Hey, can we send all the Newfies back to the Rock? Kidding, just kidding. But a prime example of people who move when they have to in order to work, and when conditions back home improve, often move back.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. " - Frederick Douglass - Aug 3, 1857
My ancesstors were in north america 900+ years ago...... I must be Native right. what do I get????:huh
...a bill,... for littering up 'n down the coasts of Newfoundland & Labrador with your open-pit fires and stinky lutefisk. Now stop your whineing, and pull on that oar!
Good one. However, one of the key phrases is "without a demand", and so far we - as in what the public hears - haven't heard any actual demands or goals, other than "whhhaaaa - meet with each and every one of the Chiefs". Idle needs to do some strategic thinking and have a goal, some objectives, etc. - none of which is apparent yet, much like Occupy had no aim, thus dissipated. It's not enough to be unhappy with your situation (particularly if you are, to a good extent, bearing responsibility for same), you have to have some idea how to get out of it.
Enough "Idling" around, time to get a move on!!! Soon as the media moves this to page two in paper... It will slowly die out and things will go back to the way they were !!!
Everything I read about Idle No More from the principals involved says it is about stopping Bill C-45 and the further destruction of the environment (both ours and theirs) by resource extraction companies. Everything I read about it in the mainstream press says exactly what you are saying, e.g. confused, no goals, etc. Same thing they did in the States to the Occupy Wall Street movement to try and discredit it. Same shit, different day.
Yes, that is one - and only one - of the things that the variety pack of spokespersons are saying, and it may be true. However, bill C-45 is the one that alters the Criminal Code, so I'm not sure what the reference is to. ?? http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/billc45.html You may be thinking of C-38, which is the omnibus bill. The fact that the correct bill number isn't known in the general public is indicative of the confusion over this, well reflected in the confusion coming from the Idle No More protesters. Bet you picked up the bill number from some of their coverage? C-38 replaces the Navigable Waters Act, which is archaic, with the Navigation Protection Act, and does a bunch of other things. For example, it officially repeals our involvement in the Kyoto Accord, which nobody was living up to anyway, and was outdated. So who cares, other than as a talking point? The number of waterways covered is reduced - not every little stream or pond is included - and so on. One important thing C-38 does (depending which side of the table you're on) is put timelines on approvals. It doesn't say yea or nay, but no more 20 years of studies, 20 years of consultation, oh, it's all out of date, start again. It does give perhaps too much power to cabinet for decisions/exemptions, but it also significantly increases penalties for environmental damage. The environmental provisions in C-38 seem designed to speed up the process, whatever the end result may be. If you rely on the economy for a job, use resources, like your food transported to your town...having some timeliness is not a bad thing. For industry, it gives a timeline. We just had the Alaska Pipeline guys close up shop here after keeping an office going for ? maybe 20 years. You have to be fair to the guys that work to provide us with goods, if you're a consumer. Sometimes all industry wants is to know when, not "sometime". For them, even a negative result in a defined time frame can be better than a positive answer that comes way too late, and after considerable cost. I guess I'm not too concerned, as most provinces and territories have their own environmental regulations in place, the stringency varying from place to place. In the Yukon, we have YESAB - Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Asssessment Board. Which occasionally gets overidden by the Territorial Cabinet, but seems pretty thorough - although, granted, it will never please the far left of the far left, the BANANA crowd.
This bill C-45. You check the date on your Bill C-45 link. It appears the confusion lies in places other than Idle No More. http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/203510/Environmental+Law/Bill+C45+Introduces+Further+Changes+To+Federal+Environmental+Regulation+Navigable+Waters+Protection+Act+To+Be+Overhauled
Good catch, you're right. But Idle No More isn't telling us what's wrong with C-38, just that it will 'gut environmental protection'. As it stands now, you theoretically need federal approval to put a little floating dock in your pond. Is that necessary? It's not like a company can go dumping tailings or mercury in the water, or that they don't need permitting and review. The Navigable Waters Act was in place when many waterways were important routes (therefore the name) and needed protection for navigation. Broad brush statements sound good in a sound bite, but the devil is in the details, and we're not hearing specifics. Beware of scare tactics that don't tell you why you should be afraid. I don't like the degree of discretion the feds are taking, but per the previous post, there's lots of environmental protection in place these days that doesn't rely on an act from 1882.
So the new standard is that Idle No More should put a legal brief on a placard? Should they open an office in Ottawa and hire lobbyists like the moneyed interests do before they are taken seriously? Your habit of continually moving the goal posts is really quite tedious.
I'm not sure what is wrong with telling people what you want, instead of complaining, which is mostly what we hear. And really broad statements, like ;Harper must meet with each band chief in Canada; (representing in many cases very few people) doesn't constitute that for me, sorry. No mention of a legal brief from me, and the general tone of this thread has been quite supportive of aboriginals, provided they a) tell us what they want, b) do their part. It's a shared responsibility. I don't see how that moves a goal post, or is unreasonable. ??
They want a seat at the table. They are being denied - along with most of the rest of Canadians. Government of, by and for the resource extraction campaign contribution complex.
Ah, I see. That is really simple when you put it that way. I'm sure glad I have a seat at the table, as I vote. It may take a few years to make a change, but it does change.
Resource extraction campaign contribution complex. Could you please explain where you are going with this comment? And please, honest language. No lawyer talk here, for me, please. Straight up. Do you want resource extraction? If no, then, if that is the majority view, all money stops. This is what Canada in 2013, and ahead, is. Without this, we are done. Social programs, health care, foreign aid,,,,,"""everyfuckingthing""" . This is what we do. Our labour costs simply cannot compete with the 'Chinas' of the world. Won't happen. If you do want resource extraction, do you think FN's get 100% of it? Fine,,,,,how do you feel, as the 1%ers of this new society, invested as soul supporters of the 99% of those not FN's? Because, other than the vast majority of this society somehow leaving this country and going???? somewhere else, what will they do? Really, we have to deal with the present as the present situation. The wrongs done in the past were really bad [thanks catholic church]. And because people found North America500 yrs ago from the 'old world', and modern society became,,,,modern,,,,,there are VERY few societies today that can live a nomadic lifestyle, which is what you have unfortunately had taken from you. Now, we can continue to pull out the blame card for things done 3+ generations ago, continue this no win status quo, or we can all adopt a realistic situation where responsibility falls back to the individual person, where everyone contributes to society, where there are no roadblocks to anyone of any different race given a disadvantage. Everyone should be treated exactly the same. One rule.
Steve, apparently you don't appreciate the contribution made to society by the Carpet Bagger Lawyer Complex, working in concert with the Bureaucratic Inertia Initiative.
This thread has been quite civil and has certainly (in my mind) enlightened me a bit concerning the issues. One thing that has bothered me concerning reserves, and Attawapaskit reserve in particular, is the conditions there. People get ahead in life by giving a damn, having some pride, goals, working together as a team, etc. With all the millions getting poured in to that reserve, you think someone could take the time to pick up the litter outside their homes! For a people that (supposedly) pride themselves on being connected to the land, you think they'd take better care of it where it matters most - right at the front door! ....if you have to, pay someone to clean it up, or better yet, have young offenders within their community do it.
I was under the impression that you titled this thread Idle No More concerns for a reason. My only purpose in posting on here was to try and move the discussion off of the "Indians want more free shit" meme that you folks seemed to have settled on. I see that I have mostly failed. As for the "resource extraction campaign contribution complex" phrase, I really wonder if people think all of those lobbyists, excuse me corporate representatives, hang around Victoria, Edmonton and Ottawa because they like the weather. Or if those hacks at the C D Howe and Fraser Institutes pay themselves by selling ads on all that riveting prose they generate. I know it is an easier position for you to argue but it is still erecting a straw man nonetheless, to say that if someone objects to resource extraction as currently practised that they are against resource extraction in general but no one, not me, not Idle No More is saying that. I can't speak for Idle No More but my objection to resource extraction as it is currently practised is the externalization of costs by the resource companies onto the general public in the form of environmental degradation. Mining has always been a dirty business mainly because addressing environmental concerns has a direct effect on the bottom line. Mining for old dinosaur goo is no different - the oil companies are as dirty as we allow them to be. Bill C-45 allows them to be a lot dirtier. I'm of the opinion that Bill C-45 is of greater concern at the moment to our native population is because they live closer to the mines and the externalization of environmental costs affects them way before it does the rest of us. And with that, I'm out.
You could always start your own thread where you sing the " I love Al Gore and David Suzuki " songs Also have you been in a modern mine ? or is your mineral extraction hatred solely based on news articles ?
Definitely an axe to grind, that fellow. Probably does so with the chip on his shoulder. I suppose environmental lobbyists don't count, as they're not *evil*. Mining reclammation and bonding to make it happen have come a long way from the days he's referring to. I missed this part, and agree with GreatWhiteNorth that this is a very civil - dare I say, Canadian - thread, and my take is the general theme is more "we're happy to help, spend this money and have these programs, but it's time to step up yourselves and break the cycle you're in". In the Yukon, aboriginals certainly are working towards that, and while there is a break-in period, it looks like it will work well. If Idle No More helps break the cycle in some way, great, but right now it seems like pointless complaining. Brunssd comment's seem like an example of a very one-sided view, which is considerably easier to hold and argue, because everybody else has no point. Just as Indians call someone who has 'gone white' an "apple" (red on the outside, white inside - often used to denigrate a successful person), there are people who empathize with any aboriginal plight. I used to work with a Jewish guy who consulted to bands, and it was definitely "aboriginals 100% correct, since they've been persecuted like Jews have". We even had a Chinese professional promoting himself as "hire me, since my ancestors were persecuted like you", and, oh yeah, I'll take a giant % of your grant money. From sincere to rip-off artist, you get people who go totally to one side. Maybe that's sometimes needed to make a point, but it's not productive in the long run. A third consultant to aboriginals I knew was 100% after anything the band wanted, to the point that she would give up nothing in negotiations and was very unreasonable (the band position was a bargaining point, not 100% reasonable to start with) and you just couldn't deal with her. Whatever she was involved in failed, but she kept getting hired by bands due to her attitude. Spence is demonstrating some of that attitude. One big difficulty, and I don't know where it comes from, is that a lot of bands are either unsopisticated in choosing or ? that they prefer a consultant/lawyer/whatever who is better at stroking them than getting results. Then they recommend the smarmy sucker to another band, that gets ripped off as well. Most bands who haven't joined the modern era really don't like being told that what they want isn't feasible/is wrong, so they keep hiring these dicks and waste money. Off topic, but related. There are certainly people out there willing to take advantage of band money, and I bet some are making more off Idle No More right now.... There are enough potential advantages to being aboriginal, such as grants/funding/tax breaks/programs, that I know a few people who looked for enough ancestry to claim status. It's a tough road on some reserves, but often not due to a lack of external support. Whether that support is being provided in an appropriate way can certainly be argued.
