What I see are many different people involved with a spectrum of complaints/dislikes. IMO, to obtain broad support-success in such initiatives it is best to keep the cause-messages easy to understand, and unwise to lump many related and some unrelated complex issues into one initiative, as this movement does.


Additionally, I am not even sure if the folks involved in the various elements of the initiatives have considered exactly how success would be determined?

Regardless, IMO, it is a downhill battle when ultimations are issued. Few governments react positively (especially in the short-term) under such situations. I suspect doing so undermines their effectiveness to govern - and opens the door to similar actions by other (often some less popular) movements.

Lets agree (for the sake or discussion) that Aboriginal Canadians have been treated poorly and need a better deal. Outside of prejudices, that issue is easy to understand by the population and has a possibility of some form of discussion that would lead to successful resolution (these won't be resolved overnight). I suspect that making a case that additional consultations on impacts to the native community is needed is also one that may be seen as reasonable.

However, it is not reasonable to add to this a challenge that a democratically elected majority government cannot enact federal bills-actions that it sees fit, and good of Canada and generally Canadians, (like it-them and the process or not, it does fall within the parliamentary rules of the Canadian democracy).

I understand that some Canadian folks on here do not personally like this government and some of the legislation involved in this bill - that is their right (they have a chance to change the government in three years or so). But, this alone should not cloud reason. If the causes at hand were not seen as popular (to them), would the approach being used (by others, seen as much less deserving) seem just as alluring?