it sounds to me like a human rights violation - discrimination on the basis of race.
The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)
Even if there are two options on the table? One option assumes that they want to work with the local community, and the other one assumes that they want nothing to do with the local community.
Is there a requirement that there is a third option that gives them all the benefits of the local community but requires nothing from the reserve in return?
Yes. I believe it’s called the Indian Act.
I’m not all that familiar with the act. But in this case I’m not sure what the act has to say about requiring a municipality or city to provide infrastructure while at the same time being denied access.
It is certainly complex, as it involves layers of government at all levels, municipal needs, first nation needs, politics, race relations, etc. etc.
I was being somewhat, ahh what’s the word, sardonic?
It just seems we can never stand up against any claims, and end up doing nothing in the end. See Caledonia and Oka
There is no obligation for reserves and munipalities to work together. When they do work together, it often goes very well. For example, Ontario’s most populous reserve, Fort William First Nation, was the water supply for the City of Fort William and then the City of Thunder Bay until recently.
Unfortunately, when protests are made, blocking or closing roads passing through or into reserve territory is a commonly used tactic (for example, Oka, Caledonia, Ft. Frances, and the Cornwall international border crossing).
It sounds more like getting out of it what you put in to me - you make no effort to play ball with us, we make no effort to play ball with you.
We haven’t seen anything like that out here in western Canada yet, though I suppose it would be possible. If it happened, the results would be chaotic: both Highways 1 and 3 (i.e. two of the three road routes through the Rockies) pass through First Nations reserves. I don’t know if Highway 16, the third route, does; but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.
Indian dispute anecdote:
I started playing in some hockey tournaments several years ago with a varying group made up of several OPP guys.
One of the tournaments we play annually was called The Ken Deane Invitational. Apparently Ken Deane was the officer who shot and killed Dudley George at Ipperwash. He was no longer an OPP officer, but remained in solidarity with the rank-and-file of the OPP. Most of the guys on my team knew “Tex” personally. Anyway, there were several key police witnesses in the court proceeding regarding Deane, the actual number escapes me.
However, in the 6 years I’ve been playing with these guys, I’ve heard of the deaths of (at least) 3 of these OPP officers (could be 4, I’ll have to ask next time I see those guys) involved with the case, including Ken Deane himself. None were suspicious or anything; 2 car accidents and a heart attack.
Almost seems like something out of a Stephen King novel.
The tournament is now called The Ken Deane Memorial Tournament.
Yup. I had to to take Ipperwash off the list of venues when I was teaching kayaking down that way. No biggie, though, for Grand Bend was available, and the occupation did not close any regional roads.
Ipperwash stood out as an example of the Crown ignoring its treaty obligations. It’s a pity that the provincial government let things go so far that violence errupted. Quite simply, the death would not have taken place (and the emotional harm to the shooter, to Deane, and to the deceased’s family would not have taken place) had the government acted reasonably in the first place.
In most of the disputes, I can see two or more sides to the story, but when it comes to the Ipperwash land dispute, I can find no excuse for the government keeping that land for decades.
Looks like we’re making waves internationally, as both Iran and North Korea have taken offense with what we’ve had to say lately:
Here’s what Iran had to say in response:
And then there’s this:
And what remarks prompted this reaction from North Korea? Have a look:
Seems pretty mild to me.
In other news, for people in the Montréal area who are feeling a bit sports starved, there’s going to be a National Lacrosse League exhibition game on Dec. 15 between the Toronto Rock and the defending champion Rochester Knighthawks at the Bell Centre. As noted on the NLL website, both teams have brought in a local player to represent Québec lacrosse as well.
The long range view, as I understand it, is to reintroduce indoor lacrosse to the Québec audience with a view to hopefully re-establishing a new franchise in Montréal in the not-too-distant future (their previous franchise, the Express, only played a single season a decade ago before suspending operations and eventually moving).
I remain firmly committed to the belief that indoor lacrosse is the most entertaining spectator sport ever devised; getting a chance to see what are probably the top two teams in the East Division duke it out will be well worth it for those who decide to give it a shot. 
Both Iran and North Korea are squawking? We must be doing something right.
Yeah, that Muslim we voted in as Calgary’s mayor sure is getting oppressed! :dubious:
And we are such a horrible country to be demanding basic human rights for Koreans!
+1
That’s pretty much what I said. 
My mistake. I stand corrected.
I spent yesterday morning in court, having been called as a witness for a traffic accident I witnessed (one of the drivers was charged running the red light). It was the first time I’ve been to court and was most interesting.
The proceedings were fairly informal, and I learned that the green sash that the judge wore over her robes meant she was actually a Justice of the Peace (real judges wear red sashes), and was surprised to see the lawyers and police officers bow to the bench when they entered or left the court while it was in session. (Is this common in other provinces, or is it governed by local rules or traditions?) Overt security appeared to be limited to a couple of security people at the front desk and wandering around (although this was provincial offences court, not criminal court).
It was also interesting to see how diligently the defence attempted to sow doubt and confusion on the Crown’s case (as is his function, of course), to the extent that the JP reserved her verdict until she could review the defence case in detail. The police officer involved offered to e-mail the result once the verdict was in, which should be interesting, especially as it appears to hinge on the details of my testimony, judging by the frequent references made in both sides’ arguments.
I did the same thing many years ago, but the verdict was reached right there and then in the court room. Why wouldn’t this verdict be determined on the spot? I don’t get it.
Hereabouts, a red sash indicates a Queen’s Bench justice (the Ontario equivalent would be Superior Court), and a blue sash indicates a Provincial Court judge. A JP wears a robe, but no sash. In traffic court, the adjudicator (for lack of a better term; I am unsure what they are officially called) usually wears a business suit.
Bowing is the norm here. Lawyers, court sheriffs, and other officers of the court will always bow in the direction of the bench when walking into the courtroom, and will do the same when going forward of the bar. It’s not a bow as an stage actor might make, but is merely stopping and bowing with a mere nod of the head. It is meant to indicate respect for the Court; and for the Queen, in whose name the Court is convened.
Security is ever-present, if unobtrusive. Armed sheriffs can be summoned on the double-quick if necessary. An airport-style security checkpoint at the courthouse doors weeds out a lot of potentially dangerous items, and makes courthouse attendees aware that trouble will not be tolerated.
Time to think things through rather than make a hasty decision.