HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Idle No More/Theresa Spence

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2013, 12:17 AM
  #76
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
You might disagree with her tactics but it's a huge leap to go from there to impugning her character when there is no proof she is not sincere. Senator Jacques Hebert did the same (hunger strike but on Parliament Hill back in Mulroney era) to protest the cancellation of the Katimavik project, and it didn't work. I doubt Spence does anything to change Harper's mind. But it doesn't mean that people who protest Government actions are selfish or corrupt either.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 12:53 AM
  #77
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,779
vCash: 500
She's not selfish or corrupt because she's protesting the government. She is that way because she has totally mismanaged the funds given to her by the Canadian government, has reportedly been vindictive towards her "enemies" in the settlement, and given preferential treatment to friends and family. But when she screws up and has her people living in abject poverty and without basic necessities despite heavy federal financial involvement, it suddenly becomes about First Nations rights rather than misappropriation of funds due to nepotism and/or incompetence.

Criticise the incumbent government and former ones absolutely. They have a woeful record in this area. But they are also not entirely to blame and Aboriginals like Ms. Spence deserve to be held to account for their own misdeeds. I'm sure that our BC posters could share numerous stories about the many successfully-run First Nations communities in that province, so it is possible. I just find her victim-promoting disingenuous and insincere given her own poor leadership track record on the issue.

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 10:41 AM
  #78
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
You and I have no proof either way of anyone's guilt surrounding events at Attawapiskat. You could feign concern over accountability issues in general at First Nations, but we also have those at all levels of government, including our own. The workings inside Bill C-45 were done mysteriously, without consultation and there are also claims it made wider-sweeping changes to the way First Nations lands are managed, making them easier to develop and expropriated by government. It also made changes to the waters navigation act that affects First Nations and all of us. All this was done under cover of darkness itself, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown into a huge budget Omnibus bill that will take years for average people to digest the implications; it highlights a huge problem with the policy extremes of the Harper Government itself.

The Harper Government has made it easier for resources and pipeline developers to ramrod their plans through First Nations, Crown lands and environmental boards. Years of lawmaking, court decisions, and treaties have just been circumvented with one easy brushstroke, all hidden inside an Omnibus Budget bill. Conservatives are hailing this as a victory for 'efficiency', but at what price. This might be Harper's 'NEP moment'. We all know how that worked out for the Liberals in some jurisdictions.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 11:46 AM
  #79
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,498
vCash: 500
Also there's the logical fallacy that just because someone else holds most of the blame, we don't hold any responsibility in fixing things.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 11:58 AM
  #80
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
http://www.canada.com/Idle+More+foun...470/story.html

"The Chiefs have called for action and anyone who chooses can join with them, however this is not part of the Idle No More movement as the vision of this grassroots movement does not coincide with the visions of the Leadership," said the statement, released on Idle No More's official website.

"(Idle no More) seems to be a rejection of aboriginal leadership, a rejection of local chiefs and chiefs on the national stage," said Daniel Salée, a professor at Concordia Univsersity's School of Community and Public Affairs. "People seem to feel as though their leaders aren't working in their best interest or that they simply aren't getting the job done.

Given all the talk about Spence and her methods I figured this article could be of some value.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 12:44 PM
  #81
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
Organizers at Idle no More are probably concerned about the movement getting hijacked in various directions by various causes. All First Nations problems can't be solved by one movement any more than all of Canada's problems. For instance, I didn't vote CPC or for Harper and yet I must accept that they make decisions for me even if I disagree with every inch of my soul. Likewise, aboriginals don't think in just one voice any more than we do. We all know things are more complicated than that. Canada's First Nations may be headed in the wrong direction but IMHO, so are Harper's visions. They took a bold gamble that people wouldn't react to their Omnibus bills and they were right for the most part, wrong on other aspects. People all over have been screaming at these 2 last Omnibus budget bills and it's too complicated for the average Joe to understand. Slowly, many are waking up and we can at least thank the First Nations for their contributions. IMO, you just can't sweep all what is wrong with Harper's extreme policy decisions and blame one group that is more vocal at this time.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 01:12 PM
  #82
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Organizers at Idle no More are probably concerned about the movement getting hijacked in various directions by various causes. ...
Getting hijacked?

How about has been Hijacked.

This thread is a nice example. Two sides debating who understands the issue(s) better with Spence as the catalyst when in fact it would appear that neither side actually has clue.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 01:43 PM
  #83
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
The thread title itself has both concepts Idle no More/Spence, right from the start. What bugs me most is the outrageous claims made by Conservative-backing posters on this thread, supporting the government against First Nations with all their biases built in. And they have the gall to ask for transparency on First Nations when their own Harper government unilaterally changes treaty rights on page 340 (?) of a huge Omnibus bill. I'd also be more careful with these claims of illegality by Spence, none are proven. In fact the federal court on Aug. 1, 2012 refuted the Harper Government's claim that Attawapiskat was mis-managed. The claim continues though in information hijackings.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 01:56 PM
  #84
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
The thread title itself has both concepts Idle no More/Spence, right from the start. What bugs me most is the outrageous claims made by Conservative-backing posters on this thread, supporting the government against First Nations with all their biases built in. And they have the gall to ask for transparency on First Nations when their own Harper government unilaterally changes treaty rights on page 340 (?) of a huge Omnibus bill. I'd also be more careful with these claims of illegality by Spence, none are proven. In fact the federal court on Aug. 1, 2012 refuted the Harper Government's claim that Attawapiskat was mis-managed. The claim continues though in information hijackings.
Yes yes, conservatives, Harper, blah blah blah...

Talk about being a one trick pony...

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 01:58 PM
  #85
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Yes yes, conservatives, Harper, blah blah blah...

Talk about being a one trick pony...
Yes but do you have an actual response to my post. Something based in fact that would shed more light on the situation.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 01:58 PM
  #86
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
The thread title itself has both concepts Idle no More/Spence, right from the start. What bugs me most is the outrageous claims made by Conservative-backing posters on this thread, supporting the government against First Nations with all their biases built in. And they have the gall to ask for transparency on First Nations when their own Harper government unilaterally changes treaty rights on page 340 (?) of a huge Omnibus bill. I'd also be more careful with these claims of illegality by Spence, none are proven. In fact the federal court on Aug. 1, 2012 refuted the Harper Government's claim that Attawapiskat was mis-managed. The claim continues though in information hijackings.
The federal government cannot unilaterally change treaty rights, even those acquired after patriation of the Constitution as they are entrenched rights.
PART I

Section 25 of the Charter of Rights:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.

PART II

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principal that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 02:00 PM
  #87
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The federal government cannot unilaterally change treaty rights, even those acquired after patriation of the Constitution as they are entrenched rights.
PART I

Section 25 of the Charter of Rights:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.

PART II

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principal that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item.
We know that. They didn't change the wording in the constitution, they are changing laws that can have later impacts and none of the laws were changed with prior consultations.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 02:07 PM
  #88
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
We know that. They didn't change the wording in the constitution, they are changing laws that can have later impacts and none of the laws were changed with prior consultations.
However that is not what you posted...

Quote:
when their own Harper government unilaterally changes treaty rights
Getting overwrought with your own rhetoric it seems.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 02:12 PM
  #89
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
However that is not what you posted...



Getting overwrought with your own rhetoric it seems.
I don't have a lawyer vetting my posts. You are quite capable of nit-picking me after, you're welcome to it.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 02:36 PM
  #90
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Yes but do you have an actual response to my post. Something based in fact that would shed more light on the situation.
The repeated attempts by you to reduce the topic to a Harper or Conservative issue tells me that no amount of 'light' will clarify the situation.

Yes everyone gets it, this forum is dominated by a left VS right VS left demographic.

It's a shame though, that when a topic comes up and isn't applicable to the same old same old schtick that actual discussion can't take place because of it.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:18 PM
  #91
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
The repeated attempts by you to reduce the topic to a Harper or Conservative issue tells me that no amount of 'light' will clarify the situation.

Yes everyone gets it, this forum is dominated by a left VS right VS left demographic.

It's a shame though, that when a topic comes up and isn't applicable to the same old same old schtick that actual discussion can't take place because of it.
What sane discussion are you talking about when one side insists the problem stems from 'crooked Indians'? A federal court decision this summer stated repeatedly the problem wasn't funding mismanagement but a material problem. I'm not blaming the CPC or First Nations for centuries of problems. It is unfortunate that this court finding did not receive as much national attention as the initial allegations of financial mismanagement; unfortunately, this kind of misunderstanding seems to have morphed in the conservative partisans consciousness as an obvious truth.

I am blaming the Harper government for unilaterally making changes to treaties through the backdoor with no consultation in Bill C-45 (while First Nations retain their constitutional rights to complain of course, to keep Wetcoaster happy). The CPC's recent actions make the Liberal record look good.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:31 PM
  #92
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
I don't have a lawyer vetting my posts. You are quite capable of nit-picking me after, you're welcome to it.
You were flat out mistaken... "nit-picking" nor lawyering skills required to spot such an obvious error.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:33 PM
  #93
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
What sane discussion are you talking about when one side insists the problem stems from 'crooked Indians'? A federal court decision this summer stated repeatedly the problem wasn't funding mismanagement but a material problem. I'm not blaming the CPC or First Nations for centuries of problems. It is unfortunate that this court finding did not receive as much national attention as the initial allegations of financial mismanagement; unfortunately, this kind of misunderstanding seems to have morphed in the conservative partisans consciousness as an obvious truth.

I am blaming the Harper government for unilaterally making changes to treaties through the backdoor with no consultation in Bill C-45 (while First Nations retain their constitutional rights to complain of course, to keep Wetcoaster happy). The CPC's recent actions make the Liberal record look good.
The federal government cannot make unilateral changes to treaties.

You still do not grasp that simple and obvious fact, eh?

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:59 PM
  #94
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The federal government cannot make unilateral changes to treaties.

You still do not grasp that simple and obvious fact, eh?
The wording inside the treaty does not need to be changed for subsequent additions in new Acts legislated by governments break with these prior arrangements accepted by both parties. We are now heading for a new round of court hearings and decisions to interpret the legal and constitutional ramifications. Some of the old decisions were based on laws that no longer exist.

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 02:10 AM
  #95
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,015
vCash: 500
I just found this First Nations essay that gave me more information than anything else I've read or heard lately. It is subjective but you can read between the lines and extract some data without accepting all the claims. It is the first time I've heard of many of the historical items talked about here. For many posters here, you don't have to accept the concepts in the essay, or this version of events but it does give another side's perspectives that you probably haven't read yet in your own newspapers.

http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-co...uly-Oct-12.pdf

Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 05:14 AM
  #96
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by v-man View Post
Unfortunately, many people protesting the environmental/waterway protection aspects of the bill don't understand their initial purpose or exactly what is being changed, they're just protesting for the sake of protesting when the health of the country's water ways has been in no way negatively affected by the changes, they've simply cut a needless layer of Federal bureaucracy. As always, when a protest becomes about a blanket of issues instead of a central one, in this case Native rights, its message will surely be diluted an eventually ignored, especially as the weeks and months pass.
Did you know the Fisheries Act was considered as the most agressive canadian environmental law by environmental jurists (fish habitat was protected anywhere fish lived)? Did you know the omnibus law gave the minister of fisheries the discretional power to decide which lakes, rivers and streams will be protected by it and which ones aren't "vital" enough to the fish be protected? (because according to the Conservatives not every waterway is vital to the fish that live there.)

"They're just protesting for the sake of protesting"... you don't seem to know much about this subject yourself.


Last edited by RonFournier: 01-03-2013 at 05:32 AM.
RonFournier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 12:23 PM
  #97
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,214
vCash: 500
Ron, you realize they are just fish, right?

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 01:17 PM
  #98
v-man
Registered User
 
v-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier View Post
Did you know the Fisheries Act was considered as the most agressive canadian environmental law by environmental jurists (fish habitat was protected anywhere fish lived)? Did you know the omnibus law gave the minister of fisheries the discretional power to decide which lakes, rivers and streams will be protected by it and which ones aren't "vital" enough to the fish be protected? (because according to the Conservatives not every waterway is vital to the fish that live there.)

"They're just protesting for the sake of protesting"... you don't seem to know much about this subject yourself.
No one has been protesting any changes to the Fisheries Act (which seem more than reasonable. If you honestly think the ministry was ever looking after every fish habitat in the country, then I have some nice swamp land in Florida for you). The complaints have been about changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was outdated and basically put in place so that anyone could traverse a waterway in a canoe without being obstructed by a low bridge, culvert, etc. They've kept responsibility for the country's main waterways, while the rest are more than adequately protected at the municipal and provincial levels. Having had recent experience having two rather large steel and concrete bridges built over creeks on my cottage's property (and having had issues with gabion baskets in the past specifically due to fish migration concerns), I can tell you that we already dealt with primarily the regional conservation authority as it is, and every environmental nuance was considered. The federal stamp of approval was just a formality, and a needless one at that. Getting rid of pointless bureaucracy is not a bad thing when other checks and balances are already in place.


Last edited by v-man: 01-03-2013 at 01:43 PM.
v-man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 01:19 PM
  #99
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
I just found this First Nations essay that gave me more information than anything else I've read or heard lately. It is subjective but you can read between the lines and extract some data without accepting all the claims. It is the first time I've heard of many of the historical items talked about here. For many posters here, you don't have to accept the concepts in the essay, or this version of events but it does give another side's perspectives that you probably haven't read yet in your own newspapers.

http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-co...uly-Oct-12.pdf
I would think that no matter where people feel the genesis of the problems natives face lie, it's reasonable to suggest that a modernization of the relationship between the government and the Indians should be seen as necessary from both sides.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 01:30 PM
  #100
Free Kassian
Registered User
 
Free Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
I would think that no matter where people feel the genesis of the problems natives face lie, it's reasonable to suggest that a modernization of the relationship between the government and the Indians should be seen as necessary from both sides.
A good start for the rest of us would be not calling them 'Indians.'

Free Kassian is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.