294 replies to this topic

[max.bravo]

I want to drive on the road. My taxes paid for it.

If you live on the road, you can.
Unfortunately where your primary residence is located is not a protected ground under human rights legislation.

But race & ethnicity are.

[Victoria Watcher]

I want to drive on the road. My taxes paid for it.

Today, no race can drive on it.

[dasmo]

If you live on the road, you can.
Unfortunately where your primary residence is located is not a protected ground under human rights legislation.

But race & ethnicity are.

Ah, if you live there you have special privileges. What race are they?

[Victoria Watcher]

How about we just end this stupid practice and come to an agreement for all?

Canada sucks lately.

We deserve to be as pathetic as we clearly are.


I don’t care so much, on a personal level, I’m above it all. I have no kids to pass this country onto and I can retire when I want.

All the rest of you, I feel for the wellbeing of your kids for the next 20 or 40 years.

This path is awful for them.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 24 May 2025 - 01:29 PM.

[max.bravo]

Ah, if you live there you have special privileges. What race are they?

You’re missing the point. Yes, those who live there can access the road. But the location of your primary residence is not a protected ground under human rights legislation.

So they *are* discriminating by where you live. But they are *not discriminating* by race, which is a protected ground.

In the case of botanical beach they are discriminating by race. Which is illegal. Not by primary residence address. (Which isn’t illegal.)

[Victoria Watcher]

I’ll never forget the time I took my 4 year old son to see spawning salmon at Goldstream. we had a big talk about not walking in the water and not touching the fish as they are laying eggs and it’s important for the ecosystem.

Then a pickup truck full of natives backed into the water and started stabbing/picking up fish with a gaff and throwing them into the back of the truck. The truck was leaking oil. When I asked them what they use these falling apart fish for, they told me they use them to feed their dogs…

Lovely example of stewarding the environment! Just like in the pre colonial days.

Stewards of the land for thousands of years.

[dasmo]

Park is closed to ALL recreational visitors. If you live there you have access. Actually only part of the park. There are other areas that are open.

[Victoria Watcher]

Park is closed to ALL recreational visitors. If you live there you have access. 

 

There is no requirement to live there to have access.

 

That First Nation (Pacheedaht) has ~300 members, but less than 100 live on-reserve.  All members can visit Botanical Beach this weekend.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 24 May 2025 - 07:20 PM.

[dasmo]

Like if you had a family member visiting during the race.

[dasmo]

Banning access to public land for all races with the exception of one race is, in fact, the very dictionary definition of "racism".

 

Regardless of what your politics might be, a definition is a definition - and definitions don't just change with the wind.

Comparisons to the language in the Charter are made because the Charter was presumed to prevent incidents of racism from being perpetrated against any and all Canadians.

 

The Charter is obviously not being applied, nor is it working in this specific case, and the closure is indeed a violation of, if not a specific clause in the Charter, then a violation of the very intent of the Charter which see's all Canadians as equals in the eyes of the law and the land.

 

So if I drive to Botanical Beach for a leisurely afternoon of wandering about looking at an area that my tax dollars support, only to be turned away at the gate by a member of a local First Nation, it is at its core a violation of the Charter, and therefore a fundamental violation of the law.

 

Will I survive this Botanical Beach closure?

Of course! We all will.

But then again that's really not the point.

If you have to make up a leisurely experience where you  might be mildly inconvenienced it is not a human rights violation. You are not being denied access. It is closed to recreational visitors for 24 hours. If you had to go there for non-recreation purposes then you can just say you are exempt. Easy. That's what I did when my rights were being violated. Also, during the closure, other day-use areas in Juan de Fuca Park, such as Mystic Beach, Sombrio Beach and China Beach will remain open for the public. Sombrio is 25 mins away. It is also closed from 4-4 so if you arrived Sat morning it wouldn't be an issue. Also Sunday afternoon. So the window of inconvenience is eve smaller. 

 

I regards to "The Law" we don't have ownership of crown land. Nowhere in the Land Act does it state that. It is land managed y the province on behalf of the crown. The entire regulation grants powers to the agent of the crown and the minister, not us. We are "granted" privileges to the land. Of which the law clearly states can be changed at their whim.  So that is where you should direct your protest. Like I said, the FN there are actually acting within the bounds of the law. They aren't just setting up a road block on their own whims. 

 

So, you are not being denied access to parks because you are not first nations. THAT would be a clear violation. A section of the park is being closed to ALL recreational visitors for a brief period. A mild inconvenience to a potentially random visitor that didn't get the memo and has to drive 25 minutes to the other spot. 

 

 

 

Now if you talk about rights being violated and in context of the First Nations....Well. I'm not a history teacher.... 

[dasmo]

And then there is this in regards to the Charter section of our constitution....

 

General
Marginal note:Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25 The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.End note(95)

 

https://laws-lois.ju...ge-12.html#h-42

 

 

The Royal Proclamation of 1763

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

https://www.rcaanc-c...7905122267#sec2

[Mike K.]

If you have to make up a leisurely experience where you might be mildly inconvenienced it is not a human rights violation. You are not being denied access.

I’m not taking a stand on this issue, and I understand the desire for cultural spaces, if the FN activity clashes with regulations of the park. That is certainly the case here.

But I’ve read the same phrase regarding rights, used when we had vaccines and COVID restrictions.

What if a day closure, becomes a week, becomes a month, becomes permanent? Covid started with two weeks to flatten the curve.

We have very large expanses of publicly accessible wilderness behind single gates many miles from a natural destination. It does not take much for access to be stripped for most, but given to some. For example, there are people with access to the watershed, who don’t really have a legitimate reason to have access to those gated off areas.

[dasmo]

This is a far far way from two weeks to flatten the curve….

And the issues you speak about are not what is happening. See things as they are, not worse than they are.

And if you’re beef is around land access, then you should look at the laws around Crown Land and go after that. It’s not public land.

[dasmo]

Plus, no one calling a violation of rights is even remotely affected. So it’s actually devaluing the vary notion of such claims. Sure there is potential for such things as barring access but that’s not what is happening. In fact, it’s the opposite. They created a campground on their reservation giving us access on land where we ordinarily wouldn’t. So I don’t see a slippery slope here.

[Mike K.]

Businesses will be affected by less traffic on a day in the high season.

Some people only have the one day during their visit to see the pools. They may never be able to return.

So there will be impacts.

[Victoria Watcher]

Plus they waited until about 6 days prior to announce the closure. Poor. Bad for tourism. People pay $200 a night for those cabins.

Although based on lots of reviews for the band campsite they are mostly indifferent to their guests’ satisfaction levels.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 25 May 2025 - 11:39 AM.

[dasmo]

You can only create hypothetical situations. You can’t speak to a single personal violation. To compare it to Covid is a joke.

[dasmo]

Plus they waited until about 6 days prior to announce the closure. Poor. Bad for tourism. People pay $200 a night for those cabins.

Although based on lots of reviews for the band campsite they are mostly indifferent to their guests’ satisfaction levels.

People book in advance. Like we did. You need to long in advance to get a space.

[dasmo]

Plus they waited until about 6 days prior to announce the closure. Poor. Bad for tourism. People pay $200 a night for those cabins.

Although based on lots of reviews for the band campsite they are mostly indifferent to their guests’ satisfaction levels.

People book in advance. Like we did. You need to long in advance to get a space.

[Victoria Watcher]

People certainly booked in advance. Then found out 6 days before arrival - if at all - that the beach was closed down.

What entity announces just 6 days in advance such a closure?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 25 May 2025 - 11:58 AM.