5 ms·

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

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.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    > 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. That's already happened. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joffre-lakes-closure-aug-24-1.6947335 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joffre-lakes...
    - Tiktaalik 3y ago
      Yep that's what I was thinking of. And that's something that a lot of people have trouble with, but ultimately it's a potential outcome (hopefully avoidable!) that comes along with Canada ceding back some power and control to FNs they stole land from or negotiated treaties with that they immediately reneged on or ignored. In all sorts of aspects people hate to lose things and have things taken away from them, and so that's why these discussions become such heated flashpoints. Ultimately I think the strongest drive from FNs on these issues is simply to become masters of their own destiny and to benefit from the wealth of their lands; to seek an end to the sort of resource exploitation that Canada pursued through much of its history, extracting resource wealth from FN lands while returning little of that wealth back.
  - nikitaga 3y ago
bawolff 3y ago
I think the confusing part is that the word "soverignty" isn't normally used to describe things like that. Cities aren't normally "soverign". Soverignty traditionally implies absolute control of a piece of land, independent foreign policy/military, a seat at the UN, etc. That is quite different than limited self-government or even an atonomous territory. I don't think the traditional type of soverignty is the type of soverignty first nations are seeking. If it were, i imagine Canada gov wouldn't exactly be cool with it.

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.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  > 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. That's already happened. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joffre-lakes-closure-aug-24-1.6947335 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joffre-lakes...
  - Tiktaalik 3y ago
    Yep that's what I was thinking of. And that's something that a lot of people have trouble with, but ultimately it's a potential outcome (hopefully avoidable!) that comes along with Canada ceding back some power and control to FNs they stole land from or negotiated treaties with that they immediately reneged on or ignored. In all sorts of aspects people hate to lose things and have things taken away from them, and so that's why these discussions become such heated flashpoints. Ultimately I think the strongest drive from FNs on these issues is simply to become masters of their own destiny and to benefit from the wealth of their lands; to seek an end to the sort of resource exploitation that Canada pursued through much of its history, extracting resource wealth from FN lands while returning little of that wealth back.
- nikitaga 3y ago

bawolff 3y ago

I think the confusing part is that the word "soverignty" isn't normally used to describe things like that. Cities aren't normally "soverign". Soverignty traditionally implies absolute control of a piece of land, independent foreign policy/military, a seat at the UN, etc. That is quite different than limited self-government or even an atonomous territory. I don't think the traditional type of soverignty is the type of soverignty first nations are seeking. If it were, i imagine Canada gov wouldn't exactly be cool with it.