Canadian Politics Today

Still schilling excuses, eh waldo!

Respect? , Reconciliation ? Rule of law from the Supreme Court of Canada? ... Nah, just the same old excuses for violence instead of negotiation.

The BC Crown has not fulfilled it's duty to consult with the hereditary Chiefs who hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation.

no "schilling" / no excuses given - none needed! Care to offer a legal based citation that definitively states, as you say, "the hereditary Chiefs hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation." ... and that, more pointedly, they have been determined to be the persons/body to target "consultation duty" towards. And, most pointedly, that the Crown/industry has an obligation to determine consensus within the differing positions held within Indigenous Nations themselves.

I'm shocked you have no comment on my highlighting the dual roles held by 'some' hereditary chiefs... that they're also Band Councillors and were apart of the 5+ years negotiations (aka, duty to consult)... shocked, I tells ya!

The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

Despite direction from the Supreme Court to reconcile titles, our governments still choose to perpetrate disrespect and police violence instead:

from the SCOC judgement you continue to rely upon, there is pointed reference to the lack of First Nation interveners joining the appellants in the related appeal case... with the most pointed statement, "It may, therefore, be advisable if those aboriginal nations intervened in any new litigation". The point being, the onus is on respective First Nations to initiate their respective requests/claims for title... "over said lands that were never ceded".

your emphasis on SCOC "direction" is rather "loose", notwithstanding its emphasis on 2-way negotiations, good faith & give & take... and reconciliation within the sovereignty of the Crown; re: para 186 of the judgement


as an interested outsider, the waldo certainly looks with interest to said 'next court challenges by Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs'. Given the overwhelming majority of the ~3500 band members support the gas pipeline, the Sparrow test 'public interest' (over some minimum number of "dissenters") shouldn't be difficult to realize. Again:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest

Quote

(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group

Q: can a few hundred (if that) dissenting Wet'suet'en band members supersede the public interest, a part of which itself brings significant economic relief/investment to the Wet'suet'en? Can it... should it?