« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort  (Read 205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« on: November 05, 2017, 04:19:12 am »
The Supreme Court has turned down a First Nations' claim that a proposed development infringes on religious freedon.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indigenous-rights-ski-resort-1.4381902

The court has essentially decided that while the Ktunaxa band is free to believe that a magical spirit bear roams the wilderness of the area, the claim that development will scare the magic spirit bear away is not sufficient to show that their religious freedom is being denied.

The Jumbo Glacier Resort development has been a fiasco right from the start and this decision from the Supreme Court will not change that.  Nonetheless, I'm glad that the Supreme Court has disregarded this claim from the natives.

 -k
Logged
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2017, 06:07:57 am »
This is a tough one.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2017, 09:03:51 am »
Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 06:07:57 am
This is a tough one.
Why? It would have opened to door to all kinds of claims intended block whatever a NIMBY dislikes. i.e. "you can't put those cell phone towers near my home because they violate my freedom of religion by messing up my chakras". How would a court decide that claim was not "true enough"?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 09:06:18 am by TimG »
Logged

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2017, 11:45:28 am »
Quote from: TimG on November 05, 2017, 09:03:51 am
Why?

Why not ?  Do you think reasonable accommodation is easy ?  Do you think the spiritual lives of Canadian citizens can be ruled against without a general concern, including and perhaps especially by those who win the ruling ?

Quote
  How would a court decide that claim was not "true enough"?

Strawman.  Your argument is an extreme slippery slope that really says we shouldn't accommodate at all.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2017, 01:12:54 pm »
Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 11:45:28 am
Your argument is an extreme slippery slope that really says we shouldn't accommodate at all.
There is no "slippy slope" here - it is a cliff. As soon as a court accepts one unprovable belief as sufficient to justify blocking economic activity it would be forced to accept all because there are no facts or evidence that can be used to separate one belief from another. Why do you think the "spirit bear" is more worthy than someone's "chakras"?

Reasonable accommodation implies allowing people to practice their beliefs. i.e. wearing turbans when the dress code prohibits them or providing a space for prayers. It cannot and should not apply to approvals of projects that are desired by others.
Logged

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2017, 01:55:07 pm »
Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 11:45:28 am
Why not ?  Do you think reasonable accommodation is easy ?  Do you think the spiritual lives of Canadian citizens can be ruled against without a general concern, including and perhaps especially by those who win the ruling ?

How the hell is it 'reasonable accommodation' to give natives a veto over other people's land based on some BS about some grizzly bear spirits? This is a multimllion dollar project which has been dragged through the courts for 15 years now. It's a poster child for why it's almost impossible to develop anything in Canada any more.
Logged
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9165
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2017, 03:25:59 pm »
Seems to me the SCC has ruled that FN's don't have the right to obstruct on behalf of a mythical bear's alleged spirit. Quite right IMO.
Logged
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2017, 06:08:39 pm »
Quote from: TimG on November 05, 2017, 01:12:54 pm
There is no "slippy slope" here - it is a cliff. As soon as a court accepts one unprovable belief as sufficient to justify blocking economic activity it would be forced to accept all because there are no facts or evidence that can be used to separate one belief from another.

Like not allowing shopping on Sunday ?  There is no slippery cliff.

Quote
Why do you think the "spirit bear" is more worthy than someone's "chakras"?

Both are less worthy than Jesus' days.

Quote
Reasonable accommodation implies allowing people to practice their beliefs. i.e. wearing turbans when the dress code prohibits them or providing a space for prayers. It cannot and should not apply to approvals of projects that are desired by others.
  Projects ?  Seems pretty specific...
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2017, 06:34:38 pm »
Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 06:08:39 pm
Like not allowing shopping on Sunday ?  There is no slippery cliff.
Restrictions on Sunday shopping are long gone and rightly so.

Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 06:08:39 pm
Both are less worthy than Jesus' days.
What does that have to do with anything? The issue is it would be insane to expect the court to make decisions based on the relative merits of beliefs in imaginary things. A holiday based on Christian traditions is unrelated to this problem. The courts never have and never will make decisions based on the merits of a religious belief. That is a good thing.

Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 06:08:39 pm
Projects ?  Seems pretty specific...
Yes. Because economic progress requires that things be built. Allowing religious superstition to harm non-believers by blocking economic development is wrong.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 06:36:55 pm by TimG »
Logged

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2017, 08:54:04 pm »
Quote from: TimG on November 05, 2017, 06:34:38 pm
Restrictions on Sunday shopping are long gone and rightly so.

Yes, very recently. 

Quote
What does that have to do with anything? The issue is it would be insane to expect the court to make decisions based on the relative merits of beliefs in imaginary things. A holiday based on Christian traditions is unrelated to this problem. The courts never have and never will make decisions based on the merits of a religious belief. That is a good thing.

What does that mean 'the merits of a religious belief'?  They do accommodate and there's an implicit hierarchy of who gets heard, that's clear.

Quote
Yes. Because economic progress requires that things be built. Allowing religious superstition to harm non-believers by blocking economic development is wrong.
Those who put their faith in the economic system over all are believers by definition.
Logged

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2017, 09:08:05 pm »
Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 08:54:04 pm
Yes, very recently. 

So?  It's "very recent" only by the terms that the charter of rights and freedoms is "very recent". Challenges to Sunday shopping bans started making their way through the courts not long after the Charter was put in place.  Now that precedent is established, and it's not going to get unestablished just because the natives didn't get their turn.

Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 08:54:04 pm
What does that mean 'the merits of a religious belief'?  They do accommodate and there's an implicit hierarchy of who gets heard, that's clear.

I believe he means that the courts are not going to make any ruling on whether it's mental to believe that a hippy rose from his grave after 3 days or a magic bear spirit lives on a mountain top. Such questions are, clearly, well outside the scope of the court.  The court has no business in saying "you're nuts to think there's a magic bear spirit living on the mountain", but the court does have a role in saying that one group's spiritual notions don't give them a defacto veto over a piece of land that doesn't even belong to them.

Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 08:54:04 pm
Those who put their faith in the economic system over all are believers by definition.

The economy is not an article of faith. It's an observable, quantifiable phenomenon. As Neil deGrasse-Tyson said about science: it's real whether you believe in it or not.

 -k
Logged
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2017, 09:22:03 pm »
Quote from: kimmy on November 05, 2017, 09:08:05 pm
Now that precedent is established, and it's not going to get unestablished just because the natives didn't get their turn.

So Sunday shopping won't get banned because of this ?  Got it. 

Quote
I believe he means that the courts are not going to make any ruling on whether it's mental to believe that a hippy rose from his grave after 3 days or a magic bear spirit lives on a mountain top. Such questions are, clearly, well outside the scope of the court.  The court has no business in saying "you're nuts to think there's a magic bear spirit living on the mountain", but the court does have a role in saying that one group's spiritual notions don't give them a defacto veto over a piece of land that doesn't even belong to them.

There should be a word for when something happens in 1990, 2005, 2015 and within a few years people are using it as proof of our cultural sophistication.  Anyway, the court may indeed take the side on religion again.  Don't be sure it won't.

Quote
The economy is not an article of faith. It's an observable, quantifiable phenomenon. As Neil deGrasse-Tyson said about science: it's real whether you believe in it or not.
 

Economics isn't science, it's a kind of science-art. 
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2017, 10:40:13 pm »
Quote from: MH on November 05, 2017, 09:22:03 pm
Anyway, the court may indeed take the side on religion again.  Don't be sure it won't.
This ruling is consistent with earlier rulings where the court decided it cannot get involved in determining which religious beliefs are "real enough" to merit special protections  not granted to other beliefs. I think the line makes a lot of sense and it not clear why you think some native group should be allowed to block a development because an "elder" had a vision shortly after negotiations with the developer fell apart. If there was ever an example of a belief fabricated for political gain it would be this one. Also keep in mind that this ruling had two parts: one where the SCC said that the duty to consult and accommodate had been fulfilled and the second where the court said that freedom of religion cannot be used to impose control over land when the rights they have, have already been properly addressed (i.e. by altering the resort to protect habit for real bears).
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 11:37:58 pm by TimG »
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2017, 05:46:10 am »
Quote from: TimG on November 05, 2017, 10:40:13 pm
I think the line makes a lot of sense and it not clear why you think some native group should be allowed to block a development because an "elder" had a vision shortly after negotiations with the developer fell apart.

I never said that.

Quote
If there was ever an example of a belief fabricated for political gain it would be this one. 

Can you prove your accusation ?
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Supreme Court rules against natives on ski resort
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2017, 07:22:03 am »
Quote from: MH on November 06, 2017, 05:46:10 am
Can you prove your accusation ?
Of course not but they can't prove that it was sincere and not motivated by political desires given the timing of the "spirit bear vision". That is why the court cannot get involved in assessing the merits of religious beliefs and applying different rules to different beliefs depending on the merit the court assigns.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »