Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

macleans.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 362 posts

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#281

Post by nightowl_games »

crtified wrote: post #180
nightowl_games wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Why would that be different here?

I'm talkin about family 3 here...

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#282

Post by floren »

novok wrote: post #275
floren wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"stroad" is just a shibboleth for people with "urbanist" in their Mastodon profiles, sometimes it slips out where it doesn't really make sense.

do you know it's definition?

Of course, I've been reading HN for years, and "street" + "road" isn't a particularly challenging portmanteau anyway.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#284

Post by bawolff »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #145
ximus wrote: post #120

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society. However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian…

> they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands. Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizen…

> so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada

Not that i think this is a good thing, but arguably since this is all pre world war 2, wouldn't the land, in absence of a treaty, be british by right of conquest? Like its a pretty recent development in international law that you actually have to get the other side to ceed land. Most of history was brutal and violent with might makes right.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#285

Post by bawolff »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #221
wolfhumble wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.

So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were

The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event.

If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#286

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #222
nikitaga wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 d…

> 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.

Resource extraction companies most certainly do not consistently consult FN, in any case not the ones whose land they’re prospecting on. Source: about every other year the local FN boot out unwelcome mining companies that legally prospect on their sacred sites with no consultation. Unfamiliar helicopter activity is the only tell tale sign.

Officially consultations are required but writing to our representatives, they just reply those operations are legal and there is no problem, which is a problem in itself.

The main thing about land back and FN legal action strategy, as I understand it, is not so much about literally getting land back or kicking people out of their homes as seems to be a common fear, but rather about changing laws that continue to enforce their underlying colonial philosophy into modern days.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#287

Post by bawolff »

grecy wrote: post #269
nightowl_games wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

> If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? There are 43 first nations communities in Canada that are entirely self-governing. The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself. So, yes, First Nations people in those communities break "Canadian" laws every single day and not…

Your link disagrees with you

To quote: "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"

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#288

Post by bawolff »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #194
gotoeleven wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#289

Post by bawolff »

nikitaga wrote: post #216
philistine wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you took Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s plan from way back in the 70s out of the moth balls and are now trying to pass it as new. It cannot work. Our government signed binding treaties with independent nations in the past. Those treaties are still valid, and we cannot declare them null and void because it’s unfair that they give more fishing rights to 3% of people.

This isn't about treaties – BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes. For example, does the constitution guarantee the indigenous people the right to sub…

> The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes.

That is the supreme court's job. They decide how to interpret things. Their interpretation is law.

Interpreting the constitution in the context of current social views of course is not a canadian invention but comes to us from the british https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

Re: Vancouver’s new mega-development is big, ambitious and Indigenous

#290

Post by trimethylpurine »

faeriechangling wrote: post #81
trimethylpurine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I missed the meaning of the quote. Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context? If someone put skyscrapers on the last Hawaiian island I'd be pretty upset about it. The entire population of the Earth should be. Can't we leave one thing undeveloped? But okay, maybe there is plenty of land to go around in Canada that looks the same as this land, so I could…

Sure skyscrapers are an indigenous lifestyle. They build them, invest in them, live in them. Do you think indigenous people in 2024 are going to all go fish for salmon and live in teepee’s? I remember on TV once this older indigenous guy promoting natural resource development he thought would create indigenous jobs going on about “Back in the old times, my people hunted the buffalo. Now my people hunt a new buffalo,…

Obviously I don't think that. You didn't read my comment before replying.

I asked a question. Did you get that far? I'm wondering about context. How do you know the quoted guy is opposed to the development.

Post reply on HN