Canada that could be

voice of the damned, thank you for your comments and the examples. This is an important general point which requires elaboration. And, you raise a couple of aspects which I'd like to address in another post. Laws were written by politicians, so it's not surprising that they would make it so they can do anything they want. We're trying to determine what laws we need to protect us from this, and can't be limited by current definitions.

Also, "Doing things that benefit foreign interests to the detriment of domestic interests" is not the same as " specific actions where they have conspired to subjugate the Canadian people for the benefit of foreign interests." You've changed my statement, and I agree that your statement may not be treason in most cases, but mine still would, since I use subjugate to mean violate civil rights.

For the Chamberlain example, what if there was a law guaranteeing free speech (I don't know if there was), but when citizens protested peacefully against Nazi actions, they were jailed and silenced by Chamberlains personal order. Would that be treason? I believe it must be. The issue isn't that the British gov't recognised the Nazi claim, which is within their purview, but whether citizens opposed to this would have their civil rights violated in order to promote the interests of Germany in pushing this claim in England.

The gov'ts duty, first and foremost, is to the protection of the rights of the people of the country, not foreign interests. That's my opinion, which I think should be an over-riding principle. This is a point for discussion.

WWII provides numerous basic conditions which can greatly illuminate this entire discussion, unfortunately.

Benito Mussolini is a good example of the primary action, within the context of our discussion, I personally consider should be added as treason. When he gained power, he instituted many drastic changes. He was brutal, but as far as I know (which isn't much), it was according to the law, which he changed at will, I'm sure. But, it was according to the law, written and/or common, of the country. He may have been a murderer, dictator, etc., but not a traitor to the country.

But, he ultimately conspired to impose Nazi authority on the Italian people. That was treason. Even if he changed the law, the motivation is to impose foreign authority on the people. This is an extension of the basic ideology that the people are the country, and attempts to overthrow the free will of the people (within the context of the laws of the nation, since that is what defines the will of the people, theoretically) are attempts to overthrow the country itself.

This is an absolute necessity, especially in today's era of "globalisation". We could be under occupation without a single foreign trooper in the country. As responsible citizens we have to recognise that people may gain power who do not have the country's, or the people's, best interests at heart. If this is the case, we can't go on witch-hunts, but when issues are raised, we have to have the ability, independent of the gov't, to fully investigate these issues and take appropriate action, even if it's jailing the PM.

We obviously don't have that, but we need to figure out what we need to do to get that. We're trying to define what Canada could be, but first we have to understand what we want it to be. Do we want the leader (or gov't in general) to have absolute power? If not, that means making new laws and processes, since current ones certainly aren't adequate. It really does come down to very basic questions like this.

And, the law is all we have. The masses don't occupy individual positions. We can't impose our personal opinions on judgements or disregard laws, like others can. We can't say that this situation should be recognised as treason, and force the gov't to respect that. We can't make laws they don't want. We don't even have a single voice which reflects everyone, and can probably never get that.

But, the people have to maintain control, since the people must be the ultimate authority in the country, even though the machinations of the state are totally out of our control. The only way to do this is with a real Constitution. Believe me, I know the meaning of "the people" and Constitution have to be defined also. What is called a Constitution in Canada isn't anything more than a glorified piece of toilet paper. (Before you call me a traitor, ask me why I say this. Or, do you even care.)

That's all we can do. Impose over-riding principles, and hope they're respected. When they're not, there has to be sound mechanisms to hold accountable those who have abused their power in order to pervert the will of the people, which are reflected in the laws of the nation (theoretically). The process doesn't have to be easy, necessarily, but it has to be possible.

If the gov't conspires with foreign elements to violate the civil rights of Canadian citizens, is that treason? It has to be, otherwise our rights are nothing more than bargaining chips. Political currency. Is that what we want? I don't want someone in Washington telling me what I'm allowed to say.

If Little Adolf Bush had asked the Canadian gov't to arrest protesters who were against his atrocities in Iraq, and the gov't did it, that simply can't be allowed. If the Canadian military was committing atrocities, and people were arrested for opposing that, it may be criminal, depending on the current law, but it wouldn't be treason. If we saw that the law allowed something the people didn't accept, like arresting people protesting what they saw as atrocities, then we have to change the law, or hold those accountable who have perverted the law. But, we have to be able to do it.

This is a central issue which will take time to explore, and maybe it would be best to ask the question, "What would the gov't have to do in order for you to recognise that they are traitors. What specific actions do you define as "traitorous", regardless of the written law. We're talking about the "state", not individuals, although the leader may be thought to embody the state, I suppose. So maybe ask, "Has Harper or any previous leaders done anything that you consider traitorous, and what other things could they have done."

Propose this question regarding Chretien and "Scrap the GST." This was a bald-faced lie, but not treason, in my opinion. Should the criminal law (or treason) be extended to include this type of thing? What would that look like.

Or even take it to the purely theoretical, "If there were a traitor (or whatever you want to call it, just someone malevolent who is not a traitor) as the leader of the country, what kinds of things could be done to us, and how could we stop them and hold them accountable." Remember that they control our money too.

M. Spector, thanks very much for the info.

Roscoe, you've missed the point entirely again. I'm not interpreting Canadian law, I am trying to determine what changes in laws are needed. This is not a discussion of "they broke this law or that law", it's what laws are needed to adequately protect the rights of the people, since the current laws do not do that, and then how do they compare to what we have now.

And, that's a nice example of pot calling the kettle black when you suggest that my recognition that the Supreme Court is a joke is somehow treason, without even asking why I think that.

M. Spector thoughtfully provided us with the legal definition of treason, and disgust and distrust toward gov't institutions isn't in there. But, I respect your right to believe it should be. So, to put your opinion into the context of the discussion, you're suggesting there should be an extension of the treason law, so that criticism (or whatever you define) of state institutions, etc. is included. Now we can discuss that. If there's a law made then there's a law made.

I'm saying the treason law has to be extended to include when the civil rights of the people are manipulated and/or abused, at any level of gov't, for the benefit of foreign interests, and I can give specific current examples. Now we can discuss that.

And, I don't get how you translate your original post in to "faith in Canadian law". It has nothing to do with that. You simply perverted the context of the original ideas you were criticising and then implied that I would murder people to get my political way. I don't see the connection.

Fanciful notions? Please list a few of these.

It's odd that you have faith in Canadian law. Can I ask how you gained this faith. Was it from birth? Do you even know what our laws are and how they are being applied? Or, perhaps you gain by them. I'd like to know what the basis is for this faith. Perhaps I've missed something.

RevolutionPlease, I don't think I understand what you mean. The line in italics is an analogy meant to say that we can't be fettered in our discussions by what the current situation is. I thought adding things like that in to discourse made it more casual, since I have quite a tendency toward formality. I'm used to technical writing.

What do you mean about "good faith"? Perhaps you believe that I would be biased in supporting native issues, or something like that (do you think Maysie would agree?)? If you think the language is too strong I suggest you do some personal research in to the subject. Simply recognizing reality isn't bias. And, jumping to the conclusion that I would blindly support any groups interests shows you don't understand what's happening here.

This is a real example of grievous deficiencies, and though things have changed, we don't know if the law has, or just the interpretation of laws, so it has to be looked at, just as many other issues have to be.

But, that's also the whole point of this exercise isn't it. To find ways were personal opinion can not over-rule the will of the people (reflected in the laws, theoretically, which we have to determine what they should be). My personal opinion, no matter what office I hold, is only one in the discussion. If there are times where personal opinion must be used, let's make that the exception rather than the rule, and keep a sharp eye on it.

As an aside, what manner of revolution are you proposing. Your moniker suggests you want change, what kind of change are you talking about? Would this require changes in laws? If you were finally driven to armed revolt, what conditions would have caused that, and what changes would make a difference to stop it.

LProudfoot, I brought up Palestine only because that is a very stark, blatant example of what I see as treasonous activity by the state. It's not that they are traitors for supporting Judaism in Palestine (cf. Chamberlain), but rather that they physically victimise those who do not with violations of civil rights. That is not their place.

People seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I said Harper should be in jail. It is not just throwing everyone in jail. Please give me a little credit. I meant that he has done things which I believe are properly termed as criminal, and in a just society it would not matter that he is the leader or rich, he would be held accountable, even if it's jail (which I think his actions warrant, and we need laws to protect us, but that's what we're discussing).

Maysie and absentia, I'd like to respond to your comments in the next post, please, there are a couple of important points.

After the next post, I'd like to discuss this Oda affair a bit more, rather than start on other more extended ideas right away. I think that can be treated as a single, fairly concise unit which is actually quite startling, and a reflection of critical deficiencies in our social system. (Another issue which I'd like to discuss a bit later is when the 3 police officers pretended to be protestors in Que., and attempted to provoke violence. This is another issue, in my opinion, which is fundamental to the nature of the country.)

sanizadeh, do you even understand the statement you made or the context of this discussion? That's quite a bizarre statement. If you see a problem with this proposal, point it out. Just what is "fascistic" in any of this? How do you justify that label for this situation. Are you just throwing around negative words hoping they'll stick?

humanity4all, Did you post just to drool on everything. You appear to be a foreigner (and I don't mean that in a negative way, but a neutral way, although I really don't care how you take it), judging by the last statement, so are you promoting Canadian interests or foreign interests. I'll discuss either, but make clear what your angle is. Deception disgusts me. This gov't is not me, and I'm not the gov't. If you just wanted to wave your finger in general admonishment, I've got a statement that ends with ass and begins with kiss my.

I was hoping to initiate a few discussions and things and, after a couple of weeks, summarise and organise the various things as best I can. But, many have quite distorted what I've presented here. Several have suggested that resolving native issues has to be the priority. All I can say is that you don't understand the nature of what I'm doing, and it simply can't be that way. If you want to try that, develop something of your own and make posts, and I'll try to help in any way I can. I want to make something that's going to work and the majority of the people in the country accept.

Right now, I'm talking about fundamental issues of governance. What good is it to do all the work to find resolutions to end-point issues, to the exclusion of all else, when something above that can change things arbitrarily. My name's O'Toole not O'Foole.

I've recorded the proposal regarding appointing native women elders as national leaders, and when the issue of the laws for choosing leaders is looked at, if it's determined there's a problem of some kind of abuse with the current method, it will be one of the options presented for discussion, the same as election by lot and others. I doubt many will agree to those, but that's something which would have to be seen. The points of specific injustice need to be looked at individually, and will be presented for analysis as well. The issues of political party power, election financing, etc. have been recorded and will be looked at specifically in due time.

If there are any out there serious about this, please look at the proposed extension of the treason law and provide a thoughtful comment. If you have reservations, please state them, but don't just assume the worst and throw around negative words. This change is designed to stop a specific abuse of power, and if you don't see why it's needed, let me know and I'll outline a number of current and hypothetical examples. This is put forward for discussion and from my view point I don't see how it is a bad thing, and that it will in fact protect civil rights which are currently being violated. If someone sees a problem, please describe it (them). Change can only come through changes in laws.

M. Spector, I hope you're still out there. Your first post stated exactly what I wanted to do, look at what's wrong with the country and talk about how to fix things. But, in a realistic way. How to determine what's wrong, and what actions it would take to fix things, isn't an easy thing, though.

The only effective way I've come up with so far is to look at current and past events which give an example of some abuse of power or other problem, see how the law allowed it, then see what changes in the laws are needed to stop it. Some have thrown around the label "fascistic", but I'm sure you realise that there may be some out there who's specific purpose is to derail discussions like this. If it works, they've won and nothing will change.

Since you seem to understand what I'm doing here, M. Spector, could you help and discuss how it is that you determine the things that are wrong? Do you have any specific issues you've identified already? If so, if you point one of them out, we can talk about it a bit, so I can better illustrate my approach in order to better judge whether it might be effective.

It's pointless to go in to specific issues until the nature of the approach is understood. I shouldn't have used the field analogy earlier, since that implied that I wanted to destroy everything first in order to start from nothing. (I'm a technical writer and shouldn't have tried to be flowery.) That will almost certainly not be necessary, but I just wanted to make clear that we can't be afraid to change anything we want, and the current laws etc. can't be looked at as a weight around our necks, just a starting point.

We have to start with the current system and laws, since by doing that the process for change is embodied within the analysis.

sanizadeh, I understand very well that anyone who throws around "treason" charges to advance his points, is certainly not looking for a modern or progressive society that I would be interested in. First, please don't parrot my expressions in a deceptive context (ie. throws around). I believe that an extension of the treason law is necessary in order to stop what I see as a serious abuse of civil rights. I think I outlined the reasoning, and if you disagree, point out specifics. It's called a discussion. You simply put a charged, negative word in a general sentence related to this proposal, without any attempt to define context. There was lots of room. You are "throwing around", I'm discussing.

If the word "treason" hurts you somehow, take an aspirin, it's the treason law we're talking about, for Christ's sake, how could you not use the word treason. Absolutely ridiculous. Free yourself from the slave mind. You are equal to everyone else, and can even talk about things like treason. If you want to change the name, what does that matter. It's the real protection provided by the law that's important.

"Modern" and "progressive" are terms which mean nothing in this discussion. All labels are irrelevant and platitudes are poison. Political party, religion, gender, race, etc. have nothing to do with the basic nature of the discussion, although issues specifically related to these groups will become relevant periodically.

You seem to have a misunderstanding. I'm not using anything to advance any points except justice in Canada through unfettered discussion and majority will. You make that sound sinister. I presented an opinion for discussion, which was actually meant more as an example of the approach. You're opinion is to oppose the change, presumably you can describe specific reasons, as I have. Why do you say they should be able to do those things?

I realize this is my fault for not explaining and/or presenting this project very effectively at the beginning.

sanizadeh, To me methods matter a lot more than goals. This statement shows you don't understand what I'm doing. My approach involves defining and analyzing the goal in a way which incorporates the method to achieve that goal, which is to change or make new laws (and possibly some other things without the power of law, like procedures, etc.) in order to stop injustices. There could be no smoother method than what I'm proposing, and nothing more democratic, if you consider "democratic" as being changes approved by the majority in a democratic vote after proper free debate. Of course, that doesn't mean it's easy.

And, any changes in laws could not be applied to previous incidents anyway. This is one part of the current Constitution I would support keeping, where new laws can't be applied to old offences. You act like there would be mass arrests or something. If this law was changed tomorrow, it's only future violations which would be relevant, in that they would be stopped, hopefully. Crimes would be stopped.

And, just like any other changes in laws, this must also include a look at the penalties, to make sure they're appropriate for the changes, which they aren't in this case, I think, and are too harsh for the new description of this aspect of the offence. 2-5 yrs or something like that maybe? Plus a large fine? It has to be a real deterrent.

sanizadeh, and yes, treason laws of any kind are fascistic and archaic in nature, because "treason" is meaningful only within the context of an "oath" to a government or to a country, regardless of right or wrong. That you have to remain loyal to a system, group or country even when it is doing something wrong, is fascistic in nature. Thank you very much. I agree that treason laws of any kind are, ipso facto, fascistic (but, that doesn't mean they aren't necessary), that's why I questioned whether you understood, since you implied it was my changes which were fascistic, when it's the overall concept that is so. I'm sure you see how you put an unfair focus on the changes.

But, these laws are only archaic because they have not changed suitably in order to account for current realities. That's because the duty of changing and making the laws falls upon those who least want the law changed, the ones who want to maintain the arbitrary power of royalty. Why would they give up the sweet deal they have. This requires, in my opinion, a discussion of what "treason" means today, compared to what it did when the law was created or changed the last time.

That is a big part of what we're doing. What was that law meant to protect against, and what does that mean today. I say it's grossly inadequate and has to be changed, with real and theoretical examples, and I define what it should change to, as well as changes in penalties. It's not even a matter of agreeing, it's just that this is a point (and area) brought up for discussion. Your opinion is that you disagree, apparently.

Please let me elaborate about my opinions regarding the treason law in another post, since there are a couple of other subtleties associated with it. I wanted to illustrate the general approach with simpler examples at first, then go deeper in to that, since this is one of the issues that is central to many things.

humanity4all, I'm not a westerner. I think freethinker would be the most accurate label. And, that was not pseudo politeness, it was sarcasm. It was meant to increase the insult. You obviously didn't get it. But, I don't fault you for your cause, just your manner.

absentia, If you want to indict the present government, or even the entire system and/or style of governance, okay - not very useful, but okay. It's not quite like that. The actions of the current gov't are indicative of many critical deficiencies in our social system. But, even though the current gov't provides many prime examples of excess, anything with be looked at. I'm still fuming about the "Scrap the GST" lie. Boy, there's got to be something can be done about that kind of thing. All the lies Harper told to get elected. Suggestions?

Real events, past or present, provide the window in to the system, since when things happen that we think shouldn't, that provides a focal point. But, organisation is a critical factor. How to even understand what the problem is isn't a simple issue. If 1000 things have happened that we disapprove of, that doesn't mean 1000 separate issues. There could be 50 different issues within the gov't structure that allows those 1000 things.

absentia, Maybe try listing the specific charges and see if anyone agrees. That's what I'm doing, except that there are no "charges", there are proposed changes in laws designed to protect the people from specific arbitrary abuses of power. These are changes proposed to protect the people against future abuse and can't, unfortunately, be applied to past offences.

So, the structure is more like, in some situation, what charges would there be, if this were my ideal Canada, why isn't it so, and how do we make it so. Then, once options are presented, discussion and vote would decide the law. Proposed charges would be to stop future abuse.

There may be possible charges related to current laws, but that would be specific for each case, and would be a case of current laws not being properly applied, rather than the need for changes (this is relevant in the Oda affair, I think). This is a reflection of the complexity of the problem, in that, what exactly is the problem.

absentia, If you want to build a concensus os wishful thinking, i'm all for that, and there would be lots of good ideas. Maybe present a list of issues - or categories of legislature, social structure, political procedure or form - that you would like to address. This is no wishful thinking by any means, and I'm not seeking consensus yet, but rather just opinions. Right now it's organising the process so it will be coherent. And, generating a list of specific issues to use for focus is part of the process. But, this is a lot more than just me. I have opinions, but so do many others. Understanding what has to be changed is the thing which is most important, and that will define which areas are relevant.

Easy to say, possibly impossible to do without a suitable approach. And, that's what I'm doing first. I'm trying to provide a suitable approach, which is a framework for discussion. I have absolutely no delusions. I see the magnitude of the task. I don't know whether it will even work for sure. I've actually done things similar to this before, and am very confident it will succeed if we proceed the way I'm envisioning.

And, I'm going to keep talking until people stop listening. In the next post, I'd like to discuss the general approach more. It's pointless to go in to specifics, until we're on the same page. Some may think this is trying to control the discussion, but it's an attempt to break the issues into relevant subsections, which we can discuss. Don't assume the worst. Please wait until my next post to comment.

Let's say everything goes as I hope, what is the end result? At the most ideal, you know how you look at many events today and they make you mad, some abuse of power or something. Well, what if you start looking around and there are many, many fewer things that make you mad. Fewer abuses of power, etc. Will we ever get none? Probably not, but it's something to keep working toward.

One thing for sure, though, this can't be left to politicians. That obviously hasn't worked out well up to now, and it's long past time to at least try something different.

I got called away unexpectedly, and didn't have time to do anything on this yet.

Before that (several days at least), though, let me explain a bit more, since this project has evolved since the first post. It evolved because I've had a bit of time to think about it and talk to others. I said before that I'm looking for real solutions, not just talk. Easy to say, I know. The thing most striking is that when people get together and talk about events, it's usually just anger, disgust, contempt, etc. which is expressed.

Of the dozen or so people I've talked to about this so far, when pushed to find out what a person thinks could be done to change things, there's a big problem. "Nothing can be done until you change the whole thing"; "you have to get honest people in gov't"; "the people have to force politicians to do what we say"; etc., is all I would hear.

These aren't real solutions. I soon realised that one major problem is that for each problem or issue, there are usually no details specific enough to figure out what could be changed. We don't have all the information we need to have informed discussions.

That's when it hit me. If I can create a searchable "database" format so that each incident can be analysed in a fairly standard way to see what laws are involved, what groups, gov't agencies, details of what is considered the problem, suggested solutions and ramifications of those solutions, etc., etc., then each issue can be brought before everyone for discussion. If there are opinions or "facts" that have been left out, add them.

Right now, this is about making a good way to present all the facts, opinions, etc. in one place (without judgement), so people can have meaningful discussions and make informed decisions. I don't know if others see why this is important, even critical, but before you decide, in the next post let me illustrate with the example of the 3 Que. police officers who tried to incite violence at that protest rally. That's more straight forward than other issues.

What I hope to produce in the end is like a "standard form" for discussing incidents (which can be added to at any time), which includes not only technical facts but also the different opinions and brief discussions (and links, etc., if necessary, who knows). The exact format has to be determined, but it has to be flexible and searchable.

I'm going to start it off and keep my own spreadsheet, and others can make their own or contribute to mine, or whatever. So, in the end we'll have a hardcopy of as many details and opinions as possible for each thing. Then, as people get together and talk, we can all be on the same page. As potential solutions are found, they can be included for further discussion.

There are a number of great, great advantages in doing it this way, but I'll expand on those in the next post. I have a hard time seeing how real solutions can be found without something like this, but getting something good may take a bit of ingenuity.

And, this will be useful not just for us, but this kind of approach should be relevant for anyone, in any country, to look at how their gov'ts are treating them, and to help figure out how to make real changes short of armed revolution.

I was going to post the example of the database idea (using the Quebec affair as example) here, but it's about six and a half pages long, and it's kind of off topic from the original issue. Should I start another thread for that? The database would be used in this discussion thread, but isn't integral to it, necessarily. The discussion of the database details are totally independent of any specific issues, as well, although it's much easier to use real examples.

politicalnick, thank you for your comments. I'm not really looking for "controversial" opinions, just all opinions, from all sides, as well as suggested solutions. Labels like that really have no meaning for this. What I want to do is present all the opinions and options for discussion. Although, in Harperland this would be considered a "crime against humanity", I'm sure. I can only hope we haven't been turned in to Harperland yet.

Native rights is a bit of a complex subject, and I just started this so I don't have anything yet. In the database, though, in the appropriate spot (and I don't know what kind of size limitations there might be), but within the space you could record your opinions. You believe the country was purchased, and "fairly" or "unfairly" doesn't matter. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but you see what I mean.

In the same space, I might post that I think the issues aren't always about getting "more", but about honouring past written agreements, maybe with examples. You respond, I respond, etc. We want to limit repetition but also fairly present all opinions and options. Copies of real documents would be very important.

For each example, there might be a database entry. Then we'll have the information we need for intelligent, meaning discussion, and people looking at it for the first time can virtually immediately enter in to the details of the discussion, and see proposed solutions. This will be most effective, though, if everyone has the chance to put in their real opinion, without fear of the gestapo. I don't think this is possible in Harperland, but we have to have hope for the future. I have a dream.

There still seems to be misunderstanding about the treason law.

The treason issue reflects how some of the problems we face require a reanalysis of the fundamental meaning of some laws. I never said anyone could be charged with treason according to the current written law. And I agree our problems won't be solved by charging a few people with something after the fact. Right now the law does not stop them, changing the law will stop them. If there was a law against it, they wouldn't do it. That's the whole point, right now there are no consequences for what they do. That has to change, and the next thread will go in to that more.

We must take up the role of lawmaker. We're trying to stop future abuse, so our children won't have to put up with the garbage we do. We've totally failed them up to now, let's turn that around. First royal, then communist, then fascist rule has nearly destroyed our country. Obviously, our current laws are inadequate to protect even the most basic human rights of the people. Like the right even to have a say in the future of our own country. The right to express our own opinions and have control over our own money. Etc., etc.

There was a radical change when the queen functionally relinquished ownership of the country. The relevant questions are who she relinquished ownership to, the gov't or the people, and what does "the people" mean. At least when the queen owned the country (and us), there was a chance the people could go to her and ask (beg) her to punish the crimes of politicians. We no longer have that avenue, and see where we are. The arbitrary authority of the queen has to be replaced with a series of laws governing the activities and level of authority of the gov't (ie. a real constitution).

That is, I believe the people, not the gov't, replaced the queen, and the gov't continued in the same role, as the administrator of the authority, but only now they don't recognise the over-riding authority, and piss on us whenever they want, laughing all the way. This led to the "gov't" thinking it's the queen, and that it, rather than the civil rights of the people, is the over-riding authority.

I believe the gov't is not the country, "the people" are the country.

I want to explore the treason issue further in the next post, but you can see how, regardless of individual opinion, having all the arguments together will help, especially for people looking at this issue for the first time. Does the above brief discussion give you food for thought? There's more, including exact changes to laws, proposed consequences to those changes, and real and hypothetical examples.

Of course, gov't reform can only come about by changes in laws. Foreign aid, Electoral reform, Lobbying reform, Tax reform, Gov't spending reform might be the main areas which flow to your opinions. If you don't mind, when I make database files for these issues, I'll add yours in the proper section. Any entries can be commented on, etc. in case you think it should be in another section, like Wikipedia but including opinions as well.

Let me comment on a couple of your points, which might show why I think this will be important.

(This would be an entry in the database for Electoral reform.) The "election by lot" idea for politicians could actually many times compound the present problems. Doing that doesn't solve our problems regarding fundamental governance, but it could be useful for solving our problems with respect to patronage appointments.

Also, I don't think you can force people to take positions they aren't qualified for, and then threaten legal accountability. I see want you're getting at, but I think this could be better accomplished by changing the laws regarding the results of referenda, making them binding (and ensuring the wording is proper, and including them during elections, etc.), and general recall and transparency laws, especially during negotiations. Also, the power of the "party" has to be removed. These changes would do a lot. (When the power of the party is removed, we have to change the rules for how the gov't is defeated.)

A real constitution would do a great deal as well. One we give to them, not that they give to us. (This could be another thread, what would a real constitution look like, starting with what there is.)

Our problems aren't about who's in charge, they are about how our laws don't protect the people when "bad" people are in charge. If the protection and respect of civil rights depends on who's in charge, whether they "like" us or not or whether they are honest, we've got real problems. It could be 1000 years of good, but it takes only one year of bad to destroy everything. How many years have we had now?

Election by lot could be valuable with positions normally appointed, though. Relevant groups could put in prospects, also showing why they are competent for the job, and then a random draw, unless all parties agreed on one, or something like that. I think it's very important to recognise that there may be times when "luck" shouldn't rule us, and be able to account for that, like during war. I think that should be discussed at least. (this may have a link to "patronage appointment" discussion sheets.)

I agree with your positions on the other issues, except Tax reform, which would require a lot more discussion, I think. I don't see why we can't input real numbers relevant for the changes. Of course, this will take work, but once it's entered, it's done. What exact laws would be involved here, too. What exactly is the "order of authority" in those kinds of things. Answers to these questions would be listed.

I think the issue of forbidding deficit budgets would have to include discussion of areas, or priority lists, for cuts when that would be necessary. When it's all listed for everyone to see and discuss, ultimately the vote of the majority would determine specifics (I'm sure the arts would suffer, for eg., but if that's the will of the majority, that's the way it is). This is one of the difficulties which I want to overcome, how to take the generalities and work them in to specific changes that will give us what we want. This requires knowledge of how money is spent right now, of course, because we have to start with what there is.

And, this also illustrates one of the most important aspects, if we want to forbid deficit budgets, it's up to us to come up with how that can be applied in reality. If the price of oil just plummeted, for eg., what are you going to cut? This can't be just grand proclamations, without any regard to reality, and, the numbers have to work out in the end, too. There's no relying on magic. If we left it up to individual discretion, that could be (has been) disaster (and we're never told any details).

A "deficit budgeting" thread would mainly be about how to determine the priority and amount of specific cuts, I would think. Also, sources of revenue would be looked at, to see if we're being short-changed anywhere, and what should be done about it. We need concrete data, though. It's not that complex, but without enough information and decent organisation, it can appear so.

Do you think it would be better to start a separate thread for each major area? Tax reform? Electoral reform? Etc. I think that might be easier. The format of the database entries would be a variation of the one for the Quebec incident, but I haven't looked at those kinds of issues and how to tie them in yet, although it's just a matter of organisation. There's no reason the discussion can't start, though.

I'm going to discuss the treason issue and then the Oda affair in this thread, since each reflects unique aspects of our problems, and will be very useful to try and make the database as encompassing as possible. The treason issue will include the general nature of the relationship between the gov't, the people and laws, as I see it, and so might be considered a background discussion as well.

When you think about it, changing our treason laws to put civil rights on top would do a great deal to stop many of the most despicable and vile abuses of the current gov't.

**In a legitimate democracy you would never have to apologise for your opinions.**

**Discussion destroys deception.**

**Evil requires deception, and so fears discussion.**

(I'm going to start a new thread for the database idea, after I come up with a decent label for it. Suggestions?)

I had 2 discussions I was going to post, but before I do that I want some clarification.

 Catchfire, your comments are very disturbing. I was not aware that in order to post on this forum we had to have some predisposition regarding native issues. Are you saying that if I started a thread regarding native issues, that you would forbid the posting of certain opinions? If this is the case, that is totally unacceptable.

That is simply imposing your opinions on others, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. You obviously don't even realise, as well, that by presuming to forbid discussion of these opinions, you provide a rich fuel for the fire which keeps them burning.

If people have opinions which you disagree with, describe your reasoning. Whether on this forum or another, I'm going to have discussion sheets on native issues. All opinions, whether you like them or not, will be included. If doing it on this forum means some opinions will be forbidden, then I won't continue on this forum.

It's very unfortunate, also, that you don't seem to realise that it's only by bringing out and discussing raw historical facts that truth in history can be shown. I know nothing about Turtle Island, you obviously disagree strongly with Nick's assessment, so what do you say the specifics of that issue are? Are there documents?

Forbidding opinions is not changing opinions. Changing opinions requires free discussion.

Please let me know if when a thread for native issues is started it will be censored. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Unionist, you're another who likes to pervert my expressions in a deceptive context. I refer to the current Constitution as toilet paper because it is a false document, which only serves to promote the interests of the state (ipso facto royalty) by tricking people in to thinking they have real civil rights. That document is a disgusting disgrace, and is a perversion of the idea of a Constitution, since it is in fact what empowers the dictatorship, and lack of civil rights, which exists today.

How do you justify that label for my work. Do you even understand what I'm doing, or how this can be used to advantage? You present a very childish attitude, in my opinion, and if you don't care, why are you even reading this.

Catchfire, thank you for your response and the refresher. As is so often the case nowadays, I think my misunderstanding arises from our differing interpretations of the terms in the policy statement, rather than forgetting there was one. Now that I see a manifestation of that policy, it's much easier to understand how you look at it. But, there was really no indication of this attitude in anything I read.

And, of course, you are censoring, that's a simple fact, but you believe it's justified given the policy statement and general nature of the forum. I agree you have the right to do what you're doing, since it's your forum, but it is censoring.

Since this necessarily entails discussions of laws, which entails considering and recording opinions regarding fundamental rights and how they are, and can (should) be, expressed in laws (including proper over-riding civil rights defined in a real Constitution), even the slightest risk of censorship on any issue is a mortal threat. That would destroy everything.

I fully agree and understand that this is a matter of error on my part.

M. Spector,...a problem that's easily solved by not putting "bad" people in charge. Laws aren't going to protect you from bad people when the bad people themselves are in charge of making, amending, and enforcing the laws. I urge you to more carefully consider the first statement. How are you going to make sure bad people aren't in charge? Should it matter who's in charge as to whether there's justice or not? I'd call that a dictatorship. We get one vote once in a blue moon, and that gives the green light for anything the elected party (leader) wants. I know that's the way it is now, but is that the way it should be? Is that democracy?

They've assumed the role of dictator of our lives (like the queen was, when she owned us, but way more intrusive), rather than administrators of the public will (ie. the laws, which is the same role they played with the queen). "Not putting bad people in charge" is no solution to anything, and I think you'd have an impossible job to show how that would work in the long run (even in the short run). Electing another group only puts off the problem(s) to the future, like the national debt, if they're even any better. Would our children thank us or curse us for that.

Your second sentence is exactly the purpose of this project, to determine what our problems are, in order to determine how to fix them. You've defined one of the most severe, the politicians control the mechanisms for the imposition of "justice", and they generally put themselves above it, and we can't do anything about it. If they want to do bad things they can, like royalty. There are many current real examples of this.

I think there are 2 central concepts, first, how do they do bad things (what kinds of things are we calling bad, and how do they manifest), and second, what mechanism(s) do "the people" have to stop them from doing it, or punish appropriately if it is done.

That's the subject of one of the posts I was going to put up, and it's about 4 pages, so I won't put it here.

In a nutshell, the first issue is multi-faceted, but the second involves that when the queen relinquished ownership of the country (and us), the gov't was freed of a critical level of oversight, the arbitrary authority of the queen. It's my assertion that the queen gave the country to the people, not the gov't, but there was no change to allow for the people to impose "arbitrary authority".

The only way the people can impose authority is through the laws, it's which ones and how that are the questions. That's the purpose of the database project, to link "problems" to specific laws, and provide a permanent record of all opinions and proposed solutions, so the same arguments aren't constantly repeated.

(As a side note, do you mean for the change in my moniker to be an insult? Please explain it. I'd hate to not have the emotion you intended, just tell me what it is.)

Also, I had no idea this forum was so strongly focussed toward the promotion of native issues. I'm not judging in any way, but many of my comments have been interpreted differently from what I intended, since I totally misread the mindsets of those reading. The field analogy, for eg., was meant to refer to laws related to fundamental governance specifically, in that we can't be hindered by what laws already exist (since they are perverse).

My database work is about presenting all the opinions and proposed solutions for specific issues, so when people look at it for the first time, they have all the information from all sides, if possible, in order to have an informed discussion. This is a complex project and I'm just starting, so I'm still getting the feel of it. I've recorded the proposal where all land is given to natives, but I frankly doubt that very many are going to go for that.

As far as what we were taught about natives, I went to school in S. Ont. during the 60's and 70's as well, and we were taught almost nothing about Canadian natives except that they were our friends, and helped in fighting the Americans and French periodically. Whenever we heard about abuse, it was always in the US, and almost always the mid-west. Even these abuses were generally just described as "massacres", and were usually represented as reactions to the killing of white settlers by natives. We never heard about all the unimaginable physical atrocities and deceptions committed against the native people.

The only instance of abuse in Canada that I recall learning about is when I was doing a project on natives, and had a library book that talked about abuses in the US, which also mentioned a tribe in Canada, where they moved off land due (among other things) to a promise that the gov't would supply a herd of cattle (I think) each year for food for the tribe.

Naturally the gov't reneged after a short time, and the people of the tribe were starving to death. This was really just a side-note about that kind of tactic as used in the US, and it didn't even say when it was or what finally happened. Since then I've seen a bit more, but if I didn't have a personal interest, I never would have known anything was wrong. I didn't know anything about Turtle Island until I went to the web-site after it was mentioned.

But, my knowing about it can't just be according to one viewpoint. I demand to see all the information, and refuse to blindly accept the dictates of any side. I won't have my opinion issued to me.

Also, I don't know about everyone, but I recall that the "beads and blankets" notion stems from an early encounter in the US, I think the "purchase" of Manhattan Island, which was always portrayed that way. Whenever I hear that opinion, that's what I think of, anyway. Also, the old US westerns (which were very, very popular when I was young) reinforced this view by portraying land "purchases" similarly.

When you're not given any other information, I think it's only natural to have that idea about other instances, even all. As soon as you look at it, of course, you see that land issues, for eg., generally deal with specific written agreements which can be easily examined by everyone. Other information is also readily available. But, I think that many people who hold differing views won't even try if they see that their opinion is not represented in the discussion. No matter what it is.

I'm going to look in to getting my own web-page and forum for the database project, once I've fleshed it out a bit more on my own. I don't know what that costs, but hopefully I can do it. As I think about this, it's become clear that I need some kind of integrated database / forum system. Since I currently don't know how to do that, I don't know how long it will take. Does anyone have any suggestions of how to get that started?

**"Where laws end, tyranny begins." William Pitt the Elder (1708-78)**

**When there is no change in laws, there is no change.**

But, M. Spector stated that changing laws wouldn't help, and suggested that not putting bad people in charge was the solution. I assert that the only way real change can happen is by changing laws, and the relevant task is figuring out which laws to change/create.

I've written a discussion about it, but now I'm not sure this is the right venue for that. This is meant to explore why I believe it's true (and obvious) that the law is all the people have to defend themselves from abuses of the state, and is a purely theoretical discourse meant as a preliminary discussion for the database project. Is anyone interested in that so I could get some constructive comments?