Canada that could be

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iseefourfingers
Canada that could be

Hi guys,

I would like to enter a diverse discussion in what we would have to do to make a country we can be proud of.

My goal is to outline real actions which will lead to a free country (which itself has to be defined).

For eg., in my Canada, Harper (and Kenney) would be in jail for treason right now, for attempting to pervert our systems to promote the interests of foreign entities at the expense of Canadians.

There are many, many issues, and in order to organize things, I usually formulate questions which are central to the issues at hand, using examples based on current events.

Ultimately, I'd like to produce something similar to a constitution, but in more depth. I think this is necessary because even if we defeat the traitor Harper, there has to be a plan to run the country which is going to allay the fear of most Canadians. People in Canada have become very weak: intellectually, emotionally and morally, and the fear of losing wealth is paramount.

But, I have to believe Canadians are, generally, moral. I think many are being tricked, and if there was a real alternative, things might be different. I want to produce an alternative (I mean a real one). This isn't a "Reform Party" initiative. This is starting from nothing, building a country, and then describing how to get from here to there.

I need patriots for this. I want a free country, not another pathetic joke like that which exists today. Canada and Canadians first, period. Of course, no document means anything if it's not respected. But, you need the document first.

The first issue i'd like to explore is how the state has criminalised opposition to the atrocity which is the theft of Palestine. This is clearly traitorous, and this issue reflects some of the most dire violations of basic human rights in my country. A thorough analysis of this will be very illuminating, I think, especially as to the real place of the "citizen" under the traitor Harper and the Canadian Authority.

This Oda fiasco is also very revealing of the evil which is Harper. For this, what if she had created an entire new document, not just added one word, and then cut/paste the other signatures on it. Would that be illegal? They are equivalent situations. Why not just forge the signatures, isn't that a similar situation.

I intent to use strong words, and I want real opinions, not politically correct shit. For the above issue, to start it off, do you recognise the attempt to criminalise opposition to the theft of Palestine as the imposition of foreign "authority" in Canada, a clear act of treason.

I hope at least a few are willing to put in their two cents. We've got to create the plan, otherwise it will never be anything more than talk. And, it's got to start from 0, which is the fundamental ideology of the position of the individual vs the state. Right now, I see it as master/slave, and I'm sure you know which is which.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Quote:
 People in Canada have become very weak: intellectually, emotionally and morally, and the fear of losing wealth is paramount.

Only those with wealth fear losing it.

Quote:
I want to produce an alternative (I mean a real one). This isn't a "Reform Party" initiative. This is starting from nothing, building a country, and then describing how to get from here to there.

A start would be to acknowledge that Canada is stolen land, and that all the cities and towns are settlements built on the blood of Aboriginal people. There is no "starting from nothing". Ever.

 

Quote:
I need patriots for this. I want a free country, not another pathetic joke like that which exists today. Canada and Canadians first, period. Of course, no document means anything if it's not respected. But, you need the document first.

The word "patriots" scares the bejeezus out of me, especially when white folks say it (not assuming you're white or anything.). And "Canada and Canadians first, period" sounds a lot like a right wing racist and anti-immigrant mantra. Please explain the progressive way in which you mean it.  I would hate to misunderstand you.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm so glad babble finally has a thread where we can talk about what's wrong with Canada and what needs to be done about it.

Roscoe

Hm. You really think that jailing people you don't like for 'treason' is a "real action which will lead to a free country"?

There are a number of countries like that already. Run by unsavoury chaps called dictators. The lucky 'traitors' fetch up in jail. The unlucky ones in a ditch with an extra eyesocket or two.

No thanks.

 

Iseefourfingers

Thank you for your comments.

Maysie- "Only those with wealth fear losing it."-Yes, but you take "wealth" in the extreme sense, meaning excess. I use wealth in the sense of having enough to live and/or be comfortable, even if not affluent. This can be as little as having a job (or pension, etc.) which provides money. If a person fears losing their job, what they fear is losing the wealth (money, or even piece of mind, etc.) which comes from the job. Isn't that so? When there is great poverty and/or strife, the fear of losing wealth is gone, and overt action is far more likely. There's far too much wealth in Canada, even just the scraps falling out of the pockets of the politicians, for there to be street riots, but that doesn't mean there can't be drastic change. But, there has to be something real and legitimate to change to. People aren't going to jump in to an abyss.

Maysie-" A start would be to acknowledge that Canada is stolen land, and that all the cities and towns are settlements built on the blood of Aboriginal people. There is no "starting from nothing". Ever."- It's certainly true that Canada is stolen land, also that horrible atrocities have been committed against the native people in Canada, even very recently. And that many perpetrators and collaborators still go unpunished, absolutely incredible that many associated with those crimes are still unpunished. This is one aspect which would have to be explored, how individuals of specific religions appear to have special privilege with respect to committing crimes.

This can't be about native land claims specifically (yet, far too early) , but that is a perfect example of how the state has presumed a posture over specific individuals, resulting in despicable crimes being committed. Once we determine what we might consider a "just" position of the state with respect to individuals and groups, we can see how specific real actions have deviated, what allowed that deviation, and what would it take to make sure criminals are punished, and it can't happen again.

There can be a starting from nothing, since we're talking about the creation of a community which we can be proud of. What I'm talking about is starting from nothing with respect to laws and gov't organization. We've all just come together in a field, and realized that we have to live on the same land. Let's create a structure where we can do that peacefully and justly. Or, let's make a good try at least once. It's only talk.

Maysie-"The word "patriots" scares the bejeezus out of me"-That's very sad to hear, although I understand why you say it. It would worry me too, if I didn't know the person who said it. It would terrify me if Harper started saying it, I break in to a cold sweat just thinking about it, since everything can be made evil by the evil.

And, this is one of the roadblocks that we have to overcome, where words themselves, not the meanings of the words, may invoke a myriad of emotions, none of which reflect the intentions of the statement. In my dictionary, "patriot" is simply, "one who loves his or her country". With this definition, a person could be a traitor and still be called a patriot. Benedict Arnold could have thought he was doing what was best for his country. The meaning of "patriot" is something I wanted to discuss, since it doesn't have to be a negative label.

Maysie-And "Canada and Canadians first, period" sounds a lot like a right wing racist and anti-immigrant mantra. Please explain the progressive way in which you mean it. I would hate to misunderstand you.-Virtually every social statement can be interpreted in a number of ways. My overall picture here is that Canada has to be a country governed by the rule of law. Notwithstanding the many, many perversions in our current laws (which is what we're discussing), when there is a question of rule, it has to be by our laws, no one else's. This has absolutely nothing to do with racism or immigration. Nothing whatsoever. And, I don't have any wings.

For eg., one issue which reflects what I mean is the Khadr case. Notwithstanding any personal opinions, the Supreme Court (Farce) declared that his civil rights were being violated. The details don't matter, but recall that Harper disregarded that. He has a duty to respect Canadian law. It can't be that the respect for civil rights depends on whether the gov't "likes" you. We have to be protected from that in a real way. If you don't like the law, change it formally, don't just authorize selective interpretation, which negates the rule of law entirely.

Canada and Canadians first means that Canadian law, not Harper's or anyone's personal opinions, and Canadian civil rights must be the first and foremost concern of the state. If there are issues which we don't think the law adequately covers, then formally change the law (which we have to create a real way to do it). You can't allow such gross, selective interpretation and application of the law. Of course, there is common law, but that is not what happened here, and that is a separate issue.

Another perfect example of this is the Sask. civil servant who refused to perform gay weddings because it was against his religious beliefs. I don't support the notion of gay marriages being the same of heterosexual, but our opinions are not what's important here, it's the law. If the law states that gays can marry, and it's this person's job to perform the ritual, then there can be no refusing, except by resignation. Within the realm of practical reality, the laws of the country have to be respected, and the only valid laws are the laws of the country.

But, when there are problems with laws, we have to have a way to change them, and I mean a real way. This will take some thinking to get something real, practical and lasting, and it may be one of the core aspects of a legitimate democracy, the right of the people to have real protection from perversions in both the written and common law.

This discussion isn't going to be easy, especially at the beginning. Our country is so screwed up that it's virtually impossible to pin-point what can be done, specifically, to make people proud again, and to have lasting change. And, there's a lot of distrust and deception. A lot of deception. We can't let that stop us. I approach this as a freethinker. As far as my position, my family has been in Canada for many, many generations, but I firmly believe that as soon as a person is a citizen of Canada, they are absolutely equal to everyone else. A Canadian is a Canadian, period. (Is that racist, in that I don't consider race?) I also firmly believe that the gov't exists to serve the people, not vice versa, and the people are the country, not the gov't. I also believe that Canadians have rights, not privileges, and violations of those fundamental rights can not be allowed to be frivolous or partisan, as they are now. And, that the role of gov't is to maintain the situation where we all live as we choose to live, and not how the gov't orders us to, and the laws exist to protect the people, not just the gov't. Also, a critical aspect, I believe that one central duty of the gov't is to ensure the continuity of the country such that future generations are not limited in how they govern (this is a complex issue, but central to the nature of the country, I think). These are some of my opinions, what are yours.

And, even though the task is monumental, we've taken the first step. And, the ideas are very complex, incredibly so. This might be why it's been so difficult to change anything. But, no matter the complexity, it can be organized. Every one of us has a vision of what our country is, and what we want it to be. Of course, everyone's opinion is different. But, that's a positive if the attitude is one of addition rather than subtraction. Once we're able to see when the issue goes from being a fundamental one, like that a murderer has to go to jail, to a partisan one, like immunity to commit fraud to change that document in order to help foreign friends, we can see better how we have to manage the scope and magnitude of law in order to guard against abuse, and hold responsible those who are accountable. Do you see it that way? Does this seem like a reasonable approach?

M. Spector - I'm so glad babble finally has a thread where we can talk about what's wrong with Canada and what needs to be done about it. It's going to be a long, difficult road. Very glad to be walking with you.

Rosco- You really think that jailing people you don't like for 'treason' is a "real action which will lead to a free country"? What country doesn't jail those guilty of treason, it's punishment for a crime. Do you understand why I say they are guilty of treason? It has nothing to do with "like" or "don't like", unlike in the current gov't, it's based on specific actions where they have conspired to subjugate the Canadian people for the benefit of foreign interests.

Or perhaps you think that people who commit treason shouldn't go to jail? What's your angle here. The question which should be asked is, "How are they guilty of treason?" Once this is described, we would have a basis for discussion. What is done to those guilty of treason is a matter of law, regardless of my personal opinion, which is usually jail, I think.

Also, the jailing of those guilty of treason is an action which is a reflection of the nature of the gov't. The "real action" would be instituting laws and processes so that even the highest on the ladder can be held accountable if they have committed crimes. The result of that real action is equality under the law, where everyone is held accountable. You've missed the point entirely.

So, if the PM (police, etc.) is determined to have committed any crime, like treason or fraud, then he would be jailed or otherwise properly held accountable. Unlike here and now.

This Oda affair is a perfect example. This is clearly fraud. Are any gov't documents legitimate? We can't be concerned right now about whether our laws are adequate, we have to determine what it should be first, then look at what is, then determine how it can be dealt with through changes in laws, etc. Our laws have been manipulated by these buggers for decades, if we looked at our current laws and systems as legitimate, we would always lose.

You've taken quite an extreme position for no apparent reason, it seems. But, I still hope you continue commenting.

In my next post I'd like to use some of the examples to frame a few general questions.

Fidel

This just in: Canada was sold off from under our feet years ago. Welcome to las Nuevo Puerto Rico del Norte. DAY-O!

 

voice of the damned

What country doesn't jail those guilty of treason, it's punishment for a crime. Do you understand why I say they are guilty of treason? It has nothing to do with "like" or "don't like", unlike in the current gov't, it's based on specific actions where they have conspired to subjugate the Canadian people for the benefit of foreign interests.

IANAL, but my understanding is that the concept of treason, properly defined, is not simply "Doing things that benefit foreign interests to the detriment of domestic interests". I think the traitors have to actually break the law in order to benefit the foreign powers. Or, in the case of someone like Vidkun Quisling, collaborate with a country that is invading or occupying the traitor's home country.

As an example, Neville Chamberlain's pact with the Nazis might have been immoral and/or stupid, but it wasn't treason, because there was no law on the books saying that the UK couldn't recognize Germany's right to the Sudetenland. But if it had emerged that Chamberlain was taking bribes in return for signing the treaty, or that he was negotiating with the Nazis to become Fuhrer of Britain in the event of a Nazi invasion, he probably could have been tried as a traitor.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Criminal Code sez:

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act

(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

 

Punishment for high treason

47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Punishment for treason

(2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

(b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

(c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

Corroboration

(3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

Minimum punishment

(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

Roscoe

Well, Iseefourfingers, there is a large difference between the law in Canada and your interpretation of it. 

 The fact that you think that having faith in Canadian law is an "extreme position for no apparent reason" while you consider the Supreme Court of Canada a "farce" speaks to treason more eloquently that all your fanciful notions.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Iseefourfingers wrote:

Thank you for your comments.

Maysie-" A start would be to acknowledge that Canada is stolen land, and that all the cities and towns are settlements built on the blood of Aboriginal people. There is no "starting from nothing". Ever."- It's certainly true that Canada is stolen land, also that horrible atrocities have been committed against the native people in Canada, even very recently. And that many perpetrators and collaborators still go unpunished, absolutely incredible that many associated with those crimes are still unpunished. This is one aspect which would have to be explored, how individuals of specific religions appear to have special privilege with respect to committing crimes.

This can't be about native land claims specifically (yet, far too early) , but that is a perfect example of how the state has presumed a posture over specific individuals, resulting in despicable crimes being committed. Once we determine what we might consider a "just" position of the state with respect to individuals and groups, we can see how specific real actions have deviated, what allowed that deviation, and what would it take to make sure criminals are punished, and it can't happen again.

There can be a starting from nothing, since we're talking about the creation of a community which we can be proud of. What I'm talking about is starting from nothing with respect to laws and gov't organization. We've all just come together in a field, and realized that we have to live on the same land. Let's create a structure where we can do that peacefully and justly. Or, let's make a good try at least once. It's only talk.

 

Italics mine

 

Perhaps I'm naive but this gobbledygook doesn't lend good faith to Mr. Fingers.  I couldn't go further and waste my time.

LProudfoot LProudfoot's picture

throwing it all out and starting over is a notion that my husband & I have been talking about for ages -  and I like the notion of looking at my ideal Canada and exploring what that might look like ...

you lost me when you jumped over to Palestine as a first issue though...

in my Canada, one of the first rules, I think, would have to be that we don't have the right to impose our opinions - or even HAVE opinions about what goes on elsewhere - until our own house is in order.

Plus, I have concerns about tossing anyone in jail right off the hop...  in my Canada, the legal system would have to be one of the first things to be redesigned from scratch - and I'm pretty sure that the end result would not look much like what we have today, since the new one would benefit from input from a far broader spectrum of people than the current one does.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Isee wrote:
 Maysie- "Only those with wealth fear losing it."-Yes, but you take "wealth" in the extreme sense, meaning excess. I use wealth in the sense of having enough to live and/or be comfortable, even if not affluent.

No I don't. The middle class and even some in lower-income classes identify with the wealthy, and are massively in personal debt, sometimes due to consumerism, sometimes due to reality.

"If you keep food in a refrigerator, your clothes in a closet, if you have a bed to sleep in and a roof over your head, you are richer than 75% of the entire world population."

Miniature Earth

Isee wrote:
It's certainly true that Canada is stolen land, also that horrible atrocities have been committed against the native people in Canada, even very recently. And that many perpetrators and collaborators still go unpunished, absolutely incredible that many associated with those crimes are still unpunished. This is one aspect which would have to be explored, how individuals of specific religions appear to have special privilege with respect to committing crimes.

This can't be about native land claims specifically (yet, far too early) , but that is a perfect example of how the state has presumed a posture over specific individuals, resulting in despicable crimes being committed. Once we determine what we might consider a "just" position of the state with respect to individuals and groups, we can see how specific real actions have deviated, what allowed that deviation, and what would it take to make sure criminals are punished, and it can't happen again.

Where to begin. 

"Even very recently"? No, it's ongoing and systemic. 

No clean water.

800 women missing.

While individuals do commit or have committed crimes against Aboriginal people and communities, it's Canadian culture, both past and present, that allows and encourages hatred, racism and violence towards Aboriginal people by non-Aboriginal folks.

Re. "this can't be about native land claims, far too early". I would have literally laughed out loud reading this except that I know you mean this, and further, you don't see how grossly offensive this is. Who are you to dictate what issues are more important in this "new Canada" you're envisioning? 

And criminals (they way you apparently are defining the term) didn't create the reservation system and the Indian Act. Lawfully elected humans did that. And are reinforcing those systems as we speak. In fact, lawfully elected humans do a lot of shit, and perpetuate a lot of injustice on the folks they represent. Funny how that works isn't it.

This new Canada of yours sounds a lot like the old Canada. White men are still in charge of everything. Yawn. 

You want a radical new Canada? Put Aboriginal women elders in leadership. Of everything. Everywhere. Then we'll see some change.

 

absentia

I'm all for Aboriginal women elders. Maybe later, we can add old [mature?] women of various colours, and later still, see if other voices are needed.

If that won't fly with the majority, how about this? No parties. No election financing. Every responsible adult (to be defined by concensus) is eligible for office, as we are for jury duty, by lot, to serve for a period of one year; one twelfth of representatives to be chosen each month, to assure continuity of government. This way, nobody becomes entrenched and everybody knows how the mechanism of goernment works.

 

Iseefourfingers

voice of the damned, thank you for your comments and the examples. This is an important general point which requires elaboration. And, you raise a couple of aspects which I'd like to address in another post. Laws were written by politicians, so it's not surprising that they would make it so they can do anything they want. We're trying to determine what laws we need to protect us from this, and can't be limited by current definitions.

Also, "Doing things that benefit foreign interests to the detriment of domestic interests" is not the same as " specific actions where they have conspired to subjugate the Canadian people for the benefit of foreign interests." You've changed my statement, and I agree that your statement may not be treason in most cases, but mine still would, since I use subjugate to mean violate civil rights.

For the Chamberlain example, what if there was a law guaranteeing free speech (I don't know if there was), but when citizens protested peacefully against Nazi actions, they were jailed and silenced by Chamberlains personal order. Would that be treason? I believe it must be. The issue isn't that the British gov't recognised the Nazi claim, which is within their purview, but whether citizens opposed to this would have their civil rights violated in order to promote the interests of Germany in pushing this claim in England.

The gov'ts duty, first and foremost, is to the protection of the rights of the people of the country, not foreign interests. That's my opinion, which I think should be an over-riding principle. This is a point for discussion.

WWII provides numerous basic conditions which can greatly illuminate this entire discussion, unfortunately.

Benito Mussolini is a good example of the primary action, within the context of our discussion, I personally consider should be added as treason. When he gained power, he instituted many drastic changes. He was brutal, but as far as I know (which isn't much), it was according to the law, which he changed at will, I'm sure. But, it was according to the law, written and/or common, of the country. He may have been a murderer, dictator, etc., but not a traitor to the country.

But, he ultimately conspired to impose Nazi authority on the Italian people. That was treason. Even if he changed the law, the motivation is to impose foreign authority on the people. This is an extension of the basic ideology that the people are the country, and attempts to overthrow the free will of the people (within the context of the laws of the nation, since that is what defines the will of the people, theoretically) are attempts to overthrow the country itself.

This is an absolute necessity, especially in today's era of "globalisation". We could be under occupation without a single foreign trooper in the country. As responsible citizens we have to recognise that people may gain power who do not have the country's, or the people's, best interests at heart. If this is the case, we can't go on witch-hunts, but when issues are raised, we have to have the ability, independent of the gov't, to fully investigate these issues and take appropriate action, even if it's jailing the PM.

We obviously don't have that, but we need to figure out what we need to do to get that. We're trying to define what Canada could be, but first we have to understand what we want it to be. Do we want the leader (or gov't in general) to have absolute power? If not, that means making new laws and processes, since current ones certainly aren't adequate. It really does come down to very basic questions like this.

And, the law is all we have. The masses don't occupy individual positions. We can't impose our personal opinions on judgements or disregard laws, like others can. We can't say that this situation should be recognised as treason, and force the gov't to respect that. We can't make laws they don't want. We don't even have a single voice which reflects everyone, and can probably never get that.

But, the people have to maintain control, since the people must be the ultimate authority in the country, even though the machinations of the state are totally out of our control. The only way to do this is with a real Constitution. Believe me, I know the meaning of "the people" and Constitution have to be defined also. What is called a Constitution in Canada isn't anything more than a glorified piece of toilet paper. (Before you call me a traitor, ask me why I say this. Or, do you even care.)

That's all we can do. Impose over-riding principles, and hope they're respected. When they're not, there has to be sound mechanisms to hold accountable those who have abused their power in order to pervert the will of the people, which are reflected in the laws of the nation (theoretically). The process doesn't have to be easy, necessarily, but it has to be possible.

If the gov't conspires with foreign elements to violate the civil rights of Canadian citizens, is that treason? It has to be, otherwise our rights are nothing more than bargaining chips. Political currency. Is that what we want? I don't want someone in Washington telling me what I'm allowed to say.

If Little Adolf Bush had asked the Canadian gov't to arrest protesters who were against his atrocities in Iraq, and the gov't did it, that simply can't be allowed. If the Canadian military was committing atrocities, and people were arrested for opposing that, it may be criminal, depending on the current law, but it wouldn't be treason. If we saw that the law allowed something the people didn't accept, like arresting people protesting what they saw as atrocities, then we have to change the law, or hold those accountable who have perverted the law. But, we have to be able to do it.

This is a central issue which will take time to explore, and maybe it would be best to ask the question, "What would the gov't have to do in order for you to recognise that they are traitors. What specific actions do you define as "traitorous", regardless of the written law. We're talking about the "state", not individuals, although the leader may be thought to embody the state, I suppose. So maybe ask, "Has Harper or any previous leaders done anything that you consider traitorous, and what other things could they have done."

Propose this question regarding Chretien and "Scrap the GST." This was a bald-faced lie, but not treason, in my opinion. Should the criminal law (or treason) be extended to include this type of thing? What would that look like.

Or even take it to the purely theoretical, "If there were a traitor (or whatever you want to call it, just someone malevolent who is not a traitor) as the leader of the country, what kinds of things could be done to us, and how could we stop them and hold them accountable." Remember that they control our money too.

M. Spector, thanks very much for the info.

Roscoe, you've missed the point entirely again. I'm not interpreting Canadian law, I am trying to determine what changes in laws are needed. This is not a discussion of "they broke this law or that law", it's what laws are needed to adequately protect the rights of the people, since the current laws do not do that, and then how do they compare to what we have now.

And, that's a nice example of pot calling the kettle black when you suggest that my recognition that the Supreme Court is a joke is somehow treason, without even asking why I think that.

M. Spector thoughtfully provided us with the legal definition of treason, and disgust and distrust toward gov't institutions isn't in there. But, I respect your right to believe it should be. So, to put your opinion into the context of the discussion, you're suggesting there should be an extension of the treason law, so that criticism (or whatever you define) of state institutions, etc. is included. Now we can discuss that. If there's a law made then there's a law made.

I'm saying the treason law has to be extended to include when the civil rights of the people are manipulated and/or abused, at any level of gov't, for the benefit of foreign interests, and I can give specific current examples. Now we can discuss that.

And, I don't get how you translate your original post in to "faith in Canadian law". It has nothing to do with that. You simply perverted the context of the original ideas you were criticising and then implied that I would murder people to get my political way. I don't see the connection.

Fanciful notions? Please list a few of these.

It's odd that you have faith in Canadian law. Can I ask how you gained this faith. Was it from birth? Do you even know what our laws are and how they are being applied? Or, perhaps you gain by them. I'd like to know what the basis is for this faith. Perhaps I've missed something.

RevolutionPlease, I don't think I understand what you mean. The line in italics is an analogy meant to say that we can't be fettered in our discussions by what the current situation is. I thought adding things like that in to discourse made it more casual, since I have quite a tendency toward formality. I'm used to technical writing.

What do you mean about "good faith"? Perhaps you believe that I would be biased in supporting native issues, or something like that (do you think Maysie would agree?)? If you think the language is too strong I suggest you do some personal research in to the subject. Simply recognizing reality isn't bias. And, jumping to the conclusion that I would blindly support any groups interests shows you don't understand what's happening here.

This is a real example of grievous deficiencies, and though things have changed, we don't know if the law has, or just the interpretation of laws, so it has to be looked at, just as many other issues have to be.

But, that's also the whole point of this exercise isn't it. To find ways were personal opinion can not over-rule the will of the people (reflected in the laws, theoretically, which we have to determine what they should be). My personal opinion, no matter what office I hold, is only one in the discussion. If there are times where personal opinion must be used, let's make that the exception rather than the rule, and keep a sharp eye on it.

As an aside, what manner of revolution are you proposing. Your moniker suggests you want change, what kind of change are you talking about? Would this require changes in laws? If you were finally driven to armed revolt, what conditions would have caused that, and what changes would make a difference to stop it.

LProudfoot, I brought up Palestine only because that is a very stark, blatant example of what I see as treasonous activity by the state. It's not that they are traitors for supporting Judaism in Palestine (cf. Chamberlain), but rather that they physically victimise those who do not with violations of civil rights. That is not their place.

People seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I said Harper should be in jail. It is not just throwing everyone in jail. Please give me a little credit. I meant that he has done things which I believe are properly termed as criminal, and in a just society it would not matter that he is the leader or rich, he would be held accountable, even if it's jail (which I think his actions warrant, and we need laws to protect us, but that's what we're discussing).

Maysie and absentia, I'd like to respond to your comments in the next post, please, there are a couple of important points.

After the next post, I'd like to discuss this Oda affair a bit more, rather than start on other more extended ideas right away. I think that can be treated as a single, fairly concise unit which is actually quite startling, and a reflection of critical deficiencies in our social system. (Another issue which I'd like to discuss a bit later is when the 3 police officers pretended to be protestors in Que., and attempted to provoke violence. This is another issue, in my opinion, which is fundamental to the nature of the country.)

humanity4all

We can all talk till we are blue in the face. Talk about laws, theories regarding patriotism and what policies should be applied internally or externally. It is all wasted oxygen! For settler nations, they need first to address their larceny of other peoples lands! After that, we can all proceed into building a "pays"(english is to poor of language to express this) or another word, to create an "ethnos"!

Therefore, in fear of being rude, I am sorry, once that issue is not addressed, the whole world knows what type of country this is! And by the way, the anglo culture of saying sorry, once they have destroyed your life, does not pass for most of the world. Just stop the hippocracies, you are making the rest of us laugh! Maybe the next time you ca get past the first round of voting in getting a seat on security council!

sanizadeh

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the word "treason". Anyone advocating fascistic treason laws is not pushing for a country I'd be proud of.

absentia

I have to go with the majority on the treason issue. As much as i like the idea of contributing to a vision of inclusive* nationhood, i dislike the idea of starting with massive punitive action. Just vote them out, okay?

(*Realistically, i don't see any way for the settlers and immigrants to leave; some accommodation will have to suffice.)

LProudfoot LProudfoot's picture

I support the Aboriginal women elders idea...  and also agree that the land claims issue would have to be dealt with up front...  I'm hesitant to call it land claims though ... as that still promotes the notion of Eurocentric insistence on deeds and ownership and all that ~fun~ stuff.  I also think that most (all?) treaty negotiations were so fraudulent - and the nonsense that has gone on around them since is so ridiculous -  that there is little hope of resolving anything based on them.... so our ideal Canada's first challenge would be to figure out how to go forward ... preferably starting from a clean slate.

 

absentia

Clean slate may be too much to ask for, and i also don't see most people. of any ethnicity, giving up deeds and legal rights to whatever they currently own, and i think most indivudual claims have various degrees of merit. Therefore, a huge amount of negotiating will have to take place. That's no bad thing, as long as all development on disputed territory is halted until an agreement is reached. That will retard destructive projects, if nothing else.

Anyway, the elder women are familiar - intimately! - with the most urgent problems and will no doubt take care of such things as clean water, medical care and decent housing first; they'll get 'round to land disputes in their own good time. 

Iseefourfingers

sanizadeh, do you even understand the statement you made or the context of this discussion? That's quite a bizarre statement. If you see a problem with this proposal, point it out. Just what is "fascistic" in any of this? How do you justify that label for this situation. Are you just throwing around negative words hoping they'll stick?

humanity4all, Did you post just to drool on everything. You appear to be a foreigner (and I don't mean that in a negative way, but a neutral way, although I really don't care how you take it), judging by the last statement, so are you promoting Canadian interests or foreign interests. I'll discuss either, but make clear what your angle is. Deception disgusts me. This gov't is not me, and I'm not the gov't. If you just wanted to wave your finger in general admonishment, I've got a statement that ends with ass and begins with kiss my.

I was hoping to initiate a few discussions and things and, after a couple of weeks, summarise and organise the various things as best I can. But, many have quite distorted what I've presented here. Several have suggested that resolving native issues has to be the priority. All I can say is that you don't understand the nature of what I'm doing, and it simply can't be that way. If you want to try that, develop something of your own and make posts, and I'll try to help in any way I can. I want to make something that's going to work and the majority of the people in the country accept.

Right now, I'm talking about fundamental issues of governance. What good is it to do all the work to find resolutions to end-point issues, to the exclusion of all else, when something above that can change things arbitrarily. My name's O'Toole not O'Foole.

I've recorded the proposal regarding appointing native women elders as national leaders, and when the issue of the laws for choosing leaders is looked at, if it's determined there's a problem of some kind of abuse with the current method, it will be one of the options presented for discussion, the same as election by lot and others. I doubt many will agree to those, but that's something which would have to be seen. The points of specific injustice need to be looked at individually, and will be presented for analysis as well. The issues of political party power, election financing, etc. have been recorded and will be looked at specifically in due time.

If there are any out there serious about this, please look at the proposed extension of the treason law and provide a thoughtful comment. If you have reservations, please state them, but don't just assume the worst and throw around negative words. This change is designed to stop a specific abuse of power, and if you don't see why it's needed, let me know and I'll outline a number of current and hypothetical examples. This is put forward for discussion and from my view point I don't see how it is a bad thing, and that it will in fact protect civil rights which are currently being violated. If someone sees a problem, please describe it (them). Change can only come through changes in laws.

M. Spector, I hope you're still out there. Your first post stated exactly what I wanted to do, look at what's wrong with the country and talk about how to fix things. But, in a realistic way. How to determine what's wrong, and what actions it would take to fix things, isn't an easy thing, though.

The only effective way I've come up with so far is to look at current and past events which give an example of some abuse of power or other problem, see how the law allowed it, then see what changes in the laws are needed to stop it. Some have thrown around the label "fascistic", but I'm sure you realise that there may be some out there who's specific purpose is to derail discussions like this. If it works, they've won and nothing will change.

Since you seem to understand what I'm doing here, M. Spector, could you help and discuss how it is that you determine the things that are wrong? Do you have any specific issues you've identified already? If so, if you point one of them out, we can talk about it a bit, so I can better illustrate my approach in order to better judge whether it might be effective.

It's pointless to go in to specific issues until the nature of the approach is understood. I shouldn't have used the field analogy earlier, since that implied that I wanted to destroy everything first in order to start from nothing. (I'm a technical writer and shouldn't have tried to be flowery.) That will almost certainly not be necessary, but I just wanted to make clear that we can't be afraid to change anything we want, and the current laws etc. can't be looked at as a weight around our necks, just a starting point.

We have to start with the current system and laws, since by doing that the process for change is embodied within the analysis.

humanity4all

Spoken like a true westerner, "We look forward and not back" and as most westerners hide behibd pseudo politenes, say it straight "kiss my ass". As I said, most of the peoples of the world, know who you are. And finally, does the government of this land function in a vacuum? I am for humanity and not atrocities!

sanizadeh

Iseefourfingers wrote:

sanizadeh, do you even understand the statement you made or the context of this discussion? That's quite a bizarre statement. If you see a problem with this proposal, point it out. Just what is "fascistic" in any of this? How do you justify that label for this situation. Are you just throwing around negative words hoping they'll stick?

I understand very well that anyone who throws around "treason" charges to advance his points, is certainly not looking for a modern or progressive society that I would be interested in. To me methods matter a lot more than goals.

and yes, treason laws of any kind are fascistic and archaic in nature, because "treason" is meaningful only within the context of an "oath" to a government or to a country, regardless of right or wrong. That you have to remain loyal to a system, group or country even when it is doing something wrong, is fascistic in nature.

humanity4all

"Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation", www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LA-S64QY3o and www.hiddenfromhistory.org.

humanity4all

"Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation", www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LA-S64QY3o and www.hiddenfromhistory.org.

absentia

I see, more or less, what you're aiming for, but think you have set up two incompatible targets at the same time, one too high and one too low.

If you want to indict the present government, or even the entire system and/or style of governance, okay - not very useful, but okay. Maybe try listing the specific charges and see if anyone agrees.

If you want to build a concensus os wishful thinking, i'm all for that, and there would be lots of good ideas. Maybe present a list of issues - or categories of legislature, social structure, political procedure or form - that you would like to address.

Iseefourfingers

sanizadeh, I understand very well that anyone who throws around "treason" charges to advance his points, is certainly not looking for a modern or progressive society that I would be interested in. First, please don't parrot my expressions in a deceptive context (ie. throws around). I believe that an extension of the treason law is necessary in order to stop what I see as a serious abuse of civil rights. I think I outlined the reasoning, and if you disagree, point out specifics. It's called a discussion. You simply put a charged, negative word in a general sentence related to this proposal, without any attempt to define context. There was lots of room. You are "throwing around", I'm discussing.

If the word "treason" hurts you somehow, take an aspirin, it's the treason law we're talking about, for Christ's sake, how could you not use the word treason. Absolutely ridiculous. Free yourself from the slave mind. You are equal to everyone else, and can even talk about things like treason. If you want to change the name, what does that matter. It's the real protection provided by the law that's important.

"Modern" and "progressive" are terms which mean nothing in this discussion. All labels are irrelevant and platitudes are poison. Political party, religion, gender, race, etc. have nothing to do with the basic nature of the discussion, although issues specifically related to these groups will become relevant periodically.

You seem to have a misunderstanding. I'm not using anything to advance any points except justice in Canada through unfettered discussion and majority will. You make that sound sinister. I presented an opinion for discussion, which was actually meant more as an example of the approach. You're opinion is to oppose the change, presumably you can describe specific reasons, as I have. Why do you say they should be able to do those things?

I realize this is my fault for not explaining and/or presenting this project very effectively at the beginning.

sanizadeh, To me methods matter a lot more than goals. This statement shows you don't understand what I'm doing. My approach involves defining and analyzing the goal in a way which incorporates the method to achieve that goal, which is to change or make new laws (and possibly some other things without the power of law, like procedures, etc.) in order to stop injustices. There could be no smoother method than what I'm proposing, and nothing more democratic, if you consider "democratic" as being changes approved by the majority in a democratic vote after proper free debate. Of course, that doesn't mean it's easy.

And, any changes in laws could not be applied to previous incidents anyway. This is one part of the current Constitution I would support keeping, where new laws can't be applied to old offences. You act like there would be mass arrests or something. If this law was changed tomorrow, it's only future violations which would be relevant, in that they would be stopped, hopefully. Crimes would be stopped.

And, just like any other changes in laws, this must also include a look at the penalties, to make sure they're appropriate for the changes, which they aren't in this case, I think, and are too harsh for the new description of this aspect of the offence. 2-5 yrs or something like that maybe? Plus a large fine? It has to be a real deterrent.

sanizadeh, and yes, treason laws of any kind are fascistic and archaic in nature, because "treason" is meaningful only within the context of an "oath" to a government or to a country, regardless of right or wrong. That you have to remain loyal to a system, group or country even when it is doing something wrong, is fascistic in nature. Thank you very much. I agree that treason laws of any kind are, ipso facto, fascistic (but, that doesn't mean they aren't necessary), that's why I questioned whether you understood, since you implied it was my changes which were fascistic, when it's the overall concept that is so. I'm sure you see how you put an unfair focus on the changes.

But, these laws are only archaic because they have not changed suitably in order to account for current realities. That's because the duty of changing and making the laws falls upon those who least want the law changed, the ones who want to maintain the arbitrary power of royalty. Why would they give up the sweet deal they have. This requires, in my opinion, a discussion of what "treason" means today, compared to what it did when the law was created or changed the last time.

That is a big part of what we're doing. What was that law meant to protect against, and what does that mean today. I say it's grossly inadequate and has to be changed, with real and theoretical examples, and I define what it should change to, as well as changes in penalties. It's not even a matter of agreeing, it's just that this is a point (and area) brought up for discussion. Your opinion is that you disagree, apparently.

Please let me elaborate about my opinions regarding the treason law in another post, since there are a couple of other subtleties associated with it. I wanted to illustrate the general approach with simpler examples at first, then go deeper in to that, since this is one of the issues that is central to many things.

humanity4all, I'm not a westerner. I think freethinker would be the most accurate label. And, that was not pseudo politeness, it was sarcasm. It was meant to increase the insult. You obviously didn't get it. But, I don't fault you for your cause, just your manner.

absentia, If you want to indict the present government, or even the entire system and/or style of governance, okay - not very useful, but okay. It's not quite like that. The actions of the current gov't are indicative of many critical deficiencies in our social system. But, even though the current gov't provides many prime examples of excess, anything with be looked at. I'm still fuming about the "Scrap the GST" lie. Boy, there's got to be something can be done about that kind of thing. All the lies Harper told to get elected. Suggestions?

Real events, past or present, provide the window in to the system, since when things happen that we think shouldn't, that provides a focal point. But, organisation is a critical factor. How to even understand what the problem is isn't a simple issue. If 1000 things have happened that we disapprove of, that doesn't mean 1000 separate issues. There could be 50 different issues within the gov't structure that allows those 1000 things.

absentia, Maybe try listing the specific charges and see if anyone agrees. That's what I'm doing, except that there are no "charges", there are proposed changes in laws designed to protect the people from specific arbitrary abuses of power. These are changes proposed to protect the people against future abuse and can't, unfortunately, be applied to past offences.

So, the structure is more like, in some situation, what charges would there be, if this were my ideal Canada, why isn't it so, and how do we make it so. Then, once options are presented, discussion and vote would decide the law. Proposed charges would be to stop future abuse.

There may be possible charges related to current laws, but that would be specific for each case, and would be a case of current laws not being properly applied, rather than the need for changes (this is relevant in the Oda affair, I think). This is a reflection of the complexity of the problem, in that, what exactly is the problem.

absentia, If you want to build a concensus os wishful thinking, i'm all for that, and there would be lots of good ideas. Maybe present a list of issues - or categories of legislature, social structure, political procedure or form - that you would like to address. This is no wishful thinking by any means, and I'm not seeking consensus yet, but rather just opinions. Right now it's organising the process so it will be coherent. And, generating a list of specific issues to use for focus is part of the process. But, this is a lot more than just me. I have opinions, but so do many others. Understanding what has to be changed is the thing which is most important, and that will define which areas are relevant.

Easy to say, possibly impossible to do without a suitable approach. And, that's what I'm doing first. I'm trying to provide a suitable approach, which is a framework for discussion. I have absolutely no delusions. I see the magnitude of the task. I don't know whether it will even work for sure. I've actually done things similar to this before, and am very confident it will succeed if we proceed the way I'm envisioning.

And, I'm going to keep talking until people stop listening. In the next post, I'd like to discuss the general approach more. It's pointless to go in to specifics, until we're on the same page. Some may think this is trying to control the discussion, but it's an attempt to break the issues into relevant subsections, which we can discuss. Don't assume the worst. Please wait until my next post to comment.

Let's say everything goes as I hope, what is the end result? At the most ideal, you know how you look at many events today and they make you mad, some abuse of power or something. Well, what if you start looking around and there are many, many fewer things that make you mad. Fewer abuses of power, etc. Will we ever get none? Probably not, but it's something to keep working toward.

One thing for sure, though, this can't be left to politicians. That obviously hasn't worked out well up to now, and it's long past time to at least try something different.

absentia

KIS - kay?

Iseefourfingers

I got called away unexpectedly, and didn't have time to do anything on this yet.

Before that (several days at least), though, let me explain a bit more, since this project has evolved since the first post. It evolved because I've had a bit of time to think about it and talk to others. I said before that I'm looking for real solutions, not just talk. Easy to say, I know. The thing most striking is that when people get together and talk about events, it's usually just anger, disgust, contempt, etc. which is expressed.

Of the dozen or so people I've talked to about this so far, when pushed to find out what a person thinks could be done to change things, there's a big problem. "Nothing can be done until you change the whole thing"; "you have to get honest people in gov't"; "the people have to force politicians to do what we say"; etc., is all I would hear.

These aren't real solutions. I soon realised that one major problem is that for each problem or issue, there are usually no details specific enough to figure out what could be changed. We don't have all the information we need to have informed discussions.

That's when it hit me. If I can create a searchable "database" format so that each incident can be analysed in a fairly standard way to see what laws are involved, what groups, gov't agencies, details of what is considered the problem, suggested solutions and ramifications of those solutions, etc., etc., then each issue can be brought before everyone for discussion. If there are opinions or "facts" that have been left out, add them.

Right now, this is about making a good way to present all the facts, opinions, etc. in one place (without judgement), so people can have meaningful discussions and make informed decisions. I don't know if others see why this is important, even critical, but before you decide, in the next post let me illustrate with the example of the 3 Que. police officers who tried to incite violence at that protest rally. That's more straight forward than other issues.

What I hope to produce in the end is like a "standard form" for discussing incidents (which can be added to at any time), which includes not only technical facts but also the different opinions and brief discussions (and links, etc., if necessary, who knows). The exact format has to be determined, but it has to be flexible and searchable.

I'm going to start it off and keep my own spreadsheet, and others can make their own or contribute to mine, or whatever. So, in the end we'll have a hardcopy of as many details and opinions as possible for each thing. Then, as people get together and talk, we can all be on the same page. As potential solutions are found, they can be included for further discussion.

There are a number of great, great advantages in doing it this way, but I'll expand on those in the next post. I have a hard time seeing how real solutions can be found without something like this, but getting something good may take a bit of ingenuity.

And, this will be useful not just for us, but this kind of approach should be relevant for anyone, in any country, to look at how their gov'ts are treating them, and to help figure out how to make real changes short of armed revolution.

politicalnick

OK - you want some contraversial ideas and opinions here they are.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS/ NATIVE RIGHTS - So sorry but Canada was not stolen, it was bought and paid for. Just because the tribal leaders 400 years ago thought a few blankets and rifles and some shiny beads was a good price doesn't make it theft. If I agree to sell my house for $5 I don't think it's right for my great grandchildren to go to the buyers heirs and ask for more. We have paid more and more in the way of money and tax considerations and more land since the original deal it isn't funny. What do the First Nations people want? All whites and non-native people to leave the country, though I bet they would want us to leave behind all the infrstructure and continue to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, there has admitidly been plenty of discrimination in the past and plenty of wrongs done but I am tired of being held hostage to bad deals made in the past. After so much time we are all Canadians and should all be equal in rights and burdens. And what if we do make another settlement, what guarantee is there the native people 100 years from now won't go after my grandchildren for more. Oh, and by the way, my family tree goes back to the nobility in France prior to the revolution, we had huge amounts of lands and a large castle. If the First Nations people would like to help me reclaim all that back I might be more sympathetic to their cause. All that said I have many native friends and have worked alongside many others and find them to just as proportionally honorable as any other group of people.

HARPER/TREASON - This not so upstanding gentleman was duly elected under our present system of laws and electoral process and under the law, although most people don't know it, he has absolutely no legal obligation or duty to consider any citizens views or opinions in his management of our nation. Your vote does not bind these people to represent you or even the greater will of the general public. The high courts have made several rulings confirming this. Once we send them to Ottawa or a provincial capital they are allowed to do anything they want in making laws. Unfortunatly they also have a great amount of immunity from prosecution for many 'crimes' as long as they act 'in good faith'. I could only wish for that type of freedom...I didn't commit fraud, I made a mistake so I cannot be prosecuted. Sounds like a whelbarrow full of horseshit doesn't it, but that is the current situation. Unfortunately trying to charge a few people with crimes like treason is not going to do anything. I could be charged for treason because I promote the idea of overthrowing the present system of government through lawful rebellion and protest even though I believe it is in the best interest of the people and I have the right to my opinion and to express it. I don't believe we should take up arms and start shooting but we should become one voice of 34 million people against the 1000 or so that run the government.

GOVERNMENT REFORM - I have to wholeheartidly agree with LPROUDFOOT in regards to getting our own house in order first. Why are we shipping millions of tax dollars overseas when there is so much poverty and need here at home. I believe our government far oversteps the bounds when it takes such action. If they want to set up a fund we can choose to donate to for this purpose that's great but forcing me to pay more taxes to benefit people in another country half way round the globe is wrong. I have sympathy for their plight but I got my own problems feeding my family right now.

I have been a big proponent for a very long time of the idea echoed by ABSENTIA, a lottery draw type system of government but even this needs to go a bit further. Once your name is drawn you do not have a choice to say no, it is part of your civic duty and unless there are some very, very extenuating circumstanses you do your part. There also has to be legal accountability for the people who are serving, not just some sworn oath but a legally binding contract to represent the PEOPLE.

Yes, corporations and businesses have no place in government and their donations and lobbyists are nothing more than bribery within an already flawed system. If some millionaire CEO want to dip into his own pocket and donate the maximum $500 he can but no more of these million dollar donations form his business. A corporation is a piece of paper with writing on it and the only legal duty of a corporation is to make as much money as possible without any concern for people, the environment or anything else. They cannot vote but they can certainly buy some politicians to get what they want. I have been trying to get a meeting with our premier for months and cannot even get past the switchboard but during that same time he has had many meetings with corporate CEO's and their henchmen. I am not comfortable with this kind of blatant preferential treatment of entities that can't cast a ballot.

We also need some sweeping tax reform. A flat rate income tax (12%), a flat rate sales tax (5%) and a flat rate tax on business or investment income (15%) without any deductions of any kind for anyone. An exemtion from the income tax for the poor, say those with family income less than $25,000 but that's it. there it is, your new tax code in 2 sentences. Sorry again to the First Nations but you guys gotta pay too, you all take form the pot so you better be putting in your share. This would actually increase revenues over what they are today and allow for the funding of programs that are a real benefit to the people.

Lastly there needs to be a constitutional ammendment to the effect that our government cannot have a deficit budget. They are continually borrowing money, on which they pay interest, and we and our children have to pay it back. The original reason for the GST was to pay down the federal deficit and it was a 5 year plan. 25 years later we still have the GST, they have raised income tax, introduced new taxes, cut services to the poor and our national debt is 5 times higher. We are getting screwed over more and more by each and every government with no end in sight.

 

I would respectfully apologize to any I have offended with this post except for the politicians. I am just expressing an opinion and hope you will express yours. this is how we get to meaningful discussion about the possible solutions.

Iseefourfingers

I was going to post the example of the database idea (using the Quebec affair as example) here, but it's about six and a half pages long, and it's kind of off topic from the original issue. Should I start another thread for that? The database would be used in this discussion thread, but isn't integral to it, necessarily. The discussion of the database details are totally independent of any specific issues, as well, although it's much easier to use real examples.

politicalnick, thank you for your comments. I'm not really looking for "controversial" opinions, just all opinions, from all sides, as well as suggested solutions. Labels like that really have no meaning for this. What I want to do is present all the opinions and options for discussion. Although, in Harperland this would be considered a "crime against humanity", I'm sure. I can only hope we haven't been turned in to Harperland yet.

Native rights is a bit of a complex subject, and I just started this so I don't have anything yet. In the database, though, in the appropriate spot (and I don't know what kind of size limitations there might be), but within the space you could record your opinions. You believe the country was purchased, and "fairly" or "unfairly" doesn't matter. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but you see what I mean.

In the same space, I might post that I think the issues aren't always about getting "more", but about honouring past written agreements, maybe with examples. You respond, I respond, etc. We want to limit repetition but also fairly present all opinions and options. Copies of real documents would be very important.

For each example, there might be a database entry. Then we'll have the information we need for intelligent, meaning discussion, and people looking at it for the first time can virtually immediately enter in to the details of the discussion, and see proposed solutions. This will be most effective, though, if everyone has the chance to put in their real opinion, without fear of the gestapo. I don't think this is possible in Harperland, but we have to have hope for the future. I have a dream.

There still seems to be misunderstanding about the treason law.

The treason issue reflects how some of the problems we face require a reanalysis of the fundamental meaning of some laws. I never said anyone could be charged with treason according to the current written law. And I agree our problems won't be solved by charging a few people with something after the fact. Right now the law does not stop them, changing the law will stop them. If there was a law against it, they wouldn't do it. That's the whole point, right now there are no consequences for what they do. That has to change, and the next thread will go in to that more.

We must take up the role of lawmaker. We're trying to stop future abuse, so our children won't have to put up with the garbage we do. We've totally failed them up to now, let's turn that around. First royal, then communist, then fascist rule has nearly destroyed our country. Obviously, our current laws are inadequate to protect even the most basic human rights of the people. Like the right even to have a say in the future of our own country. The right to express our own opinions and have control over our own money. Etc., etc.

There was a radical change when the queen functionally relinquished ownership of the country. The relevant questions are who she relinquished ownership to, the gov't or the people, and what does "the people" mean. At least when the queen owned the country (and us), there was a chance the people could go to her and ask (beg) her to punish the crimes of politicians. We no longer have that avenue, and see where we are. The arbitrary authority of the queen has to be replaced with a series of laws governing the activities and level of authority of the gov't (ie. a real constitution).

That is, I believe the people, not the gov't, replaced the queen, and the gov't continued in the same role, as the administrator of the authority, but only now they don't recognise the over-riding authority, and piss on us whenever they want, laughing all the way. This led to the "gov't" thinking it's the queen, and that it, rather than the civil rights of the people, is the over-riding authority.

I believe the gov't is not the country, "the people" are the country.

I want to explore the treason issue further in the next post, but you can see how, regardless of individual opinion, having all the arguments together will help, especially for people looking at this issue for the first time. Does the above brief discussion give you food for thought? There's more, including exact changes to laws, proposed consequences to those changes, and real and hypothetical examples.

Of course, gov't reform can only come about by changes in laws. Foreign aid, Electoral reform, Lobbying reform, Tax reform, Gov't spending reform might be the main areas which flow to your opinions. If you don't mind, when I make database files for these issues, I'll add yours in the proper section. Any entries can be commented on, etc. in case you think it should be in another section, like Wikipedia but including opinions as well.

Let me comment on a couple of your points, which might show why I think this will be important.

(This would be an entry in the database for Electoral reform.) The "election by lot" idea for politicians could actually many times compound the present problems. Doing that doesn't solve our problems regarding fundamental governance, but it could be useful for solving our problems with respect to patronage appointments.

Also, I don't think you can force people to take positions they aren't qualified for, and then threaten legal accountability. I see want you're getting at, but I think this could be better accomplished by changing the laws regarding the results of referenda, making them binding (and ensuring the wording is proper, and including them during elections, etc.), and general recall and transparency laws, especially during negotiations. Also, the power of the "party" has to be removed. These changes would do a lot. (When the power of the party is removed, we have to change the rules for how the gov't is defeated.)

A real constitution would do a great deal as well. One we give to them, not that they give to us. (This could be another thread, what would a real constitution look like, starting with what there is.)

Our problems aren't about who's in charge, they are about how our laws don't protect the people when "bad" people are in charge. If the protection and respect of civil rights depends on who's in charge, whether they "like" us or not or whether they are honest, we've got real problems. It could be 1000 years of good, but it takes only one year of bad to destroy everything. How many years have we had now?

Election by lot could be valuable with positions normally appointed, though. Relevant groups could put in prospects, also showing why they are competent for the job, and then a random draw, unless all parties agreed on one, or something like that. I think it's very important to recognise that there may be times when "luck" shouldn't rule us, and be able to account for that, like during war. I think that should be discussed at least. (this may have a link to "patronage appointment" discussion sheets.)

I agree with your positions on the other issues, except Tax reform, which would require a lot more discussion, I think. I don't see why we can't input real numbers relevant for the changes. Of course, this will take work, but once it's entered, it's done. What exact laws would be involved here, too. What exactly is the "order of authority" in those kinds of things. Answers to these questions would be listed.

I think the issue of forbidding deficit budgets would have to include discussion of areas, or priority lists, for cuts when that would be necessary. When it's all listed for everyone to see and discuss, ultimately the vote of the majority would determine specifics (I'm sure the arts would suffer, for eg., but if that's the will of the majority, that's the way it is). This is one of the difficulties which I want to overcome, how to take the generalities and work them in to specific changes that will give us what we want. This requires knowledge of how money is spent right now, of course, because we have to start with what there is.

And, this also illustrates one of the most important aspects, if we want to forbid deficit budgets, it's up to us to come up with how that can be applied in reality. If the price of oil just plummeted, for eg., what are you going to cut? This can't be just grand proclamations, without any regard to reality, and, the numbers have to work out in the end, too. There's no relying on magic. If we left it up to individual discretion, that could be (has been) disaster (and we're never told any details).

A "deficit budgeting" thread would mainly be about how to determine the priority and amount of specific cuts, I would think. Also, sources of revenue would be looked at, to see if we're being short-changed anywhere, and what should be done about it. We need concrete data, though. It's not that complex, but without enough information and decent organisation, it can appear so.

Do you think it would be better to start a separate thread for each major area? Tax reform? Electoral reform? Etc. I think that might be easier. The format of the database entries would be a variation of the one for the Quebec incident, but I haven't looked at those kinds of issues and how to tie them in yet, although it's just a matter of organisation. There's no reason the discussion can't start, though.

I'm going to discuss the treason issue and then the Oda affair in this thread, since each reflects unique aspects of our problems, and will be very useful to try and make the database as encompassing as possible. The treason issue will include the general nature of the relationship between the gov't, the people and laws, as I see it, and so might be considered a background discussion as well.

When you think about it, changing our treason laws to put civil rights on top would do a great deal to stop many of the most despicable and vile abuses of the current gov't.

**In a legitimate democracy you would never have to apologise for your opinions.**

**Discussion destroys deception.**

**Evil requires deception, and so fears discussion.**

(I'm going to start a new thread for the database idea, after I come up with a decent label for it. Suggestions?)

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

politicalnick wrote:
NATIVE LAND CLAIMS/ NATIVE RIGHTS - So sorry but Canada was not stolen, it was bought and paid for. Just because the tribal leaders 400 years ago thought a few blankets and rifles and some shiny beads was a good price doesn't make it theft. If I agree to sell my house for $5 I don't think it's right for my great grandchildren to go to the buyers heirs and ask for more. We have paid more and more in the way of money and tax considerations and more land since the original deal it isn't funny. What do the First Nations people want? All whites and non-native people to leave the country, though I bet they would want us to leave behind all the infrstructure and continue to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, there has admitidly been plenty of discrimination in the past and plenty of wrongs done but I am tired of being held hostage to bad deals made in the past. After so much time we are all Canadians and should all be equal in rights and burdens. And what if we do make another settlement, what guarantee is there the native people 100 years from now won't go after my grandchildren for more. Oh, and by the way, my family tree goes back to the nobility in France prior to the revolution, we had huge amounts of lands and a large castle. If the First Nations people would like to help me reclaim all that back I might be more sympathetic to their cause. All that said I have many native friends and have worked alongside many others and find them to just as proportionally honorable as any other group of people.

Nick, as I said in the other thread, you have absorbed some backwards and racist stereotypes into your thinking. At babble we start from first principles that Canada is a settler nation and has stolen the land from FN people. Your statement that Turtle Island's indigenous people sold their land for "5$" or for "blankets and shiny beads" is a product of your imagination, utterly false, and highly offensive. In Canada, as throughout colonial history, colonized lands were bought and paid for with blood, oppression, violence, disease, and genocide. These concepts are not up for debate on babble. If you have come to debate them anyway, you will be asked to leave. I hope that's clear. This is your final warning.

Iseefourfingers

I had 2 discussions I was going to post, but before I do that I want some clarification.

 Catchfire, your comments are very disturbing. I was not aware that in order to post on this forum we had to have some predisposition regarding native issues. Are you saying that if I started a thread regarding native issues, that you would forbid the posting of certain opinions? If this is the case, that is totally unacceptable.

That is simply imposing your opinions on others, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. You obviously don't even realise, as well, that by presuming to forbid discussion of these opinions, you provide a rich fuel for the fire which keeps them burning.

If people have opinions which you disagree with, describe your reasoning. Whether on this forum or another, I'm going to have discussion sheets on native issues. All opinions, whether you like them or not, will be included. If doing it on this forum means some opinions will be forbidden, then I won't continue on this forum.

It's very unfortunate, also, that you don't seem to realise that it's only by bringing out and discussing raw historical facts that truth in history can be shown. I know nothing about Turtle Island, you obviously disagree strongly with Nick's assessment, so what do you say the specifics of that issue are? Are there documents?

Forbidding opinions is not changing opinions. Changing opinions requires free discussion.

Please let me know if when a thread for native issues is started it will be censored. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I for one do not wish to have to start all over at square one all the time, re-educating each racist moron who happens to wander by...

Maysie Maysie's picture

High five to LTJ.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

BTW, anyone in need of such re-education could just enroll in one of Maysie's courses. May I suggest we make it a mandatory requirement for re-instatement?

Wink

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Iseefourfingers wrote:
Catchfire, your comments are very disturbing. I was not aware that in order to post on this forum we had to have some predisposition regarding native issues. Are you saying that if I started a thread regarding native issues, that you would forbid the posting of certain opinions? If this is the case, that is totally unacceptable.

I am saying that you need to abide by the babble policy statement to which you consented when you joined this site. Since you seem to have forgotten agreeing to that contract, let me highlight the relevant sections:

Quote:
babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

I'm sorry that you see the nature of this forum differently than those who have been coming here for years. I can't count the number of times I've been accused of censorship, opposing free speech, or what have you. But those accusations usually come from folks who are confused about the nature of this forum. babble is interested in exploring and developing leftist and progressive thought: not in educating every right-wing or archaic fellow who happens to come along, rehashing old battles, wasting time and energy pointing out arguments that have been made and won fifty years ago.

Here: Canada is a postcolonial nation engaged in the ongoing oppression of its indigenous peoples through violence, extinguishment of rights, cultural genocide and theft. That is the starting point for all discussions regarding Turtle Island's First Nations, and it is not up for debate.

It is your responsibility to educate yourself and respect the culture and mandate of this forum. If you can't do that, I wish you well.

Unionist

Iseefourfingers wrote:
What is called a Constitution in Canada isn't anything more than a glorified piece of toilet paper.

Toilet paper is useful. It helps to remove excrement. Your posts, on the other hand, ...

Iseefourfingers wrote:
Before you call me a traitor, ask me why I say this.

Ok. Why do you say this - you traitor?

Iseefourfingers wrote:
Or, do you even care.

Got me.

 

absentia

Oh well... For a minute there, i thought the two of them - Iseefourfingers and politicalnick - were a good fit. Imagined them entwined in eternal stalemate, like some mythical antagonists.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Icy Forefinger wrote:
Our problems aren't about who's in charge, they are about how our laws don't protect the people when "bad" people are in charge.

...a problem that's easily solved by not putting "bad" people in charge. Laws aren't going to protect you from bad people when the bad people themselves are in charge of making, amending, and enforcing the laws.

 

 

Refuge Refuge's picture

Sorry I missed this post yesterday, I was taking my son to the Pow Wow.

 

Um, hey, here's a good idea for a starting place (even though this seems to be the ending place of this thread).  Why don't we all meet in that "field" and pay what is right for the land that was bought and transfer governmental control onto the nation that the land was sold illegally and back to that nation (yes I realize quite a few Canadians will be surprised to be living in a new nation but they have the option of moving to the area that is at that point going to have been legally bought if they want to stay in Canada or living under the regulations of that nation - seems like a bait and switch but wait a minute it is kinda like what happened when Canada played a bait and switch with the First Nations, oh yes you can have your own nation, oh wait your Canadians now).  Then we can decide what the hell to do as Canadians while leaving the nations to decide what to do with themselves.

Two separate canoes travelling the same river. 

Just a thought.

JKR

politicalnick wrote:
NATIVE LAND CLAIMS/ NATIVE RIGHTS - So sorry but Canada was not stolen, it was bought and paid for. Just because the tribal leaders 400 years ago thought a few blankets and rifles and some shiny beads was a good price doesn't make it theft.

Do many Canadians leave our educational system holding these kinds of inane ideas?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

JKR wrote:

politicalnick wrote:
NATIVE LAND CLAIMS/ NATIVE RIGHTS - So sorry but Canada was not stolen, it was bought and paid for. Just because the tribal leaders 400 years ago thought a few blankets and rifles and some shiny beads was a good price doesn't make it theft.

Do many Canadians leave our educational system holding these kinds of inane ideas?

 

Why wouldn't they?  That's what we're taught.  The education to overcome it must be self-sought..

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

If that's 'what we're taught', then we're not being taught Canadian history.

BTW, that's not what I was taught, even in the backward public schools of Ontario in the '60s and '70s.

George Victor

In 1825 the Crown set the price of $5,500 (equivalent) as the annual payment to the estimated 440 First Nation people of the Huron Tract for the 2,200,000 acres, to be sold to the settlers by the Canada Company. Along the "front" of Lake Erie, the lands most easily reached by roads built along the north of the lake, the "purchases" took place in 1790 and 1792.

 

Thefts of this order were not revealed to the settler children of Peterborough in my time. The work of Charles Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, "best book of the year" in the estimate of many journals in 2005-06, was unfortunately not available, but makes enlightening reading now. Ditto for Ronald Wright's works on "A Short History of Progress" and What is America? (2008). Perhaps those newer folks hereabouts who wonder at the depth of feeling on this score, could be directed to these and other readings (there are many), rather than just the standard recitation: here is babble policy? No time like the present in catching up on reading, no time/age limits. Wink

 

 

 

 

 

humanity4all
Iseefourfingers

Unionist, you're another who likes to pervert my expressions in a deceptive context. I refer to the current Constitution as toilet paper because it is a false document, which only serves to promote the interests of the state (ipso facto royalty) by tricking people in to thinking they have real civil rights. That document is a disgusting disgrace, and is a perversion of the idea of a Constitution, since it is in fact what empowers the dictatorship, and lack of civil rights, which exists today.

How do you justify that label for my work. Do you even understand what I'm doing, or how this can be used to advantage? You present a very childish attitude, in my opinion, and if you don't care, why are you even reading this.

Catchfire, thank you for your response and the refresher. As is so often the case nowadays, I think my misunderstanding arises from our differing interpretations of the terms in the policy statement, rather than forgetting there was one. Now that I see a manifestation of that policy, it's much easier to understand how you look at it. But, there was really no indication of this attitude in anything I read.

And, of course, you are censoring, that's a simple fact, but you believe it's justified given the policy statement and general nature of the forum. I agree you have the right to do what you're doing, since it's your forum, but it is censoring.

Since this necessarily entails discussions of laws, which entails considering and recording opinions regarding fundamental rights and how they are, and can (should) be, expressed in laws (including proper over-riding civil rights defined in a real Constitution), even the slightest risk of censorship on any issue is a mortal threat. That would destroy everything.

I fully agree and understand that this is a matter of error on my part.

M. Spector,...a problem that's easily solved by not putting "bad" people in charge. Laws aren't going to protect you from bad people when the bad people themselves are in charge of making, amending, and enforcing the laws. I urge you to more carefully consider the first statement. How are you going to make sure bad people aren't in charge? Should it matter who's in charge as to whether there's justice or not? I'd call that a dictatorship. We get one vote once in a blue moon, and that gives the green light for anything the elected party (leader) wants. I know that's the way it is now, but is that the way it should be? Is that democracy?

They've assumed the role of dictator of our lives (like the queen was, when she owned us, but way more intrusive), rather than administrators of the public will (ie. the laws, which is the same role they played with the queen). "Not putting bad people in charge" is no solution to anything, and I think you'd have an impossible job to show how that would work in the long run (even in the short run). Electing another group only puts off the problem(s) to the future, like the national debt, if they're even any better. Would our children thank us or curse us for that.

Your second sentence is exactly the purpose of this project, to determine what our problems are, in order to determine how to fix them. You've defined one of the most severe, the politicians control the mechanisms for the imposition of "justice", and they generally put themselves above it, and we can't do anything about it. If they want to do bad things they can, like royalty. There are many current real examples of this.

I think there are 2 central concepts, first, how do they do bad things (what kinds of things are we calling bad, and how do they manifest), and second, what mechanism(s) do "the people" have to stop them from doing it, or punish appropriately if it is done.

That's the subject of one of the posts I was going to put up, and it's about 4 pages, so I won't put it here.

In a nutshell, the first issue is multi-faceted, but the second involves that when the queen relinquished ownership of the country (and us), the gov't was freed of a critical level of oversight, the arbitrary authority of the queen. It's my assertion that the queen gave the country to the people, not the gov't, but there was no change to allow for the people to impose "arbitrary authority".

The only way the people can impose authority is through the laws, it's which ones and how that are the questions. That's the purpose of the database project, to link "problems" to specific laws, and provide a permanent record of all opinions and proposed solutions, so the same arguments aren't constantly repeated.

(As a side note, do you mean for the change in my moniker to be an insult? Please explain it. I'd hate to not have the emotion you intended, just tell me what it is.)

Also, I had no idea this forum was so strongly focussed toward the promotion of native issues. I'm not judging in any way, but many of my comments have been interpreted differently from what I intended, since I totally misread the mindsets of those reading. The field analogy, for eg., was meant to refer to laws related to fundamental governance specifically, in that we can't be hindered by what laws already exist (since they are perverse).

My database work is about presenting all the opinions and proposed solutions for specific issues, so when people look at it for the first time, they have all the information from all sides, if possible, in order to have an informed discussion. This is a complex project and I'm just starting, so I'm still getting the feel of it. I've recorded the proposal where all land is given to natives, but I frankly doubt that very many are going to go for that.

As far as what we were taught about natives, I went to school in S. Ont. during the 60's and 70's as well, and we were taught almost nothing about Canadian natives except that they were our friends, and helped in fighting the Americans and French periodically. Whenever we heard about abuse, it was always in the US, and almost always the mid-west. Even these abuses were generally just described as "massacres", and were usually represented as reactions to the killing of white settlers by natives. We never heard about all the unimaginable physical atrocities and deceptions committed against the native people.

The only instance of abuse in Canada that I recall learning about is when I was doing a project on natives, and had a library book that talked about abuses in the US, which also mentioned a tribe in Canada, where they moved off land due (among other things) to a promise that the gov't would supply a herd of cattle (I think) each year for food for the tribe.

Naturally the gov't reneged after a short time, and the people of the tribe were starving to death. This was really just a side-note about that kind of tactic as used in the US, and it didn't even say when it was or what finally happened. Since then I've seen a bit more, but if I didn't have a personal interest, I never would have known anything was wrong. I didn't know anything about Turtle Island until I went to the web-site after it was mentioned.

But, my knowing about it can't just be according to one viewpoint. I demand to see all the information, and refuse to blindly accept the dictates of any side. I won't have my opinion issued to me.

Also, I don't know about everyone, but I recall that the "beads and blankets" notion stems from an early encounter in the US, I think the "purchase" of Manhattan Island, which was always portrayed that way. Whenever I hear that opinion, that's what I think of, anyway. Also, the old US westerns (which were very, very popular when I was young) reinforced this view by portraying land "purchases" similarly.

When you're not given any other information, I think it's only natural to have that idea about other instances, even all. As soon as you look at it, of course, you see that land issues, for eg., generally deal with specific written agreements which can be easily examined by everyone. Other information is also readily available. But, I think that many people who hold differing views won't even try if they see that their opinion is not represented in the discussion. No matter what it is.

I'm going to look in to getting my own web-page and forum for the database project, once I've fleshed it out a bit more on my own. I don't know what that costs, but hopefully I can do it. As I think about this, it's become clear that I need some kind of integrated database / forum system. Since I currently don't know how to do that, I don't know how long it will take. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to get that started?

**"Where laws end, tyranny begins." William Pitt the Elder (1708-78)**

**When there is no change in laws, there is no change.**

But, M. Spector stated that changing laws wouldn't help, and suggested that not putting bad people in charge was the solution. I assert that the only way real change can happen is by changing laws, and the relevant task is figuring out which laws to change/create.

I've written a discussion about it, but now I'm not sure this is the right venue for that. This is meant to explore why I believe it's true (and obvious) that the law is all the people have to defend themselves from abuses of the state, and is a purely theoretical discourse meant as a preliminary discussion for the database project. Is anyone interested in that so I could get some constructive comments?

Maysie Maysie's picture

I have no idea why I'm doing this. Maybe I'm procrastinating from marking my students' assignments, that has to be it.

Isee wrote:
 This is meant to explore why I believe it's true (and obvious) that the law is all the people have to defend themselves from abuses of the state, and is a purely theoretical discourse meant as a preliminary discussion for the database project. Is anyone interested in that so I could get some constructive comments?

This isn't going to be constructive in the way that you mean, since I don't support your project. But I have to respond to this, as the bolded part is laden with assumptions and, imho, must be challenged.

Not only is the law NOT all that "the people have to defend themselves from abuses of the state" but the role of the law, the legal system and the criminal (in)justice system has consistently and historically been to support and uphold the oppressive values of the state. From slavery, to who can legally marry, to where certain people are allowed to live, to who gets millions of dollars in legal tax benefits, and many other things. The law is the last place I would look for a solution to state abuses.

Um, G8/G20???

Being inclusive and reflective of the myriad experiences of marginalized folks is not only something that the law does NOT do, it in fact criminalizes marginality. And gets away with it. The law not only supports the status quo, it IS the status quo.

absentia

Maysie wrote:

Isee wrote:
 This is meant to explore why I believe it's true (and obvious) that the law is all the people have to defend themselves from abuses of the state, and is a purely theoretical discourse meant as a preliminary discussion for the database project. Is anyone interested in that so I could get some constructive comments?

This isn't going to be constructive in the way that you mean, since I don't support your project. But I have to respond to this, as the bolded part is laden with assumptions and, imho, must be challenged.

Before Iseefourfingers comes back with a mile-long explanation, can a i take a guess? My guess is he meant that as a law of nature, or universal human rights, rather than the legal system as it has been and currently is applied.

Maysie Maysie's picture

absentia wrote:
 Before Iseefourfingers comes back with a mile-long explanation

Hee hee.

As for your thinking about "natural law", absentia, and that's what Isee might be referring to, I don't think so. Based on his previous posts, I'm leaning towards some kind of human-based law, given these gems:

Quote:
 But, when there are problems with laws, we have to have a way to change them, and I mean a real way. This will take some thinking to get something real, practical and lasting, and it may be one of the core aspects of a legitimate democracy, the right of the people to have real protection from perversions in both the written and common law.

And this one is interesting.

Quote:
 We can't be concerned right now about whether our laws are adequate, we have to determine what it should be first, then look at what is, then determine how it can be dealt with through changes in laws, etc. Our laws have been manipulated by these buggers for decades, if we looked at our current laws and systems as legitimate, we would always lose.

Speaking of laws and rules, now would be a good time to share my never-before-revealed idea to limit thread posts to 500 words maximum.

Laughing

absentia

But then you'd have to install a counter and might interrupt the flow at a really confusing point, and.... Waidaminnit! I thought you were no longer wearing the mod hat?

Okay, so my guess could be wrong. Or maybe it's just very, very difficult to articulate clearly and concisely on the subjects of democracy, constitution, rights and law - because, what i thought i understodd, now i don't at all.

Moot point. 

Fidel

politicalnick wrote:
NATIVE LAND CLAIMS/ NATIVE RIGHTS - So sorry but Canada was not stolen,

If it wasn't stolen, then why have our political stooges attempted to make amends to native people with land claims  albeit half-heartedly?

 

politicalnick wrote:
it was bought and paid for. Just because the tribal leaders 400 years ago thought a few blankets and rifles and some shiny beads was a good price doesn't make it theft.

The proof of theft here is that market prices were not paid for land - compensation which for even those eras was far undervalued at  disease infested blankets and beads. It was theft then, and our political stooges know enough today to acknowledge those thefts even if only half-heartedly. Their own economic system of values and worth has been used to condemn the thieves and murderers long time.

Canada is world renowned for its abuse of native people as is Australia, former colonies in Africa, America, the former Spanish and French colonies in Latin America etc.

politicalnick wrote:
Do many Canadians leave our educational system holding these kinds of inane ideas?

And that's another excellent point. Yes, universities in Canada tend to sew the seeds of truth about the brutal colonization of North America among other historical truths. And those who don't know history tend to stand out like sore thumbs.

Pages