British Columbia NDP Majority Government 2024-(no later than) 2029

[daftandbarmy]

Here's another way to "clarify" things ....

Biggest landowner in Cowichan area wants Aboriginal title case reopened, in rare move

A company that says it is the biggest private landowner in the Cowichan Tribes' Aboriginal title area in Richmond, B.C., said it will ask the British Columbia Supreme Court to

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

Meanwhile, the adverse impacts keep on comin'

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997137044913770519

 

[Kirkhill]

But that wasn't what he meant at all....

https://www.biv.com/news/bcs-indigenous-rights-law-is-legally-enforceable-not-just-government-policy-rules-court-11585809

Eby says DRIPA law could be amended after First Nations win appeal in mining case

SURREY - First Nations are celebrating a British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling which found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

 

[RangerRay]

But that wasn't what he meant at all....

https://www.biv.com/news/bcs-indigenous-rights-law-is-legally-enforceable-not-just-government-policy-rules-court-11585809

Eby says DRIPA law could be amended after First Nations win appeal in mining case

SURREY - First Nations are celebrating a British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling which found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

Eby said the decision "potentially puts courts in the driver's seat instead of British Columbians."

Duh! A bloody 5 year old could have told you that before your band of incompetents passed that legislation.

 

[Cloud Cover]

So, uhhh I guess my only concern with this is that I might have to go back and get in line with all the Whiteys for my hunting tags.

Statement from Interim Leader Trevor Halford on Letter to Premier Eby: Recall the Legislative Assembly and Repeal DRIPA | Conservative Party of British Columbia

“Our caucus views this as an utmost priority. We are prepared to work cooperatively to pass a focused Repeal Act swiftly.” – Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Conservative Official Opposition SURREY, B.C.: “Yesterday’s Court of Appeal ruling has triggered urgent legal and constitutional...

conservativebc.ca

 

[Rifleman62]

Who are the 40% in BC who approve of EBY?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Who are the 40% in BC who approve of EBY?

Urban voters, mostly ...

2024 British Columbia general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RangerRay]

Urban voters, mostly ...

2024 British Columbia general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the north coast, West Kootenays and the Island, since forever.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And the north coast, West Kootenays and the Island, since forever.

And the NDP have a razor thin majority, which will continue to hound them.

It will be interesting to see of they call an election early in the new year to take advantage of the current disarray in the opposition.

 

[Cloud Cover]

And the NDP have a razor thin majority, which will continue to hound them.

It will be interesting to see of they call an election early in the new year to take advantage of the current disarray in the opposition.

The West Kootenays are losing their access to the forestry roads as the province decommissions them and pull out the bridges. At the same time, they are preparing without any public consultation to cede huge tracts of land on all sides of Kootenay lake - the biggest transfer so far - to Indigenous, including New Denver, Nelson, Slocan, Castlegar, Cranbrook, Radium, Invermere and Creston including municipal and forestry governance. Indigenous and the local pot head environmentalists were also recently able to use the courts to prevent the largest alpine ski resort development in Canadian history in that area, which would have brought a lot of desperately needed year round work to people. The primary basis was the possible existence of an ancient hunting trail.
It all has to stop, right now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Supreme Court considers cases of overlapping Aboriginal title

One Indigenous group calls it a ‘new era’ of rights and title litigation

www.theglobeandmail.com

So the Gitanyow, the Nisga'a and the Tsetsaut/Skii km Lax Ha Nation have overlapping land claims in the area disputed also by the Metlakatla, Lax Kw'alaams, and apparently some other folks with competing elected and hereditary leaderships.

One thing sticks out for me though.
These various groups have taken their fight to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Doesn't that mean that they recognize the supremacy of the Crown over their lands?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Supreme Court considers cases of overlapping Aboriginal title

One Indigenous group calls it a ‘new era’ of rights and title litigation

www.theglobeandmail.com

So the Gitanyow, the Nisga'a and the Tsetsaut/Skii km Lax Ha Nation have overlapping land claims in the area disputed also by the Metlakatla, Lax Kw'alaams, and apparently some other folks with competing elected and hereditary leaderships.

One thing sticks out for me though.
These various groups have taken their fight to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Doesn't that mean that they recognize the supremacy of the Crown over their lands?

You wish.

More a case of “heads I win, tails you lose”.

If they get the ruling they want, they expect Canada to uphold the deal.

If they lose in Court, the “colonial justice system” is keeping them down and they blockade something until they get their way.

Allegedly.

 

[Good2Golf]

Into the FN Thunderdome…37 bands in, one band out…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Duh! A bloody 5 year old could have told you that before your band of incompetents passed that legislation.

Isn't that what Canada wants ? We want someone to make our decisions for us ?

 

[OldSolduer]

Isn't that what Canada wants ? We want someone to make our decisions for us ?

Like the SCOC you mean? Nine unelected ivory tower dwellers telling us peasants thst laws Parliament enacts are wrong?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Let the backpedaling commence...

Rob Shaw: The unintended consequences of DRIPA land at BC NDP’s doorstep​

Premier David Eby says judges are overstepping into the role of elected lawmakers

When the BC NDP government passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) into law in 2019, it went out of its way to say, repeatedly and explicitly, that it should not be used by a future court one day to strike down other provincial laws.

“There will be no immediate effect on laws,” said then-Indigenous relations minister Scott Fraser.

“We are not creating a bill here that is designed to have our laws struck down."

Still, there was much confusion on the issue. New Democrats admitted they would not be able to control what judges might do when a First Nation used DRIPA as a tool to challenge other laws in court.

"Bill 41 is not bestowing any new laws. … The legislation does not create any new rights. … It does not bring the UN Declaration into legal force and effect,” were just some of the phrases Fraser used, as he shepherded what was then Bill 41 through the house.

https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/rob-shaw-the-unintended-consequences-of-dripa-land-at-bc-ndps-doorstep-11593569

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What did the BC NDP think was going to happen when they adopted DRIPA?

The Courts are merely pointing out the logical implication of your law.

This is exactly the consequence the critics warned of.

 

[Furniture]

What did the BC NDP think was going to happen when they adopted DRIPA?

The Courts are merely pointing out the logical implication of your law.

This is exactly the consequence the critics warned of.

I don't think "thinking" was involved, beyond "thinking" it would make them look good to the Twitterati.

 

[RangerRay]

What did the BC NDP think was going to happen when they adopted DRIPA?

The Courts are merely pointing out the logical implication of your law.

This is exactly the consequence the critics warned of.

There’s a reason why all of the countries that were colonized by Great Britain rejected UNDRIP. It’s because it was incompatible with their/our legal systems and traditions.

Never underestimate the ability of the uber-progressive left to not think things through in their pursuit of “social justice”.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A plain reading of UNDRIP makes clear that it is incompatible with any philosophy by which people govern themselves as equals before the law, and makes clear the pitfalls of particular articles, most especially where property is concerned. A right to property is properly understood as the power to dispose of it as one chooses, subject in some cases to limits imposed by governments. Those limits have to be clear, reasonably stable in time, consistent throughout the political hierarchy (local, provincial, federal), and not burdensome to owners or potential owners. Property values are a pillar of our fiscal and economic systems and depend on faith in the stability and predictability of the legal regime. The people who drafted and sold DRIPA knew all this, and must have known the difference between their claims and what could reasonably be anticipated.

A government cannot handicap itself with legislation subjecting it to a balkanized political structure in which dozens of entities can challenge for the right to wet their beaks in each stream, or deny those streams entirely, and expect to prosper.