First nations will blockade roads as part of 'Idle No More' protest

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I presume that people who participate in protests that go for several weeks without stopping (Occupy) or protests that occur country wide several times during typical working hours do not have jobs. I feel pretty comfortable with my generalization. I suppose everyone involved in the Idle No More campaign could be working the night shift but I simply do not believe that is the case.

... or perhaps participants have simply taken vacation days for several days over the last month to participate in order to support a political action that they believe in.

I also wonder whether you believe that all protests are a waste of time? For example, was Martin Luther King a "lazy bum" who should have "got a job"? Mohandas Ghandi? Tiananmen Square protesters? Tea Partiers? Arab Spring protesters? Or is it just the Occupy and Idle No More protesters?

[Boblobla]

Wow, comparing occupy/Idle No More with Martin Luther King and Ghandi? If these Idle No More protests actually had a message that they were successfully conveying* then maybe they could be mentioned in the same breath but that is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever seen.

* - I know they are supposed to be protesting the omnibus bill but the only place I have ever seen that information is in this thread. None of the protesters signs reflect that message that I have seen.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Wow, comparing occupy/Idle No More with Martin Luther King and Ghandi? If these Idle No More protests actually had a message that they were successfully conveying* then maybe they could be mentioned in the same breath but that is one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever seen.

* - I know they are supposed to be protesting the omnibus bill but the only place I have ever seen that information is in this thread. None of the protesters signs reflect that message that I have seen.

I'm just trying to understand your criticism. You stated that Idle No More protesters (and Occupy protesters) should stop being lazy bums and get jobs. You said nothing about successful conveyance of their message (whatever that might be.)

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Komskies

What were you doing in Russell, if you don't mind me asking? We have a cabin only 30 minutes away from there.

I'm in business development for a large Canadian retailer. I was scouting a possible location. Very glamorous work at times .

[DuffMan]

OK,

I am badmouthing protesters who interfere with other peoples lives by blocking roads.
I am also badmouthing irresponsible band leaders who cannot account for the money they are given. The ones who pay their ex husbands $850/day for who knows, while the people they are supposed to be represent, live in squalor. The ones who demand meetings with the PM and then change their minds and act like spoiled little children.

It just so happens that all of these people are FN. So, in order not to sound racist, I shouldn't talk about them and their actions? Is that my choice?

[Boblobla]

I do not feel it is a successful protest because I don't think they have a message, as with Occupy.

My main issue is that no-one called me racist for saying the bums staying at Olympic plaza should get a job, why is this any different? To me, the protests are very similar. People are seeing racial undertones where there are not any.

I don't think I have even piped up in this thread and said they are lazy bums and should get a job, I have simply said that it would not be racist for me to do so.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

OK,

I am badmouthing protesters who interfere with other peoples lives by blocking roads.
I am also badmouthing irresponsible band leaders who cannot account for the money they are given. The ones who pay their ex husbands $850/day for who knows, while the people they are supposed to be represent, live in squalor. The ones who demand meetings with the PM and then change their minds and act like spoiled little children.

It just so happens that all of these people are FN. So, in order not to sound racist, I shouldn't talk about them and their actions? Is that my choice?

This pretty much sums up my issue with icecube (and apparently Vulcan). Criticism of action, inaction, position on an issue etc. is not racism simply because the target of that criticism is of a certain ethnicity.

If I criticize Obama's fiscal policy, that is not racist.

If I criticize corruption in the reserve system, that is not racist.

When people here criticize this movement for being disjointed or whatever else they see it as, that is not racist (I don't really have an opinion on the Idle protests as I don't know enough about them, which sort of demonstrates their success at conveying a message). Throwing that accusation around is simply a cop out, it's a great way to avoid actually facing criticism of your position and instead shift the scope to an attack on whoever dared to question your cause. It shouldn't be thrown around so lightly.

[Tron_fdc]

^^^^

That's my position as well. As one of the biggest expenses that the Canadian Government has, all these expenditures to FN should be HEAVILY scrutinized. It should be held to the same standard as any other department. No one in government wants to go there though, because it's political suicide. The instant someone questions anything BOOM race card.

I agree with INM though. Something has to change. Be careful what you wish for though, because if I'm giving more money to someone (and this includes friends, family, business colleagues, WHATEVER) it comes with a higher level of transparency.

In my mind that doesn't make me a racist. It makes me a realist.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

This pretty much sums up my issue with icecube (and apparently Vulcan). Criticism of action, inaction, position on an issue etc. is not racism simply because the target of that criticism is of a certain ethnicity.

If I criticize Obama's fiscal policy, that is not racist.

If I criticize corruption in the reserve system, that is not racist.

When people here criticize this movement for being disjointed or whatever else they see it as, that is not racist (I don't really have an opinion on the Idle protests as I don't know enough about them, which sort of demonstrates their success at conveying a message). Throwing that accusation around is simply a cop out, it's a great way to avoid actually facing criticism of your position and instead shift the scope to an attack on whoever dared to question your cause. It shouldn't be thrown around so lightly.

Speaking of a "great way to avoid actually facing criticism of your position..."

I agree with what you're saying and I think icecube is out to lunch; however, it would be nice if you're going to participate in this thread to actually discuss something remotely close to the topic at hand. This pattern of yours of attacking other people's point without offering up your own opinion for criticism is weaselly. It's easy to be a critic...it's much harder to formulate and defend an opinion.

So, what's your opinion on idle no more, natives in our society, etc.?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I agree with what you're saying and I think icecube is out to lunch; however, it would be nice if you're going to participate in this thread to actually discuss something remotely close to the topic at hand. This pattern of yours of attacking other people's point without offering up your own opinion for criticism is weaselly. It's easy to be a critic...it's much harder to formulate and defend an opinion.

So, what's your opinion on idle no more, natives in our society, etc.?

Excuse me? The topic at hand in this thread involves race relations and the use of the racism card as a shield from legitimate criticism. I have quite clearly offered up my point of view on that topic and it is out there to be countered, how is that weasely?

I have no opinion on Idle No More as I don't know much about it and it doesn't really impact me in any manner. I do however have opinions on the playing of the race card and the type of discourse that leads to positive race relations, so if it's okay with you I'm going to discuss that.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

^^^^

... As one of the biggest expenses that the Canadian Government has, all these expenditures to FN should be HEAVILY scrutinized. ...

In my mind that doesn't make me a racist. It makes me a realist.

The numbers:

In terms of fiscal investments, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada and numerous other government departments and agencies are now spending more than $10 billion each year to fund programs directed to Aboriginal people living on and off reserve.

Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

That compares to $20 billion each year to National Defence, $28.5 billion for health transfers to the provinces, $29 billion for interest costs, 30.5 billion for old age security, and 26 billion for fiscal equalization and social transfer payments (obviously there is some overlap here in that some of this money is included in the $10 billion dollar figured cited above.) So, although spending directed to Aborignal people in Canada is certainly a significant government expense, I'm not sure I would characterize it as "one of the biggest".

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The numbers:



Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

That compares to $20 billion each year to National Defence, $28.5 billion for health transfers to the provinces, $29 billion for interest costs, 30.5 billion for old age security, and 26 billion for fiscal equalization and social transfer payments (obviously there is some overlap here in that some of this money is included in the $10 billion dollar figured cited above.) So, although spending directed to Aborignal people in Canada is certainly a significant government expense, I'm not sure I would characterize it as "one of the biggest".

Fair enough, if you want to debate the semantics of my interpretation of "one of" or "significant" in relation to my opinion of government spending and how it relates to the scope of aboriginal affairs have at 'er. Is top 10 not "one of" the biggest? What's your criteria? Because in my in my opinion, if we're using 10 billion (your number) it's big enough to qualify for (in my mind) heavy scrutiny.

My point still stands though. It's a crapload of money, and because it's what I would call a large expenditure it should come along with a high degree of transparency.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The numbers:



Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

That compares to $20 billion each year to National Defence, $28.5 billion for health transfers to the provinces, $29 billion for interest costs, 30.5 billion for old age security, and 26 billion for fiscal equalization and social transfer payments (obviously there is some overlap here in that some of this money is included in the $10 billion dollar figured cited above.) So, although spending directed to Aborignal people in Canada is certainly a significant government expense, I'm not sure I would characterize it as "one of the biggest".

Maybe in terms of the specifics and size of the group versus money spent per person. Spending 7.8 billion on 1.1 million people is or 7090 per person benfitingversus lets say national defense at 666.00 per person benefiting is a significant difference.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That compares to $20 billion each year to National Defence, $28.5 billion for health transfers to the provinces, $29 billion for interest costs, 30.5 billion for old age security, and 26 billion for fiscal equalization and social transfer payments (obviously there is some overlap here in that some of this money is included in the $10 billion dollar figured cited above.) So, although spending directed to Aborignal people in Canada is certainly a significant government expense, I'm not sure I would characterize it as "one of the biggest".

So it is 6th biggest? In my books making it "one of the biggest". he never said it was the single biggest expense by any margin.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

...
As for tarring people from the start, look back at the first few pages of this thread and they are filled with insults towards the natives. Even later CC was suggesting we should run the blockades with a semi or a RR engine. When i suggested this wasn't cool the thread went in to how they could do it while still being legal.
...

This part bugs me, people jumped all over CC for that comment for no reason IMO. He never said it was a good idea, just one easily conceivable route that this "protesting" could lead towards once you mix angry protesters with blocking rig pigs from their job. I can see an outcome similar to that going down... by no means do I wish it to happen.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Fair enough, if you want to debate the semantics of my interpretation of "one of" or "significant" in relation to my opinion of government spending and how it relates to the scope of aboriginal affairs have at 'er. Is top 10 not "one of" the biggest? What's your criteria? Because in my in my opinion, if we're using 10 billion (your number) it's big enough to qualify for (in my mind) heavy scrutiny.

My point still stands though. It's a crapload of money, and because it's what I would call a large expenditure it should come along with a high degree of transparency.

Sorry, I didn't mean to quibble. As I said, it is clearly a large expenditure and no doubt warrants scrutiny (as all government spending does.) I would however note that the $10 billion dollar figure is not necessarily "Aboriginal specific" spending; includes health, education, etc. which is funding provided to all Canadians).

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe in terms of the specifics and size of the group versus money spent per person. Spending 7.8 billion on 1.1 million people is or 7090 per person benfitingversus lets say national defense at 666.00 per person benefiting is a significant difference.

Again, fair point (although see my note above re: what the $10 billion number includes). I have little doubt that per capita government expenditures are greater for aboriginal persons than non-aboriginal persons. Some of that is simply due to the higher cost of providing services to remote areas such as northern reserves. Some of it is of course due to demands created by many of the economic and social problems in Aboriginal and First Nations communities (i.e., criminal justice costs, child protection costs, healthcare costs, etc.)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As for tarring people from the start, look back at the first few pages of this thread and they are filled with insults towards the natives. Even later CC was suggesting we should run the blockades with a semi or a RR engine. When i suggested this wasn't cool the thread went in to how they could do it while still being legal.

T[

FFS I am going to defend myself on this quote, again, I did it before and clearly you didn't want to pay attention and you wanted to use it to paint me in the most negative light possible.

If you read the posts previous to mine, it was clearly debated that people are going to get short fuses over the blockade, I place in there examples of mind set, I in no fracking way stated that running through blockades with trains or semi's was part of my mind set.

If you want to paint me with that brush whatever, I clearly couldn't give a crap what you think about it.

I am resentful that you saw fit to take my post to make me out to be some sick psychopath that would take joy in running a blockade while as another poster put in a basica accusation of me screaming "yeehaw 50 points" while I do it

Jump on me all you want, but don't misrepresent things to make me look like the bad guy.

I don't really give a crap if your besmirching me on this board, clearly CaptainCrunch ain't my real name.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Again, fair point (although see my note above re: what the $10 billion number includes). I have little doubt that per capita government expenditures are greater for aboriginal persons than non-aboriginal persons. Some of that is simply due to the higher cost of providing services to remote areas such as northern reserves. Some of it is of course due to demands created by many of the economic and social problems in Aboriginal and First Nations communities (i.e., criminal justice costs, child protection costs, healthcare costs, etc.)

Sure, but it goes beyond that doesn't it? When the average taxpayers see's those expenditures and see's little change or things get worse through incompentance or outright thievery you can understand why people are looking at Idle No More with a jaded eye. Especially since they haven't discussed that.

They've done a very successful job of making this into a Seinfield protest with generic slogans that don't address the issue, with a focus on the government is screwing us, which while in a lot of ways is true its not the whole truth, especially with this Prime Minisiter, (Residential school apology, $100,000,000 literacy program, demanding transparency from the Chiefs, putting almost democratic reforms into the Omnibus Bill in terms of land usage, agreeing to meet with the Chiefs and to an extent involve the GG).

I think what almost frustrates the average taxpayer watching this is that they've said very little about the Spence and other corrupt chiefs stuff besides the fact that they're not with them.

If the Idle No More protesters were to clarify what their problem is with the budget bill specifically then we could have dialogue and feel that the educate portion of their protest was worthwhile. If they were to blockade Spences camp and demand countability and transparency and maybe her resignation then this protest would make sense, if they were to have protested outside of the first nations meeting in Winnipeg when the Chiefs were threatening to cripple Canada and plainly stated that they were a big part of the problem and not to blockade then we could have a discussion.

Instead we're getting what feels like a very wishy washy campaign that is standing for vague concepts that nobody can educate the rest of Canadians on.

[Resolute 14]

It takes a special kind of stupid for someone to confuse a statement that something could happen with advocating that it should happen. Not surprised Vulcan did it though.

Incidentally, CC was right, in a way. There was a lady who went through the blockade on Highway 2. She did it slowly, and both sides stayed peaceful. The risk of escalation - by one or both sides - exists, however.