We pay while Indians live in luxury

[DangerMouse]

You know what I think you are right we do miss manage the fisheries and wild life both cultures are guilty but we should limit all including the natives if we did not allow them to over fish and hunt we might not be in the predicament we are in. I think one could argue this on all points the moment you give one group free rain on all resources and they are not accountable there will always be abuses and this fact is at the heart of this discussion, it does not matter who was here first we are all here now and if we do not fix the underlying social and economical issues we all loose. The only way do do this is to treat all equal and give all no mater their race the same responsibilities. One way or another the hand outs must stop for this to happen.

If the natives are truly equal and capable of running their own lives (though I do not believe we run their lives for them now)they must prove it the lame excuses do nothing but keep themselves down it is time they were left to their own accord like the rest of us and what happens, happens no culture is perfect there will always be vagrants of all races but they should all have the same resources to help themselves not some better than others.

The opportunities afforded to the natives have been wasted and should be granted to all Canadian citizens. This is the simple formula to make Canada as a whole better. The fact is there are still people immigrating to Canada and there will always be, we are truly multi cultural and we need to quit segregating the rights if it is ever to be cohesive we must have the same rights for all.

Hey lightbulb...when did the BNA Act come into effect? All you bozo-brains seem to get mixed up with social, political and law...social condition on reserves are unreal...politics are full of rightwingnut phonies....look at it from a purely legal standpoint and your lightbul might flicker brighter....whose law is it you bozo?

[JCAN]

Hey lightbulb...when did the BNA Act come into effect? All you bozo-brains seem to get mixed up with social, political and law...social condition on reserves are unreal...politics are full of rightwingnut phonies....look at it from a purely legal standpoint and your lightbul might flicker brighter....whose law is it you bozo?

Social conditions on reserves are what the natives make it and I and know one else are responsible for those conditions if you can not get things together maybe you should look to your own leaders instead of passing the buck.

The BNA act of 1867 was not just about controlling natives in some of the same sentences it includes Japanese and Hindu. You might also want to look at what the women of all races, they were subject to restrictions as well. It is clear that it was about all of Canadian rights and laws there were amendments to it as well later giving the natives, women, and other races the right to vote, as well as other rights. You read only what you want to looking at it from a heliocentric view instead of the big picture and that is why your arguments are always flawed and full of name calling.

That is looking at it from a legal stand point I do not agree with all that was done in the past but the Natives are hardly the only ones effected by it so get of the pore me trip others have been able to do well and the only difference is they were not babied like the natives, which gave them the incentive to do something on their own.

[DangerMouse]

Social conditions on reserves are what the natives make it and I and know one else are responsible for those conditions if you can not get things together maybe you should look to your own leaders instead of passing the buck.

The BNA act of 1867 was not just about controlling natives in some of the same sentences it includes Japanese and Hindu. You might also want to look at what the women of all races, they were subject to restrictions as well. It is clear that it was about all of Canadian rights and laws there were amendments to it as well later giving the natives, women, and other races the right to vote, as well as other rights. You read only what you want to looking at it from a heliocentric view instead of the big picture and that is why your arguments are always flawed and full of name calling.

That is looking at it from a legal stand point I do not agree with all that was done in the past but the Natives are hardly the only ones effected by it so get of the pore me trip others have been able to do well and the only difference is they were not babied like the natives, which gave them the incentive to do something on their own.

You still don't get it Those were laws written by europeans that came to this land and not the natives themselves, so why do bright lightbulbs like you give the natives heck over "your laws?" Where in the constitution does it mention Japanese and Hindus? You do however hold a glimmer of hope by using the term "restrictions" when other brain-wave light-bulbers call it benefits? Man some people are so screwed with their perceptions. If this forum is any indication of what people really think! Then the biggest job in front of us is to properly eduacte the backward thinking rightwingers

[JCAN]

You still don't get it Those were laws written by europeans that came to this land and not the natives themselves, so why do bright lightbulbs like you give the natives heck over "your laws?" Where in the constitution does it mention Japanese and Hindus? You do however hold a glimmer of hope by using the term "restrictions" when other brain-wave light-bulbers call it benefits? Man some people are so screwed with their perceptions. If this forum is any indication of what people really think! Then the biggest job in front of us is to properly eduacte the backward thinking rightwingers

Don,t worry we get it plenty. Here is a site for you to check out it is very basic and to the point you should be able to understand it http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/browseSubjects/bnaguide.asp The act is not just about Natives so wake up and realize that.

And my point is is that there have been amendments in the past and there will be again in the future and we will strip you of all your undeserved benefits. and you will have to get used to the idea that you are no better than anyone else.

the restrictions were on voting and intoxicants which by the purely drunk attitude you have, should have maybe been upheld I think. You should remember you are small and insignificant in this world the laws of this country were not made around the natives they just happened to be included in them like every other race in this country.

If you had any iota of the intelligence you think you do you might be interesting but instead you just run off at the mouth and say nothing of importance ignoring the facts put before you and the fact that you continue to call anyone with an opinion other than yours a "right winger" is ridiculous as is most that you say. The only thing you should be educating is the stones on the street AND EVEN THAT IS TOO BIG A JOB FOR YOU I THINK

[DangerMouse]

An amendment? I don't think so because the last time it started a big fight that the country just about broke up the country...Meech and Charlotte Town....If the indians have it so good then maybe if there was such an amendment, you should rally to start up the Federal Department of Caucasian and European Origins Affairs. Then let the Natives run your lives in the newly formed Caucasian Act. Then the natives can do what they want and put you on reservations called The Caucasian Rez...then watch all the baby boy rightwingers jump up and down like they didn't get their way in a candy-store

[charter.rights]

An amendment? I don't think so because the last time it started a big fight that the country just about broke up the country...Meech and Charlotte Town....If the indians have it so good then maybe if there was such an amendment, you should rally to start up the Federal Department of Caucasian and European Origins Affairs. Then let the Natives run your lives in the newly formed Caucasian Act. Then the natives can do what they want and put you on reservations called The Caucasian Rez...then watch all the baby boy rightwingers jump up and down like they didn't get their way in a candy-store

ANY amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would only likely strengthen and further entrench rights not yet recognize. An amendment could never diminish rights that presently exist, unless the targets agreed that they were redundant. That is the nature of a Charter of Rights. It is there to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

[JCAN]

ANY amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would only likely strengthen and further entrench rights not yet recognize. An amendment could never diminish rights that presently exist, unless the targets agreed that they were redundant. That is the nature of a Charter of Rights. It is there to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

That is right the, Native tyranny must end, the needs of the few do not out way the needs of the many that is simple logic. the baby sitting and coddling, has gone on long enough. I as well as many others in this country are not too worried about the risk of upsetting the natives and it is a small price to pay for equality. if what they are looking for is a fight they will eventually get it, and we all know who will win this one once again. As in all democracy if the people do not agree with policy they have the right to change it. If they would give up their greed they would see it is best to quit while they are ahead

[AngusThermopyle]

strengthen and further entrench rights not yet recognize.

Once again CR, thank you.

I couuld not have put it more clearly if I'd tried.

With that one little phrase you told everyone exactly what your agenda is. I think the key phrase is "not yet recognized" by using this you have clearly shown that you have an agenda, an attempt to twist and manipulate the system to your ends and achieve goals as yet undefined.

By stateing "not yet recognized" you make your intent clear. As far as you're concerned no amount of "reasonable accomodation" will ever be enough. Not yet recognized translates to not enough ever in your lexicon.

You've shown time and time again that you have no real understanding of the laws and mores of this land, and consistently when called on your lack of knowledge have resorted to that weakest of all arguements, slander and name calling.

So. The question I'm left with is why are you so bitter and filled with hate?

Despite your claims of a six figure income I'm left with the feeling that you're actually one of lifes losers waiting for the gravy train to come in.

Could this actually be the reason behind your blind activism?

Eargely awaiting your reply; Angus.

[charter.rights]

Once again CR, thank you.

I couuld not have put it more clearly if I'd tried.

With that one little phrase you told everyone exactly what your agenda is. I think the key phrase is "not yet recognized" by using this you have clearly shown that you have an agenda, an attempt to twist and manipulate the system to your ends and achieve goals as yet undefined.

By stateing "not yet recognized" you make your intent clear. As far as you're concerned no amount of "reasonable accomodation" will ever be enough. Not yet recognized translates to not enough ever in your lexicon.

You've shown time and time again that you have no real understanding of the laws and mores of this land, and consistently when called on your lack of knowledge have resorted to that weakest of all arguements, slander and name calling.

So. The question I'm left with is why are you so bitter and filled with hate?

Despite your claims of a six figure income I'm left with the feeling that you're actually one of lifes losers waiting for the gravy train to come in.

Could this actually be the reason behind your blind activism?

Eargely awaiting your reply; Angus.

Ignoratio Elenchi.

Actually I was thinking of you when I wrote that believing that even hermaphrodites should have their rights entrenched in the Charter.

In all seriousness there may be some other reason for including a right in the Charter, such as "children's rights" ,recognizing that they are not just chattels of their parents as the law now views them. I seem to remember that women were once treated that way too until they stood up for their rights against the Anglo-European white male rule.

[AngusThermopyle]

"children's rights" ,recognizing that they are not just chattels of their parents as the law now views them.

Actually children at this time have more basic human rights than ever before in known or recorded history. In fact children and other humans such as women have never before enjoyed more basic rights than they do at this time, far from being mere chattel as you wrongly postulate.

Could you give an example of how children are chattel with no intrinsic rights?

Darn, I almost forgot. Thanks again for the unwarranted insults. Once again you show your lack of concrete arguements by resorting to insults, do you actually know how to hold a civil discourse free of insults?

Hell no! Why do I even ask.

Ignoratio Elenchi.

Nice attempt at a side step however it does not matter how many classicaly phrased catch phrases you use it does not negate or invalidate the base premise. Perhaps your ruse would work with those who do not understand the phrase or have never studied the classical languages, in this case however it does not.

Edited May 14, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[charter.rights]

Actually children at this time have more basic human rights than ever before in known or recorded history. In fact children and other humans such as women have never before enjoyed more basic rights than they do at this time, far from being mere chattel as you wrongly postulate.

Could you give an example of how children are chattel with no intrinsic rights?

Darn, I almost forgot. Thanks again for the unwarranted insults. Once again you show your lack of concrete arguements by resorting to insults, do you actually know how to hold a civil discourse free of insults?

Hell no! Why do I even ask.

Nice attempt at a side step however it does not matter how many classicaly phrased catch phrases you use it does not negate or invalidate the base premise. Perhaps your ruse would work with those who do not understand the phrase or have never studied the classical languages, in this case however it does not.

In fact children and other humans such as women have never before enjoyed more basic rights than they do at this time....

That's actually pretty funny....That's what the white male argument was when women were fighting in the streets and in the bedrooms for their rights. And notice it is always said by the Anglo-European White male - the guy that tries to hold all the power, but finds it eroding under his thumb.

Under the law, children are considered not to have an opinion, or have a say in their lives until they reach the age of majority. Some parents may allow decision making at a lesser age, but legally the state prevents them from voting, drinking and other limitations even though they may be mature enough to do all those things. At the age of consent, "the state" allows them to make decisions about their own bodies but before that they are not considered worthy of making those decisions (not that I disagree). However, there are no rights as a child to be protected, so children are either subjected by their parents' authority or by government's. As youth offenders they are treated unequally and essentially have no say in how they are represented in court, where their parents, counsel and the judiciary play an end game around them. And before you again try to twist my words, I will state that children do need the protections afforded them by the state, but not without a clear definition of those rights in which we are bound as a society to protect. Of course, this is just one example of "rights not recognized" that I was alluding to.

Your diversion was evident and useless since you didn't have a valid comeback you had to resort to a fallacy argument "Ignoratio Elenchi." Try keeping on the topic of the day.

[AngusThermopyle]

Children are entitled to all the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the various treaties that have developed from it

The above is a quote taken from Amnesty International. They in turn took this quote from the International Tribunal On Human Rights. This is a fact, no matter how hard you try you can not negate this fact. Try all you want, it will not alter this fact, it is recognized and enacted by all major developed countries.

Perhaps you should apply your newly learned catch phrase to yourself, it would be very appropriate and fitting as you seem to be argueing that protecting a child from unwise choices and decisions is in fact removing their rights.

Perhaps you would care to tell all of us about a time when women and children enjoyed more rights than they currently do.

As for staying on topic, well how about you offer more than your obviously biased opinion in future. Or is that too much to ask of you?

[charter.rights]

The above is a quote taken from Amnesty International. They in turn took this quote from the International Tribunal On Human Rights. This is a fact, no matter how hard you try you can not negate this fact. Try all you want, it will not alter this fact, it is recognized and enacted by all major developed countries.

Perhaps you should apply your newly learned catch phrase to yourself, it would be very appropriate and fitting as you seem to be argueing that protecting a child from unwise choices and decisions is in fact removing their rights.

Perhaps you would care to tell all of us about a time when women and children enjoyed more rights than they currently do.

As for staying on topic, well how about you offer more than your obviously biased opinion in future. Or is that too much to ask of you?

Canada doesn't recognize those rights, nor do they support the UN Declaration on Aboriginal Rights, either. That is the problem. Unless they are included as an amendment in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms they are nothing more than international fluff.

Perhaps you would care to tell all of us about a time when women and children enjoyed more rights than they currently do.

Under the Great Law, women AND children in the Iroquois Confederacy (Haudenosaunee) are not only given the right to speak and be heard but have important roles in their political and social society. The Great Law of Peace has existed for over 1000 years and still is in effect today. It was the Canadian government that tried to usurp that Constitution by removing the Confederacy Council at Six Nations at gunpoint and imposing our system of government on them. Yet the Confederacy still exists and now represents Six Nations at the negotiations for lands claims.

So to answer your question clearly, our women and children have never had rights and still do not enjoy equal rights with the dominant white male driven society. Whether or not they have better rights is irrelevent to the discussion. When they have equal and equitable rights that are protected under the Charter then we can admire the advancements that have been made in our society. But still society today has not yet reached the level of rights in the Haundenosaunee Confederacy - something we should aspire to....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The entire problem here is human rights isn't it? The natives have been granted "special rights" not available to other citizens and that is what most other citizens view as an undefined problem even if the natives do not see it that way. It is not reserves or social conditions it is simply special rights.

We need to stop throwing money at the problem. Natives need to govern themselves in order to find their own way. Stop the funding and grant them full autonomy within their existing lands, that is my proposal. Let them govern themselves, its that simple. They have no use for our laws and our ways so why should we contest their judgment on the matter. They are not children who need their hands to be held, they have decided to make their own way in this world, that is their right in my opinion.

With all due respect folks, I think the land claims are a joke, however I think they should be resolved by a neutral third party. Let the third party decide the issue. In the worst case scenario, the natives would be forced to compensate any displaced persons with fair market value for lost property. Where they would get the money to do that is beyond my concern, but there it is.

I no longer desire to entertain the childish debate about the natives. I think it is time that we simply let them slit their own throats with their demands. They have no idea how good they have had it nor will they ever realize that until they are on their own. Let them pay their own way like everybody else and have done with the entire matter.

[JCAN]

In fact children and other humans such as women have never before enjoyed more basic rights than they do at this time....

That's actually pretty funny....That's what the white male argument was when women were fighting in the streets and in the bedrooms for their rights. And notice it is always said by the Anglo-European White male - the guy that tries to hold all the power, but finds it eroding under his thumb.

Under the law, children are considered not to have an opinion, or have a say in their lives until they reach the age of majority. Some parents may allow decision making at a lesser age, but legally the state prevents them from voting, drinking and other limitations even though they may be mature enough to do all those things. At the age of consent, "the state" allows them to make decisions about their own bodies but before that they are not considered worthy of making those decisions (not that I disagree). However, there are no rights as a child to be protected, so children are either subjected by their parents' authority or by government's. As youth offenders they are treated unequally and essentially have no say in how they are represented in court, where their parents, counsel and the judiciary play an end game around them. And before you again try to twist my words, I will state that children do need the protections afforded them by the state, but not without a clear definition of those rights in which we are bound as a society to protect. Of course, this is just one example of "rights not recognized" that I was alluding to.

Your diversion was evident and useless since you didn't have a valid comeback you had to resort to a fallacy argument "Ignoratio Elenchi." Try keeping on the topic of the day.

[/quote.

I think it is ridiculous how you seem to forget the fact that every race on this planet has subjugated women, that does not make it right but it is a fact and the natives are still doing it, (C-31 reinstates) but it is ok because the Band has final say I guess.

The fact is the white male is more discriminated in government and the job place then any other race if we turned down a woman or visible minority to make room for more whites there would be a huge outcry but in todays society it is ok to be racist and discriminatory as long as it is against a white male.

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually there is a serious move afoot by our government to extend existing basic human rights to Native women. This is being opposed by Native women of all people. The goal is to provide security and safety to Native women and children however Native groups with a strong self interest in the current situation are fighting it with all their resources.

Thats okay though, we'll disregard the fact that it is Natives attempting to continue the subjugation of their own kind and simply claim that it is Canadian societies fault.

[charter.rights]

Actually there is a serious move afoot by our government to extend existing basic human rights to Native women. This is being opposed by Native women of all people. The goal is to provide security and safety to Native women and children however Native groups with a strong self interest in the current situation are fighting it with all their resources.

Thats okay though, we'll disregard the fact that it is Natives attempting to continue the subjugation of their own kind and simply claim that it is Canadian societies fault.

That may be true in some communities but it is not applicable in Iroquois communities as Haudenosaunee women (and children) have enjoyed these equality rights for at least 1000 years. Besides were weren't comparing the lack of rights on some reserves, or a discussion pertaining to the government's imposed system. Native women are not opposing their equality but are essentially saying the same thing - that it is up to their nations to find a solution, not our government. It we take the Haudenosaunee as a model, it is apparent that they have it right and can do much better than we can where it concerns human rights.

Perhaps you would care to tell all of us about a time when women and children enjoyed more rights than they currently do.

You asked for a time when...and I provided that Canadian women haven't had nearly as good as Haudenosaunee women, which counters your typical Anglo-European White male attitude that women shouldn't complain because they have better than they ever had. The point is that until all barriers are removed that keep women from competing equally, that keep women's median wage below that of her male counterpart, that keep women enshrined in family servitude, etc it will NOT be good enough. As it stands there have been a number of initiatives such as pay equity that and feminism movements that seek to balance with their male counterparts. But there is still resistance typically by male human resources personnel that make it difficult for women to penetrate male dominated positions. And so we must as a society continue to tip the balance in their direction until the males are dislodged and place on an even footing as women in the workplace. I agree that there have been some improvements, but I would reiterate that it is still not enough.

Native rights entrenched in the Charter are not "special rights". The Charter recognizes that they are inherent rights that accept native people have practiced or worked a certain way in the past, and our relationship with them (and the development of this country) has been based on on-going agreements with them that protected these rights. The Royal Proclamation 1763 recognized the continuous encroachment that settlers had made on native territory and the only way that the British could sue for peace in the region was to agree to prevent the invasion of native lands. Treaties and other agreements continued to recognize native people's connection to the land so in allowing us to settle and expand our original colonies the treaties guaranteed that natives could continue to harvest from the treaty lands. Yet we had all these binding agreements our nation quickly dismissed them and the intrusions forced native people onto sometimes less than 1% of their original territorial lands. By entrenching the RC 1763 and other aboriginal rights in the Charter, the Crown (I believe this was by the insistence of the Queen) sought to recognize that long and amicable past. There was also an intent by the framers of the Charter to include native people under the Charter and a third tier of government, above the provinces and below the federal government, but this never got included in the final draft. The framers believed that they needed to include native people in this discussion and since the Charlottetown Accord and Meech Lake Accord failed there was no more interest in trying to appease the provinces.

So again it is possible that the Charter could be amended to strengthen the rights of native people by including them in the federation and allotting self-government within that structure. The problem is that many First Nations do not see themselves as Canadian, having an inherent right to be sovereign entities. So if we were to ask First Nations to joins us as Canadians there would have to be extensive discussion on what happens to the land base and how the power structure is distributed.

Edited May 14, 2008 by charter.rights

[AngusThermopyle]

which counters your typical Anglo-European White male attitude that women shouldn't complain because they have better than they ever had.

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth. Show me where I ever said any such thing, without quote mining as DM attempted to do.

I believe you are under a misconception in that you appear to believe I am opposed to equitable settlements. This is not true and I have stated many times over that I believe we should find an equitable arrangement that is acceptable to all parties. What I am against is lies and deceit, free loaders who do not wish to contribute but only take. Never have I claimed that no injustices were committed against Natives, I merely doubt the sincerity of all involved parties, on both sides of the coin.

You may wish to call me a sceptic, and in truth I do tend to be sceptical, however I am not blind and as such will and do point out inconsistencies in the claims made by others when those inconsistencies do exist.

Perhaps you've noticed that I do not dispute the rest of your post, only the part where you attempt to attribute thoughts and attitudes to me that you can have no real idea about.

[Oleg Bach]

Once again you attempt to put words in my mouth. Show me where I ever said any such thing, without quote mining as DM attempted to do.

I believe you are under a misconception in that you appear to believe I am opposed to equitable settlements. This is not true and I have stated many times over that I believe we should find an equitable arrangement that is acceptable to all parties. What I am against is lies and deceit, free loaders who do not wish to contribute but only take. Never have I claimed that no injustices were committed against Natives, I merely doubt the sincerity of all involved parties, on both sides of the coin.

You may wish to call me a sceptic, and in truth I do tend to be sceptical, however I am not blind and as such will and do point out inconsistencies in the claims made by others when those inconsistencies do exist.

Perhaps you've noticed that I do not dispute the rest of your post, only the part where you attempt to attribute thoughts and attitudes to me that you can have no real idea about.

Who are you kidding when it comes to women having it better - if you privately speak to young woman they will reveal that they would rather live in the 50s world than this liberated slavery...The only native that live in luxury are the gangsters..the rest are on the bench drinking large bottles of mouth wash and passing out ...call that luxury?

[JCAN]

The only native that live in luxury are the gangsters..the rest are on the bench drinking large bottles of mouth wash and passing out ...call that luxury?

That is their choice the fact is they have opportunities to do more with their lives. If they choose not to take advantage of those benefits afforded to them then they should complain to the band for not distributing the wealth properly or they deserve the life they chose.

They will not get any sympathy from me.

[AngusThermopyle]

Who are you kidding when it comes to women having it better

Holy shit! Another one.

Okay, the previous post was not directed at you Oleg, thiws one is.

I repeat, show me where I have ever said that natives live in luxury, or that women have it better than anyone else. You cant because I have never made such claims. Start to comprehend what you read, okay.

[Oleg Bach]

Holy shit! Another one.

Okay, the previous post was not directed at you Oleg, thiws one is.

I repeat, show me where I have ever said that natives live in luxury, or that women have it better than anyone else. You cant because I have never made such claims. Start to comprehend what you read, okay.

Naw.. I know you did not because you state that you did not. Sometimes I grab a quote and run with it because it is close on the thread and easy. You caught me not reading - If I read everything before I commented on it - then you would probably have some very valuable and useful comments from me - seeing you don't pay me - and I am really not that civic minded - you get what you get - nothing! Maybe by chance I may hit the nail on the head ...that's what you should wait for and appreciate...so what were you saying?

[AngusThermopyle]

you get what you get - nothing! Maybe by chance I may hit the nail on the head ...that's what you should wait for and appreciate...so what were you saying?

ROTFLMAO!

Oleg, I'm glad you post. Sometimes its really wacky stuff but its always entertaining. Most importantly you're honest in your opinions.

[Oleg Bach]

ROTFLMAO!

Oleg, I'm glad you post. Sometimes its really wacky stuff but its always entertaining. Most importantly you're honest in your opinions.

That's just it "opinions" are theory. I love it when people say that "you are entitled to your opinions" as if they are factual. They are theoretical..and by using as many as possible - maybe by accident you may hit a fact..when you do hit that sweet spot..you know it and other know also..so it's a filtering system..you have to toss a lot at the wall to get something to stick and I fling lots of mud till it gets into the right guys eye>

[DangerMouse]

Who are you kidding when it comes to women having it better - if you privately speak to young woman they will reveal that they would rather live in the 50s world than this liberated slavery...The only native that live in luxury are the gangsters..the rest are on the bench drinking large bottles of mouth wash and passing out ...call that luxury?

So what are you whining about? you and countless others who say the natives have it good loaded down with cash? Such sweeping generalizations by narrowminded rightwingers who haven't a clue what they're talking about....what about Bill-C31? Non-Status? You probably havent heard of that before rambling your lightbulb yap off...it would be just like me making the sweeping generalization that all women married to rightwing men live in danger because deep deep down in that so-called man lurks another scott peterson...