Slope Is Getting More Slippery And Steeper

[Pemby_mess]

I fully agree but think they were told to back off on this one by their own council. The Okanagan is not the place they want to test it. Some band up north where there is less people and it will not receive any news coverage. I fully believe they will challenge some rancher over his ownership of a section or 2 and that will set the precedent for Vancouver, the Okanagan, or the Island but the start there will turn the people against them. They need the courts on their side first.

That seems like a reasonable strategy for them to assume.

[Pemby_mess]

Read the rationale for not approving the Ajax mine. It states that part of the reason for not approving the project is based on infringement of aboriginal rights and title that would be caused by the project. The proposed project was on private land owned by the company. If infringement of rights can occur on their private land, what about mine?

there are all kinds of rights, vulnerable to infringement, existent outside private property, from within another piece of private property. If you were to start a big bonfire, during high fire hazard, your neighbors would have ample reason to be concerned about their rights, despite you being on your own property.

A large mine, next to a major city, seems like it might fit in that category. Owning private property has never given one the right to do whatever it is they wish. It's always been subject to others around us.

[mike_b]

South Africa comes to mind

[HarryToolips]

I support First Nations rights but it is starting to be exploited.

My fear is that no private land will be off limits.
My fear is that no resource will be off limits on private land.
My fear is Gov will cave and support.
My fear is this will extend to all land that was deemed crown.
My fear is these declared rights will affect 97% of the population to access, enjoy the the hills of BC, to control access on to their privately owned land.

I hope goal posts are defined, as they currently are not.

Our fears are mutual....my worst fear is the lack of government common sense....I love when FN's wear cowboy hats..

[REMINGTON JIM]

They are not supposed to be hunting on private land, only an ass**** would go onto anothers property and shoot an animal without permission.

YEA and Theres a LOT of AZZEHOLES ! FN rights what a BUNCH of BULL SH*T ! RJ

[Ltbullken]

What a load of crap!
So they can come on your property, in your backyard without your
permission and just blast away at any wildlife they want to take.

I'm not sure that's what it means. They were charged and convicted of trespassing. So they can't just come on to any land.

[Ourea]

I'm not sure that's what it means. They were charged and convicted of trespassing. So they can't just come on to any land.

Read the article again.
It was a plea deal.
The band feels it was their right to kill wildlife on traditional land regardless if it is private.

The only reason they plead guilty to trespassing was to avoid prosecution on the other multiple more serious offences.

[Jagermeister]

There are large tracts of 'Crown Land' that are being traded, sold, given as gifts, etc. with absolutely no 'public' input.
No provincial government has the so called 'right' to disperse 'Crown Assets' . . . . yet, they all do.
Much of this is done along racial lines, which is just wrong.

And that is the crux of the matter.
Put the shoe on the other foot and say that the offenders were white. You can be sure that Crown Counsel would have sought all charges and no plea deal would have been entertained.
If we are to eliminate racism, shouldn't we start with the judicial system and hold everyone accountable to the same extent of the law regardless of ethnicity?

And p-ms "The next time my landlord is asking for his rent, i'll inform him that my prior payment history has allowed me to take possesion of his title."
If you have status, go for it.

[Pemby_mess]

And that is the crux of the matter.
Put the shoe on the other foot and say that the offenders were white. You can be sure that Crown Counsel would have sought all charges and no plea deal would have been entertained.
If we are to eliminate racism, shouldn't we start with the judicial system and hold everyone accountable to the same extent of the law regardless of ethnicity?

And p-ms "The next time my landlord is asking for his rent, i'll inform him that my prior payment history has allowed me to take possesion of his title."
If you have status, go for it.

I'm white. I'm fairly "well-off"; Let's say i got it into my mind that i wanted to put together a group of super "well-off" guys and buy all vacant land North of PG. Then exclude everyone from it under tenet of "private property". Would you be Ok with that? We're both white, so nothing racially untoward.

The justice system is operating as you say it should. FN as incorporated organizations, have just as much right to challenge crown title as anyone else. If a government took your land and put it in a supposed trust, never to give it back; i'd imagine you'd find yourself in court with them sooner, rather than later. Whether they had previously advanced rent to you or not.

WRT the OP;

the guys were convicted of tresspassing on private property. so the legal system is again, working as intended. Charges related to poaching were stayed as part of the plea. A white guy would have been rightfully charged for illegally taking game. But members of the PIB have rights to the game within their traditional territory, that supercede's the crown's rights. So why is that legally inconsistent?

[Dannybuoy]

I'm white. I'm fairly "well-off"; Let's say i got it into my mind that i wanted to put together a group of super "well-off" guys and buy all vacant land North of PG. Then exclude everyone from it under tenet of "private property". Would you be Ok with that? We're both white, so nothing racially untoward.

The justice system is operating as you say it should. FN as incorporated organizations, have just as much right to challenge crown title as anyone else. If a government took your land and put it in a supposed trust, never to give it back; i'd imagine you'd find yourself in court with them sooner, rather than later. Whether they had previously advanced rent to you or not.

WRT the OP;

the guys were convicted of tresspassing on private property. so the legal system is again, working as intended. Charges related to poaching were stayed as part of the plea. A white guy would have been rightfully charged for illegally taking game. But members of the PIB have rights to the game within their traditional territory, that supercede's the crown's rights. So why is that legally inconsistent?

This doesn't make sense.... Your logic is extremely flawed