Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[Rob Chipman]

I wish I had the answer.

1) Pick your battles and get focused;
2) Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good;
3) Identify who the biggest obstacles are;
4) Increase the size of your group rather than making it continually smaller;
5) Don't believe fairy tales, no matter how much you like the sound of them.

[Rob Chipman]

Thanks for your reply Rob. Good discussion so far. I will try my best here to be as respectful as I can. You suggest I should look out the window. That I have some sort of minority view point here. That could not be further from the truth. I used to be a proud canadian. I have seen the complete lack of leadership and vision practiced by both the present and previous governments. Things like poor wildlife management, irresponsible resource extraction, gross budget overspending. All of this is done for purely political reasons, with no regard for the future of this country. There have been numerous examples of this over time. My political view is only a minority one because of the way the political class manipulates the voting process. It speaks volumes when practically, the wests vote does not count in a Federal election, as the northern or rural vote counts for little in a provincial election. I can remember back in the 70's when guys were raising concerns about logging and forestry practices. It still goes on today and removes valuable old growth habitat. And the only thing that drives it is money. Wildlife Bio's can raise concerns all day long about critical wintering areas, stream and watershed damage etc. and it lands on deaf ears. All because of money. Take a look at net pen damage that has created ecological damage to the surrounding areas, and impacted wild stocks. it was known long ago that net pens were a bad idea, but Canada embraced the idea because it meant jobs. They are now trying to shut them down, but First nations are balking. Really, the protectors of the land, so they tell us. We have all heard of many cases of hunting and fishing activities by the same group that are both wasteful and or unsustainable. Yet their leadership does little to curtail these activities as it's their inherent right so were told. So I find it very rich when they state they are shutting down areas for conservation reasons to everyone but themselves. My impression is they love to talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk. Don't get me wrong here, as i have respect for anyone who practices ethical and conservation minded harvest of either fish or wildlife. And i don't care which race or gender they are. Like it or not, we cannot continue with different rules for different groups. It is completely unsustainable as will be living off the land in the near future. Yes I may have lots to learn and I am open to that. I care very much about wildlife and it's future in this country. What disturbs me to no end is the politics around it and all the double standards. We are supposed to be leaving future generations a good legacy and so far that legacy is falling far short because of poor political decisions and greed. Keep up the good fight Sir.

You're making my point about a lot of things going ion in this thread. I'm in agreement with you on a lot of them, and frankly, you're in agreement with a lot of Indigenous people about a lot of what you're saying.

I never said you've got a minority view (although on a lot of thing you and I both have some minority opinions, which is fine) - but the idea that 3% is dictating to the other 97%, or that rural and northern voters didn't get the NDP elected, or that the Liberals would be different? That's unsubstantiated and counter-factual.

Your understanding of the history of contact in the the Canadian context is also a bit off. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 combined with the concept of the honour of the Crown are critical. Underneath this whole thing is who owns the land. That question has not been settled. If you think it was settled through conquest you need to get a bit more informed. You can always state the truth (and you do people a service by doing so) but you need to know what it is first. BC is predominantly unceded Indigenous land and that creates a huge problem that we still have to resolve.

[TheObserver]

The courts are bought and paid for under a marxist regime doing everything the UN tells them!
The break up of western society is the goal, but there are some apologists here who got blinders on.

F**k do they ever!!

[VLD43]

You're making my point about a lot of things going ion in this thread. I'm in agreement with you on a lot of them, and frankly, you're in agreement with a lot of Indigenous people about a lot of what you're saying.

I never said you've got a minority view (although on a lot of thing you and I both have some minority opinions, which is fine) - but the idea that 3% is dictating to the other 97%, or that rural and northern voters didn't get the NDP elected, or that the Liberals would be different? That's unsubstantiated and counter-factual.

Your understanding of the history of contact in the the Canadian context is also a bit off. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 combined with the concept of the honour of the Crown are critical. Underneath this whole thing is who owns the land. That question has not been settled. If you think it was settled through conquest you need to get a bit more informed. You can always state the truth (and you do people a service by doing so) but you need to know what it is first. BC is predominantly unceded Indigenous land and that creates a huge problem that we still have to resolve.

Rob
Thanks for your wise words and explanations. I have looked at some of the reference info you have included in your reply and I appreciate the redirect. It puts things in a new light. I plan on doing a bunch more reading on this. So far all I can say, is that it appears successive Governments over the decades and centuries have really dropped the ball on this. It really is a shame that this has to dealt with the way it is now. A divisive and troubling situation for a country that advertises itself around the world as inclusive. Cheers

[Rob Chipman]

Rob
Thanks for your wise words and explanations. I have looked at some of the reference info you have included in your reply and I appreciate the redirect. It puts things in a new light. I plan on doing a bunch more reading on this. So far all I can say, is that it appears successive Governments over the decades and centuries have really dropped the ball on this. It really is a shame that this has to dealt with the way it is now. A divisive and troubling situation for a country that advertises itself around the world as inclusive. Cheers

I think it's fair to say the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a short term, politically expedient imperial move that nobody executing it ever thought would mature into what it has become two and a half centuries later. It was raised in a FN title battle in an Ontario court in the 1800s - got no traction, what with politics and legal opinions being downstream from culture. By the early 1900s the writing was on the wall, though. Personal opinion only, but I think premier Richard McBride understood this and bought fifty years of time for his side. That was just a holding action and by the 1970s it was becoming clear that the RP would mean that failure to properly extinguish Indigenous title was going to be a monumental puzzle to solve.

[high horse Hal]

Interesting that when the RP of 1763 was created, BC wasn't even on the map, not a consideration
and while it mentioned 'rights' no where were these explained or defined, because it didn't matter back then
Everything since has been cooked up out of convenience

[HappyJack]

"Rights" aren't explained or defined in our Constitution [1982] either, and it's a conveniently used excuse to oppress peoples basic and generally accepted Constitutionally protected Rights.

[Rob Chipman]

Interesting that when the RP of 1763 was created, BC wasn't even on the map, not a consideration
and while it mentioned 'rights' no where were these explained or defined, because it didn't matter back then
Everything since has been cooked up out of convenience

You're not completely wrong. Like I said:

"I think it's fair to say the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a short term, politically expedient imperial move that nobody executing it ever thought would mature into what it has become two and a half centuries later."


However, in 1763 BC was on the map. Yes, it was not called "BC", but it was on the map, claimed by Spain, and by the mid-1700s was just becoming the subject of imperial wrangling.

Should they RP apply to BC? There's an argument that it should not, for sure, but that argument failed in the Canadian legal system. The obvious question arises: do we accept legal decisions we don't like, or do we protest the legal system and demand that it gives us decisions that jurists do not think comply with the law but do comply with what we want to see? (Anyone want to defend left wing pro-abortion process outside SCOTUS personal residences because SCOTUS is circulating a draft opinion that a lot of pro-abortion people don't like?)

Has everything else been "cooked up out of convenience" since 1763? That's also a tough argument to make unless you dismiss the rule of law. On the other hand, it's really easy to find a lot of historical documents that have been interpreted in ways to clarify the boundaries of legally recognized rights. The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and US law said two mutually exclusive things at the same time regarding slavery, but in the fullness of time slavery was recognized as completely illegal (among other things), and nobody argues that this was cooked up out of convenience.

We all understand that laws often get things wrong initially and that tons of lawyers (both the ones arguing the particular cases and the ones sitting as judges) try to correct the original errors. The same basic question arises: do we respect the rule of law, understanding that humans will interpret the law in open court and that some citizens will not like the decisions, or do we chuck centuries of legal tradition out the window and adopt the Honduran model?


Regardless of what any of us *want* to see we know two indisputable facts on the ground: Canadian courts (love 'em or hate 'em) have found and accepted that the RP is valid in BC, and government does observe the concept of "the honour of the Crown".

There are two solutions if you're on the side of those who don't like the ruling.

First, reverse the idea that the RP is valid in BC on a point of law. Again, Roe vs Wade in the US is likely getting tossed because it was a faulty decision *base on a correct reading of the law*. Anyone with enough time and money can do this. Simple, not easy (unless no error in the reading of the law exists).

Second, we can toss out the idea that the honour of the Crown matters, and allow the government to just change the rules whenever not suits them without the requirement to have those changes comply with our legal system. Lots of countries do that, but it's not a western enlightenment nor an Anglo-Saxon/British legal & political tradition. We're generally bigger fans of laws, precedent and an independent judicial system.

[wildcatter]

Interesting that when the RP of 1763 was created, BC wasn't even on the map, not a consideration
and while it mentioned 'rights' no where were these explained or defined, because it didn't matter back then
Everything since has been cooked up out of convenience

I think you got a valid point.

[wildcatter]

I think it's fair to say the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a short term, politically expedient imperial move that nobody executing it ever thought would mature into what it has become two and a half centuries later. It was raised in a FN title battle in an Ontario court in the 1800s - got no traction, what with politics and legal opinions being downstream from culture. By the early 1900s the writing was on the wall, though. Personal opinion only, but I think premier Richard McBride understood this and bought fifty years of time for his side. That was just a holding action and by the 1970s it was becoming clear that the RP would mean that failure to properly extinguish Indigenous title was going to be a monumental puzzle to solve.

That "monumental puzzle" need to be solved, just not the way FN want to do.