Ministry response to Gitxsan eviction notice

[Eastbranch]

Walk softly and hope you dont get hit with a big stick? Negotiate faster chrusty.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/

[RugDoctor]

It's been posted here already about how it's going to get worse before it gets better.....here it comes. There will be violence.

[hawk-i]

Peaceful protest doesn't include infringing on the rights of other going about their legal business, or does it?

[Eastbranch]

Legally speaking they are protesting. However if they put up a road block and the crown tries to remove it the Gitxsan will go to court and win and we will never fish in the upper skeena again.

[Mulehahn]

Legally speaking they are protesting. However if they put up a road block and the crown tries to remove it the Gitxsan will go to court and win and we will never fish in the upper skeena again.

If the Gitxsan want to use the latest SCC court of Canada ruling to argue against sport fishing on the Upper Skeena they will also have to adhere to the Behn v Moulton Contracting Ltd ruling that basically stated blockades are illegal! Summaries can be found online but it boils down to "Aboriginal groups cannot invoke "self-help" remedies—such as blockades—when claiming that the government breached its duty to consult the Aboriginal group before making a decision affecting the group." Combine the two court cases, now that the government has a duty to consult on all unceded territory (the Behn Case was in regards to land covered under Treaty 8 ) then effectively all blockades are now illegal in BC and anyone participating should be arrested and charged accordingly.

[TARCHER]

That will be the day. Look back, way back in history.

[two-feet]

My moose leh is accessed through the gitxsan territory. Dang.

[Eastbranch]

Hunters were not part of the eviction notice. Only sports fishers. It is political posturing. Re blockades they are not claiming the govt did not consult they are claiming title to the land and as asserted private landowners they have every right to block access. Cited case has no relation here especially on land ceded under treaty. All Gitxsan trad territory is unceded. Chilcotin rules (might) apply. Hope everyone can keep their cool and not wreck this forever.

[Mulehahn]

Straight from the first paragraph of the Gitxsan Statement:

"This notice is pursuant to ayokim Gitxsan supported by the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that the Crown must obtain consent and preserve the interests of the Gitxsan before carrying on any activities on Gitxsan lax yip, 33,000 sq km of territory in northwestern British Columbia."

To me, that says pretty clear that the they are contesting that the crown failed to consult, not over who who owns title. The case I sighted says that it is illegal to set up blockades when the issue is over the crown's failer to consult. If the blockade was over title it may be a legal blockade (maybe, but highly doubtful, only that the RCMP and Crown won't pursue charges) But the Gitxsan Statement states this is about failure to consult and the SCC has explicitly said all blockades originating from such concerns are illegal.

ArcticRed, I am not trying to attack you. Just stating how I read the SCC rulings and the Gitxsan Statement. If you can show me where the Gitxsan are arguing title vs failure to consult I will gladly agree. I just don't see it.

I sincerely hope this thread stays civil, as I think these issue are important.

[digginsweatinswearin]

Giving the fishing guide outfits the boot will be relatively easy(our RCMP will do that for them) but the logging , mining and rail??? CN has a ridiculous amount of power, not to mention their own police force, this could get very interesting in a week.