Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

McGuinty is a political coward, a dishonest, wishy-washy man who never made a decision in his life without asking a hundred people what to do and then delaying as long as possible. He is unquestionably the weakest leader in Ontario's history. It is an embarrassment to me that this -- nobody, this dull, unimaginative, craven, useless, humourless ballless wonder managed to get himself elected to office.

Most have no idea it is even going on. Remember that Ontario is the heart and soul of political correctness, and the major media here zealously pursue the theme that whenever anything goes wrong with regard to natives it's the governments fault. Natives, after all, are like children, innocent, free-spirited, something like dolphins, but slightly smarter and with cuter outfits. How could they possibly do anything wrong?

The federal government is part of the negotiations. Harper could send in the army. Land claims are a federal responsibility.

Policing is provincial though, and this would be a police action. I don't think Harper has jurisdiction to send in the Army againsts the Indians... maybe against the OPP for refusing to uphold our nation's laws.

RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game")

--

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Policing is provincial though, and this would be a police action. I don't think Harper has jurisdiction to send in the Army againsts the Indians... maybe against the OPP for refusing to uphold our nation's laws.

Harper does indeed have the authority. If it is an insurrection, then the army can be called in and that is Harper's responsibility.

Posted
Are people with disabilities given special treatment as compared to people that are not disabled?

There is a tremendous difference between special treatment based upon a disability and one that is racially based. One is a necessity; the other one smacks of racism, plain and simple. Guess which one is which?

Posted
Are people with disabilities given special treatment as compared to people that are not disabled?

There is a tremendous difference between special treatment based upon a disability and one that is racially based. One is a necessity; the other one smacks of racism, plain and simple. Guess which one is which?

Is there? What kind of "equality" is it?

You still didn't answer; "Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?"

Remember we're talking about all people being treated "equally"!

Posted
You still didn't answer; "Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?"
Alberta shares the oil profits with the rest of the country in three ways:

1) All people in Alberta pay federal taxes. Since people in Alberta make more money than people in the rest of the country they pay more taxes per capita into the federal pot.

2) Alberta does not receive equalization payments which means the Alberta receives less per capita funding that other provinces. This has the effect of redistributing income from Alberta to other provinces.

3) Alberta is a magnet for workers from other parts of the country. In many cases these workers leave their families behind in other parts of Canada. The income that these migrant workers maek is sent back to their home provinces and spent there.

IOW, Alberta does share its oil wealth. More importantly, Alberta shares its oil wealth in ways that benefit all Canadians. Granting special access to resource income for aboriginals would only benefit aboriginals - especially if aboriginals are not taxed on that income.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
You still didn't answer; "Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?"
Alberta shares the oil profits with the rest of the country in three ways:

1) All people in Alberta pay federal taxes. Since people in Alberta make more money than people in the rest of the country they pay more taxes per capita into the federal pot.

2) Alberta does not receive equalization payments which means the Alberta receives less per capita funding that other provinces. This has the effect of redistributing income from Alberta to other provinces.

3) Alberta is a magnet for workers from other parts of the country. In many cases these workers leave their families behind in other parts of Canada. The income that these migrant workers maek is sent back to their home provinces and spent there.

IOW, Alberta does share its oil wealth. More importantly, Alberta shares its oil wealth in ways that benefit all Canadians. Granting special access to resource income for aboriginals would only benefit aboriginals - especially if aboriginals are not taxed on that income.

So you can show the stats regarding all of this right?

Posted
Is there? What kind of "equality" is it?

You still didn't answer; "Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?"

Remember we're talking about all people being treated "equally"!

Alberta gives way more than their share into confederation. We have to pay taxes, unlike Indians on reservations, who just make money and enjoy their racially based tax free status.

So you can show the stats regarding all of this right?

www.statscan.ca

You can also see there that we spend $10,000 per Indian in Canada. One quarter of money that Indians spend is welfare.

So don't you dare go blaming Alberta for anything, it's hard to find anyone not working in Alberta (other than Indians actually, who still are unemployed, around 20% unemployment, to a large degree), and contributing to Canada. Most Bands are simply leeches that give little back for their massive cost. Despite being a mere 2% of the population (including Metis), 'aboriginal' youth account for 14% of youth on probation and adults account for 17% of prision inmates.

So who's the burden my friend?

Here's one detailed overview, the rest you can find on your own:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85F0...3MIE2001001.pdf

RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game")

--

Posted

Is there? What kind of "equality" is it?

You still didn't answer; "Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?"

Remember we're talking about all people being treated "equally"!

Alberta gives way more than their share into confederation. We have to pay taxes, unlike Indians on reservations, who just make money and enjoy their racially based tax free status.

So you can show the stats regarding all of this right?

www.statscan.ca

You can also see there that we spend $10,000 per Indian in Canada. One quarter of money that Indians spend is welfare.

So don't you dare go blaming Alberta for anything, it's hard to find anyone not working in Alberta (other than Indians actually, who still are unemployed, around 20% unemployment, to a large degree), and contributing to Canada. Most Bands are simply leeches that give little back for their massive cost. Despite being a mere 2% of the population (including Metis), 'aboriginal' youth account for 14% of youth on probation and adults account for 17% of prision inmates.

So who's the burden my friend?

Here's one detailed overview, the rest you can find on your own:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85F0...3MIE2001001.pdf

That has nothing to do with showing me that Alberta with their shares in oil profits are not entitled to something that other Canadians can't recieve! Let's get with the program instead of grasping at straws.

Your telling me that even with the money Albertans recieve from its oil profits they are still "equal" to the rest of Canadians that don't. The following has been stated by River.

Alberta shares the oil profits with the rest of the country in three ways:

1) All people in Alberta pay federal taxes. Since people in Alberta make more money than people in the rest of the country they pay more taxes per capita into the federal pot.

2) Alberta does not receive equalization payments which means the Alberta receives less per capita funding that other provinces. This has the effect of redistributing income from Alberta to other provinces.

3) Alberta is a magnet for workers from other parts of the country. In many cases these workers leave their families behind in other parts of Canada. The income that these migrant workers maek is sent back to their home provinces and spent there.

Show me the states that proves that his 3 points. I can already see by his statement on its own there is no "equality."

Posted

She:kon!

I have already proven that Six Nations only receives about $1300 per capita in federal / provincial transfers so it is misleading to take the total budget of INAC and divide it up by person.

The fact is that INAC spends the other $8700 per person in lucritive salaries, programs and services that benefit INAC government employees and never reach the reserve or urban Indians. You typical Canadian wasteful adminstrations in Ottawa are not our responsibilities. Deal with your own wasteful spending and garbage and take responsibility for your own failures in government. If you were Haudenosaunee you would be treated better.

O:nen

Posted
I am going to play devil's advocate here.

Why is it that the pro-Six Nations posters' statistics, research, etc. are accurate/valid to the nth degree, while everyone else's research isn't?

First of all I think you've got it bass ackwards.

We have told you that you must go back to the past to find your answers. When we've tried to explain everyone wants to ignore the very past from where this country came from. They keep getting caught up in the rhetoric of domestic legal cases and misinterpreting historical Proclamations and agreements. Therefore, it has become quite obvious that you have got eveything figured out. So it would appear that you don't need us to explain.

There is even a lawyer that came on here and stated that he believes that we have a legitimate claim. Even after he made that statement all of the armchair legal experts here kept rehashing interpretations of different documents etc. I mean no offence to him when I say that he cannot help us because he is a domestic courts lawyer. I explained to him that we cannot obtain appropriate legal remedy in a domestic court under domestic doctrine. He should know and understand clearly what I meant and why.

Posted

Maybe the answers (whatever that means) are in the past, but you have to deal with the courts, laws, etc. as they exist today. As a friend of mine once said, "That was then, this is now!"

I still don't see that as answering my question. I see you as running in circles (I know, I know, you will say I am doing the same) and absolutely refusing to compromise. Let's face it, you will simply not get everything you want. Nor will we.

I see a lot of your answers as obfuscating the issue. Since this subject is actually spread over quite a few threads, I will consolidate some of the so-called ideas here. Or at least try.

You want sovereignty but refuse to recognize the sovereignty of Canada which must exist before sovereignty can be granted. You want the "special treatment" of the disabled and the demand for special treatment based on race to be seen in the same light. You want trillions of dollars when you know this is impossible.

Let me ask you a basic question. Suppose you went before an international court or tribunal of some kind and it was composed of members totally to your liking, and you lost. Would you go home and just say you did your best and lost fair and square?

Posted
Maybe the answers (whatever that means) are in the past, but you have to deal with the courts, laws, etc. as they exist today. As a friend of mine once said, "That was then, this is now!"

I still don't see that as answering my question. I see you as running in circles (I know, I know, you will say I am doing the same) and absolutely refusing to compromise. Let's face it, you will simply not get everything you want. Nor will we.

I see a lot of your answers as obfuscating the issue. Since this subject is actually spread over quite a few threads, I will consolidate some of the so-called ideas here. Or at least try.

You want sovereignty but refuse to recognize the sovereignty of Canada which must exist before sovereignty can be granted. You want the "special treatment" of the disabled and the demand for special treatment based on race to be seen in the same light. You want trillions of dollars when you know this is impossible.

Let me ask you a basic question. Suppose you went before an international court or tribunal of some kind and it was composed of members totally to your liking, and you lost. Would you go home and just say you did your best and lost fair and square?

That's right and then is now!!!

Posted
So you can show the stats regarding all of this right?

Do some research for f***'s sake.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson

Posted
You want sovereignty but refuse to recognize the sovereignty of Canada which must exist before sovereignty can be granted. You want the "special treatment" of the disabled and the demand for special treatment based on race to be seen in the same light. You want trillions of dollars when you know this is impossible.

Let me ask you a basic question. Suppose you went before an international court or tribunal of some kind and it was composed of members totally to your liking, and you lost. Would you go home and just say you did your best and lost fair and square?

Understand, its not a matter of wanting sovereignty...we ARE sovereign. Only sovereign and separate Nations enter into treaties. We do recognize Canadas sovereign which is the Crown. That is the party to our agreements. Get off of the race excuse. It has absolutley nothing to do with race! It is about Nation to Nation agreements not being upheld. The treaties that Canada has with the U.S. go back to 1783. That is the Treaty of Paris which established the border between Canada and the U.S. It is the argument of some that 300 year old treaties should be obsolete. Do you see how ridiculous that is? Go and tell the Americans (especially now) that the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Ghent are considered obsolete and that Canada wants the border removed. I don't have to ask you what the American response would be do I? The same goes for the amount of tax payers money that goes to the operation costs of the border.

You're not understanding the issue here. It's not a matter of winning or losing a case. It's a matter of correcting the injustices of the past to the present.

Posted

So you can show the stats regarding all of this right?

Do some research for f***'s sake.

I have been...all for the benefit of those that required it when I've made a statement. If you don't like the posts then get off of the thread and quit your whining!!!!

Posted
That is the Treaty of Paris which established the border between Canada and the U.S. It is the argument of some that 300 year old treaties should be obsolete.
Treaties are political documents that are always renegotiated if circumstances change. The US and Canada have no interest in renegotiating those treaties because the cost of trying to reopen them exceeds any possible benefit. The US, on the other hand, unilaterally broke the START treaty with Russia because it decided that cost of not having a missile defence program was greater than the cost of breaking the treaty. Honouring the Six Nations treaty to gives no benefits to Canadians today but could impose huge costs. For that reason it is not in the interest of Canada to honour the treaties and there is nothing Six Nations can do about it because, unlike the US, Six Nations has nothing to offer to Canada in return for honouring these treaties.

Incidently, business contracts are also subject to renegotiation all of the time. In many cases, a finanically stronger party will pressure a weaker party into changing the terms of a negotiated contract even though the courts would likely side with the weaker party. This happens because the cost of fighting the change in court often exceeds the cost of agreeing to the change.

You can rant as much as you want about the unfairness of it but you cannot deny the reality. That said, Six Nations is not completely powerless. Canadians would rather have Six Nations agree to changing the terms of the treaty instead of risking violant confrontations and the loss of face on the international scene. However, Six Nations has to put an offer on the table that will cost Canada less than the possibility of violance and loss of face.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
That is the Treaty of Paris which established the border between Canada and the U.S. It is the argument of some that 300 year old treaties should be obsolete.
Treaties are political documents that are always renegotiated if circumstances change. The US and Canada have no interest in renegotiating those treaties because the cost of trying to reopen them exceeds any possible benefit. The US, on the other hand, unilaterally broke the START treaty with Russia because it decided that cost of not having a missile defence program was greater than the cost of breaking the treaty. Honouring the Six Nations treaty to gives no benefits to Canadians today but could impose huge costs. For that reason it is not in the interest of Canada to honour the treaties and there is nothing Six Nations can do about it because, unlike the US, Six Nations has nothing to offer to Canada in return for honouring these treaties.

Incidently, business contracts are also subject to renegotiation all of the time. In many cases, a finanically stronger party will pressure a weaker party into changing the terms of a negotiated contract even though the courts would likely side with the weaker party. This happens because the cost of fighting the change in court often exceeds the cost of agreeing to the change.

We'll see!!!

Posted
We'll see!!!
Are you making that comment because you believe that the Canadian courts will enforce what you perceive to be your rights? I wouldn't hold your breath. In prior judgements the SCC has placed many limits native land claims because of the potential impact on non-native society so it is unlikely that the SCC would rule that Six Nations would be entitled to a settlement that would have a negative impact on the economy as a whole (i.e. require huge tax increases to pay for). In the unlikely event that the SCC did rule in Six Nations favour you would see politicians lining up to make whatever constitutional change is necessary to limit the liability in the Six Nations case and any future cases that may be based on it.

Furthermore, taking the issue to court is a risky move for Six Nations because there is always the chance that the SCC will dismiss the case entirely. So it is quite possible that Six Nations could get more from good faith negotiations now than it would from any court decision.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted

"Understand, its not a matter of wanting sovereignty...we ARE sovereign. Only sovereign and separate Nations enter into treaties. We do recognize Canadas sovereign which is the Crown".

Sorry, just trying to understand here. Does not the UN stipupulate you cannot have a sovereignty within a sovereignty (1940's )? Thus if Canada is . . . .However, i thought it has been established that it is not.

Your case as sovereign people is surely more against the authority of the GG taking on or superceding the role and agreements made between f/ns and British over your allied sovereignty in Canada but with Britain? Therefore, this relationship overcomes the problem of sovereignty within a sovereignty

"You're not understanding the issue here. It's not a matter of winning or losing a case. It's a matter of correcting the injustices of the past to the present".

Yes indeed!

So much so that im beginning to think you need a British representative of sorts to thrash this through with the government of Canada before ALL else. It certainly would avoid the priviledge of 'ruling' in self interest in a legal dispute as the previous 'judge' did. Outrageous!

Posted

"Understand, its not a matter of wanting sovereignty...we ARE sovereign. Only sovereign and separate Nations enter into treaties. We do recognize Canadas sovereign which is the Crown".

Sorry, just trying to understand here. Does not the UN stipupulate you cannot have a sovereignty within a sovereignty (1940's )? Thus if Canada is . . . .However, i thought it has been established that it is not.

Your case as sovereign people is surely more against the authority of the GG taking on or superceding the role and agreements made between f/ns and British over your allied sovereignty in Canada but with Britain? Therefore, this relationship overcomes the problem of sovereignty within a sovereignty

"You're not understanding the issue here. It's not a matter of winning or losing a case. It's a matter of correcting the injustices of the past to the present".

Yes indeed!

So much so that im beginning to think you need a British representative of sorts to thrash this through with the government of Canada before ALL else. It certainly would avoid the priviledge of 'ruling' in self interest in a legal dispute as the previous 'judge' did. Outrageous!

Exactly! Hence Canada is not soveriegn unto itself but under the Crown. And all of our agreements with them are the Highest Law of the land!!!

Posted
Exactly! Hence Canada is not soveriegn unto itself but under the Crown. And all of our agreements with them are the Highest Law of the land!!!
I suggest you read the thread about Canadian Sovereignty and the Queen. Your premise has been thoroughly refuted there. The Crown and Canada are one in the same. It is silly to make a distinction.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted
We'll see!!!
Are you making that comment because you believe that the Canadian courts will enforce what you perceive to be your rights? I wouldn't hold your breath. In prior judgements the SCC has placed many limits native land claims because of the potential impact on non-native society so it is unlikely that the SCC would rule that Six Nations would be entitled to a settlement that would have a negative impact on the economy as a whole (i.e. require huge tax increases to pay for). In the unlikely event that the SCC did rule in Six Nations favour you would see politicians lining up to make whatever constitutional change is necessary to limit the liability in the Six Nations case and any future cases that may be based on it.

Furthermore, taking the issue to court is a risky move for Six Nations because there is always the chance that the SCC will dismiss the case entirely. So it is quite possible that Six Nations could get more from good faith negotiations now than it would from any court decision.

Canadian Courts are neither mandated nor equipped to deal with our Crown agreements as they are limited to domestic doctrines! The agreements we have with the Crown are higher than domestic law. Canada connot exist without them in place. Therefore, break the agreements lose the country! Think I'm wrong? To enter into a treaty today requires the ceding or surrender of land to who? The Crown! The same as it is has always been under the Royal Proclamation through the Two Row and Silver Covenant Chain! The answers are in your history.

Posted
The agreements we have with the Crown are higher than domestic law.
The Crown is simply the word used in the Canadian constitution to describe the sovereign power of the state of Canada. The constitution is the highest law in this country and everything is subject to its terms. Furthermore, Canadians can change that constitution any time they want and the Queen is legally required to sign off on that change. The constitution explicitly states that the Queen may not veto constitutional changes even though she has the theoretical power to veto any other law. I really wish you would stop repeating this nonsense.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted

To the pro-Six Nations posters:

If you are already a sovereign nation, I need to ask some basic questions (and by the way, I am NOT being facetious about this; I really want to know).

Essentially, what are your plans for the future?

1. What kind of economy will you develop?

2. When will you start minting your own currency?

3. What kind of legal system will you develop?

4. What about visas and passports?

5. How will you levy taxes? Will they be sufficient to support your infrastructure?

6. Will you develop your own armed forces?

7. What is your current population?

8. What is your present unemployment rate?

9. What about schools and universities?

10. What about a parliament, legislature, and the like?

11. What kind of social services system will you develop?

If you can think of any others, let me know.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,819
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...