make in court, if and when an appeal date is set.
To be crystal clear the issue on appeal is sentencing. All the big
issues (right to say no, moratorium, free, prior and informed consent,
outstanding land claim, land use planning) are still unresolved and can
only be resolved in a political solution.
In the first wave of First Nation litigation the Courts came to the
conclusion that negotiations were preferable to litigation.
But what happens when the parties cannot come to agreement in
negotiations?
IN this case the blunt instrument of incarceration was used in an
attempt to compel KI to "agree" to a deal that the judge thought was
reasonable.
Reason within the law led to a result that on any reading will only
lead away from the reconciliation of First Nations and the newcomers.
Jails are a failure in the rehabilitation of ordinary criminals let
alone political prisoners.
Jails call up memories of residential school, the grass prison of the
indian reserve and the sixties scoop of aboriginal children.
The KI case is a classic illustration of why the law and justice can be
two solitudes, particularly in the case of First Nations.
It seems to me that an appeal court might want to find a reason to say
that negotiations are preferable to incarceration.
