On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Office of the Premier PREM:EX wrote: > Thank you for your letter regarding Crown Land and our intention to hold a > referendum on Treaty Negotiations in British Columbia. I welcome this > opportunity to review your comments and respond. > > Crown Land is the term used for publicly owned land in Canada.
"Term" is the key word. You can CALL it Crown land all you want but that doesn't make it so. If the First Nation statements I refer to below are correct as I think they are, then the Crown never claimed this land and the PUBLIC, outside the First Nations public also never legally made its claim to this land. The boundaries between what WILL become public land and land which is exclusively First Nation are what you are presently negotiating. For example, IF the Nisga'a decide that within the borders that have been agreed upon by negotiation they want to assert the degree of sovereignty associated with a sovereign nation, they can do so. That is, "IF". So far I have seen no sign that any First Nation is going to request a seat in the UN General Assembly, for example. If they decide to do so at any point in the future, however, I expect they will succeed. The age of colonialism is past. Once the borders between public land and all of the First Nations of BC are agreed to, we will have a strong fourth level of government which I firmly believe will benefit all British Columbians. It's the old issue of "checks and balances" on power. And I think having First Nations in a stronger position with a stronger voice will be good for all of us. As Mr. Ingram pointed out repeatedly on his television show, such settlements will bring economic stability. At first I wasn't so much in agreement because I wondered how stable those borders will be. Now I think that any independent arbiter would be hard pressed to find justification once they are agreed to by both sides. In addition, I think ECONOMIC DIVERSITY will ensue from maximum First Nation autonomy regarding the economic activities within their borders. For example, I have sent you information on the model-city "campaign" which I took up in the late 80's. What if provincial and federal governments were to thwart an excellent project like this, denying the public a chance to see what a model city (like the dormant Bamberton Project) would be like? A city with little or no pollution; none of the traffic fatalities you see in cities like Vancouver where vehicles take over 30 lives each year and so on? Maybe a First Nation would take up such a project to the benefit of all British Columbians as well as its local economy. This is just an example. I could give many more. Anyway, I'm sure this saga will have a happy ending but that will come about faster if you accept that you are negotiating for British Columbians in general while First Nations are negotiating within their rights for their "homelands" as UBCIC literature uses this term, and that within those homelands THEY ARE A FULLY SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. Sincerely-FWP > All British Columbians should know that my government's commitment to > negotiated treaty settlements and the treaty process is not in question, nor > is it open to debate. That is what almost all of the current debate is about. It is on the six o'clock news every night. FWP The referendum will be conducted by mail-in ballot, > and administered by Elections BC. The last day for returning ballots will > be May 15 and the results will be announced as soon as counting is complete. > > Our plan is to help all voters become informed about the referendum > questions and the issues that they address in as fair and neutral a manner > as possible. An independent Referendum Office has been established to > provide information about the referendum process, the treaty process, and > issues of Aboriginal rights and title. In addition to providing > information, the office will help guide the public to other sources of > information or perspectives about the referendum. This Office will send > voters a householder, which will provide information, positions and > arguments relating to the referendum questions. If you would like more > information, I would encourage you to contact the Referendum Office: > > Toll Free: 1-800-227-0396 > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Website: www.treatyreferendum.ca > > Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. It was good to hear from > you. > > Sincerely, > > Gordon Campbell > Premier > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franklin Wayne Poley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: April 11, 2002 6:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Plant, Geoff LASS:EX > Subject: Crown Land = ? > > Could you please define "CROWN LAND" on your ballot? AND TELL US WHY, IN > LAW...I repeat...IN LAW...those so-called "crown" lands are not Indian > Lands? Or is this some kind of lawless, illegal "government" that you are > running? > FWP > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > > > Dear Premier Campbell: > > > > I am at a loss to explain why you would push a referendum on British > > Columbians in the name of "democratic rights" and a "democratic society" > > when its constitutionality has been questioned all along? If you really > > want to serve the principles inherent in the Constitutional references to > > "democratic rights" and a "democratic society" why not tell all of your > > MLA's to set up electronic mini-parliaments in their ridings? > > > > FWP > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:43:46 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: David Ingram at the CEN-TA Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [INGRAM] Re: [CI]: FW: E-democracy networks > > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, David Ingram at the CEN-TA Group wrote: > > > > > I now have five original Florida Voting Machines. > > > > You mean "one-armed bandits"? Planning to set up the Ingram Casino? > > > > We should have a mock > > > election somewhere - maybe something on the referendum(b) > > > > Got news for you. We had a mock election in 2001. Even with 3/4 of BC > > favouring proportional representation, this government will drag its feet > > on electoral reform as long as it can. So the NDP, Greens, Marijuanas and > > Unity, who could all have seats beyond the present 2, will have to wait. > > > > Now that's where Jenny could help, as soon as she approves of the Mount > > Pleasant Online Forum (or whatever she wants to call it). But it will have > > to be announced enthusiastically in her newsletter or it won't go > > anywhere. We have enough people online now (some 3/4 of BC) but we need > > more organizing online. The NDP could start it. > > > > Your reply, Jenny? > > > > FWP > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Franklin Wayne Poley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:40 PM > > > Subject: Re: [INGRAM] Re: [CI]: FW: E-democracy networks > > > > > > > > > > Any time you are ready to announce this Mount Pleasant Electronic > Forum in > > > > your newsletter, let me know and I will set it up on yahoogroups. > > > > Optionally, VCN has a free listserv service (see footer, below). > > > > When you were a Vancouver Councillor, weren't you in favour of a ward > > > > system? You could get it started electronically in your Vancouver > riding. > > > > > > > > City Choices just received about 1,000 replies by postal mail, fax and > > > > Internet. At what cost per "opinion" since they tried to reach all > 500,000 > > > > citizens of Vancouver? Pretty expensive for another dog and pony show, > a > > > > pretense of democracy. > > > > > > > > Why participate when your opinion carries no vote? Thus an electronic > > > > forum should lead step-by-step to a system for voting which is BINDING > on > > > > the elected representative. But once again it takes leadership. That's > > > > your part. > > > > > > > > FWP > > > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > > > > > > > > > You may wish to talk to Jenny Kwan, MLA. Her office has just told us > on > > > > > the Ingram List that they intend to go ahead with an > Intraconstituency > > > > > List-Discussion. This would be the first in the country, a historic > > > event. > > > > > FWP > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Larry Stillman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: February 14, 2002 4:49 PM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: E-democracy networks > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm giving a presentation about e-democracy networks in local > > > government to > > > > > > local government, based on Steve Cliff's ideas & some of my own > (see > > > > > > publicus.net). I particularly interested to know the fate of > > > discussion > > > > > > groups web and email-based) used for discussion and policy-making > by > > > > > > residents and officials. What's their life span? Do they actually > > > effect > > > > > > local politics? How are issues of defamation/free speech dealth > with? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd be interested in some examples of active and failed networks. > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Larry Stillman > > > > > > VICNET & Centre for Community Networking Research > > > > > > Monash University > > > > > > www.ccnr.net.au, www.vicnet.net.au > > > > > > Melbourne, Australia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > This listserve is a free service offered by the Vancouver > CommunityNet > > > > > > For more info on services offered by VCN see > > > http://www.vcn.bc.ca/groups/ > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > In August, 2001, the popular Ingram show was cancelled, suddenly and > > > without explanation. It was the only televised challenge to the > > > social-political establishment of BC. Why did this happen? What can be > done > > > to remedy this assault against our by-Constitution "democratic society"? > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > In August, 2001, the popular Ingram show was cancelled, suddenly and > > > without explanation. It was the only televised challenge to the > > > social-political establishment of BC. Why did this happen? What can be > done > > > to remedy this assault against our by-Constitution "democratic society"? > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > In August, 2001, the popular Ingram show was cancelled, suddenly and > without explanation. It was the only televised challenge to the > social-political establishment of BC. Why did this happen? What can be done > to remedy this assault against our by-Constitution "democratic society"? > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > In August, 2001, the popular Ingram show was cancelled, suddenly and > without explanation. It was the only televised challenge to the > social-political establishment of BC. Why did this happen? What can be done > to remedy this assault against our by-Constitution "democratic society"? > See the following Logs: > > Id#: 269978 > Date Received: February, 27 2002, > Date Written: 00/00/00 > Date Closed: February, 28 2002, > Subject: further to model city project > > Id#: 271585 > Date Received: March, 11 2002, > Date Written: 00/00/00 > Date Closed: April, 3 2002, > Subject: address concerns re metally ill > > Id#: 274507 > Date Received: April, 4 2002, > Date Written: 00/00/00 > Date Closed: 00/00/00 > Subject: further re address concerns re metally ill >
