Voting This Thursday: Kitselas Treaty Ratification

Comments

1. Riley says:

   April 10, 2025 at 4:16pm

   𝐊𝐈𝐓𝐒𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐘 𝐕𝐎𝐓𝐄: 𝐑𝐄𝐉𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐋 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑, 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐓 𝐒𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐇 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐘
   𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 for the Kitselas Nation—a choice between 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 or asserting inherent rights through international law, inter-National solidarity, and unbroken connections to ancestral lands. The proposed treaty, offering 𝟓.𝟗𝟏% (𝟑𝟖𝟐 𝐤𝐦²) of Kitselas’ 𝟔,𝟒𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐦² traditional territory as 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, demands the 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 to 100% of ancestral lands (Government of Canada, 2024; Diabo, 2019). Similarly, 𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐤𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐦—facing a similar vote this fall—is offered 𝟏𝟕% (𝟒𝟔𝟒 𝐤𝐦²) of a contested (formerly asserted) 𝟐,𝟕𝟑𝟓 𝐤𝐦² territory, representing less than 1% of their historic 59,410 km² claim, which overlaps with neighboring Nations. The true territorial boundaries align with environmental assessments submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (The Skeena, 2024; CEAA, 2024). This mirrors Canada’s termination strategy, systematically reducing Indigenous Nations to “𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀” with corporate-like governance structures (Diabo, 2017).
   𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫: 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔,𝟒𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐦² 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖𝟐 𝐤𝐦²
   The treaty’s “land ownership” model converts 𝟗𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐬’ 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 into Crown-administered lands while granting fee simple title over 382 km²—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 (which they could expropriate by amending THEIR constitution). Fee simple lands lose federal protections under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, exposing resources to provincial jurisdiction, taxation, and exploitation (Palmater, 2024). By accepting this model, Kitselas would replicate the Nisga’a Nation’s struggles with forced land auctions and provincial encroachment on Nasoga Gulf territories (Search Result 1).
   𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐯𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐲 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
   Canada’s offers for resource access reveal the treaty’s 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 of Indigenous sovereignty:
   𝐋𝐚𝐱 𝐊𝐰’𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐚𝐦𝐬 was 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 a $𝟏.𝟏𝟓 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 package in 2015 for consent to the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal, including land transfers and infrastructure funds (CBC News, 2015).
   𝐆𝐢𝐭𝐱𝐚𝐚ł𝐚 was offered $𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 (confidential source) for consent to the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal—also 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 (𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥).
   In contrast, 𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐬 is pressured to accept $𝟏𝟏𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 and 382 km² for 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝟔,𝟒𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐦² (Government of Canada, 2024). These 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 prove Canada values Indigenous lands at 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 but offers 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫.
   𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐈𝐏, 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭
   𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐰𝐤): 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐈𝐏 𝐚𝐬 𝐁𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐚𝐰
   The 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 (2023 QCSC 4154) revolutionized Indigenous rights jurisprudence, mandating Canadian courts to interpret Section 35 through UNDRIP’s binding standards (Cassels, 2023). The Quebec Superior Court ruled:
   UNDRIP carries𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
   Indigenous peoples hold a 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, free from Crown interference.
   𝐍𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 for policies that restrict Indigenous governance or resource control (Cassels, 2023).
   This nullifies Canada’s argument that treaties are necessary for “certainty,” as UNDRIP’s Article 3-5 guarantees self-determination 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫.
   𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥: 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
   The Haida Nation’s 2024 reconciliation agreement provides the blueprint Kitselas must demand:
   “𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞, 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬” (BIV News, 2024).
   𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐝𝐚’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞, Kitselas’ treaty omits protections for Underlying Title (and can’t bring up any rights in court anymore, effectively extinguishing inherent rightgs in exchange for Treaty rights), enabling Canada to erode sovereignty through future legislation (Diabo, 2023). A legitimate agreement must include:
   “𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬, 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐬 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐒𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐎𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧” (ICJ, 1975).
   𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐥: 𝐁𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐚𝐝 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 – Gitxaała’s Territorial Losses
   By accepting settlement lands that cross waterways, Kitselas risks 𝐧𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐢𝐭𝐱𝐚𝐚ł𝐚’𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 to 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟓𝟐𝟎 𝐤𝐦²) and 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟒𝟗.𝟕 𝐤𝐦²) under the𝐔𝐍’𝐬 𝐁𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 (𝐔𝐍 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟔𝟑𝟕, 𝟏𝟗𝟓𝟐). This 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 grants 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 to 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 during 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. However, because 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 to 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬, these areas would effectively become Crown-controlled internal waters, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐢𝐭𝐱𝐚𝐚ł𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 in asserting territorial 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 (Diabo, 2019; UN General Assembly, 1952; Gitxaała Nation, 2024). Gitxaała leaders have condemned this as a violation of UNDRIP’s Article 19, which mandates free, prior, and informed consent from affected Nations (Gitxaała Nation, 2025).
   𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚’𝐬 𝐁𝐚𝐝 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬
   Gitxaała has repeatedly attempted to resolve overlapping claims through 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐬 (adaawx oral histories and adaawk (laws) gugwilx’ya’ansk territorial laws), but 𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐬 leadership 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞, prioritizing Crown-imposed timelines (Gitxaała Nation, 2025). This violates UNDRIP’s Article 19, which mandates free, prior, and informed consent from affected Nations. Gitxaała condemns the treaty as a “𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐧” (The Skeena, 2024).
   𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐨’𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 – 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝟐.𝟎
   Modern treaties are “𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬” designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into provincial frameworks (Diabo, 2019). As Diabo, architect of the First Nations Strategic Bulletin, explains:
   “𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐱-𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬. 𝐅𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲” (Diabo, 2019).
   The treaty’s requirement for “𝐨𝐰𝐧-𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐬” echoes the 1969 White Paper’s push to privatize reserves and terminate federal obligations. Diabo stresses: “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝” (Diabo, 2017).
   Read more on White Paper 2.0 here: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?id=659277002&story_fbid=10159241533067003
   𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨-𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐑𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 -𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐮𝐮𝐤𝐰’𝐬 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲
   The Delgamuukw decision (1997) affirmed that overlapping claims can resolve through shared exclusivity: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲” (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia,[1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, para 158).
   Instead of surrendering sovereignty, Kitselas and neighboring Nations could pursue co-management models rooted in traditional laws. Colonial tactics—like the Nisga’a’s Nasoga Gulf land auction—ignore this precedent, prioritizing division over unity (Search Result 1).
   𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 – 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
   Advocates of restrictive treaties 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬, akin to scouts aiding Custer’s conquests (Search Result 1). This assimilation-born perspective stifles imagination, reducing Indigenous futures to 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 rather than asserting sovereignty on the world stage.
   𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲
   Leadership must provide 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 of treaty risks, including:
   Loss of federal protections under Section 91(24), exposing lands to provincial resource extraction.
   𝐈𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞, binding future generations to colonial governance.
   Tax burdens from “own-source revenue” requirements, forcing Nations to exploit their own members.
   Failure to disclose these risks 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬s, betraying the 𝐖𝐮𝐝𝐳’𝐚𝐧’𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 of mutual protection among Ganhada (Raven) clans up and down the coast (we were effectively a Confederacy under this warrior society).
   𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐍𝐎 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
   𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐎 preserves Kitselas’ legal standing to leverage UNDRIP, Montour, and international law. The Haida precedent proves sovereignty can be won 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫, while Gitxaała’s fight underscores the power of inter-National solidarity.
   𝐃𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝟔,𝟒𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐦² 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝟑𝟖𝟐 𝐤𝐦² 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝. As Russell Diabo urges: “𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧” (Diabo, 2023).
   𝐕𝐎𝐓𝐄 𝐍𝐎—𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐒𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍𝐓𝐘, 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃, 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐄𝐗𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒.
   𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬; OP: https://www.facebook.com/WestCoastNativeNews/posts/pfbid02oBUyrnRE2BuJowniAR9vxC5ukqE9UbJonxBjhWPCywpdvLz7TQ94ectu3ekEDtTLl

   Log in to Reply