You can't have a future if you live in the past.Let that sink in.
You can't have a future if you live in the past.Let that sink in.
I know. That's why I said I didn't believe you were a quitter, and that's why I told you to sack up. I'm not bullshitting when I say I appreciate you putting these tough issues on the table. WE need to talk about them and in this day and age there are way too many people who self-censor.
I think you just need to think a lot of this stuff through, accept the facts and then, and only then, figure out the most effective response.
Now, I have to re-visit the race thing. Nobody is asking you to betray your own race. There's a reason for that. This isn't a race thing. It may look like it to you, but that's because you're not looking closely enough. The overwhelming majority of the people pushing for truth, reconciliation and the full recognition of Indigenous rights and title are not Indigenous people.
They're white.
The overwhelming majority of the government, both federal and provincial, is not Indigenous.
They're white.
You can pretend that fact doesn't exist, but when you do you are pretending.
They all could have done better, and I'm glad to see you admitting that it didn't work out. I think you can agree that you can't say in one breath that it went *horribly* wrong and then say *but at least they got 3 squares a day*. Nobody has ever argued that the point of the Indian Act or the Residential Schools was to stop Indigenous children from starving or dying of exposure. Think about you and your bro again. If the Mounties had taken you and he, by force and without permission, from your parents, dropped you off with a bunch of strangers, and things then went "horribly wrong" and your brother ended up in an unmarked grave, would you figure it was ok because you got three meals a day and a roof over your head?
Remember: there are Indigenous people fighting for what they want, today, through the courts, who were in that school. It's not ancient history. It's not recent history. It's the present.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
IMPLEMENTING UNDRIP IN CANADA
Canada was one of four states that initially voted in opposition to UNDRIP. 7 Canada had significant "concerns with respect to the wording of the current text, including provisions on lands, territories and resources; on free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; on self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; on intellectual property; on military issues; and on the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, Member States and third parties." 8
Under the minority Conservative government in November 2010, Canada gave a qualified Statement of Support to UNDRIP. In 2016, following the election of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, Canada announced its adoption of UNDRIP with no reservations or qualifications.9
Bill C-262
In April 2016, Private Member's Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 10 was introduced in the House of Commons. Bill C262 would have recognized UNDRIP "as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law."11 It would have required the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UNDRIP. 12 Bill C262 would have also required the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP. 13
Bill C-262 received support from the federal Liberal government in November 2017.14 However, Bill C-262 died on the order paper before receiving royal assent.
Bill C-15
Bill C-15 is very similar to Bill C-262. As with Bill C-262, Bill C-15 requires the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to "take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent" with UNDRIP. 15 In conjunction with the introduction of Bill C-15, a new federal website has been established to provide background on UNDRIP and to provide answers to key questions. Interestingly, the concept of free, prior and informed consent ("FPIC") is described as being about working together in partnership and respect and that it is not about having a veto over government decision-making.16
In his remarks during a press conference on December 3, 202, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, David Lametti, stated that consideration was given to UNDRIP in the drafting of the Impact Assessment Act17 ("IAA"), which came into force on August 28, 2019. The government's website also cites the IAA as an example of an action taken to support implementation of UNDRIP in Canada.
As with Bill C-262, Bill C-15 also requires the preparation and implementation of an action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP.18 Unlike Bill C-262, Bill C-15 sets out what must be included in the action plan such as measures to address injustice and discrimination against Indigenous peoples, measures to promote mutual respect through human rights education, and accountability measures with respect to the implementation of UNDRIP.19 Clause 6(4) of Bill C-15 requires the action plan to be completed "as soon as practicable, but no later than three years after the day on which this section comes into force."20
Unlike Bill C-262, Bill C-15 contains a clause stating that its purpose is to:
- affirm UNDIRP as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law, and
- provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of UNDRIP.21
Until Bill C-15 is passed into law, its provisions are not enforceable. It is expected that Bill C-15 will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for detailed review early in 2021.
Stay tuned for further analysis of Bill C-15 and the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Collectivism is Slavery
Support a Woman's right to arm herself.
Jan 13th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU
Thanks for the offer but no thanks. Like I said, a strategy of appeasement is no strategy at all. My opinion wasn't formed over night. It's been decades in the making. If you participate in this process, you give it legitimacy. It's not a legitimate process. Over time, it's designed to further remove you from the land until you and or your children have no claim to it at all. That's it's objective. All you're doing is fighting over the scraps that fall off the negotiation table. And once those negotiations are over, you starve to death.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Collectivism is Slavery
Support a Woman's right to arm herself.
Jan 13th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU
OK, so how about my other offers? The one where I offer to let you explain who the Nazis are in this story, and what actual steps anyone should take to oppose these Nazis? Or how the BCWF is supposed to effectively achieve its stated goals if it doesn't talk to it's members about what's going on and what the members think and want to see?
If you have given this a lot of thought and you didn't reach your opinions overnight then surely you've got them ready for primetime.
How would you handle this challenge? Walk me through it and expand on "Don't give in".
I'm all ears.
Thanks for the info about UNDRIP and the federal bills. I think you know that I am aware of that, but a lot of people aren't. I think you also understand the I'm not a big fan of an unelected body of foreigners telling people around here what to do, but frankly, none of those people pay a ton of attention to me and they *never* ask for me to approve of their actions, just like they don't ask you.
But they still proceed, and they aren't going to stop, and we need to figure out a way to respond. I'm suggesting a frank and open conversation with like minded people as a starting point. How you perceive that an exchange of views between BCWF members is "appeasement" is beyond me.
What are you suggesting people do? Again, something specific.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Last edited by 180grainer; 06-12-2021 at 04:46 PM.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Collectivism is Slavery
Support a Woman's right to arm herself.
Jan 13th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU
Listen to this lady. The topic is related. A lot of similarities in what she says and the tactics of the BCWF up and until now. Stop playing the game. Align with other groups who share you concerns, and start communicating what's happening. Again. The topic is unrelated. The strategy should be the same. https://www.bitchute.com/video/c0SRc9mAObTS/
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Collectivism is Slavery
Support a Woman's right to arm herself.
Jan 13th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU
180
Ok, thanks for the clarification. It makes more sense now.
That said, I think you might over-estimate the power of the BCWF. Negotiations between BC, Canada and First Nations are conducted at a government to government or, depending on your viewpoint, a nation to nation basis. Provincial MLAs generally don't even get their calls to FNs returned. BCWF is not a government, and that's why we aren't involved in negotiations. You know who else isn't? Anyone who isn't the government of Canada, a provincial government or a First Nation. Those are the rules they play by. I'm surprised that you think BCWF has the power to authorize or forbid settlements that sovereign elected governments (BC & Canada) get into. What makes you think BCWF has the power to demand it?
You recommend more communication. This Zoom conversation is exactly that, and I've ben very clear about it: it's a chance for members to pose questions and give input on how BCWF is going to address the challenge. You can't complain that we should do that and then complain when we do it.
You want BCWF to tell the general public that the government is giving away the province? Register. Put that forward.
Gotta ask, though: do you expect widespread support? The government in power just delayed old growth logging on part of the Island for 2 years when 2 FNs asked them to. When UNDRIP came into the leg the Libs backed it 100%. The last survey I saw, from 2016 if I recall, is 40 something % supportive of T&R and mid 30s % less positive (not even against). 5 years later I think the pros are probably a bigger percentage -4 years of Trump and Trump Derangement Syndrome has polarized everyone a bit more than we were in 2016.
I don't disagree with you that treating one group of people differently from others ends badly. Again, gotta ask: haven't we been doing that for a couple centuries? Don't we have proof that doing it doesn't end well? You can't argue that First Nations were treated like everyone else because the facts are that they were not. Recognizing that does not make me a fan of John Horgan or Justin Trudeau. It just makes me a guy who recognizes the facts.
You are mistaken about the grizzly hunt ban. Remember, it happened in stages and remember, only select First Nations were consulted (which is why Tahltan signed the deal yesterday, no doubt. Chad Day wants to hunt grizzlies and with co-management he's going to be doing it). The ban was not something negotiated between the NDP and FNs. It was a divisive electoral tactic that they even got the Linberals to agree to do if they were elected. It had nothing to do with BCWF giving in (again, exactly how much power do you think we have?).
As for having no influence, BCWF does in fact meet with government. Sometimes I'm the guy who does the meeting. Government listens politely. Then they do what they want to do. There's room in those meetings for you if you'd like to volunteer, show up and be a team player. You can always start your own organization as well. If you can't/don't want to....register for the Zoom convo and throw your input in.
I think, however, that we both know what your beef is: you don't like the way the world is changing, you fear what's coming, and you don't think you can control it. Guess what? Your position is understandable and pretty common. I share a lot of it myself. The difference is that you seem to think that if only people did the vague things that you recommend (but which you can't lay out in any kind of how to instruction) things are going to change. I don't share that opinion. I need concrete, achievable steps.
I don't need a guarantee of success.
The promise of loss through inaction is enough for me.
Last edited by Rob Chipman; 06-12-2021 at 09:02 PM.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey