go ahead and point where you are having trouble or where I have been inconsistent.Originally Posted by wideopenthrottle
.Sure, but forgive them for the lack of faith in that attitude. That's what was promised in the original negotiations. They will cling to the meager benefits ascribed to them in the Indian act as though it's life and death. Because for the last four or five generations it was.as equal Canadians we can work together...
HuntingBC Champ
When I mentioned the prevalence of genocide in the past.....you denied it calling the idea dumb..the fact that Canada was not one nation but two waring nations made natives valuable ( as you alluded) as warriors is in fact why they were not obliterated ....had they faced a single unified enemy (Spanish, Dutch, Russian French English or Martian) they would not be as well off (read as they would mostly be dead or assimilated.)...
people have had their land expropriated with unfair compensation throughout our countries brief history so sometimes the rights of the many outweigh the legal rights of the few...It is now after 1 am here so getting too tired to argue but I hope I have made my position clear...the situation reminds me of the woman who is getting Salvador Dali exhumed to get a paternity test done.....she has had a circus form around her claim....
Well, first, "genocide" is a pretty loaded word when it comes to describing what happened to aboriginals in either colonial or confederate Canada. I've just finished reading VFX_man's link, and I'll concede that I shouldn't have called the suggestion dumb, and that their were likely a large number of actors with genocidal aspirations throughout the period and that many would view certain elements of our political relationship with Canadian aboriginals as policies of genocide. However, I think the word is often erroneously used in parity to describe cruel, dehumanizing behavior, and/or wartime atrocities and imo don't mean the same thing at all. Used that way, the term genocide, gets applied quite broadly, loses its descriptive value for what it is and the ideology behind it.
I'll continue to maintain that the ideology behind wholesale extermination of an entire people and/or having the resources to see that goal through to completion has been fairly rare in human history. Colonialism becomes much more common somewhere in the process, even if the initial impetus for conflict was genocidal aspiration or tactics of genocide were used by the dominant society to further what really are goals of colonial subjugation.
I still think the reasoning behind the argument of equivalency in Canadian colonialism is somewhat dubious. It shows one is willing to ignore details in the specific context, aptly demonstrated in your next point;
I think the above is actually a really good analysis of the facts and exactly why Canadian aboriginals found themselves in such a strong negotiating position throughout much of Canada's development. It also speaks to a significant component in the formation of Canada's identity. The European powers did not have the resources to fight on multiple fronts and war eventually gave way to alliances and trading partnerships. A grand vision took hold that eventually amalgamated Canada into a place of reasonableness and compromise using British law as the framework for negotiation. These negotiations are documented to a significant extent and are now being interpreted by the courts.the fact that Canada was not one nation but two waring nations made natives valuable ( as you alluded) as warriors is in fact why they were not obliterated ....had they faced a single unified enemy (Spanish, Dutch, Russian French English or Martian) they would not be as well off (read as they would mostly be dead or assimilated.)...
I would also point out that European relationships with aboriginal groups were just as important economically (for all parties) as they were militarily.
again, using the logic "it could have been worse" doesn't legally wash. It's reasoning that would be laughed at if used seriously defending a breach of contract. The agreements penned with aboriginal groups in many cases are plain for us to see and in other instances can be inferred using the historic context and law of the land as it stood then. The "royal proclamation of 1763" is one such law that made most senttlement outside of upper Canada and western treaty zones expressly illegal prior to confederation - in contempt of an order from the king.
WRT expropriation; This weaves back into my original point. The body of law surrounding expropriation is getting more and more onerous for the Crown. Given that today's compensation settlements will likely reflect a combination of quantum legal thinking from the 1800's and current quantum obligations, it makes sense to get these land claims settled ASAP for the sake of all involved. If the Crown is to claim that all crown land in BC was an expropriation, it first must prove what the explicitly defined public benefit of doing that at the time was. Contract law (very old body of law), quite simply stipulates that for the validity of any contract, consideration by both parties must have been exchanged. So the crown's position will likely be that the benefits outlined in the "Indian act" shortly after confederation was the consideration exchanged for the use of the common law land title held by BC FN. Again, give that racist piece of legislation a read and try to predict what a modern court will make of that supposition.people have had their land expropriated with unfair compensation throughout our countries brief history so sometimes the rights of the many outweigh the legal rights of the few...It is now after 1 am here so getting too tired to argue but I hope I have made my position clear...the situation reminds me of the woman who is getting Salvador Dali exhumed to get a paternity test done.....she has had a circus form around her claim....
some on here want to deny the benefits ascribed in the Indian act, and ignore aborinal title. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, it's not going to ever work that way, and it's in all our interests to come up with a more reasonable position if "working together as Canadians" is truly what we want.
enjoy you trip to the homeland WOT! (My homeland)
HuntingBC Champ
Cheers...I see we agree more than we disagree....I think our way forward is to settle treaty disputes asap as it is the lawyers who are the parasites feeding off the continuation of dispute...natives also need to accept that they are not deserving of special status but rather they are deserving of compensation for the failure of our govt to deliver on promises made that are no longer of any benefit to our society as a whole....."sorry, my bad" is not going to cut it I know but giving special status to any group is a bad idea and fosters animosity....."all animals are equal..........except some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind.....orwell was a smart cookie
absolutely! The fate of the province/county can't be left in the hands of lawyers, including the ones in government. That's why it's so important that we all learn what it is we are talking about when it comes to these issues. I recognize some of my personal opinions may come off as extreme to some, but the unfettered BS that flies when these threads come up is incredible, Especially for a group of direct resource users who have an acutely vested interest in the negotiations that we both agree our government needs to engage.
everytime someone hits a blockade- that is a cost incurred for your government dragging its feet on this. Likewise with everytime a project gets delayed or all the court's resources that these disputes suck out of the system. What happens when the very tactful Chinese see this discord and leverage it to their advantage?
blaming the natives? Your focused on the wrong people.
pS: apologies to the lawyers on here, forgive my legal ignorance, and feel free to correct me where I'm way off base. I will promptly take my place in the peanut gallery in exchange for your more educated dialogue
Yep, good quote, but we all probably feel that way sometimes.All animals are equal..........except some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind.....orwell was a smart cookie
Last edited by Pemby_mess; 07-22-2017 at 05:57 PM.
I thought I'd address the OP's original question:
like others have mentioned signs posted as "traditional territory" don't indicate that you are trespassing in any way or that your right to lawfully use crown land is extinguished in any fashion.
Thats the the simple version, but there are complexities that might be interesting to all of us:
They do indicate the approximate boundaries where status FN are legally entitled to use their status rights. Those rights do not include excluding you from the crown land in question.
they also may indicate an area under a land claim. That means there is a FN group looking to exert control over the land and therefore satisfy one of the requirements of their title being recognized. This is where it gets messy with the blockades and such. The FN blockades aren't exactly legal Per se. But in order for the court to recognize their claim over the territory, they must be seen as exercising control over the land in some fashion. Even just an attempt to restrict access is important legally.
Our law doesn't yet capture this situation, which is why it's important for the province in particular to create some more certainty around the issue. That requires better dialogue with both BC First Nations, and the rest of us. For those interested, the Tsil'cotin decision explains the latest legal clarification with respect to these issues much better than I:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...14246/index.do
HuntingBC Champ
So...what happens if the rest of us BC'er's (non FN) start "Exercising" our rights "over control" to the territory....get my drift!!??
Yeah, I think I get your drift. I'd ask a lawyer.
however, I think you'll find your attempt to exercise what you think your rights are, may result in you becoming a victim of your own ignorance. That would most likely apply to FN equally.
The good news is you now know what the purpose behind the blockades and FN rhetoric is. Therefore you also know what level of resolve they will likely resort to in keeping you out. Chances are if you're polite, respectful, and tactfully keep your mouth shut, they shouldn't present much problems to us looking to hunt and fish in traditional territories.
if you're determined to establish your own rights over crown land, I think you can actually begin that process tomorrow if you like. Again, you'd probably want to ask a lawyer about how best to go about it. It could be as simple as finding a piece of land not already spoken for by someone other than the Crown, build a cabin on it, put up no trespassing signs and fence, start raising some livestock and don't get evicted for a while. Then make a case for title based on your historical use.
or
just apply for some form of tenure, and feel free to exercise your rights over it all you like in the same way the FN seem to think they're doing. IDK - stuffs complicated, but I do know non FN have lots of opportunity to exercise full control over their private land, and for that I'm grateful.
HuntingBC Champ
It should be obvious that most people, like myself have been patient.
But, that cup of patience has run out.
If the tone of some on here isn't apparent (that their patience has also run out), I can't help you.
Yup....block roads.....but sooner or later......it isn't going to go the way they think they want it to go.
There are a lot....and I mean a lot....of people who are sick and tired of it.
The sympathy that I once had for FN is long gone now.
Don't get me wrong, if someone shows me respect, I show them respect...and as well, I always start with respect etc.
But just because I was brought up that way, and believe it is the "civil" way to be.....don't think that it makes me a
"pushover".
Oh...and I am not just talking about the hunting community being fed up.....there are lots of residents that are now
fed up...
Lots of people struggling to make ends meet these days....and a lot tired of "handing out money".
Yes...resource companies etc are making back room deals to get what they want...and they don't care about the average
joe....personally...they don't really care about the FN either.(its just business to them).
Like others....this thread has led me to run out of further patience as well....you can have the last word.
Have good hunting season...
In the end....paper won't mean much....just something to use for "ass wipe"....
Junior Member
I like this man. I don't know who you are, but I like the cut of your jib, and we would probably get along.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote