NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pemby_mess

mea no culpa

cant discuss something in a meaningful way when people can't stick to verifiable fact while simultaneously injecting untethered nonsense. Sometimes continuing to sit on easily falsified assertions, and in many other instances peddling unfalsifiable fiction.

deducing everything down to partisanship is an other sure fire way to derail any topic other than one discussin partisanship itself.

---

Love your condescending attitude and posts !
Truly enlightening !
Thank you so much ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACE

Love your condescending attitude and posts !
Truly enlightening !
Thank you so much ...

---

Sincere apologies regarding the condescension in my tone. I agree that it's a fair criticism, and is a bad habit of mine, unsupportive of productive dialogue. It is a defence mechanism for the frustration I experience in trying to communicate.

I don't think the thread should be derailed because of it. Its an important issue, that deserves discussion. I will bow out for now. But before I do, I will put forward this one observation as amends and a guide for others to stay at least closer to the topic:

When FN issues are discussed, It seems difficult for many people to focus on one issue at a time. There are many that evoke strong emotions and their interrelated nature, creates further difficulty in summoning focus for any one in particular.

When we are talking about land claims, that needs to be isolated from discussing racism, perceptions of inequality, and past abuses of process. Canadian FN are likely to bring many claims forward in the near future - some that will target land acquisition, others that will deal with the institutional racism. This thread is about a land deal. If it were to be adjudicated in court, abuses in the residential school system would not make up more than a few lines in the book like statement of claim. Therefore a thread discussing land claims in particular should stay bound by the same issues that are going to be used in any court proceeding. The thrust of that being; the BC Crown, never properly took possession of the land. Nothing to do with guilt, or kidnapped and sexually assaulted kids, or anything of that sort. Those grievances will be adjudicated separately and have little to do with the subject of the thread.

Quote:

---

Therefore a thread discussing land claims in particular should stay bound by the same issues that are going to be used in any court proceeding. The thrust of that being; the BC Crown, never properly took possession of the land.

---

It's extremely simple in that case. Take possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pemby_mess

Therefore a thread discussing land claims in particular should stay bound by the same issues that are going to be used in any court proceeding. The thrust of that being; the BC Crown, never properly took possession of the land. Nothing to do with guilt, or kidnapped and sexually assaulted kids, or anything of that sort. Those grievances will be adjudicated separately and have little to do with the subject of the thread.

---

Yup, said that long ago. For whatever reason, most of Canada has treaties dealing with the FN's, BC very, very few.
If a finger is to be pointed, it should be at those BC Gov'ts who over decades did very little to arrange treaties in BC.
Do I like the way the present treaty talks are heading, nope, but blame the Crown for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarekG

It's extremely simple in that case. Take possession.

---

Can't enter a contract with two unwilling parties. Or one willing and the other not. You need a willing seller and willing buyer. The FN may not be willing sellers. In come cases, I imagine that FN groups will exchange their legal interest in the land, for consideration of some sort - (even through some type of expropriation) thereby giving the province legitimate title, in exchange for some benefit like cash, or obligation. Unfortunately modern negotiations will likely be a lot more expensive than historic ones, even as expensive as those ended up being.

If on the other hand, you mean take possession by force; that leaves us in a very awkward position. Do we then just throw out our whole legal system? Where is the line that says the Crown (with its monopoly on violence) can behave that way with one group of people, and not toward me when i strike an inevitable disagreement with it. That certainly doesn't do the investment climate any favours, and it acts as catalyst to other parties rejecting the Crown's implicit offer of protection, therefore completely fracturing national union.

i think when it comes to treaty negotiations, it does make some sense to look back to the root of our legal system. Mulehahn and I briefly touched on some of the philosophy there. Canada made treaties with FN so that they would give up at least some of their governing autonomy, and therefore their right to execute violence on their own behalf. In exchange, the government agreed to certain obligations including, but not limited to; extending the rule of law and the incumbent methods to resolve disputes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarekG

It's extremely simple in that case. Take possession.

---

To be blunt, this is just not going to happen. Or, depending on how you look at it, the Crown taking "proper" possession of the land is exactly what is happening right now. The key word in this case may be "proper" - which, in a modern legal and moral sense, means recognizing aboriginal title and the authority of aboriginal governments, regardless of how those may look to more advantaged outside parties.

To see what, hypothetically, simply "taking posession" looks like, there are some very problematic examples throughout the world currently and in recent history, and all of them are ugly and something I think most Canadians, including myself, would be ashamed to be involved with. For even more hypothetical speculation, had Crown "properly" taken possession of the land through morally reprehensible violent conflict ~ 150 years ago, in the best case we might look to the US and their reserve system, as horrific as that conflict was... take a look at Montana, or Arizona, or Wyoming, and tell me how much of those states are Indian reserve... for another interesting outcome, take a look at the Navajo, and their fish and wildlife department: https://www.nndfw.org/

The idea that granting aboriginal title in BC is somehow based on guilt, or "liberal" weakness, or handouts, or something, is incorrect - all this is doing is rightly trying to bring Canada's unjust treatment of aboriginal peoples inline with the standards of the modern world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by codeitin

... for another interesting outcome, take a look at the Navajo, and their fish and wildlife department: https://www.nndfw.org/
.

---

here's an other local example;

http://www.nisgaanation.ca/services-2

its obviously a work in progress for the Nisgaa, but looking it as a 20 odd year experiment, it looks mostly successful from my perspective.

so rather than pure speculation on what these agreements might look like, there is some previous BC precedent to guide discussion on what future agreements should take into account based on the successes and failures having already occurred.

Pure speculation on what these agreements might look like?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/en...s/nstq_aip.pdf

a copy of the agreement in principle is posted in this thread. It contains legal framework and plans for FN self government, ownership over land and resources and consolidation of bands. which is in stage 5 treaty signing, finalizing step is next. Along with much of the parcels of land being handed out, aswell as their larger overall territory.

I firmly support the use of military force to quell and end aboriginal trouble making and will vote for ANY political group who will do this.

I do not give a rat's azz about the so-called "rights" of Indians, they are NOT "indigenous" and I hate the UN and all other such scum, so, FOAD, traitors, equality or war!

Why is it that the crown can come and take possession of my land if they so choose for a price that they deem correct and with no consideration to what I deem to be the value, they would not take into considerations my feelings my history the fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents lived here and made a living and a life here or that my children grew up here.
The only justification they need is it easier for them to build a road across my property than go around it.