Unheralded "Eco-Tax" hits Ontario shoppers

[P. McGee]

Did Mike Harris tell the cops forcefully to get the natives out of there? Probably. Did he tell them to shoot them? Extremely unlikely! Still, again we go back to that nervous cop in the dark, feeling the pressure from "on high" and feeling a very justified fear of being shot by a native protester!

Why were the police advancing on the blockade in the dark in the first place? Should the person who made the call to send them in at that time bear some responsibility for the death that followed?

[Wild Bill]

Why were the police advancing on the blockade in the dark in the first place? Should the person who made the call to send them in at that time bear some responsibility for the death that followed?

Because that's what police do! Absolutely, whoever made that call should bear some of the blame!

There is plenty of blame to be shared. I know some folks tend to think 'digitally', that is that something is all or nothing. It is either all Harris' fault or all protesters' fault. The world is rarely so black and white.

Police are not normally hired because they are the most intelligent or shrewd choices. The prime factors are things like assertiveness and ability to follow orders. To a policeman, the first choice of how to handle the protesters would have been to charge them with force. If necessary, they would have gotten bigger clubs!

Inquiries after the fact are like 'monday morning quarterbacks' or 'back seat drivers'. Also, one should never forget that the one about Ipperwash was a POLITICAL inquiry! Politicians were well aware that there would be repercussions for generations from the native protesters. The situation had been botched. The fact that there were logical reasons that it was botched, such as the fact that OKA had forever more meant assuming protesters were armed doesn't change the fact. If it was felt that making a cop the 'goat' would have political benefits they would have done it without a second's thought!

I mean, the average cop still believes they can win the war on drugs if they are given big enough legal hammers! The lesson of Prohibition seems wasted on them.

[charter.rights]

Because that's what police do! Absolutely, whoever made that call should bear some of the blame!

There is plenty of blame to be shared. I know some folks tend to think 'digitally', that is that something is all or nothing. It is either all Harris' fault or all protesters' fault. The world is rarely so black and white.

.... cut for brevity .....

I don't know whether to take that you have a comprehension problem, or that you are just not very smart.....but you keep making things up and then arguing against your own fantasy.

No one here has said that it is an "either/or" situation where it concerns Ipperwash and the killing of Dudley George. Rather it has been pointed out on many occasions (and I have been pointing out the same) that there are lots of people to blame and that Harris and Kenneth Deane both share some culpability.

It is also evident that you do not understand the judicial system or how public inquiries work. The Court and the Commission both hear evidence and make a determination on what can be considered as "fact". It doesn't matter if it occurs after the event or not, the information contained in their final deliberations and summary is taken as fact and the innocence or guilt of parties is determined on that basis. Where facts can be disputed, the accused has the right to appeal the findings of the lower court.

In the case of determining whether or not the protesters at Ipperwash had weapons, the Court and the Commission reviewed evidence provided by OPP intelligence, the testimony of many officers - some of whom were snipers inside the boundaries of the park - and the testimony of the protesters. The information was consistent from all parties and so the Court and the Commission both accepted as "fact" that there were no weapons present in the park, beyond any reasonable doubt.

So in the killing of Dudley Goerge, Kenneth Deane may have been made a scape goat in court for all the OPP failures but the Inquiry was succinct in pointing out the problems behind the scenes, who was to blame and why these failures led to the death of an unarmed protester. Harris comes up a number of times, as does OPP command and the blatant racism that existed in the OPP organization at the time. It identified that there was deliberate misinformation being propagated at the time, and chastised them for their poor communication. It also identified that Stoney Pointers had a legitimate claim to the land that the federal government and the Province of Ontario had ignored. It also suggested that the events leading to the shooting death were preventable.

The finding of fact through Kenneth Deane's trial and through the commission gives a clearer picture today of what really happened and you cannot change that by promoting unsubstantiated propaganda, or by ignoring or dismissing the facts.

You sound like a Mike Harris apologist. Are you by chance on Tim Hudak's campaign team?

Edited August 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

I don't know whether to take that you have a comprehension problem, or that you are just not very smart.....but you keep making things up and then arguing against your own fantasy.

No one here has said that it is an "either/or" situation where it concerns Ipperwash and the killing of Dudley George. Rather it has been pointed out on many occasions (and I have been pointing out the same) that there are lots of people to blame and that Harris and Kenneth Deane both share some culpability.

You sound like a Mike Harris apologist. Are you by chance on Tim Hudak's campaign team?

Talk about hypocrisy! You call anyone who disagrees with any native position at all a racist! You've flat out called people stupid and ignorant!

Now you try to claim that you don't think 'either/or'!

Why did I ever bother talking to you again? You defy all common sense and call logic and reason a mere delusion! You don't seem to realize that it is your debating style and tactics that actually hurts support for native rights.

You really should hit the library and check out Dale Carnegie's old book "How to Win Friends and Influence People". If you were a salesperson you would not likely be successful People are reluctant to buy something from you after you've insulted them!

[charter.rights]

Talk about hypocrisy! You call anyone who disagrees with any native position at all a racist! You've flat out called people stupid and ignorant!

Now you try to claim that you don't think 'either/or'!

Why did I ever bother talking to you again? You defy all common sense and call logic and reason a mere delusion! You don't seem to realize that it is your debating style and tactics that actually hurts support for native rights.

You really should hit the library and check out Dale Carnegie's old book "How to Win Friends and Influence People". If you were a salesperson you would not likely be successful People are reluctant to buy something from you after you've insulted them!

Bill....Bill...Bill....

There you go again. Making things up and then trying to make an argument about your ghostly images.

"You call anyone who disagrees with any native position at all a racist!"

Never done that.

"You've flat out called people stupid and ignorant!"

Never done that either, although I will admit to call statements "ignorant" but that is not the same thing.

Bill. You might want to see a doctor soon. I think there are ghosts and bats in your attic....but only he knows for sure.

However, you are still not making any argument against the facts....

Edited August 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[Oleg Bach]

FORGET "ECO" - FOR GET "ENVIRONMENT" - IT'S ALL DOUBLE SPEAK - WHAT WE NEED IT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC NOT ABOUT "ENVIRONMENT" - BUT TO REMIND THEM THAT IT IS OUR DUTY TO PROTECT AND SUSTAIN NATURE..NATURE IS PROOF OF GOD - IT SUSTAINS AND STRENGTHENS US..ENVIRONMENT OR ECO TAX ...DOES NOT STOP THE CONSTANT AND RELENTLESS DESTRUCTION OF THE NATURAL WORLD - ONCE THE NATURAL WORLD IS NO MORE - WE ARE GONE AND SO IS GOD NEVER TO RETURN.

[mikedavid00]

Why does Ontario need all this extra money?

[fellowtraveller]

Alberta has had enviro fees for quite a while. $4 per tire when you buy them, $20 flat fee on any TVs or monitors, flat and variable charge on every recyclable container..... With the money raised, they subsidize the re-use of thing like rubber from tires that are not profitable otherwise.

Of course, Alberta is still entirely populated by earth hating rednecks.

[mikedavid00]

Alberta has had enviro fees for quite a while. $4 per tire when you buy them, $20 flat fee on any TVs or monitors, flat and variable charge on every recyclable container..... With the money raised, they subsidize the re-use of thing like rubber from tires that are not profitable otherwise.

Of course, Alberta is still entirely populated by earth hating rednecks.

What about the TV's?

I'm just curious if you really think they are putting the money toward this.

[fellowtraveller]

What about the TV's?

I'm just curious if you really think they are putting the money toward this.

What about them?

When you buy a new TV or monitor you pay for it to be eventually recycled, since the volume generated does not warrant a specific and profitable private sector recycler for the toxic elements of the goods.

I know that I go to the Clover Bar waste management facility fairly often (a large and very interesting project btw, they sort everything for a metro area of about one million) and for about two years they had a veritable mountain of electronic stuff, CRT TVs and old style monitors. Huge pile. One day it was gone, the attendant said a German company had a mobile sort of processing factory, came in and cleaned up all that was cleanable. And they were paid by the province , I assume from revenue from sales of new units.

Works for me.

[mikedavid00]

What about them?

When you buy a new TV or monitor you pay for it to be eventually recycled, since the volume generated does not warrant a specific and profitable private sector recycler for the toxic elements of the goods.

I know that I go to the Clover Bar waste management facility fairly often (a large and very interesting project btw, they sort everything for a metro area of about one million) and for about two years they had a veritable mountain of electronic stuff, CRT TVs and old style monitors. Huge pile. One day it was gone, the attendant said a German company had a mobile sort of processing factory, came in and cleaned up all that was cleanable. And they were paid by the province , I assume from revenue from sales of new units.

Works for me.

Ah I see. So we should hit up with fee's on items that are recyclable. Why didn't I think of that.

I guess that is 80% of the grocey's we buy. I guess we can move to that next. We can have a surcharge on all packaged material. The gov't really needs the money really badly.

But those TV's. You know they also drain energy. I think we should be hit up with a NEW surcharge ontop of the tax and other surcharge for an 'energy wastage' fee. We can put it on the big TV's.

I guess this 'Works for me'.

[charter.rights]

Ah I see. So we should hit up with fee's on items that are recyclable. Why didn't I think of that.

I guess that is 80% of the grocey's we buy. I guess we can move to that next. We can have a surcharge on all packaged material. The gov't really needs the money really badly.

But those TV's. You know they also drain energy. I think we should be hit up with a NEW surcharge ontop of the tax and other surcharge for an 'energy wastage' fee. We can put it on the big TV's.

I guess this 'Works for me'.

We should make manufacturers responsible for the recycling and disposal of all goods and packaging and make the stores responsible for shipping it back to them. While both might try to pass on the costs for that process back to consumers, more likely than not, consumers will shy away from purchasing their products and drift towards those products that are manufactured cleanly, have infinite use and are packaged minimally with environmentally sustainable materials.

[Molly]

Add an extra surcharge for distance goods must travel, and I'm with you on that one entirely.

[fellowtraveller]

I guess that is 80% of the grocey's we buy.

Yep, you do pay a surcharge and a big one.

100% of the groceries you buy end up in your toilet, and you pay in full for those turds to be dealt with via municipal sewer charges.

Same thing for garbage in general, nobody hauls it for free.

Things like cardboard and decent quality paper have a market value. Old TVs and tires have value less than the cost of recycling and are better recycled than buried (heavy metals in CRT tubes), hence the surchage.

Anyway I'm just explaining how it works in one place.

[mikedavid00]

So I guess you guys LIKE paying higher prices in order to feed civil servants' benefits and insane pensions.

You guys are typical Canucks; jaded and brainwashed by big brother.

[PIK]

I run a business and we are still paying eco fees, the consumer is told that they are not any more ,which is right in a sense, except they are just paying more for the product, just does not say eco fee any more.