The Growth of Direct-to-Consumer Models in USA Retail

Such exclusionary practices were terribly unjust, but even the most serious historical wrongs cannot justify today's disregard for core democratic ideals. It is critical that the idea of popular rule be upheld even as we consider strategies to rectify injustices or achieve other worthwhile goals.The British Columbia government's acceptance of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples four years ago is an example of a well-intentioned policy with worrying results, as shown in the closing of Joffre Lakes.The Nations highlighted the Declaration in their notification to close the park, notably the provision that Indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making on issues affecting their rights. This provision is not objectionable from a democratic standpoint.Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has said unequivocally that there is an obligation to engage and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous people impacted by government actions. However, it has not provided a veto for Indigenous people and, in times of disagreement, has instead allowed governments to proceed with judgments justified by the greater public interest.This is generally consistent with democratic norms because federal/provincial decision-makers are accountable to the voters (including Indigenous people) who elected them. Not everyone will agree with every decision, but they can praise or penalize their representatives at the vote box.This is not the case when Indigenous organizations make unilateral decisions that affect the general public, because more than 95 percent of British Columbians who are not Indigenous have no say in electing leaders from those communities. In truth, Indigenous people have no say in who leads the 200-plus Indigenous communities in British Columbia. 

When non-Indigenous and Indigenous British. 

Columbians from communities other than the one making the decision are combined, it is concerning to see a lack of responsibility with around 99.9 percent of the population.As a result, Indigenous and non-Indigenous British Columbians may increasingly be subjected to decisions made by leaders they cannot hold accountable. More concerningly, if we accept the premise of the Joffre Lakes restriction, this may apply to the great majority of British Columbia's land area.According to former B.C. Deputy Minister of Energy and Aboriginal Law specialist Robin Junger, the closure of Joffre Lakes was justified by the park's location within the Nations' traditional area, where ownership has been alleged but not confirmed. While Aboriginal rights are safeguarded by the Constitution, Indigenous groups do not have the right to act unilaterally without regard for the public good, particularly in circumstances where title has not been proven.If the Nations believe that asserting title confers the authority to ban access to public spaces, it is worth noting that 95 percent of British Columbia's land mass is claimed as unceded traditional territory by one or more of the province's 200+ Indigenous communities. If unilateral action is judged an appropriate response to unavoidable differences, it is reasonable to wonder what would prohibit such action not only in other parks, but on any public (or even private) property throughout British Columbia.

Indigenous lawyer Hugh Braker is reported as saying.

"I respect First Nations' right to do whatever they want in their traditional territory," and "I believe we should do more of that in British Columbia." It goes without saying that over 200 groups arbitrarily doing "what they wish" on 95 percent of British Columbia's land in the absence of any democratic engagement with more than 99.9 percent of the impacted populace is a formula for major conflict.This can be extended to the natural resource sector, which is critical to British Columbia's economy and so has a large impact on the general populace. The Declaration demands states to cooperate with Indigenous people to secure their "free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, territories, or other resources."Again, genuine consultation with Indigenous communities is totally consistent with democratic values and is currently mandated by the courts. However, the demand for Indigenous permission creates problems, as reaching an agreement may not always be attainable.If this criteria had been applied to the Site C project, it would not have been built. It is not difficult to imagine how scenarios like Joffre Lakes may set a precedent for choices impacting the vast majority of B.C.'s land being made by bodies with no democratic link to individuals affected. 

The B.C. Minister of Mining's statement that.

when it comes to First Nations, "our approach to natural-resource development must be done in collaboration and partnership with the rightful owners of the land" indicates a broad interpretation of the concept of title, making this scenario more likely.B.C.'s initial bill adopting the Declaration was passed unanimously in 2019, with all three parties in the legislature stating that it would not instantly change existing legislation but would instead serve as a guiding framework for eventual re-definition. Despite the early hype, it will be these less-exciting measures that modify the law, and great attention must be paid to how this occurs.Our governance system's legitimacy is based on the democratic idea of popular rule, which states that "the people" choose the norms that bind them through an accountability connection between governors and the governed. The Joffre Lakes predicament serves as a reminder that, no matter how well-intentioned reconciliation efforts are, ignoring this basic principle cannot be justified.