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

321–330 of 362 posts

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

#321

Post by Tiktaalik »

BehindBlueEyes wrote: post #286
Tiktaalik wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 F…

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, like inconsistent and inadequate consultation is still a problem, but we've at least gotten to the point where companies are recognizing that they should be and need to be doing consultation with FNs, which is a big step forward, and I expect this trend to continue.

The good resource companies are already doing consultation and getting local FNs on board before even talking with the Province. I've heard of examples of this recently.

The change that needs to happen and I expect will happen in the future is that the Province will make legislative changes to bring these expectations of consultation into requirements and to create more certainty from that.

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

#322

Post by TeaBrain »

wk_end wrote: post #230
wahnfrieden wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.

Israel wasn't founded by Britain. The UN is effectively what created Israel. Britain acquired the region ("Mandatory Palestine") after WWI as a temporary measure to govern it until it was self-sustaining; that never happened, and in the wake of WWII, they mostly just wanted out of the situation and left the UN responsible. The UN voted on a partition plan - and the UK actually abstained from that vote. https://en.wik…

Israel certainly wasn't founded by Britain, whose forces had simply abandoned the region after the Mandate expired in 1948, but the UN partition only set the stage for the eventual territorial bounds of Israel, as the partition plan was never actually implemented.

What cemented Israel's official modern territorial bounds were the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel controlling 60% of the land that was not originally defined for the Jewish State in the partition plan. According to the 1947 partition plan, Israel was not going to extend to Jerusalem, but the captured territory did extend to this point by the time of the 1949 armistice, as well as extending to most of the land border with Egypt which minimized the Gaza region's border with Egypt, and extending along Lebanon, which prevented the West Bank from sharing a border with Lebanon, as was intended in the partition plan.

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

#323

Post by anigbrowl »

brailsafe wrote: post #255
anigbrowl wrote: post #244

Off topic remark on the story drafting... Sen̓áḵw How is anyone supposed to pronounce this if they're not from Vancouver and haven't been exposed to indigenous culture there? You'd think they'd include an English approximation or a link to an audio recording. I don't think the average person has the time or energy to resolve 3 stacked diacriticals and a consonant juxtaposition.

> How is anyone supposed to pronounce this if they're not from Vancouver and haven't been exposed to indigenous culture there? Same way they do anywhere that isn't English first if it's relevant to them, learn. I'm not so familiar with the language yet, but here's what seems to be a start https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/signs-along-...

If only people would read to the end before reacting.

I have no plans to ever visit Vancouver or indeed Canada; I'm interested in how the word is pronounced for the purpose of reading the article. It's not worth it to me to spend half an hour figuring out the pronunciation of a single word. I'm already multilingual and familiar with a range of diacritical marks; it might take other people much longer to put it together. That's why it would make sense for the writers of an English-language article to provide some sort of pronunciation pointer.

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

#324

Post by timmytokyo »

comeonbro wrote: post #136
timmytokyo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a city completely inundated with skyscrapers, it's odd -- and maybe a bit telling -- that some people become concerned for the first time in their lives only once an indigenous nation decides to build a skyscraper.

In a thread full of people with weird preconceptions talking past each-other, this is the most perfectly wrong statement anyone has made. The people you're talking about would strangle this entire country to death (and have) before allowing a single 3-story building to be built outside of the small areas that were already been zoned for it 80 years ago. The Canadian Indigenous identity issues tied up in this project…

You're making my point. I was responding to this comment:

>Skyscrapers are not an indigenous lifestyle. I suppose that's not okay to bring up in this context?

If people are going to oppose this project, don't do it on the basis of some vaguely bigoted notion that "these skyscrapers don't match the indigenous lifestyle". As if that's the reason the project's opponents are opposing it. It's clearly a smokescreen being deployed because they actually dislike the project for NIMBY reasons (e.g., "it'll block my view", "it'll reduce the value of my nearby properties").

(Whether the commenter I'm responding to actually believes this is immaterial. The article quoted a local government official who basically said the same thing.)

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

#325

Post by [deleted] »

klyrs wrote: post #308
spxneo wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstood me because you didn't read what I wrote carefully but I don't care to convince you of your biases. I don't have time for this BS anymore. Listen my neighbour just died. He was a struggling renter. I'm deeply saddened by this and everybody struggling. I know its even harder to leave behind what's familiar but it's not going to get better but the longer you stay in a financially strapped situation and…

> The Canadian government is taking 60% of my income. The top tax bracket is 33% in Canada. You should fire whoever's doing your taxes.

[deleted]

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

#326

Post by FpUser »

layer8 wrote: post #310
FpUser wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others." They did not ask to be a citizens of Canada. They were invaded, conquered, killed and actively suppressed. Mistreatment still continues. How's that for moral grounds?

Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada. Nobody born to poor parents was asked to be born poor. Just treat everyone equally based on their own actions and merits, and their actual individual circumstances, not based on their broad ancestry.

>"Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada"

Tell that to Ukrainians who are now in a territory that Russia claims to own.

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

#327

Post by philistine »

bawolff wrote: post #307
philistine wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Nations right have nothing to do with our constitution; it’s either treaties, or in the absence of it, a court agreeing to a nation asserting itself.

The treaties are literally part of the constitution. Also section 25 & section 35 of the constitution act talk about treaty rights: 35 (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. ... (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

I used an unfortunate shorthand; I said constitution when I meant charter of rights.

My point still stands; the treaties were vague, but that's what both sides wanted in the past. That courts are taking a written passage that says: the right to freely fish for our nation, and then taking that to mean more than you can take your boat and go out, but to mean your nation can own fishing companies, then that's fine legally. After all, they can freely fish.

To change them to be restrictive, you cannot change our constitution. You need to negotiate new treaties with First Nations. Who have no incentive to sit down and negotiate for a worse deal, when we haven't even legally respected the previous deal for centuries.

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

#328

Post by astrange »

lm411 wrote: post #248
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…

2024 Canada is an absurd time and place to be alive. Canada 2024: - Universities have "Black only" swim hours and segregated "Person of Colour" buildings - "no whites allowed". - Indigenous people get special treatment by courts (the courts were literally instructed not to hold them to the same standards as others) - The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women - Land acknowledgements... Every…

Canada did steal their land though, and then ruined it with NIMBYism. Now as you can see, they're fixing it.

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

#329

Post by bawolff »

throwaway44773 wrote: post #309
bawolff wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Unless the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and freedom is invoked

First nations governments cannot invoke the notwithstanding clause.

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

#330

Post by astrange »

lukan wrote: post #179
extr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that they do not fall under jusrisdiction is a farce and legal contrivance. In reality they have no international standing and do not and would not constitute an independent state under any normal criteria. What's happening here is the government is treating them with kid gloves because there is the perception what happened in the past is unfair (true!) and there is a desire to make amends for it. That's all…

"If tomorrow they decided to start developing nuclear weapons I don't think "they didn't consent to be governed" would fly." Any nation developing nuclear weapons will get serious problems from the nations who already have them. Native, or not. And it used to not be necessary, to have "international standing" to have your own state. You just minded your own buisness and tried to get along with the local neighbors. As…

> Any nation developing nuclear weapons will get serious problems from the nations who already have them.

That's not universally true as long as they don't acknowledge it. Israel has nuclear weapons and nobody is (effectively) trying to stop them.

Post reply on HN