Sharing this post to boost the signal

Sharing this post to boost the signal

DISCLAIMER: Jodi Bishop has given Friends of Kentville permission to publish this notice. We are publishing it so people can read the document themselves. We are not alleging that the notice was unlawful or that anyone involved acted improperly. We are asking for clarification of the circumstances surrounding it.”

I’ve been digging further into what happened with Jodi Bishop and the Friends of Kings meal at Centre Square on September 22, and there’s one part of this that is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile.

The RCMP prohibition notice says the incident was September 22 at 4:43 p.m. and prohibits Jodi from Centre Square for a year, from October 1, 2026 to October 1, 2027. But the notice doesn't actually tell us what happened at 4:43 p.m.

It doesn't identify an alleged offence or say that Jodi refused to leave, caused a disturbance, damaged anything, or violated some particular rule. It simply gives the date and time and identifies the Town of Kentville as the occupier/authorized representative.

Then there's the food permit issue.

On September 17 - five days before the meal - Mayor Andrew Zebian emailed Jodi back:

“I know we had spoken two weeks ago regarding you using Town property without a provincial food permit. Were you successful with obtaining a food permit and have you spoken with the Town about possibly booking space?”

So this wasn't something that suddenly came up after the September 22 meal. The Mayor was already telling Jodi that she needed a provincial food permit.

But when I went back to the actual Nova Scotia Food Safety Regulations, I found something pretty important.

The regulations specifically exempt food prepared and served by a not-for-profit organization for functions or gatherings. The exemption has an exception for functions held in conjunction with a fair, exhibition, festival or other temporary food-service event.

Friends of Kings has been doing these community meals at Centre Square for years. This is community outreach - providing a meal and a place for people to gather - rather than a commercial food operation. The group isn't charging people for the food or operating a restaurant out of Centre Square.

And that's important because community spaces are often exactly where this kind of outreach happens. A community meal isn't just about the food. Centre Square provides a place where people can sit down, eat, talk and connect with other people. For people who may not have many other places to do that, the space itself is part of the outreach.

So, based on the regulation and the established nature of these meals, the provincial food-safety exemption appears directly applicable here. The fact that Friends of Kings is an informal local community group rather than a commercial food business doesn't, by itself, take it outside the exemption.

That doesn't mean the Town had to allow them to use Centre Square. That's a separate question.

The Town controls its property and can have rules about who can use it, whether space has to be booked, and what conditions apply. But that's different from saying a provincial food permit was required.

And that's where I think the unanswered questions really are:

Why was Jodi being told she needed a provincial food permit for these meals? And why was she singled out when she only began volunteering in May?

The Mayor's September 17 email is particularly interesting because he mentions the provincial food permit and then separately asks whether she had spoken with the Town about “possibly booking space.”

So even in his own wording, these appear to be two separate issues: provincial food regulation and permission to use Town property.

I don't think we should fill in the missing pieces ourselves.

What we have is a long-running community meal program, a provincial regulation that specifically exempts not-for-profit organizations serving food at functions or gatherings, and a Mayor telling the organizer five days before the September 22 meal that she needed a provincial food permit.

Then, on September 22, something happened at 4:43 p.m. that ultimately resulted in an RCMP prohibition notice lasting a year despite the fact no law enforcement was present for the alleged incident.

What happened at 4:43 p.m., and how did the food-permit issue factor into any of this?

That's still the part the public hasn't been given an explanation for.

u/Kennit — 13 days ago

My unfinished Doggerland build

Suggestions welcome for additional work areas or ways to improve or build upon the Mesolithic vibe.

u/Kennit — 5 months ago

An Open letter from Brian Dorey to Premier Houston re: offering Liquor to Indians (Mi’kmaq) to settle disputes

May 6, 2026

Dear “Honourable” Premier Houston:

Let me begin by stating how absolutely unacceptable, disrespectful, inappropriate, and short-sighted it is for you to offer the Mi’kmaq liquor stores as a means of settling the ongoing cannabis sales matter. The days of using liquor to encourage Indians to do as you wish have long passed. To not recognize this optic is inexplicable. Government history is repeating itself, but be assured: we remember our history and our past, and we have learned from it well. Remember, when you forget history, you tend to make the same mistakes.

Firstly, why are First Nations not eligible as candidates for their own independent liquor stores? Why must First Nations agree to limit the rights of their collective members just to be eligible to get a liquor store? What rights did non-Indian independent liquor store owners give up to get their liquor stores? Why would the Province not provide First Nations economic opportunities, without rights implications, as part of its responsibilities for economic reconciliation?

In reality, a liquor store on reserve is not even economically feasible for most Nova Scotia First Nations due to population and location. Your solution will not address the issue for these First Nation communities. Your “this one solution is best for you Indians” approach is as paternalistic as it is incorrect. Your solution undermines the Mi’kmaq leadership’s assertion of its right to regulate commerce, including cannabis. Why is Mi’kmaq self-regulation not an acceptable approach?

As well, and disappointingly so, alcohol use on many First Nations is an issue of health and safety concern. Providing greater, easier, and cheaper access will potentially, and negatively, affect our communities’ health. Did you not say you are responsible for the health and safety of the public? Are we not part of the public? Why is it provincially acceptable to create a situation in which the health and safety of First Nations is placed at further potential risk?

Secondly, limiting First Nation economic development to on-reserve activities does little or nothing to address the historic socio-economic disadvantaging of Indians by governments. Your approach is endemic of government approaches to Indian rights: offer them certainty in a small area – reserves – versus “uncertainty” in the larger area – Mi’kma’ki. Be assured, we are certain of our rights existing throughout our traditional territory of Mi’kma’ki. It is only your government that claims uncertainty.

Your reference to the R. v. Marshall decision as the basis for your cannabis enforcement actions is hypocritical. You use a case that stated there was not sufficient evidence presented to support the Mi’kmaq treaty right for the sale of cannabis. The decision by Provincial Court Judge Ronda van der Hoek in June 2024 rejected the treaty rights defence for operating an unlicensed cannabis establishment. However, this decision is a limited one and in no way fully resolves the ongoing and hotly contested issue in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada. The limited nature of Judge van der Hoek’s decision is emphasized by the following factor: the Judge expressly stated that the evidence presented in that case did not provide a factual basis to establish a treaty rights defence, but that she would “welcome a future such case on a stronger factual foundation.”

The hypocrisy is that you use that court decision to justify your actions, but when it comes to the “livelihood” fishery decision in Marshall in 1999, your government has actively frustrated the exercise of the Mi’kmaq right by increasing fines to lobster buyers for buying Mi’kmaq treaty fishery lobster catches. This action effectively takes away the market and the Mi’kmaq livelihood fishery. The fine was increased to some $1 million for lobster buyers. How is this provincial government action in keeping with implementing court decisions? Additionally, you are relying on a Provincial Court decision on cannabis to justify your actions, yet you have frustrated the implementation of a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the livelihood fishery for the last 27 years. And R. v. Marshall has been appealed, with a final decision not yet rendered.

The Mi’kmaq/Indigenous cannabis issue has not been resolved at higher court levels in Nova Scotia or anywhere in Canada at this time.

Admittedly, I would recommend that the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs give notice to the Province that it intends to terminate all natural resource agreements with the Province, including mining, forestry, energy, and related agreements. Also, I would ask the Assembly to demand that all road construction, housing, commercial development, and such other activities affecting lands cease within the Province until full archaeological assessments are completed, consultations with the Mi’kmaq are undertaken in accordance with the Crown’s legal duty, and impact benefit agreements are completed and approved by the Mi’kmaq communities. After much thought, however, I realize that these actions would negatively impact the citizens of the Province, people we have no issue with and who, respectfully, should not be harmed for the actions of their government.

Premier, please share the financial and economic value of the agreements, including forestry, mining, power generation, tourism, and related agreements, that the Province has made with Mi’kmaq communities so that the public is aware of the value and benefits the Mi’kmaq have provided to the Province through mutual discussions.

Premier, I struggle with the fact that the Mi’kmaq have, and continue to, work with your government to better the Province, yet the Province impedes our efforts to better ourselves. Your approach to resolving this cannabis matter is one that negates individual Mi’kmaq entrepreneurism and Mi’kmaq government’s assertion and implementation of rights and sovereignty. Will you be implementing a similar practice for the rest of the Province, stifling individual entrepreneurism throughout the Province in favour of municipal control of economic development activities? Additionally, I find it extremely coincidental that, right after the Nova Scotia Chiefs spoke out against the Province’s actions regarding Mi’kmaq cannabis, the Province subsequently cut Mi’kmaq funding programs.

My final comment is on the relationship between the Mi’kmaq and the Province. On one hand, you have a Nation, the Mi’kmaq, dealing with, on the other hand, a non-Nation, the Province. The non-Nation operates as if it has the right to assert jurisdiction and authority over the Nation. The Province is a creation of its founding Nation, Canada. Indigenous peoples have Nation recognition through the British North America Act of 1763 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Province does not have legal status as a Nation. Yet the Mi’kmaq deal with you out of respect as an elected body selected by your electorate. Would you accept any of your municipalities usurping your provincial authority? If not, why would you expect the Mi’kmaq to accept the Province usurping Mi’kmaq authority?

In recognition of your aggressive fervour to implement this R. v. Marshall Provincial Court decision, let me bring to your attention R. v. Isaac, 1975, a Provincial Court decision that still stands uncontested to date. This court case deemed that there was no evidence that the Mi’kmaq ever ceded title to lands or resources in Nova Scotia. Can we rely on your equally expedient action, as with how you responded to the implementation of R. v. Marshall, to implement the court’s recognition of Mi’kmaq rights to all Nova Scotia lands and resources?

I will conclude by bringing your attention to a provincial action that I believe truly states how your government really recognizes the place of the Mi’kmaq in your government’s eyes and actions. In 2022, as Premier, you announced the passage of the Mi’kmaw Language Act, a provincial law recognizing Mi’kmaw as the first language in the Province of Nova Scotia.

Then your government put up road signs throughout Nova Scotia welcoming travellers. The word “welcome” is first in English, second in French, and lastly in Mi’kmaq. Mi’kmaq last again. Shouldn’t respect, the honour of the Crown, implementation of your language law, and true recognition and reconciliation require the signs to state welcome in the Mi’kmaq language first, English second, and French third? Obviously not, according to your actions.

In recognition of Mi’kmaq Treaty, Aboriginal Title, and Aboriginal Rights,

Kevin Brian Dorey

Federal Assimilation Number 0250287901

Sipekne’katik

Source: Micmac Rights Association

reddit.com
u/Kennit — 5 months ago