7 ms·

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous people

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gotoeleven 3y ago
How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  There are various weird traditional middle grounds, e.g. the City of London.
- TSiege 3y ago
  This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation
  - InitialLastName 3y ago
    > that would cover the entirety of canada This is very much not what we do in the United States. Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".
    - TSiege 3y ago
      This is not what I'm arguing at all. We have been making (and largely breaking) treaties with indigenous peoples since before either country existed. But to say they didn't matter and that we still don't recognize them at all is completely ahistorical and out of touch with reality. Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada have worked hard to restore sovereignty. Your claim is completely ignoring that and recent precedents we've taken to right those wrongs. While it's not perfect (nor enough imo), it doesn't account to nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...
    - Auracle 3y ago
      I would like to point out that’s way better than what most people did over the course of human history, certainly including a lot of those Native Americans themselves.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Yes that’s exactly right
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  I don't really see how this is that challenging. It's just another jurisdiction with its own governance structure, just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.
  - nikitaga 3y ago
    > I don't really see how this is that challenging. "Not challenging"? Ok, suppose you split the province of BC into 100+ of these independent indigenous-run jurisdictions, or maybe a bit less if any First Nations decide to amalgamate in the process. What will actually make these jurisdictions independent / sovereign? What mechanism will they use to keep the power in the hands of indigenous people? Are the millions of non-indigenous people living in BC supposed to pack up and leave for their ancestors' countries, that they might have never been to? Or are they supposed to exist as second class citizens, deprived of democratic and property rights? What fraction of indigenous blood will be enough to get first class citizenship? And don't cop out with "the indigenous people will decide these things". Obviously they will, if it comes to that. Show at least one feasible "not challenging" solution that they could possibly decide on, that would see such jurisdictions qualify as sovereign. > just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change. Those Canadian jurisdictions are all governed by people who are elected by all Canadians living there, and all of those Canadians are also eligible to run for office, regardless of race. None of these types of jurisdictions could possibly give First Nations any meaningful sovereignty if their structure was applied to them, because these types of jurisdictions have no mechanism to ensure that indigenous people – or any other subset of people – will be in control, or will stay in control. Jurisdictions with indigenous sovereignty would inevitably require aggressive race-based laws, and either a more distinctly two-class society, or a purge of non-indigenous people from Canada. You could say that this kind of thing is indeed "challenging", to say the least.
    - Tiktaalik 3y ago
      The significant thing that makes this less challenging than the bizarre and inflammatory fears in your last paragraph is that FNs are simply seeking jurisdiction over land use on their lands and over their people that are part of their FN. You seem to be dreaming up scenarios that FNs themselves have not been advancing. The day to day reality of someone who is not part of a FN that lives in an existing municipality doesn't change at all. The most significant changes are for resource companies that seek to make use of crown land that now have to have additional conversations with a FN about resource projects instead of just the Province, and this is pretty much already the case and they're already doing this. Maybe the worst case scenario for a typical British Columbian is that a backcountry enthusiast could find a potential activity limited by some FN that seeks to limit access to their lands.
- grecy 3y ago
  Yes, that is exactly the case today. There are 43 self-governing first nations communities in Canada where "Canadian" laws mean nothing, and "Canadian" police have no power. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547314 https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547...
  - Aloisius 3y ago
    Em. That says: * Under self-government, Indigenous laws operate in harmony with federal and provincial laws. Indigenous laws protecting culture and language generally take priority if there is a conflict among laws * However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply
- michael1999 3y ago
  Canada is already a federal structure with overlapping jurisdictions. Adding another layer to it complicates things, but doesn't fundamentally break anything. Treaties are just more laws in a constitution that is already a mix of Common Law, written law, (French) Civil Law, our history with the BNA act, and our recent constitutional patriation. The USA has similar treaties, and the US Supreme Court has been flip-flopping trying to decide the limits of Oklahoma criminal authority in half the sate. It can be messy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta
somedude895 3y ago
Times have changed and these peoples don't live the romanticized lifestyles of the olden times anymore. For the most part, they're just as modern and profit-seeking as any other group of Canadians. If you allow them to not have to adhere to Canadian law, you have a group of people that enjoy all the benefits and none of the restrictions of the country they live in. If you argue for sovereign rights, they should have their own separate countries, so they have to deal with any imbalances or environmental issues they create themselves.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gotoeleven 3y ago

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
There are various weird traditional middle grounds, e.g. the City of London.
TSiege 3y ago
This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  > that would cover the entirety of canada This is very much not what we do in the United States. Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".
  - TSiege 3y ago
    This is not what I'm arguing at all. We have been making (and largely breaking) treaties with indigenous peoples since before either country existed. But to say they didn't matter and that we still don't recognize them at all is completely ahistorical and out of touch with reality. Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada have worked hard to restore sovereignty. Your claim is completely ignoring that and recent precedents we've taken to right those wrongs. While it's not perfect (nor enough imo), it doesn't account to nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...
  - Auracle 3y ago
    I would like to point out that’s way better than what most people did over the course of human history, certainly including a lot of those Native Americans themselves.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Yes that’s exactly right
Tiktaalik 3y ago
I don't really see how this is that challenging. It's just another jurisdiction with its own governance structure, just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.
- nikitaga 3y ago
  > I don't really see how this is that challenging. "Not challenging"? Ok, suppose you split the province of BC into 100+ of these independent indigenous-run jurisdictions, or maybe a bit less if any First Nations decide to amalgamate in the process. What will actually make these jurisdictions independent / sovereign? What mechanism will they use to keep the power in the hands of indigenous people? Are the millions of non-indigenous people living in BC supposed to pack up and leave for their ancestors' countries, that they might have never been to? Or are they supposed to exist as second class citizens, deprived of democratic and property rights? What fraction of indigenous blood will be enough to get first class citizenship? And don't cop out with "the indigenous people will decide these things". Obviously they will, if it comes to that. Show at least one feasible "not challenging" solution that they could possibly decide on, that would see such jurisdictions qualify as sovereign. > just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change. Those Canadian jurisdictions are all governed by people who are elected by all Canadians living there, and all of those Canadians are also eligible to run for office, regardless of race. None of these types of jurisdictions could possibly give First Nations any meaningful sovereignty if their structure was applied to them, because these types of jurisdictions have no mechanism to ensure that indigenous people – or any other subset of people – will be in control, or will stay in control. Jurisdictions with indigenous sovereignty would inevitably require aggressive race-based laws, and either a more distinctly two-class society, or a purge of non-indigenous people from Canada. You could say that this kind of thing is indeed "challenging", to say the least.
  - Tiktaalik 3y ago
    The significant thing that makes this less challenging than the bizarre and inflammatory fears in your last paragraph is that FNs are simply seeking jurisdiction over land use on their lands and over their people that are part of their FN. You seem to be dreaming up scenarios that FNs themselves have not been advancing. The day to day reality of someone who is not part of a FN that lives in an existing municipality doesn't change at all. The most significant changes are for resource companies that seek to make use of crown land that now have to have additional conversations with a FN about resource projects instead of just the Province, and this is pretty much already the case and they're already doing this. Maybe the worst case scenario for a typical British Columbian is that a backcountry enthusiast could find a potential activity limited by some FN that seeks to limit access to their lands.
grecy 3y ago
Yes, that is exactly the case today. There are 43 self-governing first nations communities in Canada where "Canadian" laws mean nothing, and "Canadian" police have no power. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547314 https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547...
- Aloisius 3y ago
  Em. That says: * Under self-government, Indigenous laws operate in harmony with federal and provincial laws. Indigenous laws protecting culture and language generally take priority if there is a conflict among laws * However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply
michael1999 3y ago
Canada is already a federal structure with overlapping jurisdictions. Adding another layer to it complicates things, but doesn't fundamentally break anything. Treaties are just more laws in a constitution that is already a mix of Common Law, written law, (French) Civil Law, our history with the BNA act, and our recent constitutional patriation. The USA has similar treaties, and the US Supreme Court has been flip-flopping trying to decide the limits of Oklahoma criminal authority in half the sate. It can be messy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta

somedude895 3y ago

Times have changed and these peoples don't live the romanticized lifestyles of the olden times anymore. For the most part, they're just as modern and profit-seeking as any other group of Canadians. If you allow them to not have to adhere to Canadian law, you have a group of people that enjoy all the benefits and none of the restrictions of the country they live in. If you argue for sovereign rights, they should have their own separate countries, so they have to deal with any imbalances or environmental issues they create themselves.