blackbird

" Joffre Lakes Park to close three times in 2025 Gagandeep Ghuman May 26, 2025 11:42am Joffre Lakes Park will be closed to the public during three upcoming periods in 2025 to allow Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua Nations uninterrupted access to the land for cultural and spiritual practices. The closures — Reconnection Periods — will take place from April 25 to May 19, June 13 to 27, and August 22 to October 23. During these times, Nation members will use the area for traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, harvesting medicines, and ceremony. Visitors will not be permitted access to the park. “These changes wouldn’t happen if we didn’t assert our inherent rights. It’s our responsibility as stewards to protect the land; it’s been overused for too long by too many people,” said Líl̓wat Nation’s Political Chief Kúkwpi7 Skalúlmecw Dean Nelson. The reconnection initiative began in 2023 and is part of a larger strategy to restore balance to Pipi7iyekw, the Ucwalmícwts name for Joffre Lakes Park. The Nations say the time is critical for both the land and the well-being of their communities, offering space for healing and cultural renewal. “We are noticing the Whiskey Jacks are becoming less conditioned to approach people for food, and the Pikas are being seen in greater numbers without dogs visiting the park,” said Casey Gonzalez, Director of Title & Rights at Líl̓wat Nation. The closures are supported through a joint Visitor Use Management Strategy developed in partnership with BC Parks. The province’s day-use pass system, which helps manage crowding and ecological impact, will resume on May 17 outside. Joffre Lakes is one of the most visited provincial parks in B.C., with annual visitor numbers nearing 200,000 before the pandemic. Years of overuse have led to concerns over littering, habitat degradation, and traffic congestion along Highway 99." Joffre Lakes Park to close three times in 2025 - The Squamish Reporter

Just learned the BC NDP government is giving some FN bands the right to close certain provincial parks to non-natives for certain periods of time. These are just areas some FNs band claims as their "traditional territory" and is not proven to be their land. The BC NDP is also agreeing that non-natives are just settlers or colonizers and don't have rights to land if some FN band claims it is on their traditional territory and wants to use if for their sole purpose such as cultural activities. This is just the beginning. We can expect things to get a lot worse in BC for non-natives. The BC NDP dictators have no respect for the 95% of the population who are non-natives.

This is shocking. The NDP Is really giving FNs control over certain provincial parks in BC and allowing them to close the parks to non-natives. What is next? This situation is growing worse. " To the applause of her colleagues, NDP MLA Rohini Arora stood in the legislature earlier this month, encouraging non-Indigenous British Columbians to describe themselves as a “settler,” “colonizer” and “uninvited guest” living on “Indigenous land.” This divisive mindset is increasingly being put into action, with a number of parks in B.C. being temporarily closed to non-Indigenous visitors. The most contentious of these is the repeat closure of Joffre Lakes Provincial Park during peak season, with access first denied by the Líl̓wat Nation and the N’Quatqua First Nation in 2023 for 39 days. In 2024, access was restricted for 60 days. Last week, it was announced that the 2025 closures will last more than 100 days. The B.C. government also recently announced a short-term restriction on non-Indigenous visitors to the iconic Botanical Beach park on Vancouver Island. If Joffre Lakes is any guide, we can expect longer closures in the future. The government’s endorsement of these closures sets a troubling precedent for other parks and public lands. As B.C.’s former deputy minister of energy and Aboriginal law expert Robin Junger pointed out , the Joffre Lakes closures were initiated on the basis of the park being within Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua traditional territory, where Aboriginal title has been asserted but not proven. While Indigenous rights are protected by the Constitution, this does not give Indigenous groups the right to act unilaterally without consideration of the public interest, especially in cases where Aboriginal title hasn’t been legally established. If the position of Indigenous groups, and seemingly the B.C. government, is that the mere assertion of Aboriginal title confers the right to prohibit access to public spaces, then there is nothing to prevent similar closures not just of other parks, but of any public lands throughout the province. unquote Caroline Elliott: Closures of B.C. parks to non-Indigenous visitors a sign of things to come

LOL... you're no Ulster Orangeman. Nobody in Canada goes around claiming to be an Ulster Orangeman. The church Ian Paisley was moderator of for around 50 years never used the words "Ulster Orangeman". That's not how they think. Don't think you know much about the Bible. When was the last time you studied it?

You're lying and making false accusations against me and all Canadians. You don't act like a Bible believer. How much time do you spend actually studying the Bible? Ian Paisley and I would be in complete agreement. You don't know a thing about him or me. You are the kook.

Bull.

It seems they both take their lead from the Vatican to some degree. The Liberals don't follow the Democrats. They are influenced by the Vatican which is Socialist and globalist. Many Liberal leaders and the new Speaker of the House of Commons attended Jesuit run high schools and institutions.

It is true the Vatican has a lot of influence in Canada, but that does not mean ordinary Canadians agree with it. There are only 10.9 million Catholics in Canada which has a population of about 40 million. That means there are about 29 million people who are not Catholics. RCs are over-represented in government. There are still a lot of Protestants and Conservatives who are loyal to Canada. Most Canadians still support the Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary system we have. You made the claim that Canadians are "frankly indistinguishable from Americans, tho clearly most Canadians would be Democrats" That proves you don't really know much about Canadians. We don't have a Democrat Party. We have the Liberal Party. About 40 to 50% of Canadians support the Liberal Party and NDP. The other 50% of voters support the Conservative Party, Bloc and a few fringe parties. We thankfully are not stuck with a two party system. We have several parties which gives people more choice and brings a wider point of view to Parliament. The majority of Canadians support the system we have even if they support different political ideologies. The Constitutional Monarch is separate from politics and political parties. The Republican system combines the head of state with politics. Canadians prefer to keep the head of state separate from politics. Big difference.

That's nuts. You blame the victims or society for the acts of criminals. That is complete assinine nonsense.

That is just social justice warrior (Communist) nonsense that is never going to happen. What you're saying is society must provide everything for criminals that don't do anything for themselves. You expect society to provide everything in the hope then they won't commit crimes. That's a pipe dream. It's not how the real world works. Nonsense. Every suspected criminal gets a trial with legal representation is innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't need to change. How would dealing with criminals be like living in China? Not at all. In China, there is no real justice system. I never said we should follow that system. Only if you are a criminal yourself and would be locked up; then you might call it like China. But it is nonsense. You must live in some kind of alt reality. "socio economic inequality" sounds like Communist ideology. We live in a free country (to a good degree) where those who are fit can get a job, learn a trade, and look after themselves. Nobody expects taxpayers to provide everything for some who don't want to work. What a strange way of thinking you have. You must be listening to some real wacko ideologues.

Just reported on the news that support for the monarchy as grown to 66% of Canadians. I think Trump really helped boost support for the monarchy. Thank you Mr. Trump. We don't want to be Americans and don't want a Republic.

Nonsense. You don't know anything about Canadians. As for King Charles III, it doesn't matter what he believes. He still is King of the realm. I know the Anglican church has gone downhill a long way. But that is the way the world is today. Many denominations have gone downhill as well. However, politics and the type of system we have in Canada is still preferable to Canadians than what is going on in other countries.

No. King Charles III 's father, Prince Philip was baptized into the Greek Orthodox Church but King Charles III, his son, was not. "Prince Philip was baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church as a baby, but by the time he married Queen Elizabeth, he identified as an Anglican. However, unless he was officially received into the Church of England, he remained a member of the Greek Orthodox Church." Google head of Church of England. quote The supreme governor of the Church of England is the titular head of the Church of England, a position which is vested in the British monarch. Although the monarch's authority over the Church of England is largely ceremonial and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity,[2] the position is still relevant to the established church. As the supreme governor, the monarch formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, who in turn acts on the advice of the Crown Nominations Commission.[1] Since the Act of Settlement of 1701, all Supreme Governors have been members of the Church of England. unquote Supreme Governor of the Church of England - Wikipedia That means KIng Charles III is the titular head of the Church of England.

The Liberals are mostly Papist Liberals and they rule the country to a large extent. They are also backed by Quebec. Ironically, we still have that small lifeline, the Constitutional Monarchy, King Charles III. Not sure how long it will last. If Rome can find away to take that away from us, they will.

Guess you don't own a business in some small sized, medium or large city where repeat offenders walk in frequently and just walk out with an armload of goods. If they are arrested, the court releases them right away. But that's all right with you. Or the woman visiting Vancouver and walking in a park is almost beaten to death. The guy is arrested and released within days. How you figure keeping these repeat offenders behind bars and off the street would make life suck for everyone. Do you cry when you think of the criminals in prison or mentally ill in an institution? You talk about socioeconomic inequality, but reject law and order and the safety of society just because you are in a small place where nothing bad happens. Millions don't live in the backwoods and must keep their doors locked and watch their back and where they go.

The Charter of Rights apparently can be interpreted by the Supreme Court almost any way they wish. Whatever they decree it is so. There is no higher appeal from the SCC rulings. They are the final word on what a few sentences in the Charter mean even though sometimes there is nothing in the Charter remotely resembling the SCC decisions. An example is" "The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Carter v. Canada that parts of the Criminal Code would need to change to satisfy the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parts that prohibited medical assistance in dying would no longer be valid. The ruling only applies to competent adults with enduring, intolerable suffering who clearly consent to ending their lives123." However MAID has been allowed for people to make prior authorization and it has been used for people who are not experiencing enduring, intolerable suffering. MAID is currently scheduled to be offered to people solely with mental issues as of March 17, 2027. There is nothing in the Charter of Rights that gives anyone the right to receive MAID or medical assistance in dying. This is purely a fabrication by the SCC and liberal politicians. If anyone can find where MAID is even referred to in the Charter, please let us know. I could not find anything on it.

Surprise, surprise. It was the Right Honourable Prime Minister, John Deifenbaker, who brought in the Bill of Rights in 1960. Pierre Trudeau brought in a Charter of Rights in 1982, however this was long after the 1960 Bill of Rights and was largely a copycat work of John Deifenbaker's conservative government's Bill or Rights. The problem is not what is written down in these documents. The problem is the liberal-appointed Supreme Court judges and liberal party/polician's wild liberal way of interpreting the rights in the Constitution. Liberals made the soft-on-crime laws that grant bail to practically everyone and parole to practically everyone, especially FNs. The judges and liberals determined that the go-to goal should be to bend over backwards to release FNs people from custody. That is why they release dangerous offenders and that is why a dozen FNs people were murdered in Saskatchewan a few years ago by a FN offender released on parole who should never have been. Here is the 1960 Bill of Rights canadian-bill-rights-eng.pdf

Don't forget King Charles III reigns over about fifteen countries. He can't be everywhere. We have a governor general who represents the King here. The GG carries out the duties as necessary. The system works fine.

It's been six month since we had a Parliament sitting. Thank the Liberals. They don't seem to care much about democracy. Whatever benefits the party is all that matters.

Do you know what the Charter did? It allowed all the mentally ill people to be released from mental institutions and left on the street to start committing criminal offences and stabbing people. The Supreme Court and powers that be thought communities would take care of all the mentally ill. It never happened. Communities don't have the resources or ability to do that. It also made catch and release of dangerous offenders the norm. It made parole for dangerous offenders more likely, especially if one is a FN offender. That's what led to the mass killing of a dozen people in the Cree Nation in Saskatchewan a few years ago. That's an example of the Supreme Court interprets the Charter.

Never said that. Why do you not want to have a decent country with law and order? So what you mean is we can't stop all the crime and disorder in society? Doesn't sound too rational. Do you seriously think arresting and immediately releasing dangerous offenders is a Charter Right? No rational person would think like that. Many of the problems we have with crime and bad behavior is because they have mental problems and nothing is done about it. How about creating mental institutions and committing people who are determined to be a danger to society. The liberal ideology that they should not be in mental institutions has proven a disaster. Carney mentioned tightening up the bail laws, but he didn't say anything about all the mentally disturbed people that are everywhere.

I am talking about our country. I did a search and am unable to find the reasons why the situation is bad in the U.S. The U.S. has a far bigger population and crime rate. However, that is not the subject in this OP. We're talking about Canada. Since you bring up the U.S., why don't you do some research yourself and tell me why? Fix the problems in Canada before worrying about other countries. What is happening in other countries is no excuse to let the disaster continue in Canada.

Yes, because the legal system in Canada is a joke. Very light sentences. Anybody caught drug dealing in China with more than 50 mg of certain drugs could get the death penalty. Perhaps if we had serious penalties for drug dealers, there would be a lot less fentanyl deaths. Fentanyl deaths are not a plague that just goes around by itself. It is caused by drug use that has no punishment and dealers that don't get serious penalties if caught.

No, law and order does not mean anybody has to be religious or conservative. It simply means having strict laws against all the bad things going on and enforcing it. It means not having liberal rights for criminals, easy bail and easy parole, light sentences. It means one doesn't get a 3, 5, or 7 year sentence for drunk driving and killing someone but they would get real time in prison like 20 years or more.

Correct. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. in China.. If you just bow to the state's wishes, they won't bother you. The Communist Party runs everything and expects everyone to do as they say. If you step out of line, you could go to prison. There is no such thing as a Bill of Rights or Charter of Rights and the judicial system does not provide much protection against the state if they go after you. If they charge you the default is guilty. By the same token they do not allow everything that is allowed here, like open drug use or any illegal drug use or selling of drugs. Possession for sale of over 50 mg of certain drugs could mean the death penalty. All I can tell you is what I told you from an eye witness who has worked in China off and on for years I believe. He also travels around to other cities and observes the population. He said plainly there is no homeless, no druggies, nobody trying to sell you things on the streets, no beggars, no pot smells, no ladies offering their love for money in sight, no drugs in schools, no loved ones overdosed. Your claim doesn't make sense. China simply does not allow that kind of stuff to go on. You don't oppose what the authorities tell you because they don't fool around.