The Supreme Court of Canada has denied a leave to appeal filed by the Wolastoqey Nation, federal election investigators quietly close criminal probe into Juno News, and more.
This New Brunswick decision is hopeful for someone like me who owns private property in another province of Canada on what is deemed to be "unceded land". I feel badly for B.C. private property owners -- though not if they voted for the NDP Eby government, which endorsed the deal.
I have long suspected that native groups in B.C. are making deals with the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) and that the CCP influences politics in B.C. and would thus benefit from these land transfers. There is evidence to support this theory. Anyone watching what's going on in B.C. knows that the CCP is active there and its proxies are buying up land and are involved in numerous mining operations. This is happening all across Canada as well, not just in B.C., but the land transfer in B.C. seems to be a way to accelerate the process.
The legal and philosophical basis for land ownership by people of European descent is the work of the 18th century philosopher John Locke, who argued that the person who develops wilderness land for the good of society (such as a farmer or miner) is entitled to own it by virtue of their sweat equity, investment of resources, and for the good of the society they benefit by developing it. If you are an "old stock Canadian," your ancestors worked the land and developed this civilization through sweat equity -- and some may have died in wars to protect freedom. All so it could be given to native groups who did not make these sacrifices?
Some native groups and environmentalists see the land not as a resource to be developed, and in general, I agree with environmental conservation. Locke, to his credit, limited the right of land appropriation by stating that an individual could only claim unowned resources if there was enough left in common for others. In other words, a commons or public land. At the time he was writing, North America had seemingly endless land, so the idea of limiting development was not foremost in the minds of those who developed it. But today we can appreciate the limits of nature and make efforts to conserve it. There should be wilderness parks and commons, but not the massive transfer of land to native groups, including private property. That goes too far and does not necessarily protect the environment. There is absolutely no guarantee that these native groups will be 'good stewards of the land' if the CCP's proxies are offering them billions of dollars to do resource extraction deals.
Some native groups cut deals with mining and logging companies for large amounts of money. I am not against that, but there need to be limits and regulations on such projects to protect the commons and ensure that no foreign interests use them to take over the country. Natives as good stewards of the land? There are cases of shooting female deer or killing whales irresponsibly. In B.C., native hunters kill bears for their gall bladders to sell to Chinese markets. In Nova Scotia, there is controversy over the fact that native lobster fishermen are allowed to catch what they want while white fishermen are restricted; both use modern fishing boats and sell the lobsters for profit. The natives are not doing traditional fishing. I don't buy the naive argument that native groups are better suited to protect the land. It's a commonly stated ideal but not the reality.
In fact, native groups can (and frequently do) use this argument -- that they are against development and resource extraction for the sake of "mother earth" -- to increase the asking price from mining companies to get better deals for themselves. It's a clever ploy to increase the asking price, and naive environmentalists fall for it and support the protests. I was an environmental activist, so I know all about this and have experienced it. We should not be so naive about what's really going on. This is all about power and money. We should not let ourselves be taken advantage of, or the memory of our ancestors desecrated out of a misplaced sense of white guilt or idealism. Moreover, property rights should be upheld because without them, society falls apart. These land transfers are wrong.
What a farce!. So called first nations are claiming while they still own the land they are kindly leasing it to Canadians. The farce is if I build a house on that land they still want me to pay a tax, or if I plant a garden they want a share or even if I Fart they probably would want the gas rights. They are not Canadians or even try to be but only FREE LOADERS trying to profit of Everyone else's work
This New Brunswick decision is hopeful for someone like me who owns private property in another province of Canada on what is deemed to be "unceded land". I feel badly for B.C. private property owners -- though not if they voted for the NDP Eby government, which endorsed the deal.
I have long suspected that native groups in B.C. are making deals with the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) and that the CCP influences politics in B.C. and would thus benefit from these land transfers. There is evidence to support this theory. Anyone watching what's going on in B.C. knows that the CCP is active there and its proxies are buying up land and are involved in numerous mining operations. This is happening all across Canada as well, not just in B.C., but the land transfer in B.C. seems to be a way to accelerate the process.
The legal and philosophical basis for land ownership by people of European descent is the work of the 18th century philosopher John Locke, who argued that the person who develops wilderness land for the good of society (such as a farmer or miner) is entitled to own it by virtue of their sweat equity, investment of resources, and for the good of the society they benefit by developing it. If you are an "old stock Canadian," your ancestors worked the land and developed this civilization through sweat equity -- and some may have died in wars to protect freedom. All so it could be given to native groups who did not make these sacrifices?
Some native groups and environmentalists see the land not as a resource to be developed, and in general, I agree with environmental conservation. Locke, to his credit, limited the right of land appropriation by stating that an individual could only claim unowned resources if there was enough left in common for others. In other words, a commons or public land. At the time he was writing, North America had seemingly endless land, so the idea of limiting development was not foremost in the minds of those who developed it. But today we can appreciate the limits of nature and make efforts to conserve it. There should be wilderness parks and commons, but not the massive transfer of land to native groups, including private property. That goes too far and does not necessarily protect the environment. There is absolutely no guarantee that these native groups will be 'good stewards of the land' if the CCP's proxies are offering them billions of dollars to do resource extraction deals.
Some native groups cut deals with mining and logging companies for large amounts of money. I am not against that, but there need to be limits and regulations on such projects to protect the commons and ensure that no foreign interests use them to take over the country. Natives as good stewards of the land? There are cases of shooting female deer or killing whales irresponsibly. In B.C., native hunters kill bears for their gall bladders to sell to Chinese markets. In Nova Scotia, there is controversy over the fact that native lobster fishermen are allowed to catch what they want while white fishermen are restricted; both use modern fishing boats and sell the lobsters for profit. The natives are not doing traditional fishing. I don't buy the naive argument that native groups are better suited to protect the land. It's a commonly stated ideal but not the reality.
In fact, native groups can (and frequently do) use this argument -- that they are against development and resource extraction for the sake of "mother earth" -- to increase the asking price from mining companies to get better deals for themselves. It's a clever ploy to increase the asking price, and naive environmentalists fall for it and support the protests. I was an environmental activist, so I know all about this and have experienced it. We should not be so naive about what's really going on. This is all about power and money. We should not let ourselves be taken advantage of, or the memory of our ancestors desecrated out of a misplaced sense of white guilt or idealism. Moreover, property rights should be upheld because without them, society falls apart. These land transfers are wrong.
What a farce!. So called first nations are claiming while they still own the land they are kindly leasing it to Canadians. The farce is if I build a house on that land they still want me to pay a tax, or if I plant a garden they want a share or even if I Fart they probably would want the gas rights. They are not Canadians or even try to be but only FREE LOADERS trying to profit of Everyone else's work
poor babies must be having fits.
Instead of yelling Nazi the ignorant misinformed are now yelling MAGA!
Thank God