy in our society to blame the nearest male - father, uncle, brother, whatever. In the end, it is his fault anyway as the parent - he didn't raise her right, he obviously empowered her, he should have known. I don't think that she should get jail and a sex offender status, as she would in the USA, but let put the responsibility were it should be - the one who had the love of family and strength of character to stand up and admit to collecting taboo, forbidden and illegal material. She can have any lover as young as 12 (depending on her age) but no lower and she CAN NOT make a video record of their lovemaking - dumb as that sounds - and she CAN NOT possess a visual record of another's sexual activities if they are under 18. Until that law is changed, to do other wise has risk. You have to decide from there.

If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, the present Pope was in Paris as of 13 Sept. Otherwise, there are many Christian Church's (Roman, Greek, Russian, Anglican, etc) and no single leader. The short answer is: Romans were Christians but Romans no longer exist. Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Constantine, in 312 CE until the "Roman Empire" ceases to exist around 440 CE. During this time Roman Christianity is defined as Catholic (universal). The Eastern Roman, or "Byzantine", Empire continued to exist until 1453, when it fell to the Turks. Never said it wasn't. When did accepted historical fact become "spin"? Sure the Christians did for those who disagreed, so did the Pagans before them and the Muslim's after them. Thus is human nature, we love to impose our will, and our beliefs, on others. As for the rest, it has existed, does exist and will probably exist in the future. Just proof that people, and priests are people, can screw-up anything. The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and just about every other Church, Christian or not, have all apologized and have attempted to deal with the situation. Really? Have you seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan", just as an example? Or are you only referring to the present situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan? Afghanistan was certainly the bastion of freedom and tolerance under the Taliban and I am sure the Kurd's would say the same about Iraq under Hussein.

<Christians murdered Jesus on the cross > Actually, traditionally, it is the Jews who "murdered" Jesus - the leader of a non-orthodox Jewish sect who was, himself and his disciples, Jewish. Historically, he was tried, found guilty and punished by Romans under Roman law. I think the actual offence was something like "inciting civil unrest" or "being an enemy combatant". <or...the ritualized cannibalism or eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood.> Funny, that's exactly what the Romans said about Christian, about 100 CE, when they began their crack down "for reasons of national security" (loose translation). <Are you saying that the witch burnings, the dark ages and pedophilia never happened?> Oh, boy, did they! Though I'm not sure you could blame the Christian's for the dark ages, per se. I think it had something to do with the fall of Western Rome, which was Christian by that time, and really only affected Europe. Eastern Rome (Byzantium) and the Muslim world continued on quite well. Actually, at the time, the Muslims were the height of tolerance and higher education - the continued cradle of civilization. If you look at the theory of Islam, it is quite a nice religion, however the present reality leaves much to be desired. To put it mildly they are experiencing their own "dark ages" and much of the hate and violence of Christianity of about 1500-1700 (protest, reformation, counter-reformation, Thirty Years War, etc). The pedophilia thing is rather recent, historically, speaking giving the changes and differences in AoC over time and in various countries. <Your training to kill, tends to bias your outlook on things.> Say what? Hey, someone's got to stand on the wall. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to have discussions like this.

Personally, I have always believed that if a person can consent to sexual activity then they should be able to consent to sexual display or sexual performance - in Canada consent begins at age 12. However, under present law, if this girl had a personal photo or video record of her lovers (male or female) and her engaged in sex then that constitutes child porn if they were under 18 at the time. A judge may or may not take intent into account and some people try to include simple nudity even though the law clearly states that there must be sexual content. <The images depicted children as young as six or seven engaged in "a full range of sexual activity," court heard.> Definitely under the AoC. I’m not saying that persons that age, girls at least, can’t enjoy sexual activity - I certainly enjoyed it at age 9 and girls can achieve orgasm at that age - but the pubic is simply not willing to believe that a person that age would be willing to engage in sexual display. Terms like "brainwashing", "grooming", "coaching" and such like tend to be used. Somewhere, there has to be an adult involved, like we could not possibly make a decision like that, doing something that really feels good, on our own. Not sure why she would find someone half her age sexually appealing, but the story does't say how long she has been collecting. Then again, a 32 yo could find this 16 yo sexually appealing, and be completely legal as long as there was no visual record involved. Notice that the father was the one that was immediately arrested. Good thing the daughter loved him enough to fess-up or, deny it as he might, he'd be the one fired, divorced, ostracized and jailed. <"This isn't about sex," the judge said. "This is about abuse."> This is an interesting statement since porn is, by definition, about sex, unless you concede that all pornography, regardless of age, in abusive. Some people do think that way. I won't get into moral issues - morality is in the eye of the beholder. <The girl was put on probation for two years, during which she must not use a computer except for school work, not be alone with anyone under 14 and take counselling.> Also interesting, she can not be alone with anyone she can not legally have sex with - as per the newest version of our sexual consent laws. Is she guilty - yes. Did the judge make the right call given the present laws - yes, in my opinion. She should not be criminalized for simple sexual curiosity combined with societies mania regarding child sexuality. -> You are now free to heap abuse <-

The purpose of the ‘loyal’ opposition is to oppose everything the governing party does or attempts to do even if it is exactly what the opposition wants them to do. From the moment a party becomes the opposition they begin campaigning to position themselves to win the next election and then to bring down the government. As has been seen, the Liberals have not been able to achieve ‘part a’ so they have not yet chosen to execute ‘part b’. Until that time they will use anything and everything in an attempt to taint the governing party, including something stupid that happened 16 years ago. Although I was only 4 years old at the time, even I realize that sensibilities in 1992 were different than sensibilities today. Things that are offensive in our present hypersensitive culture were not considered offensive, or as offensive, then. History, and it is history, should be taken in context. The man apologized and that would be an end to it if politics weren’t involved. I am sure that all the parties are now checking to make sure there are not odd videotapes floating around. Wouldn’t want to throw rocks in a glass house.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

And people wonder why young girls have issues? Nothing like mixed messages to add confusion to an already confused time of life. This has always been my view. You can talk about abstance all you want but it hasn't worked in 2000 years so why would it suddenly work now? Our age of consent laws, unlike laws in other places, acknowledge that. Or we can be like some places in the US and label sexually active teens 'sex offenders' and send them to jail for 25 years when we catch them. Like that's working.

OK, so is this your version of "The nuts are running the nut house." or are you saying that anyone that embraces their sexuality is a deviant?

Thank goodness it is not. Every place that has succeeded in criminalizing it has the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STD’s and sexual offences. Are our courts and prisons not full enough without criminalizing a natural and healthy sexuality? Many like to think that minors (children and youths) are without a sexual identity but the facts show clearly that the average age teens engage in sex intercourse is 14. Of course, individuals may start earlier or later and this doesn’t include other sexual explorations. To be honest, you would have to compare the AoC and stats for teen pregnancy, STD’s and sexual offences by state/province to get a real idea of the relationship between them. The real key is education, particularly sexual education, access to sexual information and how comfortable teens are in discussing their sexuality. Who do teens talk to? Parents, many of whom don’t want to discuss it, don’t want anyone else teaching them and confiscate sexual material they do find? Teachers, who may also be uncomfortable discussing it or are afraid of legal complications if they do? That leaves health professionals, who may not be easy to access or that teens fear may tell their parents, and peers, who’s information is suspect to say the least. Even though there is lots of information available, especially via the Internet, it is hard to decide what is true and what is part of some group’s agenda. A friend of mine actually thought that he would be arrested if he tried to buy a box of condoms. In Canada - in the 21st century! Of course, there are places were sexual activity, usually by girls, can get you stoned, thrown down a well or otherwise killed for the sake of “honour”. I actually ended up being the source of accurate information that kept my friends healthy, in a big part because my parents were approachable and not afraid to tackle the tough questions. Not like parents who want words like vagina or penis or group sex removed from store shelves or signs so their children don’t ask embarrassing questions. Not to mention the female breast or full nudity whether in modern photo-art or a 14th century religious icon. Yes, whichever God you chose to believe in - or not to believe in. A person’s moral code is THEIR moral code. It doesn’t apply to me any more than mine applies to them. Unfortunately, too many moralists believe that they must ensure that others do not sin either.

But the ages of consent are the same whether you are straight or gay, hetero's can't have anal sex either until age 18 (unless they are married). Oddly, a 14 yo can have anal sex is they are married. Yes some men enjoy anal sex, so do some women. It makes for a completely different kind of orgasm. The question is, if a person can legally enjoy other sexual activities (vaginal, oral, fetish, etc) from the age of 12 on why is anal sex forbidden until age 18? Sex is sex. There should be no difference. Having said that, the distinction is probably a left over from past homophobia that made itself apparent in various laws whose beginnings date back to the 1800's. In the 21st century, I think that it is certainly time to do away with those Victorian attitudes.

This is a sad statement, but only too true, too often. At one of the schools I went to the students had no problems with gays, as long as they weren't in the school. Being different, in any way, wasn't exactly good for your health. Drug deals during lunch at the mall, no problem. A student run prostitiution ring, just business. Two guys doing it, just sick. (Two girls doing it was hot, go figure.) Canada in the 21st century has a ways to go.

Canada's new laws regarding sexual consent. By Adelle Shea Bill C-2 (Note 1), the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which consists of five bills dealing with violent crimes, dangerous offenders, and the age of sexual consent, was finally passed by the Canadian Senate and has received royal assent on 28 Feb 2008. The new law strengthens the Criminal Code in the following five areas: ·Tougher mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes; ·New bail provisions which require that those accused of serious gun crimes show why they shouldn't be kept in jail while awaiting trial; ·Better protection for youth from adult sexual predators by increasing the age of protection for sexual activity from 14 years to 16 years; ·More effective sentencing and monitoring to prevent dangerous, high-risk offenders from offending again; and ·New ways to detect and investigate drug-impaired driving and stronger penalties for impaired driving. Aside from the law on the issue, studies of Canadian youth have found that young persons do engage in sexual activity. The 2003 report of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, the Canadian Youth, Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Study, (Note 2) found that the average age of first sexual intercourse for its sample (students in Grades 7, 9, and 11) was 14.1 years among boys and 14.5 years among girls. Furthermore, the reasons cited by youth for not having sexual intercourse are most commonly that they are “not ready” or “have not had the opportunity.” Negative family and peer opinions do not play major roles in the decision not to have sex. It is open to question, therefore, what, if any, impact a change in the age of consent in the Criminal Code will have upon the sexual activity of Canadian youth. The change to the age of consent in Bill C-2 derives from Bill C-22 (Note 3), An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, which was introduced and received first reading in the House of Commons on 22 June 2006 and was passed by the House on 4 May 2007. Bill C-22 passed second reading in the Senate on 20 June 2007 but died when the then Liberal government of Paul Martin fell. The goal of Bill C-22, and of the corresponding clauses in Bill C-2, was to amend Part V-Criminal Code of Canada (Note 4) to raise the age, from 14 to 16 years, at which a person can consent to non-exploitative sexual activity. The existing age of consent of 18 years for exploitative sexual activity will be maintained. This applies to sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography, or where there is a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or any other situation that is otherwise exploitative of a “young person,” which is now defined as a person between the ages of 16 and 18. Clause 54 is the key provision of Bill C-2 on the issue of age of consent as it has the effect of raising the age of consent from 14 years of age to 16. It does so by replacing the words “fourteen years” with the words “sixteen years” wherever they occur in the following provisions: ·subsection 150.1(4) (no defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed the complainant was 14 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed); ·sections 151 (sexual interference) and 152 (invitation to sexual touching); ·subsection 153(2) (definition of “young person” for purposes of sexual exploitation); ·subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of person under the age of 14 years (doubles jail term for 160(1) Bestiality); ·subsection 161(1) (order of prohibition in respect of a person who is under the age of 14 years); ·paragraphs 170(a) and ( (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity of a person under 14 years or between 14 and 18 years of age); ·paragraphs 171(a) and ( (householder permitting sexual activity (prohibited by this Act) of a person under 14 years or between 14 and 18 years of age); ·subsection 173(2) (exposing genital organs for a sexual purpose to a person under the age of 14 years (as an indecent act)); ·paragraphs 273.3(1)(a) and ( (removal from Canada of a person ordinarily resident in Canada who is under the age of 14 years or between 14 and 18 years of age); and ·subsection 810.1(1) and paragraphs 810.1(3)(a) and ( (recognizances based on the fear of a sexual offence being committed against person under the age of 14 years). ·(Note: italics are my own and provided for the purpose of clarification.) It is important to understand that The Criminal Code of Canada does not criminalize non-exploitative, consensual sexual activity with or between persons who are 16 years of age or older, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with young persons can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. The law still allows consensual activity where the complainant is 12 years of age or more but under the age of 14 years, amending subsection 150.1(2) to simply state that the accused must be less than two years older than the complainant. A new subsection, 150.1(2.1), sets out new rules where the complainant is 14 years of age or more but under the age of 16 years. In these circumstances the accused must be less than five years older than the complainant (the so-called “close in age” exception) or be married to the complainant. There is another new subsection, 150.1(2.2), that makes transitional provisions for an accused referred to in subsection 150.1(2.1) who is five or more years older than the complainant. In this case the defence of consent may be used successfully if the accused is the common-law partner of the complainant, or has been cohabiting with the complainant in a conjugal relationship for a period of less than one year and has had or is expecting to have a child as a result of the relationship. The exception to this is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under the age of 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal (Note 5) and the Quebec Court of Appeal (Note 6) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code. The usual caveats apply regarding a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or that is exploitative of the complainant. New subsection 150.1(6) makes it clear that an accused cannot raise a mistaken belief in the age of the complainant as a defence under the new and amended subsections unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant. Existing subsections 150.1(4) and 150.1(5) already use this language for existing offences where the relevant age is either 14 or 18. Section 172.1 of the Criminal Code creates the offence of using a computer system to lure children for the purpose of committing certain sexual offences. Henceforth, luring someone under the age of 14 by means of a computer system will be an offence only if it is done to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 281 (abduction of person under 14). New subsection 172.1(1)( will make 16 the relevant age for the offence of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 (sexual interference), section 152 (invitation to sexual touching), subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of young person), or subsection 173(2) (exposure to young person). Thus, the use of a computer system to facilitate the commission of these offences when the complainant is less than 16 is now made an offence. In a nutshell, the age of protection (read age of consent) in Canada is now 12/14/16/18. That is: ·12-13 year olds can consent to sex with 14 and 15 year olds; ·14-15 year olds can consent to sex with up to 18 and 19 year olds (unless married); ·16 year olds can consent to all sexual activity excepting exploitive or anal sex (unless married); ·18 year olds can consent to all sexual activity (regardless of marital status). I am assuming that 173(2) refers to an indecent act and not to legal sexual activity otherwise sex-in-the-dark will be making a big comeback. The definition of pornography has not changed and, thankfully, does not include non-sexual or artistic nudity at any age. However, sexual nudity of a person under 18 is still child porn regardless of the age of consent and can be prosecuted under section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. Technically, this applies even if the victim is also the perpetrator as has been seen in some decisions in the US but not, to my knowledge, in Canada. However, a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art may still provide a legal defence. The age of consent to sexual activity varies widely around the world and varies within countries, as it does in Canada, depending upon the region or circumstances (Note 7). Although the age of consent in the states of the United States ranges from 14 to 18, the most common age of consent seems to be either 16 or 18 and, like Canada, some states also have a close in age exemption. So if something (alcohol, cannabis, sex with a 16 year old) is legal in Canada but illegal in an American’s place of residence then he or she will be charged with an offence upon their return to the US if a complaint is made. This is not new, it has already happened more than once. So, the question is, will this really change anything? At least the law recognizes that persons under the age of 18 do have a sexual identity and provide them with some latitude to explore that identity as well as protection. Protection from both the sexual abuser and the morally zealous. Endnotes 1.Bill C-2: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, LS-565E, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, Ottawa, 29 October 2007. 2.Canadian Youth, Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Study: Factors influencing knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, Toronto, 2003. 3.Bill C-22: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, LS-550E, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, Ottawa, revised 2 August 2007. 4.Part V-Criminal Code of Canada 5.R. v. M.(C.) (1995), 98 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.). Two judges found that section 159 of the Criminal Code infringed section 15 of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of age, while a third judge found that there was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. All three agreed that the law could not be saved as a “reasonable limit” under section 1 of the Charter. 6.R. v. Roy (1998), 125 C.C.C. (3d) 442 (Que. C.A.). It was held that this section infringes section 15 of the Charter as it discriminates on the basis of age, sexual orientation and marital status and is therefore of no force and effect. 7.Table of worldwide ages of consent, AVERT website.

My father was saying yesterday that these people are correct to say that the average temp has been rising since the mid-19 century, which is also roughly the start of the industrial revolution. He also said that what you don't hear is that from about 1640 til 1850 the world was experiancing a mini-ice age so it really had no where to go but up (or history would have been very different) and the increase in industry was co-incidental. I checked a few sites on-line and it turns out he's right. Also, CO2 has gone up. The world has gotten warmer. But are these two directly related? Guess not, since CO2 levels surged after 1940 but at the same time the average temp droped (til the '50s). Heard that while dad was watching an editorial tv show. So what else happend then? Volcanos? Sun-spots? Why the drop in temp? Why the increase since then? It's not enough that these scientists and enthusiasts tell the truth, but that they tell the WHOLE truth, not just the part that supports their theory/belief.

Your 100% correct. It should be de-criminalized immediately. No relationship freely entered into by consenting persons (including polyamourous relationships) should be subject to government censure or prosecution. It’s no ones business but those involved and would be subject to the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as any other historically accepted relationship. We had to go through this with same-sex relationships and marriage just as we had to with inter-racial relationships and marriage. This time lets just cut to the chase and get it done with out all the alarmist rhetoric and hand wringing about what it will do to society and “the children”.

Ya, lets stand up for what we believe in like them. Being of Irish descent, I can tell you how well that works. Besides, somebody has to be the "adult" and, apparently, these hindu folks ain't it. :angry:

Perhaps all criminality should be considered to be the product of a mental disorder. That way, once caught and convicted, the perp (subject, patient) could be place in an institution dedicated to treating the illness. We would then not punishing a miscreant for a crime but treating the mental illness of a poor unfortunate unable to relate, in a meaningful and productive way, to society. The time served in this Health and Wellness Institution would be dictated not by set time sentences, as in the present penal institutions, but would be dictated by whether or not the patient is cured (however long that may take). This could be affirmed by three competent physicians familiar with the case and the patient and their evidence and recommendations reviewed by a medical board of their peers (replacing the Parole Board). Only when all agree would the now fully healed (rehabilitated) individual be returned to an understanding and welcoming society. Of course, the individual would have to continue to receive out patient care to insure that societal stresses aren't threatening to return them to a state of mental instability (replacing the Parole Officer). Or we could turn Ellismere Island into a penal colony. No guards and if you make it back to the place that the offence occured, past Mother Nature, the Inuit hunters and polar bears, you get a full pardon. Of course, this would only be for the really bad people.

My father has told me that this has been on the government’s agenda for some time. Apparently the then Liberal government wanted to do all this when the put the levy on CD's back in 2001 or so. I'm not sure why they couldn't or didn't do it, but it has obviously laid dormant in some drawer somewhere and has now been brought back to life for the present government to deal with. Like the old saying, if at first you don't succeed ... get what you can now and try for the rest later. It’s that ‘thin wedge’ thing. BTW, is a levy a good or a service? I ask because GST is charged for it. CD levy, environment levy, gasoline levy (ok, tax).

Which has more to do with tribalism (as in Rwanda), sectarianism (Iraq), and ideology (ex-Yugoslavia). The practice or non-practice of polygamy is really secondary and coincidental. Even racism (Arab vs Israeli) would be a better marker than sexual practices.

Polygamy and sexual predation, particularly of children, are two different things. You could as easily have said "Sexual societies shouldn't be welcomed because children must be protected from sexual preditors". As I said recently in a letter on the subject to the Edm Sun: "No personal relationship between people above the age of sexual consent, including Polyamory or Polygamy, should be considered illegal unless there is no consent. There are other laws to address that. Cultism, abuse and exploitation, which are the real problems in Bountiful, should be and are. It is about time the government took action. Any philosophy, culture or religion that treats women as second-class citizens or chattel should be questioned and not just in Bountiful. Women must be free to make their own choices." Some definitions: monogamy - the practice of each person having only one spouse at a time, serial monogamy - used to describe the lifestyle of persons who have regularly and repeatedly married and divorced multiple partners, polyamory - romantic or sexual relationships involving multiple partners at once, polygamy - the practice of marriage to more than one spouse, polygyny - one man having more than one wife, polyandry - one woman having more than one husband, polygynandry - some combination of polygyny and polyandry (group marriage). Bigamy is when one individual is married to two people at the same time. The purpose of bigamy laws is to protect a spouse from entering a marriage based upon deceit ... in otherwords, fraud. Adultery, although no longer illegal in Canada, is based on the same concern. Of particular note: Presently in Canada a consenting person may be anyone above the age of 14 (unrestricted) though, as such, they would not yet be considered an adult. The legal term is "youth".

I think it would be great if Obama and Clinton got in. It would obliterate two cultural barriers and could they really do a worse job than GWB?

Is this an obvious case of rape or is it a case of consentual sex gone wrong? Since the medical evidence shows "no evidence of assault" and Marco has all ready confessed that "the two only kissed and engaged in heavy petting," then he would be guilty of a sexual assault. Since the girl is under 15 (AoC in Turkey) consent, if such existed, may be taken as a mitigating factor in sentencing but would not affect the charge. It should, but it doesn't. If it is a case of Charlotte crying rape because she doesn't want to get in trouble (with her parents, her peers?) then she needs to do the adult thing and come forward to say so. This wouldn't stop Marco from being charged and tried (remember, the girl can not legally consent) but it might get him a sentence that won't see him in a Turkish prison. How could she live with herself knowing what he would be going through? Exactly. Consent should be a HUGE factor regardless of age but is often not even a consideration, as in many cases in the US.

I think it is as important for us to be as understanding of and compliant with their cultural norms while we are in their country as they would be to our culture while they are in (or imigrating to) ours.

I have to agree with you. My father served in places where genocide was REAL. When someone says “Genocide” people think of rounding up specific groups and killing them (ie. Jews) but, as defined by the UN it can mean other things as well, particularly the nationalization of another culture (ie. The Canadianization of Natives, the Bulgarianization of Greeks (1940’s)). The residential schools were supposed to be about education but Natives could be punished harshly for honouring their gods, speaking their language, displaying their culture and they were required to adopt European culture and religion. This is what I referred to as per the UN definition. The reserve system is a product of both government policy and law and could definitely be defined as apartheid and the residents are kept separate from society but if you said ‘apartheid’ in the 1800’s people would look at you funny. The closest equivalent then was ghettoization and even that was restricted to Jews. They do receive special privileges as a part of various treaty agreements over the centuries, where the governments of Canada have actually met those treaty obligations. Special hunting rights (as a recognition of original hunter/gatherer culture) and no taxation are part of that as well as a seemingly constant flow of money from Ottawa but the residents still seem to life in isolation, destitution and squalor. High birth rate, high infant mortality, high toxin abuse, depression, suicide, crime, low education, terrible housing and living conditions. Why anyone stays on the reserve is beyond me, of course some are now pushing for treaty rights while living in downtown Toronto. The solution, if any exist, would include the Government of Canada dealing with the Treaties that haven’t been dealt with and giving the individual “Nations” EXACTLY what the Treaty’s say they should. It would also include the First Nations becoming self-sufficient and self-governing but with the factions involved in each ‘Nation’ (ie. Mohawk Warriors) some of them might end up making the situation in Gaza look like an example of good government. The problem is that most Native areas are just too small to be self-sufficient. They are more like Counties or small Towns. Perhaps a new, final Treaty could be made giving First Nations a large enough parcel of land (say Labrador as an example) that would either be a Territory of Canada or that they could develop and run any way they wish as a sovereign nation, sink or swim. This act would end all obligations by Canada to any person of Native extraction and those that choose to remain in Canada would be treated as any other Canadian citizen, with all inherent rights, privileges and responsibilities. Thanks.

The term apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans) refers primarily to a system of segregation used in South Africa between 1948 and 1994. The term has come to be used as an analogy or epithet to describe some discriminatory or allegedly discriminatory practises beyond South Africa. The term ' apartheid' didn't even exist when the Treaty system was being developed and 'Indian' nations actually were nations, It is legacy of that system that we live under today with separate and isolated 'Reserves' that could in no way ever meet the definition of 'Nations'. Although Canada is one of many real nations that have recently been accused of apartheid, particularly as regards the Native situation, the Indian Act definitely doesn't meet the definition of genocide. The legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." The residential schools and forced foster care and adoption would have fit the last portion about "forcibly transferring children" but these have been abolished for some time. The Globe and Mail had an excellent treatment of this subject back in 2001 at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/apartheid/ . This is truely and ongoing problem.