First Nation Issues

[David]

OK - I'll bite...

This is an issue all over Canada and the amount of misinformation is crazy. Yelling screaming and whining about it will not help nor will it change the LAWS. Here are a few points/facts that we need to understand.

MISLEADING. Most of Canada is covered by Treaty whereas most of BC is not. The issue(s) in the rest of Canada are whether or not Treaties are being followed, in BC it is much more complicated.

1. First Nations are a Nation. That means they are not the same as the Canadian public. Canada is a nation and First Nation is a nation. They will always have different rules. Just like USA has different rules then us. This will always be TRUE. This will never change. We will never be one nation with all the same rules. Yelling that it is not fair will not change this. This means different laws and different rights for each group.

FALSE. A Nation is a culturally distinct group of people - think the Basques in Spain or the Scots in England. There is no "First Nation" Nation - there are individual Nations like the Haida. A Nation is completely separate from a State (or country) - a Nation is homogenous, a country is not necessarily so. England is a State of which Scotland is a part.

There is legal precedent where a First Nation is granted specific powers within the State - Nunavut and Haida Gwaii are probably the two best examples within Canada. They are NOT separate states and even when the courts point to "unceded territory" (the legal definition, not the current popular usage amongst First Nations apologists) they are quick to affirm that this is still within the laws of Canada.

2. First Nations have the right to hunt/fish/use resources. Canadians do not have this right. It is not my right to use the resources. No court will uphold my right to hunt/fish because I don't have one. That means the government can change the law and thus change my privilege to hunt/fish. The government CANNOT take away the First Nation's right to hunt/fish/etc. (There is only one way they can, I'll explain later)

MISLEADING. The majority (but not all) First Nations, under specific Treaties and Canadian Laws, have the right to hunt and fish FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES and ONLY IN SPECIFIC AREAS. Neither First Nations nor Canadians have a specific right to resources (resource as a term includes such things as mineral rights).

3. First Nations have first right to resources. If a resource is dwindling then Canadian privileges are first taken away before First Nation's are effected. This is law. The only way to take away the rights of the First Nation is if the species is at such a risk that there is no way to support any kind of harvest.

FALSE and MISLEADING. As noted above, your definition of resources is incorrect. Also as noted above the right to hunt/fish is often tied to a specific need (e.g. cultural & ceremonial reasons) and location. First Nations "rights" have a "cascading effect" and more importantly it is still the relevant Canadian governmental department that decides when those rights can be infringed.

These things will not change. Government cannot change them. The courts will always hold up the rights that the First Nations have. Therefore the government will not waste there time creating laws that will just get thrown out in court.

It is within this framework that we must work. The above things will not change. So how do we move forward? What is the best approach for the wildlife? I think understanding the difficult (but real) situation we have here is important. Not everyone has the same rights. It is a reality that a different set of laws will apply to each group. First Nations will always have better access to hunting and fishing. We will lose opportunities and they will not. I hate that there is two groups but it is the reality of how this country was formed.

NOPE. The courts act on what is implemented by Government (e.g. signed Treaties, the Charter, etc.) as much as many people point to the Court being activist - they still base their decisions in part on existing law.

The other thing Courts and Governments look at is the social environment and social justice (this has gone on forever - e.g. women getting the vote). This means Governments and Courts often lag what is happening within our social fabric (gay rights). In the case of First Nations look at something like the "Salish Sea" - there is no such thing! It is not a Sea! It was never called "Salish"! It was never seen as "property" of the Salish people! But it has entered our nomenclature. There are now two options: it can go from just being nomenclature to being "official" - maps being changed, etc. or society can change again and we can go back to referring to the Georgia Straight or come up with an entirely new name.

How soon until the majority has some First Nations blood, or on the opposite end a "blood quantum" to be defined as First Nations is re-introduced (did you know in the school system if you "identify" as First Nations you are considered First Nations?)

I have now eaten the bait I took.

[RyoTHC]

It's funny the government can't take away said rights as y
OP claims, but that very government is the one who told me I don't have enough first nation blood in me to receive status, though numerous people in my family do.. how's this make sense ? How do they know how I was raised ? One white woman too many in the family tree?

[DarekG]

Is this another joke post, like that one about video games causing violence?

[bearvalley]

Use..not abuse
97 % non indian Does mean something..versus 3% sponging adding nothing.
Steven

The way it works Steven is that the 3% can legally use 50% of what’s deemed to be the harvestable share of wildlife.
My bet is that if the 3% ever make accountability mandatory the 97% might find that they have been the abusers.
Just saying.....we had best think of our own closets....make sure we have no skeletons?

[IronNoggin]

O c'mon!!
Bring on the Apologists!
WTH is Jazzy, Danny who ain't 29, and their host of left-minded dribblers??
I mean really, this thread NEEDS some "Spicy", Holier Than Thou, Indignant Retorts!

Btw David: Well Presented! Well worth the taste of the bait! KUDOS!

Cheers,
Nog

[David]

but that very government is the one who told me I don't have enough first nation blood in me to receive status, though numerous people in my family do.. how's this make sense ? How do they know how I was raised ? One white woman too many in the family tree?

How recently was this? (and for those who don't know - yes whether you counted as "Indian" under the act depended on things like if it was your mother or father who was Indian, what % etc.)
Which band/nation under which Treaty?
A lot (but not all) of that stuff has been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

[bearvalley]

Btw David: Well Presented! Well worth the taste of the bait! KUDOS!

Cheers,
Nog

A guy would have to have the Canadian constitution in one hand, copies of who has treaties and who doesn't to either agree or disagree with the points David made.
Then along would come the lawyers...who will always keep agreement disagreement.
Nog, you and I will never live long enough to see all the rights and wrongs ironed out in this issue.

[IronNoggin]

Nog, you and I will never live long enough to see all the rights and wrongs ironed out in this issue.

Yep. Pretty much a Guarantee on this one alright!

Cheers,
Nog

[Pemby_mess]

Nobody is disputing the fact that they have different rules
the problem lies with the abuse of those laws
ie:the selling of fish is that a right I was unaware of

Yes.....you were unaware

[Jelvis]

RyoTHC you can get your Status Card if you can prove blood now, it's changed in the last few year, get a hold of the process -- on computer
-- get the codes and apply, used to be 25 % Indian blood at least or you were " Too white to be right! " Not based on % now. If you got it, you got it!
Jel -- if you have actual blood in your mom or dad's blood then you are now allowed to apply so I know two guys that changed it, and got their number --