The long trip to Native rights justice

[CDNBear]

Appeal court quashes native land claim
Last Updated: Friday, November 13, 1998 | 11:21 PM ET
New Brunswick natives say they'll move on to the Supreme Court in their fight for control of the province's forests.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that aboriginal people don't have first rights to Crown land and forests. The unanimous ruling overturns two lower court decisions that ruled in favour of native claims.
The appeal court reversed two previous decisions to acquit harvester Thomas Peter Paul of illegal cutting charges.
The decision is a major victory for the New Brunswick government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Top court upholds aboriginal logging rights on Crown land
Last Updated: Thursday, December 7, 2006 | 9:02 PM ET

Native people have the right to log Crown lands for personal use, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a unanimous judgment on two New Brunswick cases.
'A practice undertaken for survival purposes can be considered integral to an aboriginal community's distinctive culture.' -Supreme Court decision
The high court judges decided three New Brunswick men who took Crown wood to make furniture, build a home and burn as firewood were exercising their aboriginal rights, not stealing.
The ruling upholds the decision of the lower courts in New Brunswick, which also ruled in the men's favour.
"The respondents possessed an aboriginal right to harvest wood for domestic use," the judges wrote in their summary.
In 2005, the Supreme Court had ruled against aboriginal people's right to log Crown lands for commercial purposes — but these men were clearly logging for personal use, the court said.
Darrell Gray, who is Mi'kmaq, was originally charged in 1999 for taking maple trees from Crown lands near three reserves. Clark Polchies and Dale Sappier, both Maliseet, were charged two years later for harvesting trees on Crown land without a licence.
The Supreme Court judges ruled that both Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people logged wood on those lands long before Europeans arrived in North America.
The judges said records show the wood was historically used for shelter, transportation, tools and fuel. It was key to native people's survival.
"A practice undertaken for survival purposes can be considered integral to an aboriginal community's distinctive culture," the judges wrote in their summary.
The judges said the right to harvest the wood must be allowed to evolve with the times. Historically, natives used the wood to build temporary shelters, but now the right must be allowed to evolve to the construction of modern homes, they wrote.
They stressed that the wood cannot be sold, traded or bartered for money, even if the money is used to build another home.
Native leader applauds decision
Jeff Tomah, chief of the Woodstock First Nation in New Brunswick, praised the decision. Sappier and Polchies belong to Woodstock First Nation.
"Housing has been an issue for quite some time and this case here, of course, will help," said Tomah.
"There's a lot of our people scattered and we haven't had time to build houses in a timely manner, but this is a landmark decision that will sure help our people."
Sappier said he never thought it would go this far.
"I thought, you know, that we were just a couple fathers out getting some wood to build some furniture and it just escalated to something that blows our minds when you think about it."
The judges' decision follows a long legal battle.
After lower courts and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the men, the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court.
New Brunswick government pleased
The New Brunswick government is pleased the Supreme Court brought clarity to the issue.
"In this case, we really do have a well-written decision," said Education Minister Kelly Lamrock, speaking on behalf of the government.
"It is well reasoned and it is clear … It's one that we certainly believe can be accommodated in our shared interest of managing the land."
Six provinces, the federal government and two forest industry associations intervened in the case, siding with the New Brunswick government.
Nova Scotia was one of the interveners.
The provincial government announced Thursday it will review the ruling to determine the potential implications for Nova Scotia.
Provincial Natural Resources Minister David Morse said an agreement signed in 2002 involving the Mi'kmaq and the Nova Scotia and federal governments will lead to full negotiations on native rights issues, including forestry.
But native rights expert Ken Coates said the ruling leaves a lot of room for interpretation and that there will be questions about how far this non-commercial right can be taken.
"It says they can use it to construct a home, to build furniture to make a boat, that kind of thing, so those elements are included. There will be attempts to push that envelope to see how far they can push it."
Why the reversal of decision?

Because the local, Lower Court is biased.

This is symptomatic of the entire Native rights issue. The Lower Court, has some form of political, industrial or racial bias, that usually ends in a trip to the Supereme Court, if justice is to prevail.

 

[Niflmir]

Sometimes I wish the Natives would show us all how it is done. Demand their rights to log land, be granted those rights, then protect the forests and live a sustainable lifestyle like they used to before the Americas were colonized. They could use their rights to the land to prevent logging of the land. I stand up for native rights, but will they stop short of logging the entire nation? I hope so.

 

[CDNBear]

Sometimes I wish the Natives would show us all how it is done. Demand their rights to log land, be granted those rights, then protect the forests and live a sustainable lifestyle like they used to before the Americas were colonized. They could use their rights to the land to prevent logging of the land. I stand up for native rights, but will they stop short of logging the entire nation? I hope so.

1) You missed the premice and point.
2) You failed to take in the articles too. Or would have noted that, the judgement was for personal use, not to log for profit. Like Corporate logging companies do.

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

I think Niflmir reply was generally supportive of native rights. I applaud the decision. Mayhaps it will stop the megacorps. How can natives exercise their right to log for personal use if the megacorps clear cut the area. I amsure the naysayers and colonial bigots will be along soon to put in their two cents worth.

 

[Kreskin]

This is great news for the 6 or 7 natives that will log crown lands for personal use only and not sell, trade or barter the products made with it.

 

[Colpy]

Sometimes I wish the Natives would show us all how it is done. Demand their rights to log land, be granted those rights, then protect the forests and live a sustainable lifestyle like they used to before the Americas were colonized. They could use their rights to the land to prevent logging of the land. I stand up for native rights, but will they stop short of logging the entire nation? I hope so.

BEAR, DON'T READ THIS! (just kidding)

The entire concept of native peoples as conservationists is bunk. Before the white man, of course they lived in harmony with nature, as did every other species here. They simply did not have the technology to "advance" from harmony to plunder. BUT the first time they traded a fur to the white man for a steel knife, their whole position is the scheme of things changed. They were, and are, exploiters just like the rest of us. Farley Mowat, in Coppermine Journey, translates from the journals of Samuel Hearn (1745-1792) the story of his journys with indians into parts of the north untraveled by white men...........including the account of the slaughter of an entire group of caribou from which they took only the tongues (which shocked Hearn), and their genocidal war against the Innuit, which horrified him.​

Take our native people down off the pedestal, please.

 

[CDNBear]

BEAR, DON'T READ THIS! (just kidding)

The entire concept of native peoples as conservationists is bunk. Before the white man, of course they lived in harmony with nature, as did every other species here. They simply did not have the technology to "advance" from harmony to plunder. BUT the first time they traded a fur to the white man for a steel knife, their whole position is the scheme of things changed. They were, and are, exploiters just like the rest of us. Farley Mowat, in Coppermine Journey, translates from the journals of Samuel Hearn (1745-1792) the story of his journys with indians into parts of the north untraveled by white men...........including the account of the slaughter of an entire group of caribou from which they took only the tongues (which shocked Hearn), and their genocidal war against the Innuit, which horrified him.​

Take our native people down off the pedestal, please.

Actually I agree with you. Remember my stance on accountablity, responsiblity and the fact I was raised by "traditionals". How could I not.

We lack some form of restraint or mechanism that allows us to see the harm we do, when we chose to ignore the positive effects of the environmental conscience. Selective harvesting has been applied by several BC Nations, as far as I now. I'm hoping Juan may be able to shead some light on that for me.

As for the Samuel Hearn. I do not totally beleive all historical accounts, as recorded by Europeans. Apart from the conflict between the Cree and Innu. Which is a lot older then time, or so I've been told.

Colpy, you can dissagree with me anytime you want. The way you dissagree is more then intellegent, it is forthright, honest and void of the trappings of the self righteous or belligerent. Besides, at least with your views and information on the table, one can come to this conversation and acquire a broad spectrum of analysis.

I whole heartedly agree with removing the Native peoples from that pedestal, we haven't earned that adoration.

 

[CDNBear]

As much as I enjoyed the postings, my intent was to raise the issue of how Native claims are rarely ratified, I say this with much bias, in our favour, in the Lower Courts. Yes there are many claims/cases, that are nothing, more then letigious tripe or cash grabs. As much as I rail against those that speak out against my brothers and sister in generalizations and blatant attacks, you will find no greater critic of my people, then I. It is the issue of the Lower Courts and what I see as a bias, whether it is based on financial aspects or racial bias, they never seem to find in favour of the Natives. It almost always ends up at the Supreme Courts docket. This is not only frustrating, but costly as well. In the end, the outcome rarely justifies the expence.

 

[Niflmir]

As much as I enjoyed the postings, my intent was to raise the issue of how Native claims are rarely ratified, I say this with much bias, in our favour, in the Lower Courts. Yes there are many claims/cases, that are nothing, more then letigious tripe or cash grabs. As much as I rail against those that speak out against my brothers and sister in generalizations and blatant attacks, you will find no greater critic of my people, then I. It is the issue of the Lower Courts and what I see as a bias, whether it is based on financial aspects or racial bias, they never seem to find in favour of the Natives. It almost always ends up at the Supreme Courts docket. This is not only frustrating, but costly as well. In the end, the outcome rarely justifies the expence.

Yeah, the conservatives do not seem to be doing anything, in either direction about Native rights. Paul Martin introduced a bill which reminded the Government of its duties spelled out in the Kelowna accord, and the official stance was: 'I was in Kelowna that fall and the dialogue, to be sure, was useful and inspiring in some ways, but the results at the end were unclear. The conference did not conclude with a signed document by the participants entitled “The Kelowna Accord”.' The Honorable Jim Prentice, June 2, 2006. The bill seems to be stalled. Well, that was sort of their platform on Native rights, I remember them murmuring something about supporting it, but needing to evaluate it.

 

[CDNBear]

Yeah, the conservatives do not seem to be doing anything, in either direction about Native rights. Paul Martin introduced a bill which reminded the Government of its duties spelled out in the Kelowna accord, and the official stance was: 'I was in Kelowna that fall and the dialogue, to be sure, was useful and inspiring in some ways, but the results at the end were unclear. The conference did not conclude with a signed document by the participants entitled “The Kelowna Accord”.' The Honorable Jim Prentice, June 2, 2006. The bill seems to be stalled. Well, that was sort of their platform on Native rights, I remember them murmuring something about supporting it, but needing to evaluate it.

I would rather he applied some of that oh so predictable Conservative fiscal responsablity to the Native Councils. Force them to become transperant and account for the monies that are given them in trust. Long before we squander more cash on H2's or 3's for the chiefs wife.