Tense Standoff Eases as Gitxsan Nation Suspends Evictions from British Columbia Land; All Hinges on Aug. 25th Talks

Gitxsan activists during an “Idle No More” protest action in January 2013

The heated land dispute between the Gitxsan indigenous nation and the federal and provincial governments in north-central British Columbia, Canada, seems to have been resolved peacefully, at least for now, weeks after Gitxsan hereditary chiefs set a deadline for “evicting” those carrying out non-indigenous economic activities on their vast, 33,000-square-kilometer territorial claim.  Canadian media reported August 9th that the Gitxsan treaty office said the nation was suspending eviction notices to Canadian National Railway (C.N.) and timber and sport-fishing outfits after the Crown agreed to allow amendments to an agreement which Gitxsan claim signed some territories away to downriver villages of the Tsimshian nation.

Gitxsan activists during a C.N. railroad blockade protest last year

But the suspensions hold only until August 25th, the date of planned meetings between the Crown, the Gitxsan, and leaders from the two Tsimshian villages in question, Kitsumkalum and Kitselas.  The easing of the Gitxsan position came just days after the nation’s chief negotiator, Gwaans, whose English name is Beverley Clifton Percival, had told national news media, “The eviction is going forward.  [But] we’re being reasonable.  We’re giving all parties time to act.  We’re trying to work with all parties.”

The Gitxsan territorial claim
(some boundaries disputed by neighboring nations)

As reported earlier in this blog, the Gitxsan set the August 4th deadline last month after aboriginal title to territory was strengthened in official eyes by a dramatic court ruling in favor of the Tsihlqot’in (Chilcotin) nation in south-central B.C.  The deadline passed (reported earlier this month in this blog) amid a tense few days in the remote forest region, with C.N. temporarily suspending rail traffic and, according to news reports, First Nations people ejecting anglers from Gitxsan lands.

Nearly all land in B.C. was absorbed into Canada without any Indian treaties, and the Tsihlqot’in decision is only the latest in a series of court findings, starting with the Gitxsan’s own land claim in the early 1990s, which is determining that indigenous people have unextinguished rights in the land.  The extent of these rights is still being explored, but the Tsihlqot’in ruling requires aboriginal permission, not just consultation, for economic activities on the land.  In B.C., there is already a lot of political momentum in aboriginal communities, generated by a wave of protests over the past couple years as part of the nationwide “Idle No More” uprising against oil pipelines and other projects.

An aboriginal protester during an “Idle No More” day of action in Manitoba last year

Tenimgyet, a Gitxsan hereditary chief whose English name is Art Mathews, said of the suspension, “It is a very positive move by the Crown to undertake to work diligently with Kitselas and Kitsumkalum to ensure that all parties in the situation are dealt with honourably.  The government being honourable is not a one-size fits all.”

Joe Bevan, chief councillor of the Kitselas (Gits’ilaasü) First Nation, a Tsimshan community whose territory borders Tenimgyet’s tribal village, said that he was open to discussions but was certainly not ready to give ground.  “We’re true to our lands,” Bevan said, “we know where our territory is, our traditional land, and we’ve been using it for thousands of years.  Our door is open for the Gitxsan to come in and have an open and frank discussion.  It’s quite unfortunate that the Gitxsan have taken the role that they have and this type of route, that’s not the way we operate but that’s what they’ve chosen to do.”

Kitselas’s chief councillor Joe Bevan, second from right, flanked by Chinese trade delegates
and the mayor of Terrace, a town which sits on unceded Tsimshian territory

Clifton Percival, the Gitxsan negotiator, meanwhile emphasized that her nation’s dispute is with the government, not with the Tsimshian.

Beverley Clifton Percival

[You can read more about the Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Nisga’a, etc., as well as sovereignty and independence movements both famous and obscure, in my new book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas just published by Litwin Books under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  The book, which contains 46 maps and 554 flags (or, more accurately, 554 flag images), is available for order now on Amazon.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even if you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this interview for more information on the book.]

[Full disclosure: I have worked extensively with, and published about, Tsimshian communities, especially Kitsumkalum, and have conducted research which defends that community’s interests.  Also, Beverley Clifton Percival was once a graduate student of mine.  But none of my research focused on territorial disputes, and I take no position on the disagreements between Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, and the Gitxsan.]

Deadline in British Columbia for “Eviction” from Gitxsan Aboriginal Lands Arrives; Chiefs Plan “Direct Action”

Chief Francis Laceese of the Tl’esqox First Nation

Last month in this blog, I reported on an announcement by hereditary chiefs from the indigenous Gitxsan nation in northern British Columbia that, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions in Canada recognizing aboriginal title, railroads, sport fishing, and logging operations in the vast Gitxsan territories had until August 4th to clear out.  Today is the deadline for that “eviction notice,” and there are no indications that any of the entities served notice are pulling up stakes and decamping.

A “Gitxsan against Enbridge” demonstration in 2012

The Gitxsan’s negotiator, Gwaans, whose English name is Beverley Clifton Percival, told an interviewer last week that if the deadline passed with no movement, then “next steps” would be taken.  “We are going to take action against C.N. [Canadian National Railways], and we are going to look at the railway line and a potential disruption of service,” she added.  “We’re going to take action August 5 if there is no action by the Crown. ... We don’t want any violence or confrontation, but we want the Crown to step up.  We want to deal with C.N., we want to deal with the sport fisheries, we want to deal with B.C. Timber Sales.”

The Supreme Court of Canada’s June 26th ruling in favor of the Tsihlq’otin (a.k.a. Chilcotin) First Nation, in south-central B.C., affirmed that in unceded, untreatied lands such as those of the Tsihlq’otin, Gitxsan, and most other aboriginal nations within the province’s declared boundaries, non-aboriginals would need “consent” in order to use the land.  This replaces the previous political dispensation, under which ill-defined “consultation” was sufficient.

There are also at least eleven lawsuits now filed by B.C. First Nations seeking to halt Enbridge Inc.’s planned Northern Gateway Pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, B.C., through Gitxsan and other territories.  (To complicate matters, not all Gitxsan hereditary chiefs are in favor of the eviction notice or against the Enbridge pipeline.)

None of the government ministries or private firms to which the eviction notice is to apply had any comment.

This blog will keep readers updated on what happens as the day for action against arrives tomorrow.

[You can read more about the Gitxsan and other indigenous, separatist, and new-nation movements, both famous and obscure, in my new book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas just published by Litwin Books under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  The book, which contains 46 maps and 554 flags (or, more accurately, 554 flag images), is available for order now on Amazon.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even if you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this interview for more information on the book.]

Gitxsan Chiefs in British Columbia Serve Eviction Notice on Fishermen, Railroads, Logging Industry across Vast Territory

Yesterday, July 20th, was the 143rd anniversary of British Columbia’s confederation—i.e., when it ceased to be a colony of the United Kingdom and became a member of the then-four-year-old independent Dominion of Canada.  But celebration by some Canadians in one vast territory in the northern interior of the province was muted.  For it was also the ninth day of a countdown to August 4th under the terms of an indigenous “eviction notice” that challenges the legitimacy of settler rule in B.C.  For it was on July 10th that the hereditary chiefs of two tribal villages of the Gitxsan nation, Gitwanga (a.k.a. Kitwanga) and Gitsegukla, gave notice to Canadian National Railway (C.N.) and individuals and institutions representing the sport fishing and timber industries.  The notice, issued by the Gitxsan Treaty Society in Hazelton, B.C. (even though there is no Gitxsan treaty and many Gitxsan don’t want one; more on this below), states that it covers all of the approximately 33,000 square kilometers of northern B.C. territory belonging to the land-holding leaders of the several dozen extended matrilineal families (“houses”—similar to European noble houses) that make up the Gitxsan nation.  It states, in part, “This eviction notice affects all sports fisheries on the Skeena River and tributaries, all forest activities … and C.N. Rail.  All are expected to vacate and cease activities on Aug. 4, 2014, until both Crowns [i.e. the provincial and federal governments] have obtained the required consent of the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs.”

The Gitxsan chiefs are using centuries of legal precedent.  This includes not only the millennia of Gitxsan law strictly governing the use of family-owned territories—the Gitxsan ayookw—but also a series of Canadian legal decisions which recognize Gitxsan law.  In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, King George III (yes, the same chap who later got so grumpy about surrendering certain other North American territories) affirmed that no scrap of Indian land can come under the rule of the Crown without treaty—and yet in only a few remote corners of B.C. were any treaties ever signed.  Then, Delgamuukw vs. the Queen, a massive lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments brought in the late 1980s by the Gitxsan (the spelling Gitksan was preferred in those days) and a neighboring nation which speaks an unrelated language but exercises an interlocking system of land tenure, the Wet’suwet’en, was struck down in an openly racist court ruling but then partly upheld in an appeal a few years later in a decision that recognized that aboriginal title did exist and that mostly oral traditions such as those of the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en could constitute title.  It left open what the nature of such title was, let alone its implications.

Earl Muldoe (seated, at left), holder of the chiefly title Delgamuukw,
a made famous in the annals of Canadian law

A 2004 ruling in a case brought by the Haida people of northwestern B.C., Haida Nation v. Minister of Forests (B.C.), laid out a stricter process for consulting in land use than the de facto system of “‘consult’ with tribes, then do what you want anyway” under which government and industries have mostly operated in the treatyless lands.  Earlier this year, a case involving the south-central B.C. Tsihlqot’in (a.k.a. Chilcotin) nation, Tsihlqot’in Nation v. B.C., reaffirmed the Delgamuukw 1997 appeal decision in more concrete terms and recognized a governmental-type role for First Nations on equal par with, and in some respects above, the Crown.

As Vernon Smith, who holds the Gitxsan hereditary title Sagum Higookw, pointed out, “In line with our ayookw, the Supreme Court of Canada says repelling trespassers is a necessary element of our title.”  And, as Beverley Clifton Percival,* a negotiator who holds the hereditary title Gwaans from Gitsegukla’s House of Hanamuuxw, said, “There is no legislative authority for these government bureaucrats to make determinations regarding Gitxsan strength of title and rights.  Without the consent by the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs, they are trespassers.”

Beverley Clifton Percival

Clifton Percival also told media that the specific land dispute which brought about the eviction notice involves territories claimed by Gitxsan houses which are being treated in Crown negotations as territory of the Kitselas (Gits’ilaasü) and Kitsumkalum (Gitsmgeelm),** two tribal villages downriver which are part of the linguistically and culturally related Tsimshian (Ts’msyeen) nation.  She added, “We want the Gitxsan lands taken out of the offer, that’s the only part we’re interested in; we also want to achieve reconciliation with the crown of Canada and British Columbia, and we want to have a good legal relationship that moves us all forward in a positive way in the creation of a sustainable economy here in the northwest that allows people to benefit, and as well we have an economic component to our title, so any revenues that are generated on our lands, we’re entitled to that.”

Approximate territories of the coastal nations of British Columbia

Art Mathews, who holds the chiefly title Tenimgyet from Gitwangak, added, “The Crown has never been honourable in their engagement with the Gitksan since 1997.  Harvesters of trees and fish are now evicted.”

Heiltsuk protesters greet a visiting government
negotiating team in Bella Bella, B.C., in 2012.

Al Wilson of the B.C. Wildlife Federation acknowledges that the Tsihlq’otin ruling is still so recent that no one has really grasped its full implications, which are immense. “Clearly,” Martin said, “government is trying to get their mind around that [court decision].  It’s early days.  It’s clear there is a lot of work to be done to figure out the implications of this as you translate from the judgment level of the Supreme Court to how things will actually work across landscapes and watersheds and how it will affect the use of resources, including fish and wildlife.”  The Gitxsan eviction notice accelerates mightily the timetable under which the implications of the decision will need to be sorted out.

The Enbridge pipeline would run through the territory of the Wet’suwet’en, which has joined other
Dene (Athabaskan) speaking nations in the anti-pipeline Yinka Dene Alliance.

But these latest developments have a much larger context as well.  The Northern Gateway Pipeline being planned by Enbridge, Inc., to run from Alberta’s tar sands to the small northern-B.C. harbor city of Kitimat, in the Haisla nation’s territory, would run through a snippet of Gitxsan territory—and, as discussed earlier in this blog, a significant part of Wet’suwet’en lands as well.  Numerous First Nations along the route have organized against the pipeline, which they see as not just an environmental but an existential threat, and the movement has galvanized indigenous communities throughout Canada and the United States under the catch phrase “Idle No More”—evoking the image of a sleeping giant being stirred to action by a further atrocity.

Nathan Cullen, the New Democratic Party’s member of parliament (M.P.) for the area, has pleaded for calm.  Meanwhile, the squatters have till August 4th to clear off.  I have a feeling they won’t, and that the struggle for the land will enter a new chapter.  Watch this space.

[You can read more about the Tsimshian, Gitxsan, Nisga’a, etc., as well as sovereignty and independence movements both famous and obscure, in my new book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas just published by Litwin Books under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  The book, which contains 46 maps and 554 flags (or, more accurately, 554 flag images), is available for order now on Amazon.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even if you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this interview for more information on the book.]

Related: hear the author of this blog discuss the Cascadia independence movement in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in a recent interview for Seattle’s N.P.R. affiliate station KUOW-FM.  Click here to listen.

* Full disclosure: Ms. Percival was a graduate student of mine some years ago at the University of Northern British Columbia’s Terrace campus, though I think I learned at least as much from her as she did from me.

** More full disclosure: I have worked very closely with the Kitsumkalum and Kitselas communities, and in particular with hereditary chiefs and treaty negotiators of the Kitsumkalum community.  I myself take no personal position in any territorial dispute; my work there has not focused on territorial questions but on other governance issues such as membership policy.