This article is a masterclass in false equivalency and intellectual dishonesty. It frames Indigenous rights as an obstacle to “functioning democracy,” while conveniently ignoring the actual historical reality that governments spent generations bulldozing Indigenous peoples precisely because the state claimed absolute authority over land and resources.
The authors praise Sweden for having an “honest debate,” but what they really admire is a political environment where Indigenous rights can be publicly reduced to economic inconvenience. Dressing that up as courage or democratic clarity does not make it principled — it makes it cynical.
What is especially striking is the article’s complete failure to acknowledge why consultation exists in the first place: because governments and corporations repeatedly abused Indigenous communities whenever “national interest” was invoked. The entire piece treats reconciliation as a nuisance slowing down resource extraction.
And the constant invocation of “democracy” is hollow. Democracy is not simply majoritarian power imposing itself on minorities. Constitutional rights exist precisely to limit what governments can do, especially against historically marginalized peoples.
This reads less like serious analysis and more like a lobbying document for resource interests frustrated that Indigenous communities still possess legal leverage.
That's a real problem, because the SCC has stated that in some instances where the right engaged is serious enough and sufficiently seriously compromised by the government's proposed conduct, the duty to consult can amount to a veto.
The comparison made in this article is misleading because the Sámi in Sweden do not possess an absolute veto over development projects any more than Canada’s First Nations do, although the authors subtly make it seem like they do. Sweden recognizes certain Sámi cultural and land-use rights, particularly related to reindeer herding, and projects affecting those rights must go through consultation and environmental review. However, the Swedish state still retains the final authority to approve projects. The article itself even acknowledges that Sweden’s courts upheld the Kallak iron ore mining concession despite significant Sámi opposition.
Canada’s situation is more legally complex, but it is also inaccurate to claim that First Nations possess a blanket veto over resource development. Canadian governments have a constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples where projects may affect Aboriginal or treaty rights. In some cases, particularly where Aboriginal title has been firmly established, governments face a very high legal threshold before overriding Indigenous objections. But Canadian law has never recognized an unlimited Indigenous veto over all projects.
The more I reflect on this debate, the more I think the Dorchester Review article was at least asking the correct question, even if one may disagree with aspects of its framing. Canadian courts have repeatedly stated that the duty to consult does not amount to a formal Indigenous veto. However, it is also undeniable that consultation law has evolved to the point where major resource and infrastructure projects can become practically impossible without substantial Indigenous support. From the perspective of governments, investors, and industry, that reality can resemble a de facto veto even if no explicit legal veto exists.
That is a far more intellectually honest argument than the Sweden comparison article, which deliberately blurred the distinction between consultation rights, constitutional protections, political pressure, and outright sovereign authority. Neither Canada’s First Nations nor Sweden’s Sámi possess an absolute legal veto over development projects. Sweden itself continues approving projects over Sámi objections when the state chooses to do so. The article’s attempt to portray Canada as uniquely paralyzed by Indigenous rights was therefore deeply misleading.
At the same time, one cannot discuss this issue honestly without acknowledging why these constitutional protections and consultation requirements emerged in the first place. Governments in Canada spent generations ignoring treaties, appropriating Indigenous land, and imposing development without meaningful Indigenous participation. The duty to consult did not appear out of thin air; it evolved as a constitutional response to a long history of state overreach and broken promises. Any discussion of “regulatory certainty” that ignores that historical reality is incomplete.
As someone who subscribed to the Dorchester Review for years, I have also become increasingly aware of its ideological direction over time. While it can still publish thoughtful and serious commentary, there is an unmistakable tendency in parts of the publication to frame Indigenous legal rights primarily as obstacles to economic development or national cohesion. That framing risks reducing complex constitutional and historical questions into grievance politics aimed at readers frustrated with modern reconciliation efforts.
Ultimately, the real issue is not whether Canada has an Indigenous veto in the strict legal sense — it does not. The real issue is that Canada is still struggling to define the balance between democratic state authority, constitutional Indigenous rights, economic development, and reconciliation. That is a legitimate and difficult debate. But it deserves precision and honesty, not rhetorical exaggeration masquerading as constitutional analysis.
The idea that humans can be objective is a fallacy. Similarly, "Unconscious Bias" is an academic parlour trick to promote compliance. Certainly Canadian judges are not objective, and unlike the States, we do not know where on the political spectrum they sit, but I think we can assume that they too do not like the direction the Dorchester Review has gone.
The Dorchester Review likely reflects the beliefs of its readership.
No, but it is quite willing to give away legal sovereignty and fee simple property rights (because centuries ago this tribe mounted severed heads from that tribe on local poles so we'll call that evidence of 'Aboriginal Title' in favour of the slave owning mass murderers) for the 'honour of the Crown' and call this craven legal retreat 'reconciliation'. And so the honour, it turns out, is ours to pay for... and pay, and pay, and pay....
I think all sides occasionally need a reminder of the fact that they don't get a veto.
For example, a CBC story today is titled "First Nation in B.C. demands province respect Joffre Lakes Park closure dates" From the story, "This year, the province announced the park will be closed to recreational visitors for 31 days between June 20 and 27, and from Sept. 8 to 30. The Líl̓wat Nation announced its closure dates of the park for a total 75 days from April 19 to May 11, June 20 to June 27, and Aug. 23 to Oct. 5. Dean Nelson, political chief of Líl̓wat Nation, said the nation is calling on the province to immediately recognize and implement its dates. 'These dates were not requests,' Nelson said." The story goes on to quote Nelson saying "'Reconciliation must be matched by action.'"
As you point out, there's a duty to consult and accommodate. The process can take awhile, but it doesn't grant a veto to Aboriginal people. However, sometimes it seems like the hysterics who think a veto exists are mirrored by certain more extreme Aboriginal activists who *also* think they've got such a thing.
I think a reasonable criticism of this article is that it doesn't really delve into the distinctions between the constitutional position the Sami occupy in Sweden vs. First Nations in Canada, and the resulting implications on the negotiating position of the government.
Even the Swedish court system is radically different: if I recall correctly, it occupies a distinctly subordinate place in the Swedish system compared to the Swedish legislature, and even compared to Swedish legal academia. When US Supreme Court justices visit Sweden to lecture, I was informed that they're referred to as "Professor" rather than "Judge", as the former is considered more respectable.
Bottom line, Swedish politicians enjoy more latitude on this issue in a way that's probably relevant to the comparison this article is making.
Any governing system based on race won't work. Any governing system where a minority retains power over a majority won't work. "Reconciliation" has come to mean "shared power", as can be clearly seen and has been stated. If that's the path, it will lead to upheaval and probably violence. Reconciliation will soon be dead in the water.
It's a good article, but part of that robust public debate needs to involve acknowledging the inherent contradiction between indigenous rights and equal rights. This is because at the end of the day, indigenous rights are ethno-rights or to put it unpleasant yet accurate terms... indigenous rights are legal rights based on a person's race. And at a core level, racially based rights are legally enforced racism.
That's unpleasant because our society wants to undo the harms of the past and also says that racism is immoral.
And yet we keep coming back to having different racism as the corrective for the harms of the past and the consequences of that past we see today.
I'm not going to write a long comment with the solution. I'm only pointing out the problem.
What an unpleasant truth, this obvious contradiction. But through the miracle of being 'Canadian', we'll hold both racial privilege and equality as a legal 'foundation' and throw in a few more choice bits to add zest to the mosaic: racial privilege for indigenous, linguistic privilege for Francophones, ethnic privilege for new immigrants, religious privilege for Muslims, and legal equality for the 'rest of us' to pay for it all and be subject to legal penalties if we don't go along with cheerleading this patriotic version of the liberal (individual rights)-socialist (group rights) multicultural country. Future unity is bright with so much in common!
Canada: a nation of choice bits. I like it. Let's run with it!
Makes me think of that Swedish chef on Sesame Street throwing everything into the pot. I'm not sure if there's a serious connection there or just a joke.
If only it were a skit rather than a national tragedy. Swedish chef joke? Sure, if that's representative of the oft cloned immigration Minister reflecting the government menu. Otherwise, the joke's on us.
To be serious, however, notice such a country cannot be liberal (individual liberty and shared equality rights upheld by the state) but illiberal (group based privilege and awarded rights imposed by the state). Without liberalism, such 'Canadians' as we have today cannot have a common identity or unifying values, nothing to attach people to either a common bond or each other. But it does insure legally important differences by inherited characteristics (I thought the Charter clearly stated such a applied metric we have in practice was actually prohibited discrimination. But what do I know when it comes to blood ties and elevated tribal affiliations?) So, sure, we have state awarded privileges that must and continue to divide people into ever greater competing camps.
Lo and behold... that's exactly where we are today, where we're headed with increasing patriotic furor for tomorrow, and straight into national disintegration. Yeehaw. Many consider supporting that 'progress' as patriotic. But love and devotion to what exactly that isn't currently being dismantled and vilified? I don't know. I've asked that question here and elsewhere hoping some current patriot will describe what this new and improved socialist national model is supposed to be. I have yet to receive an answer... an answer worth serving, worth keeping confederation as it is, a Dominion worth defending. Nada.
I think somehow the way forward will have us working out and permitting better (I mean locally unifying) regional (ie. provincial) policies, while the federal government backs out of some areas it doesn't constitutionally need to act. This is a massive challenge, not gonna lie.
Liked the article, agree with the point that we should be having more debates out in public.
Had some qualms about the line "Mark Carney won an election on the premise that Canada should govern more like a European social democracy."
Idk, seems to me that everytime someone wins an election they suddenly think they have a mandate to do everything. If Mark Carney has a mandate, it's to handle the US president, and everything can flow from that, from affordability to deregulation to pipelines. But to "...govern more like a European social democracy." Is really stretching it imo.
Firstly note that the Economist is a left of centre publication and its ranking of countries reflects that bias. Secondly the selection of justices in Sweden is more nuanced and complex than Canada's simple reliance on the party in power, the PMO in fact, to simply appoint justices. After a decade of progressive Liberal rule Canada's courts lean left of centre. Canada' Supreme Court has a history of making law instead of interpreting law as is their mandate.
To further muddy the waters, successive Canadian governments have created nations with a nation by referring to First Nations and encouraging Native Land acknowledgments.
The Economist has long been classically liberal which is on the traditional right end of the political spectrum for economics and straddles both for social policy. As a result it has widely and long been considered politically centrist or centre right if you prioritize the comics of the economist. That is as much of as these can be put in a single line. Classical liberalism associates with permissiveness on social issues, which is associated with the left-wing spectrum, but also with the right wing Libertarians. The economics of The Economist are free markets, free trade, free competition and limited government intervention.
During the construction of the QE Line, in London, the workers unearthed a Roman, who had been laid to rest long before the current citizens inhabited the space. Naturally, everything was paused as they sought to find relatives to consult, and perhaps reroute, as needed. The Roman was eventually re-interred, on site, with a complete, formal Roman funeral (closed to the public), including a sacrificial bull. The QE Line was never finished.
It is called the "Elizabeth Line" and it had a staged opening beginning in 2022. As of 2025, it is completed and now operates across its full route from Reading and Heathrow in the west through central London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east.
Still a little peeved with this article. It pretends to defend “democracy,” but really argues that Indigenous rights should give way whenever governments or industry find them inconvenient. It praises Sweden for publicly debating whether Sámi rights are economically worthwhile, then criticizes Canada for not being aggressive enough toward Indigenous opposition to development.
That is not intellectual courage. It is just resource extraction politics wrapped in academic language.
Exactly who represents the interests of the various bands is often in dispute. This seems to be a feature not a bug. A feature to be exploited by those who see Canada as a proxy for all the wrongs perpetrated by the West on its indigenous peoples. Until the federal government develops a backbone on this issue all Canadians, including its indigenous population, will be at the mercy of those who see value only in disunity.
"(I)nsufficient consultation had violated Sámi’s rights to free, prior, and informed consent." The issue is not that the herding would be negatively affected, although it is implied. The issue is the "free, prior and informed consent" because this is undefinable. It is used by all FN's opposed to a resources project regardless of the proponent's environmental planning documents. If the FN is against the project for ANY reason, this clause is used to effectively stop the project. So, either this nebulous statement needs to be defined or it needs to be removed. The herds will go around the pit, they will not fall in and die spontaneously.
Unlike the Swedes for Canadians avoiding hard decisions and confrontation is core to the culture here. Throw in some white upper middle class guilt and there you have it
This is all about whether to respect and appreciate cultural and historical differences as a value in itself, and not destroying thousand years of collective memory for shortsighted economic profit, and not about race, as someone said.
I think somehow the way forward will have us working out and permitting better (I mean locally unifying) regional (ie. provincial) policies, while the federal government backs out of some areas it doesn't constitutionally need to act. This is a massive challenge, not gonna lie.
I heartily agree with this. The Canadian tendency to avoid conflict instead of act is one of the nation’s worst attributes.
Great article. The list of things that we as a country can't debate seriously (or often at all) just gets longer and longer.
This article is a masterclass in false equivalency and intellectual dishonesty. It frames Indigenous rights as an obstacle to “functioning democracy,” while conveniently ignoring the actual historical reality that governments spent generations bulldozing Indigenous peoples precisely because the state claimed absolute authority over land and resources.
The authors praise Sweden for having an “honest debate,” but what they really admire is a political environment where Indigenous rights can be publicly reduced to economic inconvenience. Dressing that up as courage or democratic clarity does not make it principled — it makes it cynical.
What is especially striking is the article’s complete failure to acknowledge why consultation exists in the first place: because governments and corporations repeatedly abused Indigenous communities whenever “national interest” was invoked. The entire piece treats reconciliation as a nuisance slowing down resource extraction.
And the constant invocation of “democracy” is hollow. Democracy is not simply majoritarian power imposing itself on minorities. Constitutional rights exist precisely to limit what governments can do, especially against historically marginalized peoples.
This reads less like serious analysis and more like a lobbying document for resource interests frustrated that Indigenous communities still possess legal leverage.
Consultation & accommodation are reasonable however this country will grind to a halt if any individual or group has a veto.
That's a real problem, because the SCC has stated that in some instances where the right engaged is serious enough and sufficiently seriously compromised by the government's proposed conduct, the duty to consult can amount to a veto.
No individual or group has a veto in Canada.
The comparison made in this article is misleading because the Sámi in Sweden do not possess an absolute veto over development projects any more than Canada’s First Nations do, although the authors subtly make it seem like they do. Sweden recognizes certain Sámi cultural and land-use rights, particularly related to reindeer herding, and projects affecting those rights must go through consultation and environmental review. However, the Swedish state still retains the final authority to approve projects. The article itself even acknowledges that Sweden’s courts upheld the Kallak iron ore mining concession despite significant Sámi opposition.
Canada’s situation is more legally complex, but it is also inaccurate to claim that First Nations possess a blanket veto over resource development. Canadian governments have a constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples where projects may affect Aboriginal or treaty rights. In some cases, particularly where Aboriginal title has been firmly established, governments face a very high legal threshold before overriding Indigenous objections. But Canadian law has never recognized an unlimited Indigenous veto over all projects.
And yet...
https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/the-duty-to-consult-veto?_pos=1&_sid=73e5e6824&_ss=r
The more I reflect on this debate, the more I think the Dorchester Review article was at least asking the correct question, even if one may disagree with aspects of its framing. Canadian courts have repeatedly stated that the duty to consult does not amount to a formal Indigenous veto. However, it is also undeniable that consultation law has evolved to the point where major resource and infrastructure projects can become practically impossible without substantial Indigenous support. From the perspective of governments, investors, and industry, that reality can resemble a de facto veto even if no explicit legal veto exists.
That is a far more intellectually honest argument than the Sweden comparison article, which deliberately blurred the distinction between consultation rights, constitutional protections, political pressure, and outright sovereign authority. Neither Canada’s First Nations nor Sweden’s Sámi possess an absolute legal veto over development projects. Sweden itself continues approving projects over Sámi objections when the state chooses to do so. The article’s attempt to portray Canada as uniquely paralyzed by Indigenous rights was therefore deeply misleading.
At the same time, one cannot discuss this issue honestly without acknowledging why these constitutional protections and consultation requirements emerged in the first place. Governments in Canada spent generations ignoring treaties, appropriating Indigenous land, and imposing development without meaningful Indigenous participation. The duty to consult did not appear out of thin air; it evolved as a constitutional response to a long history of state overreach and broken promises. Any discussion of “regulatory certainty” that ignores that historical reality is incomplete.
As someone who subscribed to the Dorchester Review for years, I have also become increasingly aware of its ideological direction over time. While it can still publish thoughtful and serious commentary, there is an unmistakable tendency in parts of the publication to frame Indigenous legal rights primarily as obstacles to economic development or national cohesion. That framing risks reducing complex constitutional and historical questions into grievance politics aimed at readers frustrated with modern reconciliation efforts.
Ultimately, the real issue is not whether Canada has an Indigenous veto in the strict legal sense — it does not. The real issue is that Canada is still struggling to define the balance between democratic state authority, constitutional Indigenous rights, economic development, and reconciliation. That is a legitimate and difficult debate. But it deserves precision and honesty, not rhetorical exaggeration masquerading as constitutional analysis.
The idea that humans can be objective is a fallacy. Similarly, "Unconscious Bias" is an academic parlour trick to promote compliance. Certainly Canadian judges are not objective, and unlike the States, we do not know where on the political spectrum they sit, but I think we can assume that they too do not like the direction the Dorchester Review has gone.
The Dorchester Review likely reflects the beliefs of its readership.
No, but it is quite willing to give away legal sovereignty and fee simple property rights (because centuries ago this tribe mounted severed heads from that tribe on local poles so we'll call that evidence of 'Aboriginal Title' in favour of the slave owning mass murderers) for the 'honour of the Crown' and call this craven legal retreat 'reconciliation'. And so the honour, it turns out, is ours to pay for... and pay, and pay, and pay....
I think all sides occasionally need a reminder of the fact that they don't get a veto.
For example, a CBC story today is titled "First Nation in B.C. demands province respect Joffre Lakes Park closure dates" From the story, "This year, the province announced the park will be closed to recreational visitors for 31 days between June 20 and 27, and from Sept. 8 to 30. The Líl̓wat Nation announced its closure dates of the park for a total 75 days from April 19 to May 11, June 20 to June 27, and Aug. 23 to Oct. 5. Dean Nelson, political chief of Líl̓wat Nation, said the nation is calling on the province to immediately recognize and implement its dates. 'These dates were not requests,' Nelson said." The story goes on to quote Nelson saying "'Reconciliation must be matched by action.'"
As you point out, there's a duty to consult and accommodate. The process can take awhile, but it doesn't grant a veto to Aboriginal people. However, sometimes it seems like the hysterics who think a veto exists are mirrored by certain more extreme Aboriginal activists who *also* think they've got such a thing.
Well said - maybe you should be the Justice Minister.
I think a reasonable criticism of this article is that it doesn't really delve into the distinctions between the constitutional position the Sami occupy in Sweden vs. First Nations in Canada, and the resulting implications on the negotiating position of the government.
Even the Swedish court system is radically different: if I recall correctly, it occupies a distinctly subordinate place in the Swedish system compared to the Swedish legislature, and even compared to Swedish legal academia. When US Supreme Court justices visit Sweden to lecture, I was informed that they're referred to as "Professor" rather than "Judge", as the former is considered more respectable.
Bottom line, Swedish politicians enjoy more latitude on this issue in a way that's probably relevant to the comparison this article is making.
Any governing system based on race won't work. Any governing system where a minority retains power over a majority won't work. "Reconciliation" has come to mean "shared power", as can be clearly seen and has been stated. If that's the path, it will lead to upheaval and probably violence. Reconciliation will soon be dead in the water.
It's a good article, but part of that robust public debate needs to involve acknowledging the inherent contradiction between indigenous rights and equal rights. This is because at the end of the day, indigenous rights are ethno-rights or to put it unpleasant yet accurate terms... indigenous rights are legal rights based on a person's race. And at a core level, racially based rights are legally enforced racism.
That's unpleasant because our society wants to undo the harms of the past and also says that racism is immoral.
And yet we keep coming back to having different racism as the corrective for the harms of the past and the consequences of that past we see today.
I'm not going to write a long comment with the solution. I'm only pointing out the problem.
What an unpleasant truth, this obvious contradiction. But through the miracle of being 'Canadian', we'll hold both racial privilege and equality as a legal 'foundation' and throw in a few more choice bits to add zest to the mosaic: racial privilege for indigenous, linguistic privilege for Francophones, ethnic privilege for new immigrants, religious privilege for Muslims, and legal equality for the 'rest of us' to pay for it all and be subject to legal penalties if we don't go along with cheerleading this patriotic version of the liberal (individual rights)-socialist (group rights) multicultural country. Future unity is bright with so much in common!
Canada: a nation of choice bits. I like it. Let's run with it!
Makes me think of that Swedish chef on Sesame Street throwing everything into the pot. I'm not sure if there's a serious connection there or just a joke.
If only it were a skit rather than a national tragedy. Swedish chef joke? Sure, if that's representative of the oft cloned immigration Minister reflecting the government menu. Otherwise, the joke's on us.
To be serious, however, notice such a country cannot be liberal (individual liberty and shared equality rights upheld by the state) but illiberal (group based privilege and awarded rights imposed by the state). Without liberalism, such 'Canadians' as we have today cannot have a common identity or unifying values, nothing to attach people to either a common bond or each other. But it does insure legally important differences by inherited characteristics (I thought the Charter clearly stated such a applied metric we have in practice was actually prohibited discrimination. But what do I know when it comes to blood ties and elevated tribal affiliations?) So, sure, we have state awarded privileges that must and continue to divide people into ever greater competing camps.
Lo and behold... that's exactly where we are today, where we're headed with increasing patriotic furor for tomorrow, and straight into national disintegration. Yeehaw. Many consider supporting that 'progress' as patriotic. But love and devotion to what exactly that isn't currently being dismantled and vilified? I don't know. I've asked that question here and elsewhere hoping some current patriot will describe what this new and improved socialist national model is supposed to be. I have yet to receive an answer... an answer worth serving, worth keeping confederation as it is, a Dominion worth defending. Nada.
I think somehow the way forward will have us working out and permitting better (I mean locally unifying) regional (ie. provincial) policies, while the federal government backs out of some areas it doesn't constitutionally need to act. This is a massive challenge, not gonna lie.
Liked the article, agree with the point that we should be having more debates out in public.
Had some qualms about the line "Mark Carney won an election on the premise that Canada should govern more like a European social democracy."
Idk, seems to me that everytime someone wins an election they suddenly think they have a mandate to do everything. If Mark Carney has a mandate, it's to handle the US president, and everything can flow from that, from affordability to deregulation to pipelines. But to "...govern more like a European social democracy." Is really stretching it imo.
Firstly note that the Economist is a left of centre publication and its ranking of countries reflects that bias. Secondly the selection of justices in Sweden is more nuanced and complex than Canada's simple reliance on the party in power, the PMO in fact, to simply appoint justices. After a decade of progressive Liberal rule Canada's courts lean left of centre. Canada' Supreme Court has a history of making law instead of interpreting law as is their mandate.
To further muddy the waters, successive Canadian governments have created nations with a nation by referring to First Nations and encouraging Native Land acknowledgments.
> the Economist is a left of centre publication
Uh citation needed.
The Economist has long been classically liberal which is on the traditional right end of the political spectrum for economics and straddles both for social policy. As a result it has widely and long been considered politically centrist or centre right if you prioritize the comics of the economist. That is as much of as these can be put in a single line. Classical liberalism associates with permissiveness on social issues, which is associated with the left-wing spectrum, but also with the right wing Libertarians. The economics of The Economist are free markets, free trade, free competition and limited government intervention.
During the construction of the QE Line, in London, the workers unearthed a Roman, who had been laid to rest long before the current citizens inhabited the space. Naturally, everything was paused as they sought to find relatives to consult, and perhaps reroute, as needed. The Roman was eventually re-interred, on site, with a complete, formal Roman funeral (closed to the public), including a sacrificial bull. The QE Line was never finished.
"Two fleas fighting over who owns the dog".
It is called the "Elizabeth Line" and it had a staged opening beginning in 2022. As of 2025, it is completed and now operates across its full route from Reading and Heathrow in the west through central London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east.
Yes. I was on it last year.
Still a little peeved with this article. It pretends to defend “democracy,” but really argues that Indigenous rights should give way whenever governments or industry find them inconvenient. It praises Sweden for publicly debating whether Sámi rights are economically worthwhile, then criticizes Canada for not being aggressive enough toward Indigenous opposition to development.
That is not intellectual courage. It is just resource extraction politics wrapped in academic language.
Exactly who represents the interests of the various bands is often in dispute. This seems to be a feature not a bug. A feature to be exploited by those who see Canada as a proxy for all the wrongs perpetrated by the West on its indigenous peoples. Until the federal government develops a backbone on this issue all Canadians, including its indigenous population, will be at the mercy of those who see value only in disunity.
"(I)nsufficient consultation had violated Sámi’s rights to free, prior, and informed consent." The issue is not that the herding would be negatively affected, although it is implied. The issue is the "free, prior and informed consent" because this is undefinable. It is used by all FN's opposed to a resources project regardless of the proponent's environmental planning documents. If the FN is against the project for ANY reason, this clause is used to effectively stop the project. So, either this nebulous statement needs to be defined or it needs to be removed. The herds will go around the pit, they will not fall in and die spontaneously.
Unlike the Swedes for Canadians avoiding hard decisions and confrontation is core to the culture here. Throw in some white upper middle class guilt and there you have it
Interesting take but I’m sniffing some AI writing in this which turns me off
This is all about whether to respect and appreciate cultural and historical differences as a value in itself, and not destroying thousand years of collective memory for shortsighted economic profit, and not about race, as someone said.
I think somehow the way forward will have us working out and permitting better (I mean locally unifying) regional (ie. provincial) policies, while the federal government backs out of some areas it doesn't constitutionally need to act. This is a massive challenge, not gonna lie.
About time somebody (anybody) spoke this plainly, clearly, and honestly. Thanks.
Excellent article. It puts both sides view in perspective.