First Nation Issues

[Linksman313]

Thanks for taking the time to explain and answer my questions Jimbob, I would agree there is much grey area to be muddled through.

[Pemby_mess]

Stupid question #1 - if 94% of BC is unceded/non-surrendered First Nations territory, could one revoke/cancel their Canadian citizenship (no taxes or benefits) , move on to these aforementioned lands and strike an agreement with whichever First Nation claims it? (Pay them taxes or land rent so to speak) Yes this is ridiculous but some of the off-grid/hippie types may find this appealing.

Stupid question #2 - (continuing on Jimbob's train of thought here about two nations in one geographical space) Couldn't one or any of the First Nations claiming this unceded/non surrendered land declare themselves a sovereign nation separate from Canada? Yes I understand there
would be a forfeiture of funding and benefits BUT - this would ultimately achieve what seems to be the basis for all the reconciliation
re - cultural preservation?

There is definitely a grey area in all of this, it is not cut and dry most of the time. That's why courts are doing much of the clarification/deciding.

Answer to stupid question 1- unceded territory is still Canadian soil. Also, that land is under provincial jurisdiction. Now going on the a reserve is a bit of a different story. Remember territory area and reserve are different things. Almost like a city and a province but not really ha ha. If you wanted to go on reserve land you would be out of provincial jurisidction but still fall under federal jurisdiction. Only federal laws apply on reserves not provincial.

Answer to stupid question 2 - Many do claim themselves as a sovereign nation. A nation to nation agreement is what they believe they have with the Canadian Government. This is why they want self governance. They want the benefits of the agreement (treaty) and they don't want the Government telling them what to do. They say this is the intent of the original agreements, kinda hard to argue with them as well. FN had claim to the land. Agreements were made to get the land. Those agreements say the FN get a whole bunch of benefits (money, education, health care, use of land still etc.) and we get the land. So Canada has the land and the FN's have the benefits. FN's say they are a sovereign nation and Canada does not get to make laws and rules telling them how to use those benefits.

Thanks for taking the time to explain and answer my questions Jimbob, I would agree there is much grey area to be muddled through.

It's not that grey. Your understanding would be well served by reading the "Royal Proclamation of 1763" already mentioned, and "two row wampum":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty

The first being the British legal guidelines for treaty negotiation, and the second being the FN understanding of what was being negotiated.

Another important understanding is the separate, unrelated nature of the legislative "indian act", and the common law legal principles behind the modern land claim process. The "indian act" was about restricting the FN collective rights, in favour of isolating them as individuals to be later bred out of existence, and "enfranchised" into the majority Canadian citizenry as a consequence. The modern land claim process, obviously comes at the problem from a much more sophisticated angle and is about FN collective property rights. The Indian Act didn't recognize indigenous nations as legal entities to unto themselves, but instead understood FN individuals to be vulnerable cultural relics in need of direct parental stewardship from then state. The initial treaty process however did recognize indigenous nations as legal entities, and more or less followed the "two row wampum" cooperative framework. It's Canada that has deviated from those contracts, not the FN. They still seem to be negotiating under their original principles.

[Jelvis]

1668 thee Hudson Bay Co. opened in Hudsons Bay -- British -- English combine set up Fort Charles - Henry Hudson -- 18 owners Ruperts Land after Prince Rupert
cousin of the royal family and the companies chief backer the owners said they owned all land and everything draining into the new Hudson' Bay 1.5 million sq Miles
Jel -- Time-Life books -- The Canadians - Thee OLD West --

[Jimbob]

It's not that grey. Your understanding would be well served by reading the "Royal Proclamation of 1763" already mentioned, and "two row wampum":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty

The first being the British legal guidelines for treaty negotiation, and the second being the FN understanding of what was being negotiated.

Another important understanding is the separate, unrelated nature of the legislative "indian act", and the common law legal principles behind the modern land claim process. The "indian act" was about restricting the FN collective rights, in favour of isolating them as individuals to be later bred out of existence, and "enfranchised" into the majority Canadian citizenry as a consequence. The modern land claim process, obviously comes at the problem from a much more sophisticated angle and is about FN collective property rights. The Indian Act didn't recognize indigenous nations as legal entities to unto themselves, but instead understood FN individuals to be vulnerable cultural relics in need of direct parental stewardship from then state. The initial treaty process however did recognize indigenous nations as legal entities, and more or less followed the "two row wampum" cooperative framework. It's Canada that has deviated from those contracts, not the FN. They still seem to be negotiating under their original principles.

You have to be crazy to say there is no grey area in all of this. Why are there so many court cases? Why is there so much misinformation? Because it is hard to tell what is actually going on.

Ex. Can FN hunt at night? No simple answer. It is a GREY area. you have to factor in public safety (what does that mean? there is no clear definition of what it means) Next, the FN has to prove that they traditionally hunted at night. LOL how do you prove that? Hard evidence needed? or stories from Elders good enough? It get s left up to the court to decide because it such a grey area.

So in my opinion all of the FN issues are major grey areas because it is not cut and dry, nothing about it is simple.

[Jelvis]

Willy Alphonse Jr case I told you people a million times put it on here if you have the computer skills it clears this junk completely up the whole thing butt no one wants the truth. It's hard to take but look at the final verdict all judges went Willy's way.
Jel -- Hunt at night, hunt on any private property just don't shoot within the legal distance from buildings - I'm not making this up.
-------I'm not telling you this to pee you off --It will clear up much of this confusion -- it's an up to date case in the last decade or so --

[jassmine]

Is Germany still paying for the holocaust? Um.. no!!!

They actually have been and continue to:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-902528.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...eria-1.5788879

http://time.com/4854006/holocaust-su...rence-germany/

[Pemby_mess]

You have to be crazy to say there is no grey area in all of this. Why are there so many court cases? Why is there so much misinformation? Because it is hard to tell what is actually going on.

Ex. Can FN hunt at night? No simple answer. It is a GREY area. you have to factor in public safety (what does that mean? there is no clear definition of what it means) Next, the FN has to prove that they traditionally hunted at night. LOL how do you prove that? Hard evidence needed? or stories from Elders good enough? It get s left up to the court to decide because it such a grey area.

So in my opinion all of the FN issues are major grey areas because it is not cut and dry, nothing about it is simple.

Some grey, sure. But within the subject matter put forward by yourself and linksman - less so. Which is why I believe the BC government should hop to it and get all these claims put to bed through multi-lateral negotiations ASAP, and not wait for the courts to hand down what are increasingly predictable judgements.

Every complex subject has some grey areas that change according to one's perspective. Legal issues are no different. But talk to a legal practitioner who's done some research and debate in this area, and their definition for grey will likely be a lot different than yours and mine. We lacking the educational hat rack to hang the new information off of.

[Jimbob]

Some grey, sure. But within the subject matter put forward by yourself and linksman - less so. Which is why I believe the BC government should hop to it and get all these claims put to bed through multi-lateral negotiations ASAP, and not wait for the courts to hand down what are increasingly predictable judgements.

Every complex subject has some grey areas that change according to one's perspective. Legal issues are no different. But talk to a legal practitioner who's done some research and debate in this area, and their definition for grey will likely be a lot different than yours and mine. We lacking the educational hat rack to hang the new information off of.

agreed.

Negotiations will take years though. Nothing like this is done quickly.

[wideopenthrottle]

agreed.

Negotiations will take years though. Nothing like this is done quickly.

Especially when you realize the ones who are in a position to get things settled (especially Lawyers) for both sides keep getting paid by the government (us) for as long as it takes to settle.....The other power brokers (chiefs and politicians) also benefit from the interim situation

One of the biggest fears I have is rewriting the indian act to make it politically correct.....there have been literally 100's of millions spent interpreting every word and ambiguity of the act as is.....redoing it would give fresh food for lawyers for many more generations to come

[Pemby_mess]

agreed.

Negotiations will take years though. Nothing like this is done quickly.

"even the greatest journey starts with but a single step"

A lot talk here centers on the cost. The costs are what they are because things weren't negotiated properly in the first place.

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second best time is now"

Things are always more expensive when you try to pay for it with the minimum payment. Better to get the cost out of the way up front, and dedicate energy to making the future more prosperous for everyone. The crown has the land to barter with - they can still negotiate terms favourable to their interest in it. Leaving it to the courts is suicide, because they won't necessarily account for those interests when it's on them to balance the scales.

I'd rather see some predictability in an ongoing process, rather than sit there waiting for the axe to drop.