First Nations ban pipelines to west coast

[blueblood]

They have just enough money to cover healthcare, education, etc. You want them opening a diamond mine with what capital exactly?

Uh private capital, just like our friends in Saskatchewan.

[guyser]

You must have a very short memory.

Oka

Not at all in fact your link backs up what I said.

I quote...

On August 8, Quebec premier Robert Bourassa had announced at a press conference that he had invoked Section 275 of the National Defence Act to requisition military support in "aid of the civil power", a right available to provincial governments.

The Feds cannot just send in troops, and they did not.

[blueblood]

Well looks like jacee's hope has been. Smashed

My link

So much for a united front...

[Smallc]

Haha, I take it we were just watching the same thing. Money will tend to do that.

[Bonam]

A paltry sum too, a mere $7 mil according to the article.

[TimG]

A paltry sum too, a mere $7 mil according to the article.

I am pretty sure the devil is in the detail and the are benefiting a lot more than the sum suggests.

[Smallc]

You see what Enbridge has done, don't you? Now you have first nations pressure to get the pipeline built....priceless.

[Guest Derek L]

Well looks like jacee's hope has been. Smashed

My link

So much for a united front...

Too bad there wasn't Vegas odds

[fellowtraveller]

This coalition of First Nations formed to protect the ENTIRE BC COASTLINE, so alternate routes aren't a solution.

Aboriginal groups, also known as First Nations, say they fear the consequences of a spill from the pipeline, which would pass through some of Canada's most spectacular mountain andscape. They also oppose the idea of shipping oil from British Columbia ports. shipping oil from British Columbia ports."First Nations, whose unceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front banning all exports of tar sands crude oi through their territories," more than 60 aboriginal groups said in a statement.

Now you are being silly.

The First Nations can form whatever groups and alliances are permitted under Canadian law, and express their opinion, but they do not control the BC or any coast in spite of any proclamations.

Canada and BC have not ceded any territory either.

[charter.rights]

Well looks like jacee's hope has been. Smashed

My link

So much for a united front...

One First Nation does not a pipeline make....

Especially since the courts are doing this MY LINK. It is the third time in a year.

[charter.rights]

Now you are being silly.

The First Nations can form whatever groups and alliances are permitted under Canadian law, and express their opinion, but they do not control the BC or any coast in spite of any proclamations.

Canada and BC have not ceded any territory either.

BC and Canada have no right to the land.

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And. We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

Royal Proclamation 1763

The Supreme Court not only upholds this but has defined Aboriginal title of lands as a "plenum dominum" (absolute, over and above all others) That means BC First Nations hold all the cards.

[blueblood]

One First Nation does not a pipeline make....

Especially since the courts are doing this MY LINK. It is the third time in a year.

Oh well some bands are smarter than others, perhaps they should look at how whitecap Dakota does things and how tswwassen does things, or how chief Favel has negotiated with Sprott resource management. Slowly but surely they're coming around. The trend is your friend and the trend is them getting out of the thumb of big government.

[blueblood]

BC and Canada have no right to the land.

Royal Proclamation 1763

The Supreme Court not only upholds this but has defined Aboriginal title of lands as a "plenum dominum" (absolute, over and above all others) That means BC First Nations hold all the cards.

You do realize that the Feds can overlook that. Heck they did it with Kyoto and the supreme court did nothing. The supreme court aren't robots.

Do you think they observed the royal proclamation when they put the trans Canada through, when they developed bc in the early days?

Treaties and proclamations get broken all the time and are enforced at discretion.

[fellowtraveller]

BC and Canada have no right to the land.

If you really believe that, you'd better buy some Caterpillar D10s and start digging up Hwy 16, Hwy 5, and all the CN and CP track in BC then because if you don't they'll be building a great big old trench down one or all of them real soon.

Bring lawyers, guns and money.

[eyeball]

Not so fast there Chief...

A coalition of Gitxsan hereditary leaders and band councils have repudiated Friday's announcement by Elmer Derrick of an agreement with Enbridge to take an equity stake in the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Story

[charter.rights]

Treaties and proclamations get broken all the time and are enforced at discretion.

In the early days, the Victorians never believed in anyone's rights. However, that all changed with the repatriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The last 30 years have been spent by the Supreme Court refining and defining what that means. So far "aboriginal title" means a "plenum dominum" title which stand above all else - including the government of Canada who is bound to consult with First Nations. Legally we have no right to the land that is reserved for Indians.

That is also why lower courts are now implementing those higher court precedents by issuing injunctions against third parties to prevent development without full and extensive consultation (which the SCoC has defined as negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation). It is also why there is a reluctance to stop Native protesters when they exercise proprietary estopple in stopping development on their lands. They have the backing of the Courts.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples warned of unrest and uprising by Aboriginal people if lands claims and rights issues did not get settled with some sense of urgency. That was 18 years ago and things haven't changed much. Is it any wonder there are more and more protests and occupations taking place today?

Here is a look at the issue. You should read it. It will mess your privileged attitude up a bit....if you know what I mean.

How to prevent native uprising

Keep in mind that last year in June 2010 the Queen recognized the nation to nation relationship the Crown continues to hold with First Nations in gifting Six Nations and Mohawk Chiefs with silver in commemoration of 300 years of the Silver Covenant Chain treaties. I heard at the time that there was a little poking by the Queen to remind Harper of our Crown duties towards the Mohawks. Any wonder why their tobacco manufacturing plants never get raided? That is it.....

Edited December 3, 2011 by charter.rights

[cybercoma]

And just so the fanboys are aware, Canada's Queen is above Stephen Harper.

[Shwa]

That's who should be deep sixed was the Feds and the provinces, but someone didn't want to give up their treaty rights, so as a result the money that should have been going to the band goes to some bureaucrat in Ottawa. But they still have their treaty rights! Had they went the tswwassen route, they would be getting mining revenue as a municipality instead of the Feds.

Right. Of course this assumption of them giving "up their treaty rights" assumes that had they given up their treaty rights, they would have had the mineral and land use rights returned to them. Come now, do you really think the federal or provincial government is going to idly give up on their primary cash cows by way of legal precedent?

How has it worked out for the Lubicon Cree in that regard?

The northern Ontario reserve should be looking at what resources they have and how they can bring them into production. For the whitecap Dakota, their resource was the highway and lots of space.

Perhaps, in their present configuration, there are no resources they possess to bring them into production in the first place. That is possible right? I mean, you did understand what I meant when I mention the concept of dependency earlier I presume.

[blueblood]

In the early days, the Victorians never believed in anyone's rights. However, that all changed with the repatriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The last 30 years have been spent by the Supreme Court refining and defining what that means. So far "aboriginal title" means a "plenum dominum" title which stand above all else - including the government of Canada who is bound to consult with First Nations. Legally we have no right to the land that is reserved for Indians.

That is also why lower courts are now implementing those higher court precedents by issuing injunctions against third parties to prevent development without full and extensive consultation (which the SCoC has defined as negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation). It is also why there is a reluctance to stop Native protesters when they exercise proprietary estopple in stopping development on their lands. They have the backing of the Courts.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples warned of unrest and uprising by Aboriginal people if lands claims and rights issues did not get settled with some sense of urgency. That was 18 years ago and things haven't changed much. Is it any wonder there are more and more protests and occupations taking place today?

Here is a look at the issue. You should read it. It will mess your privileged attitude up a bit....if you know what I mean.

How to prevent native uprising

Keep in mind that last year in June 2010 the Queen recognized the nation to nation relationship the Crown continues to hold with First Nations in gifting Six Nations and Mohawk Chiefs with silver in commemoration of 300 years of the Silver Covenant Chain treaties. I heard at the time that there was a little poking by the Queen to remind Harper of our Crown duties towards the Mohawks. Any wonder why their tobacco manufacturing plants never get raided? That is it.....

And you do know that you would have quite the situation if the constitution were to be amended. And I don't think the supreme court can get into that. If there is a cause to amend the constitution, it can be amended. We just broke Kyoto, like bc2004 says economics trumps virtue.

However more and more bands are working with private industry and getting themselves out of poverty. If the bands get themselves out of poverty and are cooperative with projects, then nobody cares about treaty obligations. Ask chief Favel and his negotiations with Sprott resource management. Ask the tswwassen, and ask the hereditary chief of the first nation that gave the green light to the pipeline, and apparently more bands are on board.

My link

Oh and where was the supreme court during the build up to the Olympics? Like I said enforcement is discretionary.

[blueblood]

Right. Of course this assumption of them giving "up their treaty rights" assumes that had they given up their treaty rights, they would have had the mineral and land use rights returned to them. Come now, do you really think the federal or provincial government is going to idly give up on their primary cash cows by way of legal precedent?

How has it worked out for the Lubicon Cree in that regard?

Perhaps, in their present configuration, there are no resources they possess to bring them into production in the first place. That is possible right? I mean, you did understand what I meant when I mention the concept of dependency earlier I presume.

Well that would depend on how the negotiations went. To have the bc first nations under some kind of agreement might mean giving up the mineral rights. They did it with farmers, and some outfits still have theirs.

[blueblood]

And just so the fanboys are aware, Canada's Queen is above Stephen Harper.

You'd be surprised how much power parliament has, ask The British king who lost his head.

[cybercoma]

You'd be surprised how much power parliament has, ask The British king who lost his head.

Just so you know, Parliament is also above Stephen Harper.

[Shwa]

Well that would depend on how the negotiations went.

Sure, hence I asked you how it had all worked out for the Lubicon Cree. Or how about those Mohawks over a small tract of land adjacent to their reserve. How did this land negotiations go? The problem is, with the current co-dependent relationship that is currently mired in an overwhelming bureaucracy, land claims crawl.

To have the bc first nations under some kind of agreement might mean giving up the mineral rights.

Sure, but you can bet they are looking at how giving up mineral rights is working for the Attawapiskat FN. Might not be the way to go eh?

They did it with farmers, and some outfits still have theirs.

What farmers and outfits are you referring to?

[Smallc]

Just so you know, Parliament is also above Stephen Harper.

Yes, parliament, the representative body of Canadians, is supreme. There is only so much that body will tolerate inthe way of halted progress. As has been said before, any court decisions can ultimately be overturned, as the Constitution can be amended, and in its current form does not allow for things that are bound reasonable in a free and democratic society.

[cybercoma]

The problem is that the First Nations have an agreement with the monarch, which has been written into our Constitution. Stephen Harper doesn't get to overrule that and Parliament certainly can't change it on a whim, if at all.