|
When our governments use
imprecise language, it does not absolve them of responsibility.
One term that has gained
disproportionate importance during the last decade is “reconciliation”.
No one seems to understand
exactly what “reconciliation” means. Different people have
different interpretations and the lack of precision is detrimental to
progress in resolving issues.
The Oxford dictionaries
describe reconciliation in two ways:
1)
an end to a disagreement or
conflict with somebody and the start of a good relationship again, and
2)
the process of making it
possible for two different ideas, facts, etc. to exist together without
being opposed to each other.
It is arguable that there has
never been a good relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous
people. Good intentions in some instances have been destroyed by
subsequent actions.
The failure of our government
to clearly articulate its definition of reconciliation is a guarantee of
misunderstanding and consternation in talks between two sides.
Another phrase that has crept
into our language is “the right to protest”.
There is no certainty in how
this alleged right came to be, or how far it can be taken. Does the right
to protest include the right to trespass on private and public lands?
Does the right to protest include the right to prevent others from
enjoying the benefits of public infrastructure and services?
The lack of clarity is
unreasonable.
Rights include obligations.
Without the obligations to keep the peace, to respect the rights of
others and to obey the law, we cannot have a peaceful and orderly
society. Protests as carried out today are not law-abiding, orderly or
peaceful. Protests of that nature are not compatible with our society.
A recent and unclear phrase is
“unceded territory”.
The relations between
indigenous people and the British government were set out in the Royal
Proclamation, 1763:
And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest
and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of
Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection,
should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of
Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased
by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds; We
do therefore, with the Advice of Our Privy Council, declare it to be Our
Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of
Our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida, or West Florida, do presume, upon
any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents
for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments, as described
in their Commissions; as also, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in
any of Our other Colonies or Plantations in America, do presume, for the
present, and until Our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of
Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any
of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantick Ocean from the West and
North-West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to,
or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any
of them
The existence of roads, highways and infrastructure in and on the lands
claimed by hereditary chiefs bring claims of unceeded lands into question.
It is a matter for the federal government and hereditary chiefs to work
out with reference to our courts if needed.
Another undefined phrase in use
is “indigenous sovereignty”.
Oxford defines sovereignty as complete
power to govern a country. This is more than passingly important. Are
indigenous people prepared to turn over their governance to the arbitrary
rule of hereditary chiefs? Is Canada prepared to allow 1.7 million of her
people live without the Charter and Human Rights provisions of our legal
system?
It seems reasonable to require
that hereditary indigenous chiefs show clear evidence that the people
they claim to represent support them.
It is puzzling that protest
groups can act ‘in solidarity’ with some far-removed group.
One of the fundamental
principles of law is that an action requires an interest of the acting
party. One cannot file a legal claim without proving a clear interest in
the matter. Ontario indigenous people may support the claims of British
Columbia hereditary chiefs, but have no legal authority to act on their
behalf.
Our lack of clarity on the
above issues result in widely differing interpretations of the meaning of
these various phrases and a complete breakdown in communications.
Hereditary chiefs are demanding that the RCMP leave the lands they claim
to start negotiations and our government is demanding removal of the
barricades as a precursor to negotiations.
One would think they do not
reside on the same planet let alone in the same nation.
Neither side shows any sign of
wanting to reach a reasonable settlement of issues that separate them.
Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, are aghast at this display of
unlawful actions and incompetent response.
These morons are blocking the
way to prosperity for all of us. It is reasonable to conclude that
indigenous people should participate in the benefits of resource
development and become self-reliant.
Vested interests, including
government agencies, indigenous band chiefs and councils, contractors and
others who have enjoyed the spoils of the current system are fighting
tooth and nail to ensure that ordinary people do not participate in
prosperity.
We need to voice our disgust
clearly, loudly and often. Either the parties involved in reconciliation
get their act together and report meaningful progress within 30 days or
face populist protests that will out the current protests as the well
organized but thinly backed nonsense they are.
Environmentalists are running
the public relations campaign for the Indigenous Chiefs and they are very
good at what they do. Their aim is to destroy Canada’s economy. They are
foreign funded by industrialists who also do not want to see Canada or
Canadian prosper. That would infringe on their profits including access
to cheap Canadian oil.
We need to out these brigands
and shut them down.
John Feldsted
Political Commentator, Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
Comments
Post a Comment