Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[TheObserver]

That's what I find ironic, they call it "truth and reconciliation" far from the truth.

I think the leftist comment must be trolling

[HappyJack]

That big red bridge is made of wood....

Set up a kiosk before the bridge and charge them a huge fee to get to the highway, Walmart and all the infrastructure on OUR land.

Now that would be something to see on the news. I imagine the kiosk wouldn't be there long because they'd arrest everyone in attendance.

[VLD43]

That's what I find ironic, they call it "truth and reconciliation" far from the truth.

I think the leftist comment must be trolling

The leftist thing was not trolling. It was the Liberals (Leftists) that have adopted UNDRIP as well as the NDP in BC. I don't recall the Cons adopting any of these ideas. Unfortunately the Cons have to comply at this point or be vurtue shamed out of existence. You have seen this very tactic from the Liberals on other contentious issues. You either parrot their narrative or the character assassination begins. This is what free speech looks like in Canada these days.

[David]

Your comments while well intentioned are far from the factual truth. They are that of the Left wing. The reality is that when Europeans showed up in North America they were confronted with a bronze age society. First Nations lived on the land but could not defend what they claimed to be theirs. If they could have, they would never have signed treaties or capitulated to the foreign invaders. They could defend small areas from each other, but had none of the modern weaponry the Europeans had. Thankfully for them, the invaders were generous with them and allowed them to remain with conditions. Just take a look at how the Spanish or the Americans dealt with indigenous residents. In some areas they were enslaved or worked to death, or just out right slaughtered. This whole truth and reconciliation thing is far from what it should be. There is no truth , little reconciliation. If you look back on history it is very clear that many people and cultures have been displaced by invading forces, with little or no compensation. But like what has been said earlier, none of us is allowed to discuss the truth. We are just supposed to listen to their narrative and not question it. This country is and has been on a steady decline lately, mostly because of complacency and political cowardice.

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

[VLD43]

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

Thanks for the info. I admit I did not know that fact. So that brings up a couple of other questions. Why then would treaties be signed? Could this be construed as payment? And can Government not expropriate land in the national interest?

[scoutlt1]

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

So if one follows that way of thinking (not saying it's historically "correct" or not), then all the rules/laws/regulations of the time need to be adhered to today. Or are we to just cherry pick what's most "convenient" in todays day and age?

[VLD43]

So if one follows that way of thinking (not saying it's historically "correct" or not), then all the rules/laws/regulations of the time need to be adhered to today. Or are we to just cherry pick what's most "convenient" in todays day and age?

I think it's doing the work to understand the meaning of the agreement at the time. What does not make sense to me, is if what David posted is correct, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is, why would you need treaties. And why would all first nations be moved onto reserves? At the time if I am correct, they were guaranteed the right to hunt and fish. But does that give them the right to manage wildlife as they are trying to do now? Maybe it's part of the we own the land statement. Don't know and that is the crux of the issue. I guess i should do some research on this.

[TheObserver]

The leftist thing was not trolling. It was the Liberals (Leftists) that have adopted UNDRIP as well as the NDP in BC. I don't recall the Cons adopting any of these ideas. Unfortunately the Cons have to comply at this point or be vurtue shamed out of existence. You have seen this very tactic from the Liberals on other contentious issues. You either parrot their narrative or the character assassination begins. This is what free speech looks like in Canada these days.

No I meant the guy that wrote that comment I think is trolling, unless he's hardcore brainwashed and has drunk the kool aid

[high horse Hal]

You are not telling the whole truth either
The King bought up all the Rupertsland off the HBC in 1870, so everything west became crown lands, he allowed indigens to occupy specific reserve areas
The Proclamation of 1791 also denotes reserves for indigens

But aside from all that Eastern Canadian conflict, British Columbia Territory was handled differently , had its own capital in Victoria and later joined Canada, well after the Kings proclamation so BC was not part of those earlier rulings
the only treaty in BC was the over reach of Treaty 8, no other lands were settled so we are where we are

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

[David]

You are not telling the whole truth either

You are correct. I was trying to simplify, so I may have left important points out.

This is actually a pretty good and neutral synopsis of how we got here (meaning legally - in terms of the Supreme Court):
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....elgamuukw-case

This is a little more political (current BC government website):
https://www.bctreaty.ca/aboriginal-r...ugh%20treaties

For me (and this is admittedly opinion not fact), the key takeaways are:
1 - Before Canada was a country, Britain recognized that Indigenous people living here had title to land: the Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could acquire land from First Nations, and that was typically done through treaties

2 - Delgamuukw confirmed that aboriginal title was never extinguished in BC and therefore still exists; it is a burden on Crown title; and when dealing with Crown land the government must consult with and may have to accommodate First Nations whose rights are affected

I also think (opinion again) that First Nations, Government, and the media (meaning gauging public opinion) are ignoring decisions post-Delgamuukw that put limits on aboriginal title. But that's kind of another topic. I just think of it as: In BC we never went to war with First Nations, and we never bought their land, so they still have legal rights to that land.