Previous  1 ... 106  107  108  109  110  Next

Hey that's my line! Now apologize then...well, you know the drill.

   

You inspire me

   

http://www.idlenomore.ca/index.php/item/130-inm-plans

"Idle No More
Indigenous sovereignty and environmental protections
Strategy for INM, grassroots and supporters:

Currently everyone is affected, including our water, land and environment. The current government and industry have been disregarding our collective right to be consulted with any changes that affect us.

Our Goals and objectives are to ensure that the environment is protected and our inherent right to Indigenous sovereignty is recognized as we urge the government of Canada to repeal all legislation which violates Treaties, Aboriginal inherent rights and title, and subsequently environmental protections of land and water."

The Supreme Court of Canada says the Government must consult. The Government of Canada is not consulting. I think it is obvious who is breaking the law. And not just breaking the law but trying to hide that crime by burying the evidence in omnibus budget bills. If they weren't so shallow and pathetic it might be long term worrisome.

But they can be beat, by sticking to the arguments and positions that have won in the past. The way the movement is reaching out to other activist groups, broadening its base through education, and keeping an internal dialogue going is terrific. My congratulations.

   

More of this, I see. Because they keep repeating the same lie over and over will not change the truth that many of the movers and shakers in the fizzling INM movement are using environmentalism as a smokescreen to avoid accountability for their own indiscretions. It leaves me to wonder if any of them actually read Bill C-45.

   

True the INM movement is currently on idle.

   

That's rich. Suggesting that the verified lies not to mention the potential unverified truths from the abortion attack are personal attacks is laughable.

   

All of you can join the bet then one of you can lose so the bet can be done!

   

You're saying the medal recipient did not burst into a hospital and attempt to disrupt surgery? (In an unrelated thread no doubt).

Classic.

Yeah, what I did to perpetrate this lie was get a job at several news agencies to plant the story, then I paid off the courts to convict a woman who did none of that.

Welcome to story time with Gunnair.

   

Not talking about that at all. I'm talking about you other verified lies and unverified truths that you use to establish your victimhood here.

If you don't want to stray further into the personal here, Curt, with respect to abortion, you may want to rethink the lies and accusations against me you are so fond of casting out.

Or do you want to take the conversation into your personal experience?

   

Rights creep 101. Consult means permission now for many natives.

Consulting does not, in its literal sense, mean the government has to talk to natives, have them say no, and mean the government has to listen. Consult means exactly that... consult. If the natives say no and the government feels justified in that the greater good overrules native good, then the government has done its job and 'consulted' them.

   

Aside from once again over generalizing, can you give any evidence where "many natives" believe that consulting with them is equivalent to asking permission?



The literal sense may be as you say. On the other hand if you consult but do not take into consideration the information you got through consultation it is a waste of time, theirs and ours. If the Government can make a decision counter to the advice proferred by natives, environmentalists, scientists, labour, religious groups, municipal governments, etc. they better have very good proof that it is in our greater good. If the government is changing laws as they impact on the environment and peoples rights, without consultation, and they are, how would you, personally know, whether it is in the greater good?

   

Your "non-literal" definition of "consult" is much too generous. The government needs no proof in order to go against advice given by anyone, including the Official Opposition.

The government can do what it wants, and take the consequences (if there are any, as far as broad public opinion is concerned) later.

   

I didn't offer a non-literal definition of consult, let alone a generous one, whatever that would be. I use the same consequences as you too. The list of people that a government should not be excluding from its consultations, that I gave earlier, are the people who will vote in the next election, and who will convince their peers to vote in the next election. The proof will be in the pudding as they say. I wonder if the Conservatives are confident of their proof or have not given their actions enough thought to justify confidence. I know that from where I sit it looks like the latter.

   

Substitute Liberal, NDP or Social Credit and you have described all the federal a provincial governments that voters have whined about for the last 100 years. The whiners just favoured another party. But guess what. Most of the governments got re-elected to p#&& off the same voters for a another term. Does not matter if you pick on Trudeau, Chretien, W.C. Bennet, McGuinty, Davis, etc, etc.

I guess it is your turn for awhile.

   

I took that to be what you were suggesting...



Let's just agree then that it can only be taken in the literal sense.

   

Previous  1 ... 106  107  108  109  110  Next