ubcic.bc.ca ... indian position as stated by lawyer for Union of BC Indian Chiefs ... from - ubcic.bc.ca
Basically that Delgamuukw specifies 'aboriginal rights' which precede, supersede, and overpower those of the province and 'non-aboriginal' peoples therein .... which it does to great extent and to greatly divisive effect ... at the same time, in the learned judge's decision he points out - 'Let us face it, we are all here to stay.'
[edit] - text of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - lexum.umontreal.ca
Egalitarian attitudes prevail among the majority of population, if and when they consider the issue in wider terms, which is rarely and by few of them ... for the most part it is presented as a redress for past wrongs, when in fact it is the setting up of a permanent system for the future ... there is only one basic question imho - 'should all british columbians be eventually equal before the law, yes or no?' .... the indian side states that the referendum is more of a propaganda exercise than anything else, and while i would substitute 'consciousness raising' for 'propaganda', i agree completely ... it is true that some of the questions address issues beyond provincial jurisdiction, however the province is thrust into this situation, land tenure being a provincial responsibility while indian affairs are a federal one ... it is also true that each of points raised affect very dramatically the futures of all british columbians
So what do you do ... i think at some point Delgamuukw gets adjusted to reflect demographic reality ... in the meantime, no permanent treaties enshrining division should be signed, and if that position constitutes a failure to 'negotiate in good faith' according to interpreters of Delgamuukw, so be it
The issue is related to BC-US trade in another way beyond its impeding of tenure review in forestry - as that position paper points out, the british attitude toward tribal protection, as evidenced in the royal proclamation of 1763, assured that indians chose allegiance to the crown in later struggles, and to that we owe our independence, without the help of the Brants and Tecumsehs we would have no land to squabble over, and no indians to squabble with, either
To which the militarists and pine lobbies will point and say - aha, you see, it is more efficient to wipe them out .... well that is just not our way |
