Yes, there is fear and reaction, but no, the BC Conservatives are not responsible. David Eby and his version of the NDP are responsible. There is new racism, and David Eby and his NDP own that too. They made choices, crafted messages, that I and many, many people (well documented) predicted would create fear, division and reaction. They reap, and the community has been downgraded as a result.
FN represent 7.5% of the population of BC. Put another way, 92.5% of the population of BC is not FN. When one of the NDP's most religious called me a colonist, and I told them to go fuck themselves because I was born here and nobody labels me, but me, a senior FN leader said to that person, "We were conquered back when might was right, and now we're better. Get over it." 92.5% of the voters are NOT FN... think realpolitik. (No-one seems to want to hear that homo sapiens, and the others, have been migrating and "settling" all over the globe in continuous movement for ... I dunno... 200,000 years. Apparently this place is unique.)
On the subject of stupid land acknowledgements, what are they? A prayer? A performance? A signal of virtue? A wish? A legal statement? There doesn't seem to be an answer and under no circumstances will I speak one.
Here's what I DO know -I went to the courthouse a few months ago, requested and read 5 BC Supreme Court FN land claim cases and learned some surprising things:
First, there are many versions of history, who said what to whom, what was promised or not. It becomes clear in the reading that the parties do not agree on the facts.
Second, some parties (Esquimalt, Victoria) seem to take the view that they should not defend, but capitulate, when most defend.
Third, and most surprising, is that land acknowledgements, the official making them, the date and where, are cited in the documents as evidence the entity (the CRD, City of Victoria, the G.G. as real examples) want the case settled in favour of the FN plaintiff. SO... whatever we've been pretending about them... this is happening. Everyone who makes one in public should know this before they do it.
"The existing aboriginal and treaty rights..." I read the to mean, "where there is agreement about existing aboriginal treaty rights."
There is considerable disagreement about who said what, when, and to whom in the pleadings I read. The parties do not agree; there are more than one version of history proposed in those pleadings.
Other than that, S. 35 proposes a conference that must include FN before any changes are made. There is no obligation in this law to agree at that conference, so it appears there needs to be a discussion, nothing more.
I read it as the courts have been interpreting it. The existing agreements is not a closed statement because we have a living constitution under the living tree doctrine.
Yes, there is fear and reaction, but no, the BC Conservatives are not responsible. David Eby and his version of the NDP are responsible. There is new racism, and David Eby and his NDP own that too. They made choices, crafted messages, that I and many, many people (well documented) predicted would create fear, division and reaction. They reap, and the community has been downgraded as a result.
FN represent 7.5% of the population of BC. Put another way, 92.5% of the population of BC is not FN. When one of the NDP's most religious called me a colonist, and I told them to go fuck themselves because I was born here and nobody labels me, but me, a senior FN leader said to that person, "We were conquered back when might was right, and now we're better. Get over it." 92.5% of the voters are NOT FN... think realpolitik. (No-one seems to want to hear that homo sapiens, and the others, have been migrating and "settling" all over the globe in continuous movement for ... I dunno... 200,000 years. Apparently this place is unique.)
On the subject of stupid land acknowledgements, what are they? A prayer? A performance? A signal of virtue? A wish? A legal statement? There doesn't seem to be an answer and under no circumstances will I speak one.
Here's what I DO know -I went to the courthouse a few months ago, requested and read 5 BC Supreme Court FN land claim cases and learned some surprising things:
First, there are many versions of history, who said what to whom, what was promised or not. It becomes clear in the reading that the parties do not agree on the facts.
Second, some parties (Esquimalt, Victoria) seem to take the view that they should not defend, but capitulate, when most defend.
Third, and most surprising, is that land acknowledgements, the official making them, the date and where, are cited in the documents as evidence the entity (the CRD, City of Victoria, the G.G. as real examples) want the case settled in favour of the FN plaintiff. SO... whatever we've been pretending about them... this is happening. Everyone who makes one in public should know this before they do it.
And section 35? What do you mean of that reality being entrenched in the law just not for BC but for the entire country?
"The existing aboriginal and treaty rights..." I read the to mean, "where there is agreement about existing aboriginal treaty rights."
There is considerable disagreement about who said what, when, and to whom in the pleadings I read. The parties do not agree; there are more than one version of history proposed in those pleadings.
Other than that, S. 35 proposes a conference that must include FN before any changes are made. There is no obligation in this law to agree at that conference, so it appears there needs to be a discussion, nothing more.
Do you read a different obligation from S.35 and, if so, could you explain?
I read it as the courts have been interpreting it. The existing agreements is not a closed statement because we have a living constitution under the living tree doctrine.