Attawapiskat chief goes on hunger strike
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Yeah, I can see that but I'd want to make sure it's something sensible! -
Yep, since nobody knows ALL there is to know about anything, all we have is a partial picture, maybe what we have is 3 or 4 pieces of a "jigsaw puzzle", the rest of the pieces are out there, spread amongst the other members of the forum and the trick is to end up with as many of these pieces as possible to get a truer picture.
And, maybe not.
Either way, don't be a retard and tamper with switches and whatnot eh. Have a brain.
A persons point of view, or their bias, is probably as unique as a fingerprint. No matter what we can never 100% understand what it's like to be another person, we can get close but not all the way. But the effort of trying to understand; dialogue, debate, listening, sharing, those are all the things that broaden our own point of view and lead to greater understanding. That's the part that I find fascinating!
(I underlined listening because traditionally that always seems to be the part that everyone has the hardest time with, lol.)
Of course not, that's taking it way too far.
No sh*t. Putting the pubic safety at risk and destroying private property makes them criminals and they should be treated as such.
I highly doubt that those who are hoping to get into court through harmless means to speak their minds are the ones causing property damage and endangering the public.
There is always the assh*le factor that surfaces in peaceful public protest.
Shouldn't Justin, Paul and Charlie be standing up for their rights to protest and occupy the tracks?
I could care less about the political putzes trying to utilize an opportunity to get into the spotlight to garner support. They piss me off just as much as they piss you off but probably in different ways.
I wrote a little poem just for you.
I'm not Red
I'm not Blue
I'm stuck in the middle
With one f*ck of a view.
Last edited:
The consequence is enormous.
The Chiefs get power to sign and sell out. They reap the graft and sell out the land to mining companies, and logging companies.
The land is ruined, poisoned for generations.
A way of life fast tracked to hell.
These bills are a cancer to those who wish to save the land.
Opie said:
They aren't selling out.
They are leasing.
Leases are contracts that can be broken if sh*t goes haywire.
For those that skip links:
Many first nations have achieved economic success by leasing portions of their reserves for shopping centres, industrial parks, residential developments, casinos and anything else that might make money. Such projects create jobs and generate property tax revenues that first nations need to provide better services for their members.
Yet, success has been hard won because of cumbersome procedures prescribed by the Indian Act. Designation of land for leasing had to be approved by majority vote in a referendum or band meeting for which the quorum was a majority of members – in other words, approval by a majority of a majority. If, as usually happened, the quorum was not achieved, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs could authorize a second meeting dispensing with the quorum.
This two-stage procedure typically added six months to the duration, and tens of thousands of dollars to the cost, of designation. At the other end, approval for designation had to be granted by order-in-council – that is, a formal resolution of the federal cabinet signed by the Governor-General – meaning more months of delay.
First nations pursuing economic development have complained for years that the slowness of these procedures caused extra expense and sometimes even the loss of lucrative projects to competing jurisdictions able to move more quickly. Bill C-45 responded to these long-standing concerns by making two changes: (1) replacing approval by order-in-council by approval of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs; and (2) replacing the requirement for a majority of a majority with simple majority rule – the same way the chiefs of first nations are elected.
These amendments do not force first nations to do anything. They only make it easier for those who want to lease land to do so. And only leasing is involved; the rules governing sales of reserve land remain unchanged.
The House of Commons standing committee on aboriginal affairs considered these amendments on Nov. 19, and several prominent aboriginal leaders gave evidence. All agreed that the changes would streamline the designation process. Some wanted to dispense with community referendums and federal approval altogether, thus giving first nations the same power to manage their lands that Canadian municipal governments enjoy. Even the lawyer representing the Assembly of First Nations cautiously endorsed the substance of the amendments while opposing their passage, saying there hadn’t been adequate consultation with first nations.
Consultation has become a shibboleth of our time. It is, indeed, an essential part of democracy, but it can also become a constraint on freedom. Prolonged consultation may give some people a veto to prevent other people from exercising their own rights. In this case, there was well-documented dissatisfaction of numerous first nations, extending over many years, with the rigidity of Indian Act leasing rules. The government responded to their complaints by amending the Indian Act, thus making it easier for them to take initiatives to improve the welfare of their own people. Nothing in these amendments requires other first nations to do anything at all.
This, by the way, is in accord with first nations’ long political tradition of fierce independence. That’s why they call themselves “first nations” rather than “first nation”; they are many peoples with their own unique histories and visions of the future. The consultations required to modernize and eventually replace the Indian Act should not become a straitjacket for those first nations that have already begun to determine their own economic future.
This isn't right against left, white against red.
Many first nations have achieved economic success by leasing portions of their reserves for shopping centres, industrial parks, residential developments, casinos and anything else that might make money. Such projects create jobs and generate property tax revenues that first nations need to provide better services for their members.
Yet, success has been hard won because of cumbersome procedures prescribed by the Indian Act. Designation of land for leasing had to be approved by majority vote in a referendum or band meeting for which the quorum was a majority of members – in other words, approval by a majority of a majority. If, as usually happened, the quorum was not achieved, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs could authorize a second meeting dispensing with the quorum.
This two-stage procedure typically added six months to the duration, and tens of thousands of dollars to the cost, of designation. At the other end, approval for designation had to be granted by order-in-council – that is, a formal resolution of the federal cabinet signed by the Governor-General – meaning more months of delay.
First nations pursuing economic development have complained for years that the slowness of these procedures caused extra expense and sometimes even the loss of lucrative projects to competing jurisdictions able to move more quickly. Bill C-45 responded to these long-standing concerns by making two changes: (1) replacing approval by order-in-council by approval of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs; and (2) replacing the requirement for a majority of a majority with simple majority rule – the same way the chiefs of first nations are elected.
These amendments do not force first nations to do anything. They only make it easier for those who want to lease land to do so. And only leasing is involved; the rules governing sales of reserve land remain unchanged.
The House of Commons standing committee on aboriginal affairs considered these amendments on Nov. 19, and several prominent aboriginal leaders gave evidence. All agreed that the changes would streamline the designation process. Some wanted to dispense with community referendums and federal approval altogether, thus giving first nations the same power to manage their lands that Canadian municipal governments enjoy. Even the lawyer representing the Assembly of First Nations cautiously endorsed the substance of the amendments while opposing their passage, saying there hadn’t been adequate consultation with first nations.
Consultation has become a shibboleth of our time. It is, indeed, an essential part of democracy, but it can also become a constraint on freedom. Prolonged consultation may give some people a veto to prevent other people from exercising their own rights. In this case, there was well-documented dissatisfaction of numerous first nations, extending over many years, with the rigidity of Indian Act leasing rules. The government responded to their complaints by amending the Indian Act, thus making it easier for them to take initiatives to improve the welfare of their own people. Nothing in these amendments requires other first nations to do anything at all.
This, by the way, is in accord with first nations’ long political tradition of fierce independence. That’s why they call themselves “first nations” rather than “first nation”; they are many peoples with their own unique histories and visions of the future. The consultations required to modernize and eventually replace the Indian Act should not become a straitjacket for those first nations that have already begun to determine their own economic future.
This isn't right against left, white against red.
The Harper govt or any govt doesn't benefit one stitch if a Rez leases land. All the benefits go to the band.
Nobody is watching us but they are waiting for us. Waiting for Canadian resources and advanced products to hit Global markets.
They need the products just as much as we need to finally finish building our country with the benefits from our resources and products.
There are Rezes in SK that are sitting on Billions and Billons and Billions in natural resources and they want the jobs and prosperity that goes along with those resources.
It's just another step in setting them free.
A step in the right direction.
Having to prove hunting and trapping rights gives government a golden opportunity to mine and build highways unchallenged by they who held the rights by virtue of verbal contract
Not at all. I've personally seen bands lose opportunity more times than you can shake a stick at when it comes to resource developement.
When a company has developement money at stake time is of the essence.
I'm sorry to inform you but people actually demonstrate against Canadian government policy on the environment world wide.
Don't you get tired of your fairy tale business acumen . i know I am.
Bremusa