Gunnair Gunnair:
There is a culture of both victemhood and victor that must be removed first - for they feed each other and ultimately allow neither to progress towards unity. I hear both sides of the argument, and firmly believe that for natives to fit into the cultural mosiac, they need to bring into it only the best of their cultural baggage and leave the rest (which includes their victemhood) at the door. We, on the otherhand, need to be open to including their unique culture and applying it to our own. I'm rather intrigued at sentancing circles actually. The idea of a municiple sentancing circle for petty crimes has a ring of grass roots justice to it.
Derby wrote:
$1:
How do we remove that? Neither you or I have that complex. Your ancestory appears to be Scottish, mine a mix of that and Irish. We are far removed from Culloden by not just time but distance and a new identity from which to spring from.
That is the problem. Far removed yes, but for some, still emotive. Believe it or not, 300 plus years later, many of us MacDonalds don't take kindly to Campbells. There may not be a bite behind the growl, but it's still there. We may have a new identity, but we didn't leave all of our baggage behind. We did learn to move past it though. Most of the enemity is frivolous... most of it.
$1:
True they play the victim card (they were). So were we all at one point. canadian culture, Canadian law, and Canadian symbology consists almost entirely on english (re brit ilses) and french.Due not in too small a part of the lack of said identification of Native tribes.
As was pointed out, without a unified language, it would be hard to include a native tongue as our third official language. And... could you imagine the bunfight to pick one...
$1:
The sentencing circle has become a focal point in that people believe its a loop hole for which natives escape justice.
Yes... we've certainly seen that in this case.
$1:
The problem is that so often natives have experienced so much misery that their actions are inherent and punishment reinforces that.
I understand that. Apparently they don't, which undermines their right for self determination, I think.
$1:
Recently we had a child porn bust in Ontario. They freed a 5 year old boy and 12 year old girl.
They charged a 51 year old man
and a 14 year old boy. How can we charge a boy considered to young to consent to sex with s sex crime?

Isn't he a victim too?
That would be up to the courts. I try to avoid (though I sometimes fail) generalizing. Some 14 year olds may be to young to consent bgy law, but that doesn't remove the ability of intent.
$1:
Sorry to wander seemingly off topic but I meant only to illustrate the fact our justice doesn't have it all together.
You are correct, it does not.