NationStates Jolt Archive

Linky (http://www.cjad.com/node/536279)

"WINNIPEG (CP) - An effort by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs to seek revenue from wireless signals that pass over aboriginal land is unprecedented, though unlikely to succeed, say legal experts.

Earlier this month, the AMC passed a motion asserting that native claims to cellphone and other wireless signals should be no different than claims to land and water.

However, because the mere passage of radio signals do not trespass or cause a disturbance to land, an effort to seek compensation would like fail, according to an expert in aboriginal legal affairs.

"I think that they would be significant underdogs in the likelihood of success," said Moe Litman, who teaches law at the University of Alberta.

"The only question to me is whether their land is being used in a way that gives rise to compensation, and I don't see it."

It's an interesting attempt, but I just can't see how it would work, unless it can be shown that wireless signals interfere with the use and enjoyment of aboriginal lands.

BUT...what if cell phone signals really are killing bees (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070416/bees_cellphones_070416/20070416)?

Work with me here. A lot of aboriginal land claims, using trespass laws, are actually intended to handle environmental issues that aren't necessarily covered otherwise. What an elder from my nation said about the Manitoba chiefs is that sure, they're hoping to get some money, but they are also hoping to raise awareness about the lack of access to technology on Reserve, as well as raise the issue of the safety of the signals themselves.

So at first glance, it seems like a ridiculous case...and it's pretty much doomed to failure. However, IF the chiefs could introduce evidence that the signals were killing bees, for example, and the consequences radiating out from that...they could possibly have a good trespass case. Keep in mind, they would not need to prove the case 100%, that cell phone signals were killing bees. They would only have to prove on a balance of probabilities, 51% likely or higher.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

It's... silly.

It's... silly.

Damn, you should have said 'crazy'. Then I could quip...so crazy it might work!

You think this is weird? You should see the trespass cases dealing with shadows.

Damn, you should have said 'crazy'. Then I could quip...so crazy it might work!

You know that I can't give you the leeway to quip, because then I have to quip back and then you have no comeback and I have to feel sorry for you.

You think this is weird? You should see the trespass cases dealing with shadows.

I guess this should make me appreciate the Sami more, not that I know how I could.

You know that I can't give you the leeway to quip, because then I have to quip back and then you have no comeback and I have to feel sorry for you.
That would require you actually having enough human emotions to feel sympathetic. I know you better than that.


I guess this should make me appreciate the Sami more, not that I know how I could.
What, the white aboriginals?

The shadow cases had nothing to do with aboriginals anyhow.

What's up with those wireless headsets? I looks like some sort of cockroach is wispering into their ear "you're important... Ramble on... yes... Cut him off he doesn't exist... Praise be to the queen headset."

What's up with those wireless headsets? I looks like some sort of cockroach is wispering into their ear "you're important... Ramble on... yes... Cut him off he doesn't exist... Praise be to the queen headset."

If you really object to them, you should send a donation to the Manitoba Chiefs to help them along in their lawsuit :D

That would require you actually having enough human emotions to feel sympathetic. I know you better than that.

I don't feel sympathetic. I pity. It's much more condescending, you see.

What, the white aboriginals?

White people can't be aboriginal? But they're so cute. (http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/images/people/saami2.jpg)

The shadow cases had nothing to do with aboriginals anyhow.

Then why allude?

Shit like this is why everyone hates natives.

If you really object to them, you should send a donation to the Manitoba Chiefs to help them along in their lawsuit :D

Send ME money so I can ban it HERE.

Shit like this is why everyone hates natives.

I hate more than just a quarter of myself, It's the whole shibang.

I don't feel sympathetic. I pity. It's much more condescending, you see. It is indeed....and more insincere that way!



White people can't be aboriginal? But they're so cute. (http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/images/people/saami2.jpg)
I kid, I love the Saami.


Then why allude?
I don't want you thinking that we cornered the market on weird court cases.

Although we used 'spiritual guardians' as evidence in the Haida (http://www.eaglelaw.org/litigation/featurecases/haidatfl39home/haidatfl39casebackgrounder) case. And won.

Shit like this is why everyone hates natives.

:rolleyes:

No, it's really not. People who hate us, do so because they are racist pricks. They just love shit like this to EXCUSE themselves.

It is indeed....and more insincere that way!

It's the Swedish way.

I kid, I love the Saami.

I have a thing for those dresses and handsome young Samis who jojk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoik).

I don't want you thinking that we cornered the market on weird court cases.

By making me believe that you had?

Although we used 'spiritual guardians' as evidence in the Haida case. And won.

See.

See.Hey, it's not OUR system...don't blame us if it works out for us in bizarre ways.

:rolleyes:

No, it's really not. People who hate us, do so because they are racist pricks. They just love shit like this to EXCUSE themselves.
Either way, it isn't exactly helping the public's opinion of your peeps.

Hey, it's not OUR system...don't blame us if it works out for us in bizarre ways.

I'd never blame you, because I don't live in Canada yet and have no reason to pay attention to your shenanigans.

Either way, it isn't exactly helping the public's opinion of your peeps.

Do I fucking blame your people for the raping of the oilsands?

No.

So hush. I stand by my statement. Those that hate us, don't need a reason. But cases like this simply allow them to pat themselves on the back and say, 'see! We're right!'

So shut the fuck up.

You're letting yourself be trolled by, of all the riff-raff, Posi?

Honey, are you feeling all right?

I'd never blame you, because I don't live in Canada yet and have no reason to pay attention to your shenanigans.

There you go. Although...you're interfering with the NSG-created Fass image which has you sticking your nose in the affairs of all other countries. As if you actually gave a damn.

You're letting yourself be trolled by, of all the riff-raff, Posi?

Honey, are you feeling all right?

Oh come on now, the tone I was thinking that in wasn't nearly as snippy as it's coming across. No offence, Posi, it's kind of something I'm saying a lot lately.

As if you actually gave a damn.

That says it all for most things about me.

Oh come on now, the tone I was thinking that in wasn't nearly as snippy as it's coming across.

You're however paying attention to the nonsense. Need I slap you?

No offence, Posi, it's kind of something I'm saying a lot lately.

You have nothing to excuse yourself for, especially not to that ilk.

You're however paying attention to the nonsense. Need I slap you? Oh please do, you know how I like it!

It's exactly Posi's kind of perspective I'm seeking. If you can't battle it out in a thread, then the thread is pointless.

You're letting yourself be trolled by, of all the riff-raff, Posi?

Honey, are you feeling all right?
I seem to have been like a stick up her ass lately.

I seem to have been like a stick up her ass lately.

I would have more gathered that you had been expelled and just never sanitised.

I seem to have been like a stick up her ass lately.

If you have been, I'm sorry to say I haven't noticed. Have we argued lately?

And now, now Fass...who's giving attention where it isn't merited?

Oh please do, you know how I like it!

Fine, then I'll just double z-snap and cobra glare and "bitch, please" you.

It's exactly Posi's kind of perspective I'm seeking. If you can't battle it out in a thread, then the thread is pointless.

"Bitch, please you", I said.

If you have been, I'm sorry to say I haven't noticed. Have we argued lately?

And now, now Fass...who's giving attention where it isn't merited?

You. Matters of the ass are my purview.

If you have been, I'm sorry to say I haven't noticed. Have we argued lately?
Not last thread but the thread before that.

I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic too.

You. Matters of the ass are my purview.

Hmm. I can't argue with that logic.

Hmm. I can't argue with that logic.

You knows it, girl. *snaps again*

Not last thread but the thread before that.

I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic too.

Then!? What the fuck are you whining about!? And don't expect me to remember how I bitch slapped you verbally two threads back. I mean, come on.

You knows it, girl. *snaps again*

You aren't shaking your little hips when you do that, are you?

You aren't shaking your little hips when you do that, are you?

I don't have hips. I have glutes and transverse abdominals.

i though only we used the word aboriginal mm oh i hope i our lot don't get the same dumb idea

i though only we used the word aboriginal mm oh i hope i OUR lot don't get the same dumb idea

You don't see a problem with using a possessive adjective?

i though only we used the word aboriginal mm oh i hope i our lot don't get the same dumb idea

Aborigine is usually more specific to Australian aboriginals, while "aboriginal" simply means "the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region".

You don't see a problem with using a possessive adjective?

will part of my life i grow up with a aboriginal step brother and sister

*smokes some tobacco in the corner*

Aborigine is usually more specific to Australian aboriginals, while "aboriginal" simply means "the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region".

learn some new, thank you for the infor

will part of my life i grow up with a aboriginal step brother and sister

Really? So you were speaking about your step brother and sister? Hoping the two of them don't get 'dumb' ideas?

No. I don't think so.

Do aborigines in Australia refer to you as 'our white people' I wonder?

learn some new, thank you for the infor

Oh, and note, that 'aboriginal' isn't a favoured term in the US. It's more of a Canadian thing. We're First Nations, or aboriginal most of the time...but never, ever 'Native American'. And in Latin America, it's 'indigenous' when it's not just plain 'Indian'.

Really? So you were speaking about your step brother and sister? Hoping the two of them don't get 'dumb' ideas?

No. I don't think so.?
one in the navy and others a cop just to get away from they'er Dumb Family they mother have about 22 kids and still having them

Do aborigines in Australia refer to you as 'our white people' I wonder?

some call us White C**ts and the list goes on

one in the navy and others a cop just to get away from they'er Dumb Family they mother have about 22 kids and still having them And this is relevant to the topic at hand...how? You brought them up to defend yourself against my insinuation that your patronising use of a possessive adjective to refer to the aborigines of Australia was inappropriate. Spare me having to see you drag them into this further as you attempt to wiggle out of the limelight.



some call us White C**ts and the list goes on
Yes, very nice. So you behave like a **** in return and feel justified. Good to see you being the bigger person.

And this is relevant to the topic at hand...how? You brought them up to defend yourself against my insinuation that your patronising use of a possessive adjective to refer to the aborigines of Australia was inappropriate. Spare me having to see you drag them into this further as you attempt to wiggle out of the limelight.



Yes, very nice. So you behave like a **** in return and feel justified. Good to see you being the bigger person.

don't need they hate they'er own kind and as bigger person i don't go around i like some beating the shit out of someone because they think you called you what ever they think you called them

don't need they hate they'er own kind Wonderful! Self-hating aborigines! Did you have a hand in that? Or were they just lucky?


and as bigger person i don't go around i like some beating the shit out of someone because they think you called you what ever they think you called them If I could figure out what you were trying to say, it might be worth it to mock you.

So, any other gems of insight you'd like to share having to do with the topic at hand?

EH? (It's funny because that's how you people speak, and don't say it's a stupid stereotype, it was even on the Simpsons)

EH? (It's funny because that's how you people speak, and don't say it's a stupid stereotype, it was even on the Simpsons)
Eh mine trout? I haves trouble seeing how tats funny.

People from Boston, Massachusetts don't get to poke fun at others over funny accents. People from Boston, Massachusetts get to have others point and laugh at them whenever they open their mouths to speak.

No, they get to have their mouths stuffed with cock because the male version of the accent just screams for it.

EH? (It's funny because that's how you people speak, and don't say it's a stupid stereotype, it was even on the Simpsons)

People from Boston, Massachusetts don't get to poke fun at others over funny accents. People from Boston, Massachusetts get to have others point and laugh at them whenever they open their mouths to speak.

No, they get to have their mouths stuffed with cock because the male version of the accent just screams for it.

Or like that. However you'd prefer.

Cellphones do not kill bees for the same reason that they don't hurt people. It's the wrong kind of radiation. High frequency radiation is required to do cellular damage. Microwaves can only heat things that have lotas of water in them, that's how a microwave oven works, by exciting the water molecules in food. There is no safety issue here, there never has been. If cellphones used x-rays then it would be but they wouldn't work because the signals would simply ionize the atmosphere instead of passing through it harmlessly. Anyone who tries to sue cellphone companies for some phantom health risk that has already been proven false is ignorant and greedy.

Remember, longwave radiation is heat, shortwave and particle is damaging.

Cellphones do not kill bees for the same reason that they don't hurt people. It's the wrong kind of radiation.

While one can debate if the radiation of cellphones is damaging or not (to bees AND humans), the pattern of bee extinction seen is far more consistent with a disease or parasitic infection spread by the travelling beekeepers than with cellphones. It is not the first time this happens.

Do I fucking blame your people for the raping of the oilsands?

Raping? Ewwwww.

Then again rape is usually about power and oil from shale and sands = power...

Then again rape is usually about power and oil from shale and sands = power...
Compulsive rapists, yeah.

The question is, are oil sands being dateraped?

Compulsive rapists, yeah.

The question is, are oil sands being dateraped?

Nope, that is oil wells (water injections). Oil sands just have chemically treated trophies taken.

People from Boston, Massachusetts don't get to poke fun at others over funny accents. People from Boston, Massachusetts get to have others point and laugh at them whenever they open their mouths to speak.

...


*feels guilty as he just remembered that he owes Sin something*

*sighs*


Tonight. k?


edit: oh, and I mock New Yorkers/Long Islanders pretty often. And pretty much all of my friends accents.

Although we used 'spiritual guardians' as evidence in the Haida (http://www.eaglelaw.org/litigation/featurecases/haidatfl39home/haidatfl39casebackgrounder) case. And won.

No offense, but the people who made that ruling must have been either really stupid or really gullible.

Linky (http://www.cjad.com/node/536279)



It's an interesting attempt, but I just can't see how it would work, unless it can be shown that wireless signals interfere with the use and enjoyment of aboriginal lands.

BUT...what if cell phone signals really are killing bees (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070416/bees_cellphones_070416/20070416)?

Work with me here. A lot of aboriginal land claims, using trespass laws, are actually intended to handle environmental issues that aren't necessarily covered otherwise. What an elder from my nation said about the Manitoba chiefs is that sure, they're hoping to get some money, but they are also hoping to raise awareness about the lack of access to technology on Reserve, as well as raise the issue of the safety of the signals themselves.

So at first glance, it seems like a ridiculous case...and it's pretty much doomed to failure. However, IF the chiefs could introduce evidence that the signals were killing bees, for example, and the consequences radiating out from that...they could possibly have a good trespass case. Keep in mind, they would not need to prove the case 100%, that cell phone signals were killing bees. They would only have to prove on a balance of probabilities, 51% likely or higher.

Thoughts?
Sounds like a pipe dream. If they're truly worried about honeybees and not extortion, then they should start looking for the real cause of the disappearances.

Oh, and note, that 'aboriginal' isn't a favoured term in the US. It's more of a Canadian thing. We're First Nations, or aboriginal most of the time...but never, ever 'Native American'. And in Latin America, it's 'indigenous' when it's not just plain 'Indian'.

I never remember all this. I find it easier just to address people by their names or the names of their nations or tribes.

Cellphones do not kill bees for the same reason that they don't hurt people. It's the wrong kind of radiation. High frequency radiation is required to do cellular damage. Microwaves can only heat things that have lotas of water in them, that's how a microwave oven works, by exciting the water molecules in food. There is no safety issue here, there never has been. If cellphones used x-rays then it would be but they wouldn't work because the signals would simply ionize the atmosphere instead of passing through it harmlessly. Anyone who tries to sue cellphone companies for some phantom health risk that has already been proven false is ignorant and greedy.

Remember, longwave radiation is heat, shortwave and particle is damaging.

That does not seem to be the issue here. Having cellphones broadcasting within a certain range of frequencies too close to the hive keeps the worker bees from returning to the hive. The individual bees are fine, but the hive cannot survive as the food source is cut off.

While one can debate if the radiation of cellphones is damaging or not (to bees AND humans), the pattern of bee extinction seen is far more consistent with a disease or parasitic infection spread by the travelling beekeepers than with cellphones. It is not the first time this happens.

After reading the article, I would hazard a guess that parasitic infection is one of several causes for the problem.

No offense, but the people who made that ruling must have been either really stupid or really gullible.

Perhaps the judges merely took the spiritual importance of the land to the Haida people into consideration when deciding the Crown's obligations to the Haida with respect to the aforementioned land.

Sounds like a pipe dream. If they're truly worried about honeybees and not extortion, then they should start looking for the real cause of the disappearances.

I think the AMC have a more complicated agenda than that. Raising awareness about long term environmental impacts of new technologies may be part of their objectives. Perhaps they are trying to set a legal precedent that protect their interests in the long term. Mind you, they are probably trying to protect the bees too. Ovide Mercredi is involved, and he's pretty gung ho, from what I can remember. I would like to see this snowball into something big.

You don't see a problem with using a possessive adjective?

No, not really. Aborigines can do it too, if they like.

If they were the patent holders of wireless signals, or had the ability to control wireless signals against the will of those who send them, the OP would have made sense.

As it stands, it's complete and utter bullshit, and they're just trying to assert rights over something that they hold no patent on, and have no ability to control.

It's a damned stupid, silly action.

No, they get to have their mouths stuffed with cock because the male version of the accent just screams for it.

Oh god it's so hot, isn't it?

Though I don't agree with the cock stuffing.

...


*feels guilty as he just remembered that he owes Sin something* I was waaaaay too classy to bring it up :D

No offense, but the people who made that ruling must have been either really stupid or really gullible.

No, you just don't understand how it was used. And I don't have the time at the moment to explain it...but at a further date I will. If you really want to know though, you could start by reading the SCC decision (http://www.eaglelaw.org/file/SCC%20Haida%20Reasons%20Nov%2018%202004.pdf).

No matter HOW they came to the outcome they did, it was a good outcome.

No, not really. Aborigines can do it too, if they like.

Yes, I love saying things like, "Our white people" or "Our Chinese people" or "Our redneck Albertans".

Linky (http://www.cjad.com/node/536279)



It's an interesting attempt, but I just can't see how it would work, unless it can be shown that wireless signals interfere with the use and enjoyment of aboriginal lands.

BUT...what if cell phone signals really are killing bees (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070416/bees_cellphones_070416/20070416)?

Work with me here. A lot of aboriginal land claims, using trespass laws, are actually intended to handle environmental issues that aren't necessarily covered otherwise. What an elder from my nation said about the Manitoba chiefs is that sure, they're hoping to get some money, but they are also hoping to raise awareness about the lack of access to technology on Reserve, as well as raise the issue of the safety of the signals themselves.

So at first glance, it seems like a ridiculous case...and it's pretty much doomed to failure. However, IF the chiefs could introduce evidence that the signals were killing bees, for example, and the consequences radiating out from that...they could possibly have a good trespass case. Keep in mind, they would not need to prove the case 100%, that cell phone signals were killing bees. They would only have to prove on a balance of probabilities, 51% likely or higher.

Thoughts?

Or they could build short range transmitters that run on the same frequencies to interfere with the signals on tribal land, and then "rent" those frequencies to the companies who are already broadcasting on them.

Perhaps the judges merely took the spiritual importance of the land to the Haida people into consideration when deciding the Crown's obligations to the Haida with respect to the aforementioned land. Oral histories were used to determine traditional territorial boundaries. But you are essentially on the money. The case, by the way, for the rest of you...was about the duty to consult. Especially in terms of exploiting natural resources on lands that are being claimed by aboriginal people. The Haida case established the need for consultation with aboriginal communities, even before a land claim is completely proven...once that claim is IN the courts, the duty is triggered. Why? Well, if you cut all the trees down and then find out after the fact that you would not have been allowed to do so because it was aboriginal land after all...how do you go about fixing that damage? You don't.

Haida was also an environmental case. Out of the SCC decision came a consultation process that created protected areas of old-growth forest, and an economic plan for the Haida and non-Haida communities impacted by the reduction in forestry.


I think the AMC have a more complicated agenda than that. Raising awareness about long term environmental impacts of new technologies may be part of their objectives. Perhaps they are trying to set a legal precedent that protect their interests in the long term. Mind you, they are probably trying to protect the bees too. Ovide Mercredi is involved, and he's pretty gung ho, from what I can remember. I would like to see this snowball into something big.

Bingo. Once again, you see things with a clearer eye than most. This is at heart, an environmental challenge, and an attempt to get publicity for the status of impoverished aboriginal communities. It is also an attempt to get into the public view the question of how developing technologies affect aboriginal people, either as we are excluded from them, or impacted by them.

I think they'd be shocked more than anyone else were they actually to WIN.

Well this (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-6-14/56482.html) is rather interesting...it seems that in terms of revenue sharing, Manitoba telecom acknowledges that there is something owed.

Manitoba First Nations want the air space over their land to be treated like any other resource.

"When it comes to using our airspace, it's like using our water," says Ovide Mercredi, Chief of the Grand Rapids First Nation in Manitoba.

"They have a cell phone tower standing within the vicinity of our community," says Mercredi. "So we are paying them to use our airspace, but no revenue is coming back to our community."

Mercredi has been negotiating with Manitoba Telecom to come to an agreement on revenue sharing. He says the company's offer of 10 percent of revenue from cellular calls made from the reserve and on cellular phones that are sold on the reserve is "not good enough."

At issue here is the fact that private property owners 'own' the airspace above their lands. But aboriginal lands, being held by the federal government, can not therefore own that airspace. Each Reservation has to apply for special frequency permits in order to establish their own wireless communications service.

"The biggest problem in the aboriginal community is poverty. We are a small community but small telecommunication keeps us self-sustaining," says Mercredi.

There are many roadblocks to getting the frequency access in order to establish telecommunications service on Reserve, if you happen to be a native company. But if you are Roger or Bell, hey, you just set up a tower right outside aboriginal lands and there you go. So, in a free market, why SHOULDN'T we have the option to compete?

Those of you who bitch about how all Indians are on welfare etc...should be heartily supporting the kind of revenue/job-creation that is being discussed by the Manitoba chiefs.

How far up does your air space control go? Is it 200m? 2km?

As far as I knew high flying aeroplanes can go over any private land they wish... How are signals any different?

How far up does your air space control go? Is it 200m? 2km?

As far as I knew high flying aeroplanes can go over any private land they wish...

Well, traditionally cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos applied. (whomever owns the soils, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of the earth). Now, if you have mineral rights (most aboriginal lands include mineral rights) the 'depths of the earth' control still mostly applies, with exceptions.

However, with the advent of new technologies, airspace control has been necessarily limited by policy considerations. There needs to be a balance between the needs of the landowners, and the needs of the public, since the air is common property.

So to answer your question? It completely depends :D

Signals however, pass over at a certain height, and are regulated. Understand, the signals in question are actually servicing the Reserves, and the Reserves are saying, fuck, if we can't have our own towers (because of airspace control issues, and a lack of allowed alternate frequency for First Nations use) then we should be revenue sharing, since WE are your customers.

Well, traditionally cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos applied. (whomever owns the soils, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of the earth). Now, if you have mineral rights (most aboriginal lands include mineral rights) the 'depths of the earth' control still mostly applies, with exceptions.

However, with the advent of new technologies, airspace control has been necessarily limited by policy considerations. There needs to be a balance between the needs of the landowners, and the needs of the public, since the air is common property.

So to answer your question? It completely depends :D

Signals however, pass over at a certain height, and are regulated. Understand, the signals in question are actually servicing the Reserves, and the Reserves are saying, fuck, if we can't have our own towers (because of airspace control issues, and a lack of allowed alternate frequency for First Nations use) then we should be revenue sharing, since WE are your customers.
How do radio signals even begin to qualify as 'use' of airspace? The wave occupy no space and are completely undetectable, except with specialized equipment. It's nothing like having smoke from a nearby factory drift by, or even a high-flying airplane fly over.

Electromagnetic radiation is ubiquitous and it is certainly not for the sake of the earth that these tribes are targeting only one particular source of EM activity.

How do radio signals even begin to qualify as 'use' of airspace? The wave occupy no space and are completely undetectable, except with specialized equipment. It's nothing like having smoke from a nearby factory drift by, or even a high-flying airplane fly over. I suspect it's being phrased in terms of airspace because it's being approached as a property issue. I'm not sure how else they could take this to court to get a better deal than what they seem to be currently stalled on. So yes, it's a stretch...but not a completely impossible one. It is in fact true that use of waters passing through aboriginal lands triggers the duty to consult. No, it is clearly NOT the same as that, but that doesn't meant the court could not stretch things a little. These radio signals are all ready a form of quasi-property. Having that established means there is a slim lead to follow in terms of how and where that quasi-property is used.

Well, traditionally cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos applied. (whomever owns the soils, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of the earth). Now, if you have mineral rights (most aboriginal lands include mineral rights) the 'depths of the earth' control still mostly applies, with exceptions.

Has there ever been a provision that most of the land is to be not used for construction or mining use when given as a native reserve (instead of an ecological reserve)?

However, with the advent of new technologies, airspace control has been necessarily limited by policy considerations. There needs to be a balance between the needs of the landowners, and the needs of the public, since the air is common property.

*Compresses air*

So to answer your question? It completely depends :D

Signals however, pass over at a certain height, and are regulated. Understand, the signals in question are actually servicing the Reserves, and the Reserves are saying, fuck, if we can't have our own towers (because of airspace control issues, and a lack of allowed alternate frequency for First Nations use) then we should be revenue sharing, since WE are your customers.

That clarifies a lot. So they are not contesting the space used in general, just the wavelengths that have facillities in that area to use them. That seems fair enough.

Has there ever been a provision that most of the land is to be not used for construction or mining use when given as a native reserve (instead of an ecological reserve)? Considering that we live on those lands, and our population grows three times as fast as the rest of the Canadian population...it simply wouldn't be possible to mine the bulk of the Reserve etc. Our land is held communally as well, so such a thing would be very unlikely to be agreed to. The Indian Act also has many restrictions on what can be done on reserve.

However, since the Delgamuukw case, the restrictions are more set in stone. Certain areas of the Reserve can be used in any way we like. However, traditional lands can not be put to a use that is inconsistant with the traditional uses. So, as per Lamer's example, a hunting ground can not be turned into a carpark.

Reserve lands are sometimes set up as a series of farm lots, while other have enough of a population to warrant a hamlet, or town, surrounded by other lands. We are extremely cognizant of the fact that there is a limited amount of land that needs to be preserved for all those that come after us. The competing pressure is to find sustainable ways to create employment. It's a hard balance to strike.



That clarifies a lot. So they are not contesting the space used in general, just the wavelengths that have facillities in that area to use them. That seems fair enough.
The thing is, revenue sharing in almost any other form of enterprise is a legal must. This is one of the few areas where that revenue sharing hasn't been figured out yet. So, you log on our lands, you pay us. You do business on our Reserve, you pay us.

I suspect it's being phrased in terms of airspace because it's being approached as a property issue. I'm not sure how else they could take this to court to get a better deal than what they seem to be currently stalled on. So yes, it's a stretch...but not a completely impossible one. It is in fact true that use of waters passing through aboriginal lands triggers the duty to consult. No, it is clearly NOT the same as that, but that doesn't meant the court could not stretch things a little. These radio signals are all ready a form of quasi-property. Having that established means there is a slim lead to follow in terms of how and where that quasi-property is used.
I can understand renting or selling space for the placement of antenna towers. Those are tangible structures that do occupy space. But if I start up a radio station on non-reservation territory with an omni-directional signal, I'm going to broadcast just about everywhere. Unless I can be shown to cause some sort of harm -- usually interference and I guess this is where the honeybees come in -- I'm not going to be subject to any more regulation than the next guy.

I look at cell towers as a nuisance for another reason. They transmit above and below a very popular satellite communications band. Wifi does the same.

This seems like one of those nasty cases where science is irrelevant and the law does what it wants, anyway.

I can understand renting or selling space for the placement of antenna towers. Those are tangible structures that do occupy space. But if I start up a radio station on non-reservation territory with an omni-directional signal, I'm going to broadcast just about everywhere. Unless I can be shown to cause some sort of harm -- usually interference and I guess this is where the honeybees come in -- I'm not going to be subject to any more regulation than the next guy. Most Manitoba Reserves are very isolated...project all around all you want, but the only place you're going to hit is the Reserve.

I look at cell towers as a nuisance for another reason. They transmit above and below a very popular satellite communications band. Wifi does the same.

This seems like one of those nasty cases where science is irrelevant and the law does what it wants, anyway.

Mmm, well it depends on what the case is really about. Sometimes we have to do things in an odd way to get the right results...just because of how certain laws (property for instance) work. Policy considerations are not to be underestimated.

EH? (It's funny because that's how you people speak, and don't say it's a stupid stereotype, it was even on the Simpsons)

There are some maritimers that use "eh" at the end of a sentence in the form of: "I know, eh?" That is hardly typical of all Canadians and it isn't used randomly like that. So I will say: it's a stupid stereotype.

There are some maritimers that use "eh" at the end of a sentence in the form of: "I know, eh?" That is hardly typical of all Canadians and it isn't used randomly like that. So I will say: it's a stupid stereotype.
And then there's the joke about how Canada was named...Besides every Canadian I know, even the French ones, use 'eh' very liberally. Meaning frequently, not in a governmental sense.

And then there's the joke about how Canada was named...Besides every Canadian I know, even the French ones, use 'eh' very liberally. Meaning frequently, not in a governmental sense.

Ah, for a second there I was under the impression they'd instituted a federal policy of "eh" use.

Yes, I love saying things like, "Our white people" or "Our Chinese people" or "Our redneck Albertans".

But... the liberals just won one riding.... progress right? ...Please?

*wants to return to Kingston or Keele*