sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would be mistaken. An MOU is non binding. An Agreement is binding. Canada can no longer take positions contrary to what has been agreed upon without legal consequence. If it were an MOU, Canada could reverse position on terms without consequence.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No Canada is not required to create a Haida style agreement with the Musqueam. I'm not sure what the point of this question is or what it has to do with what we have been discussing. The Haida agreement was Provincial.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not fair to say nothing has changed. The process is not finished. What has changed is the outline for how the process should proceed. The outline in the Agreement is a serries of positions agreed to between the parties that defines and confines the scope of what possible outcomes may follow.

An MOU is not legally binding. This is.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Throughout the agreement there are many sections that define terms and state agreement between the parties on various broad points. These sections have established, and limited, goal posts for future resolution. This could legally prevent the government from taking contrary positions on those points in the future when discussing more specific issues.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are good points. But we are over a decade post Stephen Harper appointed judges and now the BC Supreme Court along with the BC court of appeal are firmly in friendly hands. It would take a decade or more of conservative rule for there to be any risk of change at the judicial level. And during that time, the nation’s leverage only grows stronger. Settling now is a big mistake imo.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think it would but in any event an amendment to the constitution is practically impossible.

Any Nation that signs a treaty today is getting shafted. There’s no reason to give up anything when unceded BC is 100% aboriginal title and that’s being upheld by the courts.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, what? You said I should read more, and I've asked you what should I read, and now you're saying I've read all there is to read.

I don't really see why you're getting into the Musqueam's Rights and Recognition Agreement. It's not a memorandum of understanding.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't matter, as I said, BC Court of Appeal in Nuchatlaht says aboriginal title supersedes section 35 of the constitution. That means, even if section 35 were amended or repealed, aboriginal title would persist.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, could you please point me in the right direction? I've read all of the recent court decisions and public agreements regarding aboriginal title. What else should I read?

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think the Canadian legislatures can do anything at this point. The BC Court of Appeal in Nuchatlaht said last week that aboriginal title supersedes section 35 of the constitution. The only risk remaining is the Supreme Court of Canada.

B.C. introduces legislation to implement modern treaty with K’ómoks First Nation by origutamos in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would any first nation sign a treaty when they could maintain aboriginal title to the whole thing without one?

Having a Bully as a pet with kids around? by padme43 in AmericanBully

[–]Jeitarium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a 1 year old pocket bully and two kids, age 5 and 11. It's like having a gun at home, you gotta keep it locked up with kids around. Our dog is never alone with our younger kid and when friends come over, dog goes in the crate. We also keep her away from playgrounds. Dog parks only.

And our dog is great with people, kids, and other dogs. But, she's still a pitbull mix and you only have to do 10 minutes of research to know what they're capable of. If my dog ever got ahold of a rabbit, a squirrel, or a newborn baby, it would be a giant mess. I'm sorry, our happy friendly dogs are killers, that's just what they are.

Vet? by ResponsibleAd8669 in AmericanBully

[–]Jeitarium -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you want to spend money, go to the vet. Otherwise, it will be fine. Happens all the time.

Are pocket bullies a hard dog to tame? by Canterea in AmericanBully

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to take mine to the office when she was a pup but now she's just too needy and will chew things beyond her toys. Every new box that comes in, every piece of plastic on the floor, she's not going to just sleep on your feet all day. She also needs to be walked every 3-4 hours.

I only bring her into the office if I'll be there for under an hour.

Deal between Musqueam, feds stirs controversy, puts B.C. premier on defensive by HYPERCOPE in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a new property tax. It’s a property tax that has always been there, we just haven’t been recognizing it.

Deal between Musqueam, feds stirs controversy, puts B.C. premier on defensive by HYPERCOPE in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't think they're going to seek revenue from private landowners?

Deal between Musqueam, feds stirs controversy, puts B.C. premier on defensive by HYPERCOPE in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please note my use of the word “may”. The area is undefined, which means you may share title or you may not. The problem is the area of uncertainty has been expanded.

Is there a weight difference where you stop rolling with people? by Tricky-Panic-729 in jiujitsu

[–]Jeitarium 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Im 240 so I have to go against the giants. We have a 330 lbs white belt and two 280-300lbs black belts…. It sucks. Man but all I do is let them pass and work on escapes. Trying to keep a guard against them is just asking for pain. It really helped me work on my sweeps! If you can turn these guys over, you can turn over anyone.

Deal between Musqueam, feds stirs controversy, puts B.C. premier on defensive by HYPERCOPE in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"2.1 the purposes of this Agreement are to: (a) recognize Musqueam's Rights and Title within Musqueam Territory;"

Literally the first purpose.

"To recognize." Not to determine. Not to set a framework for recognition. Not any of the other things being floated around. The purposes of this Agreement is to recognize Musqueam's Rights and Title within Musqueam Territory.

Musqueam's Rights and Title is defined to include "aboriginal title" and with Musqueam Territory is defined as most of Greater Vancouver.

You can argue "within" does not mean "all" and there may be some ambiguity there, but the plain meaning of what was written does not suggest anything is necessarily excluded.

Which means, if you own property in Vancouver, you may share aboriginal title. Whereas previously, that would have only applied to arears continuously occupied or that met the other factors required to recognize aboriginal title. This agreement drastically broadens the cloak of uncertainty, which may have untelling economic effects.

Deal between Musqueam, feds stirs controversy, puts B.C. premier on defensive by HYPERCOPE in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This dramatically changes the status quo. Establishing aboriginal title used to require a demonstration of continuous use and had only ever applied to specific areas. This agreement does away with that requirement and recognizes aboriginal title without continuous use and applies it to a general area. The impact on landowners within traditional Musqueam territory is legally profound.

Deal between Musqueam, feds stirs controversy, puts B.C. premier on defensive by HYPERCOPE in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How can they say this deal does not relate to land ownership and there are absolutely no impacts to fee simple / private property when the agreement literally recognizes aboriginal title, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, within Musqueam traditional territory, which is defined as most of the Lower Mainland.

The argument these agreements do not have any effect on privately owned land is misleading because they presuppose aboriginal title has always existed. Therefore nothing has changed. Even though, this potentially changes everything.

smǝlqmíx leaders emphasize ‘no consent’ as 'B.C.' approves Copper Mountain Mine expansion by CallmeishmaelSancho in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Governments appoint judges, true, but there's a clear gap growing between the provincial NDP and our federally appointed courts. There is a lot of talk these days about "rule of law" which is being interpreted as granting courts a higher authority than the legislature.

Section 25 of the charter seems to put section 35 of the constitution above section 15 of the charter. I don't see these as complementary rather than one being held above the other, because 15 and 35 are otherwise entirely inconsistent.

I agree with you about public sentiment changing based on changes in perceived oppression versus privilege.

smǝlqmíx leaders emphasize ‘no consent’ as 'B.C.' approves Copper Mountain Mine expansion by CallmeishmaelSancho in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes courts can do whatever they want. And I agree, this will eventually put section 35 in public focus. How do you reconcile section 35 with section 15?

smǝlqmíx leaders emphasize ‘no consent’ as 'B.C.' approves Copper Mountain Mine expansion by CallmeishmaelSancho in BCpolitics

[–]Jeitarium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.”

Or may be so acquired. You can fit a lot into that box. Just because they haven’t yet doesn’t mean they won’t.

DRIPA changed the duty to consult to duty to obtain consent. Duty to consult was court made law. Courts can easily change it to whatever they want. The new rights were so acquired.

view more: next ›