Slope Is Getting More Slippery And Steeper

[Ourea]

https://www.castanet.net/content/2019/1/eneas_p3366746.jpg




A Penticton Indian Band councillor fined for trespassing speaks to larger unresolved issues of land claims, according to a response from the band Chief Tuesday.The PIB responded to three of its members, including one sitting councillor, being fined $500 each (https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story--21-.htm)for trespassing Tuesday morning in provincial court in Penticton.Fred, Cole and Felix Kruger each pleaded guilty to one count of trespassing in a plea deal which struck down charges related to alleged poaching.PIB Chief Chad Eneas said in the letter of response he and his council stand in support of the three members “who were acting in accordance with Syilx law and protocol and under direction of Band Elders.”The Krugers were spotted by a resident of the Greyback Mountain Road area with an animal carcass after gunshots were heard nearby on Jan. 29, 2017.The plea deal was made after the band unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement with the province to “address concerns related to hunting on privately-held lands, but within Sn’pintktn Ancestral Lands.”Eneas said in the letter of response that the guilty pleas entered by the Krugers for the 2017 trespassing are not an admission “that the province or private individuals are the rightful owners of the property.”“These lands have always been subject to the title and rights of the Syilx Okanagan Nation.”

[horshur]

Weavers right to roam....

[wildcatter]

https://www.castanet.net/content/2019/1/eneas_p3366746.jpg




A Penticton Indian Band councillor fined for trespassing speaks to larger unresolved issues of land claims, according to a response from the band Chief Tuesday.The PIB responded to three of its members, including one sitting councillor, being fined $500 each (https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story--21-.htm)for trespassing Tuesday morning in provincial court in Penticton.Fred, Cole and Felix Kruger each pleaded guilty to one count of trespassing in a plea deal which struck down charges related to alleged poaching.PIB Chief Chad Eneas said in the letter of response he and his council stand in support of the three members “who were acting in accordance with Syilx law and protocol and under direction of Band Elders.”The Krugers were spotted by a resident of the Greyback Mountain Road area with an animal carcass after gunshots were heard nearby on Jan. 29, 2017.The plea deal was made after the band unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement with the province to “address concerns related to hunting on privately-held lands, but within Sn’pintktn Ancestral Lands.”Eneas said in the letter of response that the guilty pleas entered by the Krugers for the 2017 trespassing are not an admission “that the province or private individuals are the rightful owners of the property.”“These lands have always been subject to the title and rights of the Syilx Okanagan Nation.”

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.

[Ourea]

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.

[338win mag]

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

[horshur]

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Karl Marx

[358mag]

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

But that ass*** have the full support from the courts and there above the law , just the tip of the Ice Berg on how far the FN's will be pushing this ruling .
Drum roll please Grand Chief Stewart Phillips step up to the shoebox .

[scoutlt1]

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, control access to their privately owned land.

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

In my opinion, your fears are correct, well founded and easily defensible.

My biggest fear is that all of the above will continue, and there is absolutely nothing that will be, or can be done about it.

[Ourea]

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

The area of the elk kills were within city limits.
The land was heavily posted.

If you have the ability to hunt year round, day or night, why do you need to shoot animals on private and posted land risking public safety?

[wildcatter]

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Karl Marx


Marx and his commie bast**d buddies can burn in hell for eternity.

[wildcatter]

In my opinion, your fears are correct, well founded and easily defensible.

My biggest fear is that all of the above will continue, and there is absolutely nothing that will be, or can be done about it.

That is the way I see it too!

[bankshot]

If you have the ability to hunt year round, day or night, why do you need to shoot animals on private and posted land risking public safety?
Just being lazy and feeling entitled, some things will never change.

[338win mag]

PIB Chief Chad Eneas said in the letter of response he and his council stand in support of the three members “who were acting in accordance with Syilx law and protocol and under direction of Band Elders.”

This must be a law that was construed within the last 100 years, or at best 200 years (post contact) and "band elders" ......some old people never grow up, and some of the names mentioned get zero respect anywhere,, thats what I think about it.

On safety....pretty sure they were careful where their bullets were going as it would of been a disaster for their intended plan to exert authority over their traditional lands. If they wanted to end up in court then they would of entered not guilty pleas, they didn't, and at the time of the trespass things may have changed since then, they are going to have their own playground in the form of a park to hunt in.

If FN are allowed to hunt private land then there will be a war, (think about it) and the courts and government are aware of that,, and things are changing as even many Natives have had enough of the propped up BS and also need to live peacefully in their respective communities.

Through the actions and direction of Stewart Phillip, supporting FN may have made an error, or series of errors when the envelope is pushed too far and/or went in the wrong Rabbit hole, these errors need to be explored.
In the words of Mike Tyson...."everybody has a plan till they get punched in the mouth".

[Piperdown]

The area of the elk kills were within city limits.
The land was heavily posted.

If you have the ability to hunt year round, day or night, why do you need to shoot animals on private and posted land risking public safety?

If i remember correctly there was no legal room to shoot from the edge of the rd, so illegal discharge of a fire arm, where are those charges, did they loose their guns,trucks or a hunting ban like you or i would. The rumour i heard was that they wanted this to go to court so when they won the case then it opens the door to hunting anywhere.

[Jack Russell]

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Karl Marx


Wow, smoking dope was big back then, too.

[Pemby_mess]

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Karl Marx


most hunters use "crown land" to hunt. crown land is "public land". Therefore; are most hunters marxist? Are hunters lobbying for increased private property protections in general, or just for their own holdings? Isn't one of the cheif complaints among non-indigenous hunters; the potential to be kept out of land held within the commons, for fear of privatization to the original title holders (indigenous)?

Disclaimer: this is not a comment on the OP. Just an observation of poorly apllied philosophy in this singular example.

[Ourea]

3% of the population laying claim to 140% of the province and ignoring public safety seems more than reasonable....

[Wild one]

Until we have a government that puts in a true effort to finalize FN agreements and enforces what is agreed upon FN will continue to push the boundaries

FN are testing what power they truly have to see where the breaking point is before govt puts their foot down. With the present parties in power both federal and provincial the scales tip towards FN being able to gain new rights to benefit themselves

[ACE]

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.

[IronNoggin]

Totally agree with Ace's comments above.


The area of the elk kills were within city limits.
The land was heavily posted.

If you have the ability to hunt year round, day or night, why do you need to shoot animals on private and posted land risking public safety?

It was a directed and overt action.
They intended to push the province into dealing with them directly over their demands to access deeded title lands within some rather ill defined "traditional territory".
A power play of sorts.
Apparently that did not work... this time around.

Mark my words, they WILL be back...

Nog

[303savage]

My fear is that after the above gets passed they will be able to camp on your lawn or maybe even move into your house and demand you feed them. :-)

[Ourea]

I still say where are the goal post?
Can your private ranch land be logged by indigenous folks taking the wood for historic and ceremonial purposes?

Like Nog says, it will only get worse.

No one can deny the rights of FN but where does it end.

[Jagermeister]

Our dilemma is not the Indians, our quandary is who is going to stand up and put things in order.

Our BC First Nations need to understand that they surrendered their "title" to the land the moment they started accepting payouts from the government.

[Pemby_mess]

Our BC First Nations need to understand that they surrendered their "title" to the land the moment they started accepting payouts from the government.

really?!

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.

[Piperdown]

Someone is sounding more and more like our little Jazzy with every long winded post, off to the ignore list you go beside your mentor...

[silvertipp]

There is no question he is a troll

[Spy]

There is no question he is a troll
It might sue you be careful I was threatened for calling it a Troll.

[Spy]

Someone is sounding more and more like our little Jazzy with every long winded post, off to the ignore list you go beside your mentor...
I’m convinced they are the same just different handles.

[Treed]

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?

[Mulehahn]

Totally agree with Ace's comments above.



It was a directed and overt action.
They intended to push the province into dealing with them directly over their demands to access deeded title lands within some rather ill defined "traditional territory".
A power play of sorts.
Apparently that did not work... this time around.

Mark my words, they WILL be back...

Nog

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.

[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 ! :mad: 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

[Lionhill]

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

If you need to respond to pemby, please do not add his comment as a quote. I have had him on ignore for a year now, and it's quite nice. Highly recommended.

The Okanagan is getting weird with all the various "Nations" moving towards some self directed for of Government. Until everyone can vote for said Government, they aren't one.

[whitlers]

If anyone FN or not came onto my PRIVATE property regardless of so called 'traditional' territory and poached wildlife. We would have ourselves a big issue.

[Pemby_mess]

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

in what sense?

[Ourea]

And elk are not native to the area where this happened.
They are an introduced species.

Where is the historical right to that species?

[ACE]

If you need to respond to pemby, please do not add his comment as a quote. I have had him on ignore for a year now, and it's quite nice. Highly recommended.

How to use the 'ignore' feature ?

[dapesche]

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?



Pemby, what is your solution for fixing the relationship between FN and British Columbians? How do you feel giving up large chunks of British Columbian's land to FNs will help?

[Pemby_mess]

Pemby, what is your solution for fixing the relationship between FN and British Columbians? How do you feel giving up large chunks of British Columbian's land to FNs will help?

Thanks for the question:

First, we have to understand that the relationship between BC and FNs is heavily influenced by the relationships between both Canada and FN, and Canada with BC.

We need both our federal, and provincial representatives to faithfully consult with the youngest adult generations of FN, to get a sense of what they want to see 3 decades out; nationally. Hopefully some kind of formal process with a designed minimum of direct interference from current FN leadership with uniquely generational axes to grind. Then that same process can be brought down to a finer resolution regionally, to identify regionally specific concerns. I'd imagine most of those talks would be about abolishing the Indian Act, first and foremost, and replacing it with something more enlightened; since no party is at all happy with the way that contract interferes in modern negotiation.

I would make determining what the Crown is prepared to lose a topline priority. The suresest way to lose everything, is being unprepared to concede anything. That doesn't however mean that there aren't some non-negotiable principles that make the crown, "the crown".

All of this will ultimately flush out who controls what resources, but i would aim for some kind of shared structure, based on free market principles known to work. It would be my preference to see the crown retain certain rights to large negotiated land settlements, such as the right of the public to recreate; even if a share of the market derived material benefits, from those previously wholly owned crown rights, may now in fact flow to FN governments.

A lot of the concerns I hear voiced on this forum, from hunters not on this forum, other stakeholders, and even from FNs; fall nicely along the lines of resentment, secondary to sloppy land use policies in general; and don't necessarily have anything to do with racial friction, or legal ambiguities at their core.

[IronNoggin]

How to use the 'ignore' feature ?


Right click on anyone's avatar / handle.
Open in new tab.
Takes you to their profile.
Subheading "Add to ignore list".
Done.

And as Lionhill noted above, quite nice & highly recommended.
Especially so for this particular narcissist. who has NOTHING hunting related to share... Ever... :twisted:

Cheers,
Nog

[DarekG]

Pemby, you use so many words but say so little. What does your post even mean? Where is your solution?
Any jackass can provide their perspective with a "high level" overview from their armchair with zero experience.


All of this will ultimately flush out who controls what resources, but i would aim for some kind of shared structure, based on free market principles known to work.

What does that even mean? Is this any different from the situation we are currently facing? Are we not currently flushing it out, is the problem not that its been flushing for hundreds of years?

[Pemby_mess]

Pemby, you use so many words but say so little. What does your post even mean? Where is your solution?
Any jackass can provide their perspective with a "high level" overview from their armchair with zero experience.



What does that even mean? Is this any different from the situation we are currently facing? Are we not currently flushing it out, is the problem not that its been flushing for hundreds of years?

i should have used an other adjective i suppose: "efficiently flush out control of resources". That can only be done using negotiation in "good faith".

seems to me, till recently, we have been waiting for the courts to weigh in on whom controls what. That is not an efficient mechanism. The courts are a mostly "winner take all" advesarial process. It is not a place to seek "win-win" outcomes.

The best way to remedy a breach of contract, is to renegotiate. Encouraging governments to double-down on the breach, isn't going to benefit any of us. In fact it is looking increasingly likely, doing so will grievously harm all of us. So no, i wouldn't say my proposal is at all in line with historical strategy.

[zippermouth]

Pemby, you use so many words but say so little. What does your post even mean? Where is your solution?
Any jackass can provide their perspective with a "high level" overview from their armchair with zero experience.



What does that even mean? Is this any different from the situation we are currently facing? Are we not currently flushing it out, is the problem not that its been flushing for hundreds of years?
if everyone adds him to the ignore list, you wont even have to respond to him... or read the nonsense.

[labguy]

if everyone adds him to the ignore list, you wont even have to respond to him... or read the nonsense.

Better yet is just don't respond to him........If he gets no action he'll eventually give up and go away on his own.

[f350ps]

Better yet is just don't respond to him........If he gets no action he'll eventually give up and go away on his own.
I've said that numerous times, eventually he or she will get tired of talking to themselves and go back to where they came from! K

[Piperdown]

Better yet is just don't respond to him........If he gets no action he'll eventually give up and go away on his own.

No it won't as it has no friends or life

[Ourea]

......... meanwhile back at the ranch.

The article was posted up for a reason, and that certainly was not to bash FN.
It was to show an example that is concerning over unsafe and illegal firearm usage, acts that threatened public safety.....all within city limits.
Again, where are the goal posts?

What can someone take from your property with next to no recourse.
Rules gotta be set and then work within them.

The push, push, push, push is going to end up with folks getting hurt or killled.

[Walking Buffalo]

Thanks for the question:

First, we have to understand that the relationship between BC and FNs is heavily influenced by the relationships between both Canada and FN, and Canada with BC.

We need both our federal, and provincial representatives to faithfully consult with the youngest adult generations of FN, to get a sense of what they want to see 3 decades out; nationally. Hopefully some kind of formal process with a designed minimum of direct interference from current FN leadership with uniquely generational axes to grind. Then that same process can be brought down to a finer resolution regionally, to identify regionally specific concerns. I'd imagine most of those talks would be about abolishing the Indian Act, first and foremost, and replacing it with something more enlightened; since no party is at all happy with the way that contract interferes in modern negotiation.

I would make determining what the Crown is prepared to lose a topline priority. The suresest way to lose everything, is being unprepared to concede anything. That doesn't however mean that there aren't some non-negotiable principles that make the crown, "the crown".

All of this will ultimately flush out who controls what resources, but i would aim for some kind of shared structure, based on free market principles known to work. It would be my preference to see the crown retain certain rights to large negotiated land settlements, such as the right of the public to recreate; even if a share of the market derived material benefits, from those previously wholly owned crown rights, may now in fact flow to FN governments.

A lot of the concerns I hear voiced on this forum, from hunters not on this forum, other stakeholders, and even from FNs; fall nicely along the lines of resentment, secondary to sloppy land use policies in general; and don't necessarily have anything to do with racial friction, or legal ambiguities at their core.


Meh... this is just hot air....

BC First Nations have already set their goalposts. They want to regain full and absolute control of their respective traditional territories.

They now have standing and inertia within the court system, one that was designed with a critical flaw.

There is No reason for BC First Nations to weaken their hand by playing the way provincial or federal governments may desire.


BTW, these are not my words, these are words spoken at a recent First Nations gathering.

[REMINGTON JIM]

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.

Totally AGREE with you and we should be Revolting against the GOV for the Doings ! They think there the BOSS of us ALL ! RJ

[Pemby_mess]

Meh... this is just hot air....

BC First Nations have already set their goalposts. They want to regain full and absolute control of their respective traditional territories.

They now have standing and inertia within the court system, one that was designed with a critical flaw.

There is No reason for BC First Nations to weaken their hand by playing the way provincial or federal governments may desire.


BTW, these are not my words, these are words spoken at a recent First Nations gathering.

Yes, i'm sure some among them feel that way.

The courts may well have given them some recent inertia, but each FN group getting favourable future judgements, is far from certain, and will take a tonne of resources that could otherwise benefit their communities under an entirely new framework.

There are certain parameters to their wish list not even possible for a court to grant. Therefore the federal and provincial legislative bodies have carrots there, and accordingly, the means to be persuasive. Balancing the scales of justice, doesn't necessarily entail making judgements that favour everyone in the province: like ensuring the privledge to hunt and fish on what was formerly crown land, as an example. Members of the legislature and parliament need to guide that part of the process to protect what makes Canada such a uniquely wonderful place.

What is the critical design flaw within the justice system from your perspective? If you don't mind me asking?

[Ourea]

Pemby.....ur drum beating is relentless and irrelevant on the topic and being on point with many endless threads...WTF?

Getting back to the thread......

Are you cool with someone rolling up to your place and shooting critters on your property that is an area that is illegal to discharge a firearms and posted and fenced.

Yes or no you long winded MF'r

[LBM]

Meh... this is just hot air....

BC First Nations have already set their goalposts. They want to regain full and absolute control of their respective traditional territories.

They now have standing and inertia within the court system, one that was designed with a critical flaw.

There is No reason for BC First Nations to weaken their hand by playing the way provincial or federal governments may desire.


BTW, these are not my words, these are words spoken at a recent First Nations gathering.

So you were there at this gathering, as a member, guest or building them another stone bench.

[j270wsm]

What is the critical design flaw within the justice system from your perspective? If you don't mind me asking?


How about the fact that there are different rules/punishments for different ethnicities.

[IronNoggin]

Pemby.....ur drum beating is relentless and irrelevant on the topic and being on point with many endless threads...WTF?

Easy Big Guy!
Don't let the snowflakes get to you, no matter how long winded, irrelevant and pointless they are!
That Ignore feature works REALLY well! :wink:

Cheers,
Nog

[ACE]

'Ignore' feature works quite nicely indeed . . . .
Thanks Nog !

[Spy]

Some of us like to see what our enemies are puking up for excuses, one thing we all know is they are impostors......

[ACE]

Some of us like to see what our enemies are puking up for excuses ......
Some of us are unwilling to struggle through paragraph and chapter of blather for the answer to a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.

[Spy]

Some of us are unwilling to struggle through paragraph and chapter of blather for the answer to a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.
I know :-(

[limit time]

There is no question he is a troll

Hell ya he/she/trans ( I’m just including genders ) is a TROLL ! Is TROLL a gender ?

[limit time]

I've said that numerous times, eventually he or she will get tired of talking to themselves and go back to where they came from! K

Nope ! It’s like hemorrhoids... they go for a bit but come back inflamed and irritating...