Let’s do the time warp, again

I don’t know if this has been news in Canada but the front page of the Globe and Mail on Friday read, “Historic Ruling Upholds Land Rights”. The subheading was “Supreme Court decision recongnizes existence of aboriginal title, opening a new era in native relations with government.

The National Post was a bit more to the point: Supreme Court B.C. land-claim ruling has staggering implications for Canadian resource projects. All this will be familiar back home, but from the story:

Written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the unanimous ruling says that aboriginal title “flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land … Occupation sufficient to ground aboriginal title is not confined to specific sites of settlement, but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty.”

It means that economic development proposed by non-aboriginals — such as resource extraction and pipeline activity — requires explicit consent from host First Nations on land where the Supreme Court’s expanded concept of land title is established.

Let justice be done, as they say, though the heavens may fall.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Economics and economy. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Let’s do the time warp, again

  1. James B

    Sounds similar to Mabo. Pretty awful stuff. Although at least their Constitution has some sort of mumbo jumbo about native title rights, our High Court judges literally made it up out of thin air.

  2. Blogstrop

    Stand by for a treatise from the Australia Institute entitled Who Really Owns Australia?

  3. struth

    High courts of the crown, giving away crown land to other powers would in days gone by been considered treason.

  4. Mr Rusty

    Exhibit #23782 in the Museum of the Long March through the Institutions.

  5. Major Elvis Newton

    I see a future where resources & energy companies deal directly with the ‘traditional’ owners and commercially savvy indigenous entrepreneurs, in much the same way as America’s Casino Indian Tribe control ‘their’ land. To wit…

    Mining Company Executive: Look if we have to go through Local, State and Federal govt red/green tape this could lock up this project for 10-15 years. It may not even go ahead at all. This would not be good for anyone. What’s say we ignore those anti-development ‘progressives’ and strike a deal between ourselves? That way we can get started now and you and your ‘people’ can get your cut in this lifetime. Whaddaya say?

  6. Myrrdin Seren

    Claiming it could no longer abide the Obama administration’s five-year refusal to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline designed to bring 830,000 barrels a day of much-needed Alberta shale oil to U.S. refineries, the Canadian government recently approved plans for a huge new pipeline and port project to ship that oil to Asia instead.

    When completed, the $7.9 billion Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, approved by Canada’s federal government on June 17, will consist of an environmentally safe, 730-mile oil pipeline. It will be capable of moving 600,000 barrels a day of Alberta oil to the pacific coast town of Kitimat, British Columbia, where a new state-of-the-art super tanker port facility will be built to ship the oil to thirsty Asian ports.

    From waht I can tell regularly reading the Canadian Small Dead Animals blog, Canada is in many political and social ways a mirror image of Australia – minus the Quebec tax-eating and separatism issue.

    British Columbia comes over as a Canadian version of Tasmania – ‘cursed’ with even more natural resources. Hence the activist Green Left have to work even harder than they do in Tassie to drive humanity back in to it’s designated eco-enclosures. This doubtless includes the BC Supreme Court.

    You can bet your boots that activists will be racing to find First Nation’s elders who will kibosh this pipeline plan ASAP.

    And how hard is it to find a dissenting Elder when you need one ?

  7. struth

    Dealing directly with traditional owners gets you dealing directly with left wing, greenies and militant anti western socialists (oops I repeat myself) who infiltrate the “traditional owners” . Just look at Australia. There was a red headed white bitch from Sydney who became a traditional owner of Uluru AYERS ROCK.
    If you think you’d get an easier run than dealing with government you’d be wrong.
    And you’d still be dealing with government.
    The whole premise of dealing with people based on race is racist.
    Ownership based on race is racist and definitely open to corruption.
    The lefty racist vision of traditional people sitting down and drawing dots or weaving is a fantasy in the twenty first century only an inner city insulated moron could entertain.
    Hello from Australia.
    Learn from us.
    Don’t do it.

  8. It would seem Canada has the same problem with dickhead judges as does Australia.
    Isn’t that a surprise?

  9. stackja

    Reminds me of:

    Louis Riel From Wikipedia
    He led two resistance movements against the Canadian government and its first post-Confederation prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Riel sought to preserve Métis rights and culture as their homelands in the Northwest came progressively under the Canadian sphere of influence. He is regarded by many today as a Canadian folk hero.

  10. Mr Rusty

    The lefty racist vision of traditional people sitting down and drawing dots or weaving is a fantasy in the twenty first century only an inner city insulated moron could entertain.

    Watch this excellent talk from Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple) and note his comments around the 50.20 mark regarding the “Elites” (code for inner-city lefty wankers) and the invention of Aboriginal “genocide”.

  11. michaelfstanley

    Glad to see such strong belief in property rights here

Comments are closed.