First Nations Claims And Title Not Thrown Out

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
This was largely a defeat for the Tsilhqot'in First Nation. But they got too much.

It's really time to end this third world idea, this Haitian notion of traditional land claims. This is why Haiti will always go nowhere economically like all third world countries. Countries are third world because they live without property rights. We all agree with property rights in fee simple in land and don't worry someone will come by and say, "My ancestors lived here, you owe me." This is uncertainty that is good enough for us, but not Indians.

"As First Nations people, we want certainty, and not granting title isn't creating that," Tsilhqot'in Chief Joe Alphonse told reporters Wednesday. This is not so, they will never give up their claims and traditional lands and will go back to the courts again and again. We accept court decisions and move on, they do not. Time to end this forever.



B.C. court rules against territorial land claim in case likely headed for appeal




B.C. court rules against territorial land claim in case likely headed for appeal


BY JAMES KELLER, THE CANADIAN PRESS JUNE 27, 2012



STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



Vancouver Police look on as members of the Tsilhqot'in national government protest a proposed mine in their territory outside the Taseko headquarters in Vancouver, B.C. on June 1, 2012. The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that found a First Nation has no claim to aboriginal title in their territorial land but nonetheless has the right to hunt and trade in the area.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward
VANCOUVER - The Supreme Court of Canada appears destined to once again wade into the contentious issue of aboriginal land claims after a British Columbia court rejected a First Nation's demand for title over part of its traditional territory.

The ruling, released Wednesday by the B.C. Court of Appeal, upheld an earlier judgment that granted the Tsilhqot'in First Nation sweeping rights to hunt, trap and trade in over 440,000 hectares of land in British Columbia's central Interior.

But the three-member appeal panel also agreed with a lower court that the Tsilhqot'in was not entitled to aboriginal title over the land, because the nation was claiming ownership over a broad territory, rather than identifying specific sites where its people once lived.

The case dates back to the early 1990s, when the Tsilhqot'in first began using the courts and a blockade to stop logging operations in the area, setting off a two-decade legal odyssey that has cost tens of millions of dollars.

The Appeal Court's ruling prompted the community's chief to warn the fight is not over.

"As First Nations people, we want certainty, and not granting title isn't creating that," Tsilhqot'in Chief Joe Alphonse told reporters Wednesday.

"This just sets up for another fight at the Canadian Supreme Court."

A ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada would have significant implications within B.C., which, unlike other provinces, does not have modern-day treaties with its First Nations. But a judgment from the top court could also ripple across the country, as aboriginals continue to assert claims over their traditional territories.

The Tsilhqot'in, whose territory is near Williams Lake, B.C., is made up of six aboriginal bands that together include about 3,000 people.

One of those bands, the Xeni Gwet'in, claimed aboriginal title over two areas it considered its traditional land. A forestry company attempted to secure access to those areas beginning in 1980s, eventually setting off the current court case.

In May of 1992, the Tsilhqot'in staged a blockade to prevent work on a bridge related to proposed forestry activity, which ended when then-premier Mike Harcourt promised there would be no further logging in the area without the consent of the Xeni Gwet'in.

Much of the area in dispute was turned into a provincial park in 1994, but the band and the province have been fighting over the remaining land ever since. The area at the centre of the court case represents about five per cent of what Tsilhqot'in band considers its traditional territory.

The trial, which began in November 2002 and continued for nearly five years, heard evidence that the Tsilhqot'in have been present in the area for more than 250 years.

But the trial also heard the Tsilhqot'in were "semi-nomadic," with few permanent encampments, even though they saw the area as their own and protected it from outsiders.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Tsilhqot’in did not have aboriginal title over the entire area, but the court also said the Tsilhqot’in had rights to hunt and to trade skins and pelts to support a "moderate livelihood." The court also concluded the province infringed on the First Nation's rights because forestry activity in the area would negatively affect its ability to hunt and trap.

The Tsilhqot'in, the B.C. government and Ottawa all appealed various aspects of that ruling. The Appeal Court disagreed with some of the previous judge's reasons but ultimately reached the same conclusions, dismissing all three appeals.

"Aboriginal title cannot generally be proven on a territorial basis, even if there is some evidence showing that the claimant was the only group in a region or that it attempted to exclude outsiders from what it considered to be its traditional territory," Justice Harvey Groberman wrote in the unanimous decision.

"The cultural security and continuity of First Nations can be preserved by recognizing their title to particular 'definite tracts of land,' and by acknowledging that they hold other Aboriginal rights in much more extensive territories."

The Tsilhqot'in argued that requiring First Nations to identify specific pieces of land failed to recognize its people's nodamic culture, and would effectively split up its ancestral territory.

The federal departments of Justice and Aboriginal Affairs both declined to comment on the case. The Justice Department was reviewing the decision, a spokeswoman said in an email.

B.C.'s minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation, Mary Polak, issued a written statement that said the province has changed the way it works with First Nations since the trial began in 2002, stressing negotiation over legal action.

"B.C. remains committed to negotiations, rather than litigation, as the primary means of reconciling Crown-First Nations interests and building and maintaining positive working relationships," the statement said.

The province created the B.C. Treaty Commission in 1992 to settle land claims with First Nations, but the process has been long and expensive.

Some First Nations, including the Tsilhqot'in, are not participating.

Of the 60 groups currently in the process, only two have seen their treaties signed and ratified by the provincial and federal governments: the Tsawwassen First Nation near Vancouver and the Maa-nulth First Nations, which actually includes five separate nations, each with their own treaty, on Vancouver Island.

The Tsilhqot'in have a troubled relationship with the Crown that stretches back before Confederation.

In 1864, a road-building crew was killed while attempting to construct a road through Tsilhqot'in territory.

The incident sparked what became known as the Tsilhqot’in War, which ended with the execution of several Tsilhqot'in chiefs, who were publicly hanged in what is now Quesnel, B.C.

In 2006, an Appeal Court judge suggested the current legal battle could be considered a second Tsilhqot'in War.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Ah, Dumpy... You miss being spanked by Bear, don't you.

I especially like this line from the article:

In 2006, an Appeal Court judge suggested the current legal battle could be considered a second Tsilhqot'in War.

The romantic jurists we have on the bench. Justice in this case means educating aboriginals so they can work and join society as functioning members. Now too many are illiterate, with no work ethnic, no marketable skills, and some even need ESL classes. What is going on now is not justice just because judges are on the case.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It's really time to end this third world idea, this Haitian notion of traditional land claims.
Haitian notion of land claims?

This is why Haiti will always go nowhere economically like all third world countries.
Haiti's issues are caused solely by a history of colonialism, exploitation, corruption, poor to nonexistent social programs and foreign interference.

Land claims have little to nothing, to do with Haiti's problems.

I see you know as little about Haiti as you do about the First Nations.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I especially like this line from the article:

In 2006, an Appeal Court judge suggested the current legal battle could be considered a second Tsilhqot'in War.

The romantic jurists we have on the bench. Justice in this case means educating aboriginals so they can work and join society as functioning members. Now too many are illiterate, with no work ethnic, no marketable skills, and some even need ESL classes. What is going on now is not justice just because judges are on the case.

Another thread about First nations- My what a ffn hangup you have-
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Haitian notion of land claims?

Haiti's issues are caused solely by a history of colonialism, exploitation, corruption, poor to nonexistent social programs and foreign interference.

Land claims have little to nothing, to do with Haiti's problems.

I see you know as little about Haiti as you do about the First Nations.

That is not so. Without exact property rights there is little development, which is what most third world countries have. There are competing land claims in Haiti. The sooner aboriginals are made Canadians, the better.


Haiti: Land ownership questions hinder reconstruction | lo-de-alla.org

Haiti: Land ownership questions hinder reconstruction

[Translation of an article from HaitiLibre for July 6.]
Disputes over the ownership of land, which can take years to resolve, are hindering reconstruction efforts in Haiti and discouraging needed foreign investment, experts say.

The Haitian government and international aid organizations are in competition over construction of dwellings for the 1.5 million people living in camps. But before even beginning reconstruction, they need to determine who owns the land – a major challenge after the earthquake, which killed some 16,000 government officials and destroyed an unknown number of land title records.

“The catastrophe has made land claims more difficult and this situation is going to get worse. After close to 250,000 deaths, inheritance and the sale of land raise a number of questions. Is the owner dead or alive? If he is dead, are there children with rights to the land?”asks Erik Vittrup, head of the United Nations Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat), based in Rio de Janeiro.

Survivores who are squatting in private houses or on private land, the need for schools and childcare centers and the construction of housing will all increase, as will conflicts over ownership and the eviction of squatters. Another problem is the buying up of land in the slums, which was endemic before the earthquake and is now becoming widespread because of the lack of clarity in land titles. “Certain people returning to their homes find they are being occupied by someone else,” Erik Vittrup stated.

The earthquake has done nothing but bring to light a long-standing problem, that of poorly defined land rights in Haiti, resulting from an ineffecive judiciary system, years of political instability and a weak government incapable of inspiring respect for, and protection of, land owners’ titles.

“The lack of governance makes enforcement of land rights very dificult, and judicial protection is almost non-existent,” the UN official declared, adding that Haitian courts are overwhelmed and take an average of five years to settle cases.

Less than five percent of land in Haiti is officialy accounted for in public land records, according to the United Nations, which increases the difficulty of establishing who owns the land. Even before the earthquake, ownership of land was a thorny problem in Haiti, contributing to violence and poverty in a country where land is concentrated in the hands of a few large land owners.
There are few land titles in Haiti and there is no system of real estate records. Most land is transferred orally from one generation to the next and with the prevalence of informal land ownership, as with contradictory laws and the weakness of enforcement, land security is not established, according to a report by UN-Habitat published shortly after the earthquake of last January.

Before the catastrophe, the Organization of American States had pledged to spend 70 million dollars over seven years to put in place an orderly system of title registration in Haiti. The legislative body says that it is a prerequisite for development of the country. But the earthauake made real estate a much more urgent challenge. “The question of land rights is essential for every organization that works on reconstruction in Haiti. Our work becomes difficult when families do not have guarantees of the their land rights, which is true in the majority of cases, which hinders us from constructing temporary or permanent housing,” declared Claude Jeudy, Haiti director of Habitat for Humanity, a charity organization dealing with construction..

Humanitarian agencies and the government need to redouble their efforts to solve the problem of land rights, just as the hurricane season is advancing, threatening to destroy many makeshift shelters. “The organizations need clear directives supported by the local authorities, to permit the legal construction of transitional structures while ownership of the land remains uncertain. This process risks creating a bottleneck in the construction of provisional shelters if it isn’t dealt with quickly. A national policy on the question is not only necessary but it is urgent, according to a report published recently by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
A number of national and international humanitarian organizations are working in some 1,200 registered camps in and around the captal on an ad hoc basis, with informal agreements with the land owners and local authorities, who give them the right temporarily to occupy the land, which should then be renegotiated every three to six months. To date, this occurs on the basis of good will but no one knows how long this will last. “Good will must reach a limit at a certain moment,” declares Katie Chalk, communications director in Port-au-Prince for World View International.

Pressure over land in the city will increase to the degree that more people who fled the capital after the earthquake want to return home,” she added.

Uncertainty about land ownership results in aid organizations not being able to make long-range plans. “Every day we go into a camp without knowing if it will still be there in three weeks,” Katie Chalk said. This problem of uncertainty of land rights weighs equally on local businesses. Many heads of Haitian businesses have had trouble obtaining loans because they cannot prove they own the land their businesses occupy. This uncertainty also alienates potential foreign investors, indispensible for the reconstruction of Haiti.
“If there is no land registry, with a judicial body to guarantee their rights, investors will not spend one dollar in Haiti,” delcares Erik Vittrup of UN –Habitat.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I have gotten used to nonsense and distortions from some but this is a
bit much indeed, Haiti is about other problems not the ones suggested
in this introduction. As for the native problems they are not about having
land and not caring and becoming the image of the third world.
much of the problem is caused by having treaty lands in some cases
where they people would have difficulty surviving it was worthless. All
the good land was taken by settlers. As it turns out that worthless land
has all the oil and natural gas and other valuable assets and now the
thoughts turn to how do we get access to it without paying for it of course.
Dumpy does not seem to like our native brothers as every article seems
to be complaining about us having to live up to our word or responsibility
I can't wait for the next distorted episode and I for one hope they appeal
and win.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
You guys are comic. Unresolved land claims means companies cannot buy land with certainty, certainty to invest, buy equipment and hire people without some toughs coming by and saying, "My father owned this land, we want $10,000 per year and you can work here." These are rentiers, they just want payment because they don't want to work.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
not any where near the same as First Nations land claims.

You admit here it is like Haiti. Oh, not as bad, but It would be if we let them. Pre-modern people don't care about development, they're quite happy to hang around the trees, do some hunting, fishing, raid a neighbouring tribe, and call it a day. Then repeat for as long as they can. I'm no enabler for this.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
You admit here it is like Haiti. Oh, not as bad, but It would be if we let them. Pre-modern people don't care about development, they're quite happy to hang around the trees, do some hunting, fishing, raid a neighbouring tribe, and call it a day. Then repeat for as long as they can. I'm no enabler for this.



Wow...I admitted nothing of the sort. Your bigotry and racism is unbelievable and is only out done by your stupidity.