"Unfortunately, this glaring issue did not seem to percolate into the wider Canadian consciousness, and many people remain unaware of it. In 1999, the Supreme Court passed down another judgement confirming that the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760-1761 did not cede land or resources. This cannot be emphasized strongly enough: the Mi’kmaq never gave up legal rights to their land or resources. Canada does not own the land that the people of Elsipogtog are defending.

This is not conspiracy theory, or indigenous interpretation. This is Canadian law, interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, applying Canadian constitutional principles. Yet somehow, this most important fact is left out of most reports on Elsipogtog as though it is barely relevant."

it's not left as irrelevant; this interpretation is simply not correct. what this is is a fantastical interpretation that certain activist groups are holding to, and no court has ever upheld.

the 1760/1761 treaties are less important in canadian law than the 1763 declaration. treaties or not, extinguished rights or not, imperial decree has unilaterally annexed the land. empires speak with guns, not courts.

the document must be referring to marshall, which discussed rights to land/resource use. this is a question of a positive economic right, not a negative ecological right. one is an individual right, the other is a community right. there's no constitutional protection for group rights in canada. there's consequently no connection there, except in the eyes of some ignorant activists.

if they could show in court that the fracking infringed on some individual right - like the security of the person - then they may have an argument that the court might take seriously. but they do not have the legal capacity to control what happens on crown land. that's just how it is with our law, currently. sorry.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/11/14/the_oftenignored_facts_about_elsipogtog.html

the frustrating part about this is that people don't understand that our legal system is a farce designed to protect powerful interests. it's like a cult that preys on people's psychological weaknesses; the weakness here is people's desire to solve things through peaceful means. so many wasted hours, so much wasted effort....all of it could be prevented if people just looked at the court system for what it is - a farce - and stopped wasting their time with it.

again: the court will acknowledge individual rights. it does not have the framework to acknowledge group rights. there's no connection between marshall and elsipogtog. no matter how much you wish there was.

the relevant jurisprudence in the area is related to the duty to consult, which subsequent rulings have indicated do not imply a duty to listen. farce.

there's of course the possibility that all my ramblings about the court system being a farce could work in the protestor's favour. there are some "activist judges" out there willing to twist the law around to get some positive results. this is what these glimmers of hope are based around.

but the interpretation here by chelsea vowel remains a naive projection of what she wants the law to say rather than what the law actually says.

...and one should expect the court to rule in favour of capital.