View this post on Instagram Case 1 will have the judicial review on September 29th & 30th in “Vancouver”. We will do our best to keep everyone updated. #Repost @sovereignlikhtsamisyu • • • • • • • Here is a summary of the legal cases we have brought about (information on @raven_trust website). • • Our Likht’samisyu Chiefs have taken on the Constitutional & Charter of Rights Challenge. Yes, it is ambitious - because we recognize that we don’t have the room to be anything less than ambitious right now. • • One of our Likht’samisyu youth is a part of a class action suit against the federal government. The “canadian” government has moved to strike the youths claims. We recognize that it’s our responsibility to protect our youth, and their inherent right to a healthy and safe future. Part of that, is taking legal action. If they refuse to show the respect to our system, we will win in theirs - just as we did in Delgamuukw. • • Our Likht’samisyu chiefs have taken this on, for the future of all (as Dtsa’hyl states in our recent video). We do not have time to sit back and continue to allow them to destroy our collective futures, and those of future generations. It has always been our responsibility to care for the land... to leave it as we found it. • • So far, our Likht’samisyu village has primarily been privately funded through our clan members, friends, and families. We have a link for donations on our website (link in bio), and will always welcome skilled labourers & anyone who can help around the village site. • • We are grateful for the support of those who have been here so far, and the amount of work, time, dedication, and love that they have put into all that we have accomplished. We will continue to uphold our responsibilities to the land, water, & future generations - both on the yintah, and in the colonial courts. • • Masih cyoh for your time in visiting our page, and we ask that you share and follow for updates. • • #Likhtsamisyu #Sovereign #Unceded #ClimateAction #WetsuwetenStrong A post shared by @ wetsuweten_checkpoint on Sep 27, 2020 at 9:19am PDT
Case 1 will have the judicial review on September 29th & 30th in “Vancouver”. We will do our best to keep everyone updated. #Repost @sovereignlikhtsamisyu • • • • • • • Here is a summary of the legal cases we have brought about (information on @raven_trust website). • • Our Likht’samisyu Chiefs have taken on the Constitutional & Charter of Rights Challenge. Yes, it is ambitious - because we recognize that we don’t have the room to be anything less than ambitious right now. • • One of our Likht’samisyu youth is a part of a class action suit against the federal government. The “canadian” government has moved to strike the youths claims. We recognize that it’s our responsibility to protect our youth, and their inherent right to a healthy and safe future. Part of that, is taking legal action. If they refuse to show the respect to our system, we will win in theirs - just as we did in Delgamuukw. • • Our Likht’samisyu chiefs have taken this on, for the future of all (as Dtsa’hyl states in our recent video). We do not have time to sit back and continue to allow them to destroy our collective futures, and those of future generations. It has always been our responsibility to care for the land... to leave it as we found it. • • So far, our Likht’samisyu village has primarily been privately funded through our clan members, friends, and families. We have a link for donations on our website (link in bio), and will always welcome skilled labourers & anyone who can help around the village site. • • We are grateful for the support of those who have been here so far, and the amount of work, time, dedication, and love that they have put into all that we have accomplished. We will continue to uphold our responsibilities to the land, water, & future generations - both on the yintah, and in the colonial courts. • • Masih cyoh for your time in visiting our page, and we ask that you share and follow for updates. • • #Likhtsamisyu #Sovereign #Unceded #ClimateAction #WetsuwetenStrong
A post shared by @ wetsuweten_checkpoint on Sep 27, 2020 at 9:19am PDT
View this post on Instagram Teztan Biny, Fish Lake, has been a sacred place of spiritual renewal for countless generations for the Tsilhqot’in. That project was dealt a death blow by the Supreme Court of Canada on May 14, 2020 when it denied Taseko leave to appeal the lower court and appeal court judgements upholding the federal rejection of the mine project. After more than a decade, Teztan Biny is officially spared and the Tsilhqot’in can declare a victory. On Thursday, June 18 (tomorrow), join Tsilhqot’in leaders for a rich conversation unpacking their successful campaign against Taseko Mines. Learn about the cultural foundations and Indigenous legal frameworks that the Nation drew upon to resist New Prosperity for so many years, and take the opportunity to thank Chiefs and community members for their principled leadership through a long, bitter fight. As the Tsilhqot’tin work to enshrine their caretaker values into law, they are keeping their eyes lifted to the horizon and their feet on the ground. The webinar is a chance to hear about the Tsilhqot’in’s long-term vision for their territory. This includes a new legal challenge, taking shape as we speak, that RAVEN will be supporting in 2021, and the work being done to create Dasiqox Tribal Park to protect watersheds, forests and — of course — Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) for future generations. LINK IN BIO to register! #fishlake #teztanbiny #indigenoussovereignty #landback A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on Jun 17, 2020 at 10:23am PDT
Teztan Biny, Fish Lake, has been a sacred place of spiritual renewal for countless generations for the Tsilhqot’in. That project was dealt a death blow by the Supreme Court of Canada on May 14, 2020 when it denied Taseko leave to appeal the lower court and appeal court judgements upholding the federal rejection of the mine project. After more than a decade, Teztan Biny is officially spared and the Tsilhqot’in can declare a victory. On Thursday, June 18 (tomorrow), join Tsilhqot’in leaders for a rich conversation unpacking their successful campaign against Taseko Mines. Learn about the cultural foundations and Indigenous legal frameworks that the Nation drew upon to resist New Prosperity for so many years, and take the opportunity to thank Chiefs and community members for their principled leadership through a long, bitter fight. As the Tsilhqot’tin work to enshrine their caretaker values into law, they are keeping their eyes lifted to the horizon and their feet on the ground. The webinar is a chance to hear about the Tsilhqot’in’s long-term vision for their territory. This includes a new legal challenge, taking shape as we speak, that RAVEN will be supporting in 2021, and the work being done to create Dasiqox Tribal Park to protect watersheds, forests and — of course — Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) for future generations. LINK IN BIO to register! #fishlake #teztanbiny #indigenoussovereignty #landback
A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on Jun 17, 2020 at 10:23am PDT
View this post on Instagram Today is the 25th anniversary of the Sparrow Case! We wanted to highlight this important case and what it means in the context of #Indigenous rights. Ronald Edward Sparrow was a Musqueam man and commercial fisherman from the Fraser River area in BC. In May 1984, Sparrow was caught fishing contrary to section 61(1) of the federal Fisheries Act. He was charged and arrested for using a fishing net longer than his food-fishing licence permitted. In his defence, Sparrow alleged that the right to fish was an immemorial right protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which enshrines the rights of Indigenous peoples. For the next six years, Sparrow argued his case in front of provincial and appeal courts. As a result of the case, the Supreme Court established a set of criteria, known as the “Sparrow test,” to interpret section 35. Since section 35 does not specify what qualifies an Indigenous right, the test provides a way for lawmakers to determine that. The 1st part of the test asks “Has a right been infringed on?” A government activity threatens to infringe on an Indigenous right if: 1) Imposes undue hardship on the First Nation; 2) Is considered by the court to be unreasonable; 3) Prevents the right-holder from exercising that right. The 2nd part of the test outlines what justifies an infringement upon an# Aboriginal right. An infringement may be justified if: 1) It serves a “valid legislative objective,” such as “conserving and managing a natural resource” 2) It involves “as little infringement as possible” to achieve the intended result 3) It is for the purposes of expropriation and “fair compensation” is provided 4) the government has consulted with the Indigenous group in question about #conservation measures being implemented. The Sparrow case is considered a significant victory for Indigenous rights in #Canada. The ruling provided a code for interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and confirmed the Crown’s duty to provide certain guarantees to Indigenous peoples. However, some argue tha while the ruling upholds Indigenous rights, it also confirms that the government can legally justify infringing on those. A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on May 28, 2020 at 2:42pm PDT
Today is the 25th anniversary of the Sparrow Case! We wanted to highlight this important case and what it means in the context of #Indigenous rights. Ronald Edward Sparrow was a Musqueam man and commercial fisherman from the Fraser River area in BC. In May 1984, Sparrow was caught fishing contrary to section 61(1) of the federal Fisheries Act. He was charged and arrested for using a fishing net longer than his food-fishing licence permitted. In his defence, Sparrow alleged that the right to fish was an immemorial right protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which enshrines the rights of Indigenous peoples. For the next six years, Sparrow argued his case in front of provincial and appeal courts. As a result of the case, the Supreme Court established a set of criteria, known as the “Sparrow test,” to interpret section 35. Since section 35 does not specify what qualifies an Indigenous right, the test provides a way for lawmakers to determine that. The 1st part of the test asks “Has a right been infringed on?” A government activity threatens to infringe on an Indigenous right if: 1) Imposes undue hardship on the First Nation; 2) Is considered by the court to be unreasonable; 3) Prevents the right-holder from exercising that right. The 2nd part of the test outlines what justifies an infringement upon an# Aboriginal right. An infringement may be justified if: 1) It serves a “valid legislative objective,” such as “conserving and managing a natural resource” 2) It involves “as little infringement as possible” to achieve the intended result 3) It is for the purposes of expropriation and “fair compensation” is provided 4) the government has consulted with the Indigenous group in question about #conservation measures being implemented. The Sparrow case is considered a significant victory for Indigenous rights in #Canada. The ruling provided a code for interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and confirmed the Crown’s duty to provide certain guarantees to Indigenous peoples. However, some argue tha while the ruling upholds Indigenous rights, it also confirms that the government can legally justify infringing on those.
A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on May 28, 2020 at 2:42pm PDT
View this post on Instagram With all the actions surrounding #Wetsuweten across the country over the past few months, some of you might be wondering about the Delgamuukw case and why it's relevant to these actions. We’re here to break it down for you □□□. * The Delgamuukw case is also known as Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, and is named after Earl Muldoe Delgamuukw, a Gitxsan man who was involved in the case. In response to unauthorized clear cut logging in their territory, in 1984 Hereditary Chiefs of Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan Nations took to the courts to have their title to more than 58,000 sq km of land in Northern BC recognized by the Canadian courts. The trial began in 1987. BC became a part of #Canada in 1871, and the Supreme Court ruled that all rights to their lands were legally extinguished when this happened. Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en elders testified using oral histories in their languages, and the court found that Aboriginal title couldn't be extinguished and confirmed that oral testimony is a legitimate form of evidence. The Delgamuukw case is an important one in #Canadian law because it set precedent of how #Aboriginal title could be understood in courts. From the decision: 1) Aboriginal title is a communal right: decisions about land must be made by the community as a whole. 2) Because aboriginal title is based on a First Nation’s relationship with the land, these lands cannot be used in a way that would destroy their cultural relationship to the land. 3) Aboriginal title is a constitutional right. No government can unduly interfere with aboriginal title. After the case, other First Nations, most notably the Tsilhqot’in Nation in 2014, used the Delgamuukw decision in their own land claims cases. Why is the case relevant to the Wet'suwet'en solidarity actions? In the #Delgamuukw case, Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs established that they have a law that predates the days of the elected band councils enacted under the Indian Act. Under Wet'suwet'en law, the Hereditary Chiefs are responsible for decisions regarding the land. Approving a pipeline in their ancestral lands without consent is an infringement of their Aboriginal title and rights. @cdnencyclopedia @cbc A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on Mar 25, 2020 at 12:53pm PDT
With all the actions surrounding #Wetsuweten across the country over the past few months, some of you might be wondering about the Delgamuukw case and why it's relevant to these actions. We’re here to break it down for you □□□. * The Delgamuukw case is also known as Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, and is named after Earl Muldoe Delgamuukw, a Gitxsan man who was involved in the case. In response to unauthorized clear cut logging in their territory, in 1984 Hereditary Chiefs of Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan Nations took to the courts to have their title to more than 58,000 sq km of land in Northern BC recognized by the Canadian courts. The trial began in 1987. BC became a part of #Canada in 1871, and the Supreme Court ruled that all rights to their lands were legally extinguished when this happened. Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en elders testified using oral histories in their languages, and the court found that Aboriginal title couldn't be extinguished and confirmed that oral testimony is a legitimate form of evidence. The Delgamuukw case is an important one in #Canadian law because it set precedent of how #Aboriginal title could be understood in courts. From the decision: 1) Aboriginal title is a communal right: decisions about land must be made by the community as a whole. 2) Because aboriginal title is based on a First Nation’s relationship with the land, these lands cannot be used in a way that would destroy their cultural relationship to the land. 3) Aboriginal title is a constitutional right. No government can unduly interfere with aboriginal title. After the case, other First Nations, most notably the Tsilhqot’in Nation in 2014, used the Delgamuukw decision in their own land claims cases. Why is the case relevant to the Wet'suwet'en solidarity actions? In the #Delgamuukw case, Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs established that they have a law that predates the days of the elected band councils enacted under the Indian Act. Under Wet'suwet'en law, the Hereditary Chiefs are responsible for decisions regarding the land. Approving a pipeline in their ancestral lands without consent is an infringement of their Aboriginal title and rights. @cdnencyclopedia @cbc
A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on Mar 25, 2020 at 12:53pm PDT
View this post on Instagram #Repost from @raven_trust via @sovereignlikhtsamisyu • • • • • • • We had a few questions on our webinar on Wednesday about the connection between 'man camps' and the Judicial Review of Coastal GasLink, so we wanted to explain it in further detail. If you missed the webinar, you can watch it on our vimeo account with the LINK IN BIO. * The Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women produced a Final Report in 2019 which specifically linked "man camps" (worker camps for resource projects in remote areas) to increased risk of violence against Indigenous women and girls. This is based on the testimony of expert witnesses as well as community members. The link between resource extraction projects and violence against Indigenous women is a 'serious problem' that demands attention, the report found. According to Maclean's Magazine, "deep inside the national inquiry’s final report there's a chapter that describes the connection between an influx of transient workers—those who arrive in mostly isolated towns and cities from elsewhere to work in mines or industries like oil, gas or hydro—and higher rates of sexual assault, harassment, STIs and women entering the sex trade. It points to rampant drug and alcohol abuse among workers housed in camps, compounded by long hours, above-average pay and a tendency to 'blow off steam.' Resource projects in Canada routinely draw workers from across the country and around the world. This reality, the inquiry found, leads to a mostly male workforce that typically has no connection to the people or place." How does this relate to the Wet'suwet'en application for a Judicial Review of the Coastal GasLink project? The Wet'suwet'en argue that, in granting CGL a 5-year extension on their permit in 2019, after the Inquiry released its Final Report, the BCEAO should have examined new evidence of potential harms caused by the project, contained in the Final Report. This is based on BC legislation and regulations governing the work of BCEAO. The Wet'suwet'en argue that EAO acted improperly in granting the extension because they didn’t examine new evidence of harms. A post shared by @ wetsuweten_checkpoint on Oct 10, 2020 at 5:55am PDT
#Repost from @raven_trust via @sovereignlikhtsamisyu • • • • • • • We had a few questions on our webinar on Wednesday about the connection between 'man camps' and the Judicial Review of Coastal GasLink, so we wanted to explain it in further detail. If you missed the webinar, you can watch it on our vimeo account with the LINK IN BIO. * The Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women produced a Final Report in 2019 which specifically linked "man camps" (worker camps for resource projects in remote areas) to increased risk of violence against Indigenous women and girls. This is based on the testimony of expert witnesses as well as community members. The link between resource extraction projects and violence against Indigenous women is a 'serious problem' that demands attention, the report found. According to Maclean's Magazine, "deep inside the national inquiry’s final report there's a chapter that describes the connection between an influx of transient workers—those who arrive in mostly isolated towns and cities from elsewhere to work in mines or industries like oil, gas or hydro—and higher rates of sexual assault, harassment, STIs and women entering the sex trade. It points to rampant drug and alcohol abuse among workers housed in camps, compounded by long hours, above-average pay and a tendency to 'blow off steam.' Resource projects in Canada routinely draw workers from across the country and around the world. This reality, the inquiry found, leads to a mostly male workforce that typically has no connection to the people or place." How does this relate to the Wet'suwet'en application for a Judicial Review of the Coastal GasLink project? The Wet'suwet'en argue that, in granting CGL a 5-year extension on their permit in 2019, after the Inquiry released its Final Report, the BCEAO should have examined new evidence of potential harms caused by the project, contained in the Final Report. This is based on BC legislation and regulations governing the work of BCEAO. The Wet'suwet'en argue that EAO acted improperly in granting the extension because they didn’t examine new evidence of harms.
A post shared by @ wetsuweten_checkpoint on Oct 10, 2020 at 5:55am PDT
View this post on Instagram Yesterday marked the 6th anniversary of the Mount Polley disaster. Six years after, and the B.C. and international regulatory organizations are still failing to make mining safe. According to @thenarwhalca, the safety of tailings dams has been under intense scrutiny following the failure of the Mount Polley dam in central B.C., which sent 24 million cubic metres of contaminated mining waste into lakes and waterways, and the 2019 collapse of the Brumadinho dam in Brazil, which killed 270 people. "A report by the First Nations Energy and Mining Council said "more than 12 new mining projects have been proposed or are already under construction in northern B.C. alone. One of them is the KSM mine, which could become the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America." * "If approved, the KSM mine would have a tailings pond that holds 28 times the volume of Mount Polley’s and would be kept behind a 239-metre dam above an important salmon watershed." * "Another contentious project is the Red Chris mine, owned and operated by Imperial Metals (the company responsible for Mount Polley), which holds seven times the volume of tailings as Mount Polley. The mine opened in late 2014 — just months after the Mount Polley mine spill — using the same tailings pond design as Mount Polley. The First Nations Energy and Mining Council report calls for better consultation with Indigenous Peoples." * "Upstream dams have been banned for years in Chile, Ecuador and Peru, and Brazil put a ban into place after Brumadinho. Mining reform groups like BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council say Canada should follow suit." * “We must do more to protect waters and communities from toxic mine waste. The B.C. government can, and must, do better.” - Nikki Skuce Director of Northern Confluence. Support affected Indigenous and settler communities in their struggle for justice! Sign the petition at reformbcmining.ca, calling on BC to reform its mining laws. @amnestycanada A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on Aug 5, 2020 at 2:26pm PDT
Yesterday marked the 6th anniversary of the Mount Polley disaster. Six years after, and the B.C. and international regulatory organizations are still failing to make mining safe. According to @thenarwhalca, the safety of tailings dams has been under intense scrutiny following the failure of the Mount Polley dam in central B.C., which sent 24 million cubic metres of contaminated mining waste into lakes and waterways, and the 2019 collapse of the Brumadinho dam in Brazil, which killed 270 people. "A report by the First Nations Energy and Mining Council said "more than 12 new mining projects have been proposed or are already under construction in northern B.C. alone. One of them is the KSM mine, which could become the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America." * "If approved, the KSM mine would have a tailings pond that holds 28 times the volume of Mount Polley’s and would be kept behind a 239-metre dam above an important salmon watershed." * "Another contentious project is the Red Chris mine, owned and operated by Imperial Metals (the company responsible for Mount Polley), which holds seven times the volume of tailings as Mount Polley. The mine opened in late 2014 — just months after the Mount Polley mine spill — using the same tailings pond design as Mount Polley. The First Nations Energy and Mining Council report calls for better consultation with Indigenous Peoples." * "Upstream dams have been banned for years in Chile, Ecuador and Peru, and Brazil put a ban into place after Brumadinho. Mining reform groups like BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council say Canada should follow suit." * “We must do more to protect waters and communities from toxic mine waste. The B.C. government can, and must, do better.” - Nikki Skuce Director of Northern Confluence. Support affected Indigenous and settler communities in their struggle for justice! Sign the petition at reformbcmining.ca, calling on BC to reform its mining laws. @amnestycanada
A post shared by RAVEN Trust (@raven_trust) on Aug 5, 2020 at 2:26pm PDT