Lawyers criticize Marshall decision

The Supreme Court of Canada is being taken to task for its handling of the Donald Marshall case by lawyers attending a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Halifax.

Two lawyers attending the meeting say the court should not have responded to an application by non-native commercial fishers in Nova Scotia, who were upset with its original ruling on the Donald Marshall case.

One lawyer says Canada's highest court bowed to political pressure. The other says it was influenced by reports in the media, which were critical of the affirmation of the rights of First Nations people to make a reasonable livelihood by fishing.

Meanwhile, others tried to help determine the definition of "moderate livelihood" in last year's court decision. Some say the term is vague and is responsible for the confrontations between native fishers and the DFO.

The East Coast fishing dispute grows directly from a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that upheld the Treaty Rights of Donald Marshall, and by extension the Mi'kmaq people.

Stuart Gilby, who argued the case for native groups, says the turmoil will continue until Ottawa begins to accept its defeat and move forward. "I think it's reinforced the government's belief that it can regulate without true consultation," Gilby said.

Whatever the court's motivation, Noel Knockwood, a respected Mi'kmaq elder, says Ottawa is responsible for the turmoil. "Respect must be a two-way street, it cannot be a one-way street," he said.