no! The point you continue to fail on is, 'who holds the title'... you claim it's the hereditary chiefs and attribute that to the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010. You also fail to comprehend what's been written/replied to you - I've read a significant amount of the ruling and I've quoted from it several times in this thread. When I ask you to substantiate your claim by quote citing passage within the ruling, you can't... you won't! You just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over again! You state your repeated claim is obvious!
by the by: this evening, news outlets were covering Alberta Premier Kenney's reaction/statement... in which he includes a reference to the hereditary chiefs - where he stated, "8 of 12 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have come out in favour of the CGL pipeline". The waldo is still running with "8 of 13", as I've posted several times earlier in this thread. You ain't got the numbers member Granny! Of course Premier justVisitingJason also ran the table to include just who else within impacted First Nations have given their support for the CGL pipeline... the point being this support narrative is now becoming front-&-center and the media is starting to play it against the naive and ignorant BC protestors who actually believe the Wet'suet'en members are against the CGL pipeline. About time - yes?
here, let me quote again from the SCOC ruling... you tell me if it lines up with what I've stated several times now in regards title; I've stated a few variants of this: "no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner.". Said quoted passage from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown. Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources: its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty. Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.
Finally, aboriginal title is held communally. - had enough yet member Granny?
@waldo
Crown duty to consult ...
We can only know the outcome of the Crown's consultation when the Crown has actually done so.
Perhaps the BC government will now begin those consultations, as they (and the feds) are soon meeting with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs.
you're so full of shyte! You now appear to have shifted away from your perpetual nattering (15+ posts) claim that, "the hereditary chiefs hold the title" - cause the waldo busted that lil' gem/sham claim of yours - yes!
and now... you're highlighting "duty to consult"!
I expect I've probably had a like 15+ posts where I speak to "duty to consult"... in particular, posts highlighting its attachment to SCOC rulings... and what it means... and doesn't mean! More pointedly I've focused on the lack of consensus within the Wet'suet'en' themselves... that the Crown can't decide who represents the First Nation, can't decide who decides for the First Nation, can't bring the differing views of a First Nation together as a part of consultation, can't presume upon a consensus FOR THE FIRST NATION itself.
now most pointedly: again, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support for the CGL pipeline (including those 5 of the largest Wet'suet'en clan); 20 First Nation Councils (including that of the Wet'suet'en) have given their support (and at least 5 of the hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Council members through the 5+ years of consult); per the National Coalition of Chiefs, 80% of the Wet'suet'en have voted in favour of the pipeline. At least 3 departments of said Crown have been involved in the CGL/First Nation gas pipeline initiative... all through the 5+ year consult process... involved in terms of environmental assessment, certifications, permits, etc.. (Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources; Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development; Environmental Assessment Office)
at least 3 formal meetings (that included hereditary chiefs) have occurred between CGL and the Wet'suet'en... as I read, there have been a total of 40 "points of contact" between CGL, provincial departments and CGL. The current status would appear to have the hereditary chiefs refusing to acknowledge and reply to the CGL letter sent to the hereditary chiefs in 2014 - a letter I will expand upon in subsequent posts.
go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!