In Canada, government appointed Supreme Court judges (feminists and social engineers who implement policy handed down to them from above) rule over a triumvirate made up of government, corporations and Indians/Environmentalists.

I've discussed this elsewhere in an essay about TAKING CANDY FROM A BABY describing how the powers-that-be plan to get all of Canada's land either into the hands of corporations or Indians. Once it's in the Indians' hands they'll pull the rug out from under their feet and voila, all the Indian land is theirs.

The pro-Indian propaganda has really been accelerated since Paul Martin, the new Prime Minister (run by elite billionaire Maurice Strong) smoked an Indian peace-pipe during his swearing-in ceremony. His long-reigning predecessor, Jean Cretin, had been Canada's first Minister of Indian Affairs under Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who liked to wear an Indian jacket and pose in a canoe.

This week the Supreme Court Injustices voted 7-0 to decree that government and private companies have to ask Indians first before developing natural resources that belong to the citizens of Canada, but which the Indians say belong to them. They've got land claims for entire provinces but not one iota of proof that they ever held title, aside from a few etchings on birch bark. Keep in mind too that the total population of Indians in Canada is less than one million.

All the best,
Jackie Jura, 2004

Indians rally to support Supreme Court ruling (want gov't to abide by decision to consult them over resources). Vancouver Sun, Nov 26, 2004. Go to 10.Rulers & 9.Masses Down & I DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT BLAME

OTTAWA - Canada's federal and provincial governments must consult native Indian groups on plans for using disputed land even before native land claims are settled, the Supreme Court ruled in two cases on Thursday. But in its two unanimous decisions, the court said that while governments are obliged to try to reach an accommodation with natives when there are disputes, natives do not have a veto over land-use plans, and forestry and mining companies have no obligation to consult with natives. Resource companies have said they need more certainty over native land claims to be able to invest in big projects. But a leader of the Indians in British Columbia, on Canada's West Coast, where the cases are centered, said litigation would now only be increased.. "These court decisions invite more negotiations and more litigation at the end of the day," Grand Chief Edward John said in the Supreme Court lobby.

"Every square inch of British Columbia is subject to aboriginal rights and aboriginal title."

However, the federal minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Andy Scott, declared that there was now more clarity for all sides. "I think it's good that that certainty is provided," he said. One of the cases involved US forestry giant Weyerhaeuser Co. and its provincial license to log on the Queen Charlotte Islands off the British Columbia coast. The court said the provincial government did not consult the Haida people there adequately before granting the license but that its decision also did not invalidate the Weyerhaeuser license. The other case involves small Canadian company, Redcorp, which is seeking to reopen a zinc/copper/lead/silver/gold mine in the British Columbia wilderness. The court ruled that the provincial government had consulted adequately in approving the project.

The British Columbia government had argued it has no legal duty to consult or obtain consent until native land claims are proven, for example through a treaty.

But Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said this risked unfortunate consequences. "When the distant goal of proof is finally reached, the aboriginal peoples may find their land and resources changed and denuded. This is not reconciliation. Nor is it honorable," she declared. But she added: "This process does not give aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of the claim." British Columbia was the only Canadian province to have ignored an order by the British Crown to reach land treaties with natives. Talks finally began in the 1990s under court pressure, but there has been only one final treaty reached in modern times.

Indian groups pointed out that the British Columbia government is now obliged to try to accommodate their concerns, which in some cases might mean less logging or changes to mining plans. "The province cannot treat the province's resources...as if Indian interests didn't exist," Michael Jackson, a lawyer for the Haida, told reporters. "It does put a notice on government to roll up their sleeves and be an active participant in moving ahead," said Daniel Jepsen, head of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. He said the miners' best option was to work closely with the Indians even if there was no legal responsibility.

OTTAWA - The ability of Canada's forestry and mining sectors to be able to make long-term investment plans will be at stake in two related decisions on Thursday morning by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court will hand down verdicts on whether governments and resource companies must consult and obtain the consent of native Indian groups for plans for using land on which Indian claims are pending.

The cases are centered on British Columbia but they have enormous ramifications for the entire country. All of Nova Scotia, almost all of British Columbia, two-thirds of Quebec and parts of the rest of the country are subject to land claims.

Mining, forestry and business groups say the economy in British Columbia in particular has been hurt by the uncertainty of dealing with land claims, and they warned of financial instability and institutional paralysis. "To return to a healthy mineral investment and exploration climate in B.C., the mineral exploration community...need certainty around land access and security of tenure," Dan Jepsen, executive director of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, said in a submission to the court.

The Indians argue that if they have to wait until their claims are settled, much of what they are seeking to benefit from or preserve may have already been destroyed, so they should be able to block development that they oppose.

One of the cases involves US forestry giant Weyerhaeuser Co. and its license to log on the Queen Charlotte Islands off the coasts of British Columbia and Alaska. The other involves the small Canadian company Redcorp, which is seeking permission to build a road through pristine wilderness in northwestern British Columbia to a zinc/copper/lead/silver/gold mine. They and the British Columbia government are appealing lower court decisions against them.

HEAP BIG SALARY INDIAN CHIEFS

ALONE AGAINST TERRORIST INDIANS

CANADA COPS TIM-BIT GRANNIES

Go to INDIAN LAND CLAIMS and INDIANS LAND GRAB PARKS

INDIAN LAND CLAIMS DISBELIEVED (granted by Trudeau's 1982 constitution ie Sask=73%; Atlantic=74%; BC=71%). National Post, Nov 27, 2003. Go to 10.The Rulers and 9.Keeping Masses Down

ANIMALISM is ENVIRONMENTALISM is COMMUNISM and AGENDA 21 & UN LAND GRAB & 5.Pyramidal New World Order