So, the way this article reads, is confusing to me. It sounds like what he’s basically saying is “We didn’t set out to threaten the legitimacy of private property that’s been built on our claimed territories, but the crown didn’t do what we want so we went to the courts and now as a side effect we’re threatening the legitimacy of private property”, coupled with a claim that it’s fear mongering to say that the ruling is threatening people’s private property, which it appears to do? Like saying your position is that the govt needs to recognise Aboriginal Title for that area for your group, is asking to have the right to exclusively use, occupy and possess that land – ie. the private owners get fucked. And it sounds like the gov position was likely that they couldn’t grant the Cowichan exclusive rights to the land, because it was used by multiple groups, including the Musqueam, who challenged the court case alongside the govt. So it sounds like the ‘exclusive use of the land prior to the crown asserting sovereignty over the area’ part of aboriginal title isn’t really met.
The guys position in the article, seems sorta like dropping a nuke on someone and then saying the intention wasn’t to kill people, but just to test the nuke. And that it’s fear mongering to say that the people dropping the nukes are trying to kill people, when they’re just testing out nukes. They didn’t “want” to threaten private property all over the province, they just want Aboriginal Title declared, which would have the side effect of eliminating non-aboriginal land titles/private properties all over the province: like your property going from a Freehold to a 99 year leasehold that reverts to FN at expiration. It’s not “their fault” that the government doesn’t do what they want.
Another annoying thing, is that like so many of these articles, we see a generic complaint for reconciliation and negotiation in good faith etc… but little description of what that actually means to the FN side. It’s like they intentionally go to specific sound bites and repeat it over and over just hoping for everyone to accept the statement without providing information / evidence in the news releases. Besides, the way the Aboriginal Title exclusivity requirements read, it almost sounds like any area where there are competing claims is… assuming you believe the oral traditions of each group equally… no group had ‘exclusive’ use of that land when Canada was formed, so no title should be granted. The courts bending over backwards with kiddy gloves, dumbing down the exclusivity requirement (and other requirements for similar title recognition) is part of what’s causing this issue. Have govt re-affirm the definitions to make it more definitive, and to reign in some of these ridiculous boundary lines (like the Tsawwassen claiming practically all of the lower mainland from delta all the way to Harrison, with a band pop of just like 500 people). Like the concept of “shared exclusivity” isn’t exclusivity – it’s like saying you’re monogamously dating 10 people: news flash, you ain’t monogamous if that’s the case.
So, the way this article reads, is confusing to me. It sounds like what he’s basically saying is “We didn’t set out to threaten the legitimacy of private property that’s been built on our claimed territories, but the crown didn’t do what we want so we went to the courts and now as a side effect we’re threatening the legitimacy of private property”, coupled with a claim that it’s fear mongering to say that the ruling is threatening people’s private property, which it appears to do? Like saying your position is that the govt needs to recognise Aboriginal Title for that area for your group, is asking to have the right to exclusively use, occupy and possess that land – ie. the private owners get fucked. And it sounds like the gov position was likely that they couldn’t grant the Cowichan exclusive rights to the land, because it was used by multiple groups, including the Musqueam, who challenged the court case alongside the govt. So it sounds like the ‘exclusive use of the land prior to the crown asserting sovereignty over the area’ part of aboriginal title isn’t really met.
The guys position in the article, seems sorta like dropping a nuke on someone and then saying the intention wasn’t to kill people, but just to test the nuke. And that it’s fear mongering to say that the people dropping the nukes are trying to kill people, when they’re just testing out nukes. They didn’t “want” to threaten private property all over the province, they just want Aboriginal Title declared, which would have the side effect of eliminating non-aboriginal land titles/private properties all over the province: like your property going from a Freehold to a 99 year leasehold that reverts to FN at expiration. It’s not “their fault” that the government doesn’t do what they want.
Another annoying thing, is that like so many of these articles, we see a generic complaint for reconciliation and negotiation in good faith etc… but little description of what that actually means to the FN side. It’s like they intentionally go to specific sound bites and repeat it over and over just hoping for everyone to accept the statement without providing information / evidence in the news releases. Besides, the way the Aboriginal Title exclusivity requirements read, it almost sounds like any area where there are competing claims is… assuming you believe the oral traditions of each group equally… no group had ‘exclusive’ use of that land when Canada was formed, so no title should be granted. The courts bending over backwards with kiddy gloves, dumbing down the exclusivity requirement (and other requirements for similar title recognition) is part of what’s causing this issue. Have govt re-affirm the definitions to make it more definitive, and to reign in some of these ridiculous boundary lines (like the Tsawwassen claiming practically all of the lower mainland from delta all the way to Harrison, with a band pop of just like 500 people). Like the concept of “shared exclusivity” isn’t exclusivity – it’s like saying you’re monogamously dating 10 people: news flash, you ain’t monogamous if that’s the case.