Canadian Political Events

Beyond Ottawa => Provincial and Local Politics => Topic started by: Granny on February 10, 2020, 01:09:08 am

Title: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 10, 2020, 01:09:08 am
I'm putting this in the provincial forum because it's BC's problem, though with implications and actions across the country.

Some Ontario folks may be aware that trains are stopped in Tyendinaga Mohawk territory near Belleville. They're not blocking the tracks or the road. They're just peacefully standing beside the tracks, on public property, not CN property. CN has stopped the trains. The OPP are standing by, but not bothering them as they're not breaking any laws.

Maybe you heard on the news as I did that there is now an injunction against them.
Well ... if you read the link below you will learn ...
CN police drove their car onto the tracks, got out and took a picture of it, and got an injunction.
The OPP won't be enforcing that injunction: It's not their injunction.
The OPP are investigating whether any "laws were broken or evidence falsified to get that injunction".

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156594572562455&id=537027454

#WetsuetenStrong
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 10, 2020, 07:40:28 am
is the waldo's interpretation correct... or not?

=> Wet’suwet’en Nation is comprised of 6 respective bands made up of less than 3500 persons in total

=> 20 impacted indigenous 'nations/bands', as consulted throughout the 5 year undertaking, have given their support/approval of the Coastal GasLink’s (CGL) 670 km pipeline that will carry fracked natural gas from Dawson Creek, B.C., in the northeast, to Kitimat on the coast. The pipeline route's 670 km length includes 190 km that passes through the claimed land of the Wet’suwet’en Nation. These 20 indigenous 'nations/bands' include 5 of the 6 bands that make up the Wet’suwet’en Nation

=> the pipeline project has presented a divide within members of the Wet’suwet’en Nation itself... a majority of members voted to approve the pipeline. The internal dispute appears to be one between elected chiefs (who have given approval) and 13... thirteen hereditary chiefs (who have not).

=> 13 hereditary chiefs for some... less than 3500 persons in total. The waldo interprets there is no treaty signed/involved between the B.C. government and the Wet’suwet’en Nation

=> these 20 First Nations participated extensively during five years of consultation on the pipeline, and have successfully negotiated agreements with Coastal GasLink

=> per negotiated agreements, along with revenue from Impact Benefits Agreements and Provincial Pipeline Agreements, Indigenous businesses will benefit from $620 million in contract work for the project’s right-of-way clearing, medical, security and camp management needs. There is another $400 million in additional contract and employment opportunities for Indigenous and local B.C. communities during pipeline construction.

APTN National News: ‘We’ve got a real divide in the community:’ Wet’suwet’en Nation in turmoil (https://aptnnews.ca/2020/01/27/weve-got-a-real-divide-in-the-community-wetsuweten-nation-in-turmoil/)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 10, 2020, 09:07:11 am
What’s the difference between a hereditary chief and Royalty? We have a bunch of Monarchists out there protesting.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 11:32:37 am
There isn't unanimity from within the tribes, however my understanding is a majority supports the pipeline.

That's a problem to be dealt with, however much of the coverage doesn't focus on the organizational structure and how that leads us here.  It's all "oil vs natives" which isn't the whole picture.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 11:56:49 am
There isn't unanimity from within the tribes, however my understanding is a majority supports the pipeline.

That's a problem to be dealt with, however much of the coverage doesn't focus on the organizational structure and how that leads us here.  It's all "oil vs natives" which isn't the whole picture.

I agree.  If a tribe/band doesn't sign off on it and protests, ok i support that.  But if it does sign off on it and the majority agree with the decision and some people from the minority protest then they have a much weaker case.  These protestors don't represent all of the natives or their bands.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 01:56:14 pm
The point some are making is that nobody agreed to cede the monarchy to Canada. 

Again, a fair point.  But don't dumb the conflict down to something else...
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 10, 2020, 03:06:54 pm
The point some are making is that nobody agreed to cede the monarchy to Canada. 

Again, a fair point.  But don't dumb the conflict down to something else...


Maybe not but should that monarchy be able to dictate to a majority of its "citizens" who voted to do something else? Why don't these hereditary chiefs run for office and get some real credibility because they don't seem to have the support of a majority of their band members.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 03:46:17 pm
More...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-no-those-who-defend-the-wetsuweten-territory-are-not-criminals/
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 03:47:05 pm
Democracy isn't the ultimate measure of legitimacy.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 10, 2020, 03:56:43 pm
Democracy isn't the ultimate measure of legitimacy.


Ultimately the courts are and they have decided.

That is why there are injunctions agains these people, they are breaking the law.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 04:12:15 pm

Ultimately the courts are and they have decided.

That is why there are injunctions agains these people, they are breaking the law.

These are complex issues.  I'm no expert on the Indian Act or who is the legitimate voice of local government for these bands.  These are legal questions and should be resolved in the courts.  If protestors don't want pipelines built on their territory when they haven't consented they should go through the courts. I'm sure there are pro bono lawyers who would help represent them.

I support whatever decision the lawful and legitimate representatives of these native bands have decided on these pipelines, it's their territory.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 05:05:57 pm
I support whatever decision the lawful and legitimate representatives of these native bands have decided on these pipelines, it's their territory.

There may be two sets of representatives.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 10, 2020, 06:28:25 pm
I'm going to say what I think I know that may clear up some of the questions you've all raised.

The Indigenous governance that existed at contact is what we now call the traditional or hereditary Councils. The leadership consists of Chiefs (spokespeople) and Clan Mothers (advisors). (They are not 'hereditary' like the British Monarchy: Clan Mothers choose Chiefs from among eligible relatives.) There are usually multiple Nations/Houses, each with a number of Clans. All decisions were ultimately made by all of the people, in a consensus decision-making model.
Their territories were vast, with many villages throughout. There may also be hunting grounds shared
with neighbouring nations (eg, Gitxsan).
Wet'suet'en Nations have never signed treaties, never ceded land to the Crown.

Canada forced villagers onto small 'reserves' (now called First Nations), first imposed 'Indian Agents', and then imposed elected Band Council governments.
Canada also outlawed traditional governance - meetings, ceremony (eg 'potlatch'), regalia, etc. Traditional leaders were targeted for harassment, or worse, children were taken to 'Indian' Residrntial Schools, Indigenous peoples were barred from using Canada's courts to pursue their rights or any justice, except as criminals, etc. etc. etc.

After the 1948 Convention on Genocide (oops!) Canada started to change its laws, but not before one last massive campaign to steal and 'de-Indigenize' their children - the 'Sixties Scoop'.
Then in the Constitution Act 1982: "Existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed", including all land and other rights that existed 'at contact', and any acquired since via treaty.

Via the 'Indian' Act, Canada limited elected Band Council (First Nations) legal authority/jurisdiction to their tiny reserve lands.
In Delgamuukw 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the traditional Coucils (Wet'suet'en and Gitxsan) were still the Aboriginal rights and title holders, on behalf of all Wet'suet'en (and Gitxsan) Nations people. The SCoC also directed governments to reconcile those Aboriginal titles with Crown title. The SCoC also ordered a second trial to clarify details - boundaries, etc. (Traditional territories are generally defined by watersheds and/or other geographic features, and may include some shared areas.)

Here's a map you can copy and google that shows Wet'suet'en traditional territory, and the small First Nations reserve lands within it. (Note: Map is misnamed as "First Nation".)

Wetsueten_First_Nation.pdf

Does the pipeline route even go through ANY reserve lands, jurisdiction of elected Band Councils? Unclear, but not possibly enough for any or even all Band Councils to claim that they had authority to sign any permissions for CGL!! Votes by the people? It is not clear that that has happened.

So here we are ... with the feds and in this case BC using the head-in-the-sand method of evading Supreme Court rulings, and relying on flimsy provincial injunctions and the RCMP instead.

It isn't a simple situation, and the will of the people is the key. But the fact is that BC Crown does have a duty to consult with the traditional rights and title holders, who do have a legitimate concern about the effects on the land and waters, and some ideas to improve that. BC NDP Premier John Horgan not only failed to consult, he was extremely rude about it.

The other element is ... it's becoming more uncertain all the time whether the project is even viable at current gas prices, and with China strongly pushing it's provinces to go directly from coal to renewable energy.
Obviously there is a confluence of opinion of environmentalists and traditional Wet'suet'en leaders, while some First Nations people want jobs and the perks CGL is giving out.

And I still think the OPP investigating the CN police for falsifying evidence is hilarious!  Lol


Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 07:12:36 pm

And I still think the OPP investigating the CN police for falsifying evidence is hilarious!  Lol

Do you think it's hilarious that the railroads - private companies - have POLICE ? 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 07:56:08 pm
Do you think it's hilarious that the railroads - private companies - have POLICE ?

More like security guards.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 10, 2020, 08:06:23 pm
There may be two sets of representatives.

Yes. One suppressed for decades, but respected.
Some Band Councillors are traditional leaders too.
 And they all struggle with jurisdiction, caring for the land v administering a community and Canadian government affairs of the people.

The numbers who vote in Band Council elections and eg CGL votes would be interesting too.

It's a process.

It could be a whole lot less traumatic if our governments would refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and do as directed.

Reconcile titles, define jurisdictions, share the land as agreed.
Fair dealing.

Ditch fossil fuels.
Traditional and elected Councils may welcome renewable energy projects. Problem solved.

Even Jason Kenney is getting on board now. % )

And I love the lawful peaceful people standing beside the tracks ... disrupting business as usual across the nation. All west to east rails go through Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. And they never had consent to put it there.

 Powerful. Lawful. Peaceful.

Shutting Canada down is easy.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 10, 2020, 08:50:45 pm
More like security guards.

They can arrest you.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 09:48:17 pm
They can arrest you.

Hot jesus yes you're right they are just like any other police in canada.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 10, 2020, 09:49:08 pm
I agree.  If a tribe/band doesn't sign off on it and protests, ok i support that.  But if it does sign off on it and the majority agree with the decision and some people from the minority protest then they have a much weaker case.  These protestors don't represent all of the natives or their bands.

A majority of members, or a majority of those who voted?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 10:05:44 pm
A majority of members, or a majority of those who voted?

I assume the ones who voted.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 10:07:45 pm
Pipelines are annoying
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 10, 2020, 10:08:59 pm
A majority of members, or a majority of those who voted?

In any election or referendum the only ones who count are the ones who voted.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 10, 2020, 10:39:43 pm
And I love the lawful peaceful people standing beside the tracks ... disrupting business as usual across the nation. All west to east rails go through Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. And they never had consent to put it there.

 Powerful. Lawful. Peaceful.

Shutting Canada down is easy.

Why would they cancel rail travel if they didn't block the lines?  They've blocked lines many times in the past.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/protesters-blocking-via-rail-tracks-force-train-cancellations-for-fourth-straight-day-1.4804912

Many of these protestors don't care about what's lawful or unlawful.  They don't even recognize Canadian law:

Quote
Canadian National Railway says it has been granted an injunction order to remove protesters from the site near Belleville.

Andrew Brant, of the nearby Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, said the protesters in Belleville are not worried about the injunction, and they will remain at the protest site until the RCMP leave Wet'suwet'en territory.

“We’re still standing here strong [and] supporting everybody, doesn’t matter what they do to us, what they say, [if] they try to move us,” Brant told CTV News Toronto.

“The [injunction] doesn’t mean anything; it’s just a piece of paper. To us, that is not our government; that’s not our law, so when they serve it to us, it’s just a piece of paper.”

The Mohawk territory near Belleville isn't even their traditional land, it was a piece of land they moved to after being given to them by the British in the late 18th century after their territory was lost in New York State when the US took it over after the US won the American Revolution vs the British.  It's a reserve that's was part of British Crown and now Canadian Crown territory.  This person doesn't even know what they're talking about lol.

Anyways, this is all about a dispute over who is the rightful bargaining government agent:  the elected band councils, or the hereditary chiefs.  The elected band councils of all the bands with territory along the gasline route have consented to the pipeline project, but the hereditary chiefs haven't.  The courts and BC gov says it's the band councils, but the chiefs and supporters disagree, so here we are. https://globalnews.ca/news/6517089/wetsuweten-bc-pipeline-protests/
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 11, 2020, 12:47:09 am
Shutting Canada down is easy.
easy hey! What a dumbazz statement!

arrests by the RCMP in Wet'suwet'en claimed territory reflect enforcement of a court order... police arrests at the Port of Vancouver also reflect upon a court order being served. Near Belleville Ontario, more pointedly 'Tyendinaga Township':

Quote from: Bill Dickson, communications officer for Ontario Provincial Police
OPP officers are actively involved in the situation. Members of our provincial liaison team are in contact with the demonstrators. We respect the right of everyone (to have) freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. CN Rail police, who have jurisdiction over the rail lines, have received an injunction to remove protesters from the area. Given that Tyendinaga Township falls under OPP jurisdiction, provincial police are required to act on these court orders.

as for your Facebook gem stating the OPP is investigating whether, as you say, "laws were broken or evidence falsified to get that Belleville area injunction"... mainstream media outlets have not written anything to support such a claim! The waldo calls bullshyte!

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 11, 2020, 02:05:00 am
It could be a whole lot less traumatic if our governments would refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and do as directed. Reconcile titles, define jurisdictions, share the land as agreed. Fair dealing.

Oct 11, 2018 - 2018 SCC 40 - Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council) (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17288/index.do) --- Supreme Court rules Ottawa has no duty to consult with Indigenous people before drafting laws
Quote
7-2 decision rules against Mikisew Cree First Nation claim that government needed to consult on omnibus bills. Canada's lawmakers do not have a duty to consult with Indigenous people before introducing legislation that might affect constitutionally protected Indigenous and treaty rights, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. In its 7-2 decision, the top court has ruled against the Mikisew Cree First Nation in Alberta, which had argued that two omnibus budget bills introduced by the former Conservative federal government in 2012 affected its constitutionally protected treaty rights because they amended regulatory protections for waterways and the environment.

In four separate sets of reasons, the Court went on to consider whether the duty to consult applies to legislative action. A seven-judge majority of the Court held that it does not, confirming that "the development, passage, and enactment of legislation — does not trigger the duty to consult".  The reason for this is two-fold:

- First, the separation of powers protects the law-making process of the legislature from judicial oversight — in the words of Justice Brown, the entire law-making process is an exercise of legislative power that is “immune” from judicial interference. Allowing courts to review how legislatures make laws would offend this important principle.
   
- Second, parliamentary sovereignty and privilege protect the freedom of the legislature to "make or unmake any law it wishes", within the confines of its constitutional authority.
============================================================================

Crown "duty to consult" does not give Indigenous Groups a veto; respective Supreme Court decisions as:

Quote
July 26, 2017 - 2017 SCC 41 - Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16744/index.do)
(para 59) In Carrier Sekani, this Court recognized that “[t]he constitutional dimension of the duty to consult gives rise to a special public interest” which surpasses economic concerns (para. 70). A decision to authorize a project cannot be in the public interest if the Crown’s duty to consult has not been met (Clyde River, at para. 40; Carrier Sekani, at para. 70). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the interests of Indigenous groups cannot be balanced with other interests at the accommodation stage. Indeed, it is for this reason that the duty to consult does not provide Indigenous groups with a “veto” over final Crown decisions (Haida, at para. 48). Rather, proper accommodation “stress[es] the need to balance competing societal interests with Aboriginal and treaty rights” (Haida, at para. 50).

November 18, 2004 - 2004 SCC 73 - Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2189/index.do)
(para 48) This process does not give Aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of the claim.  The Aboriginal “consent” spoken of in Delgamuukw is appropriate only in cases of established rights, and then by no means in every case.  Rather, what is required is a process of balancing interests, of give and take.
============================================================================

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do) --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 11, 2020, 05:36:48 am
Hot jesus yes you're right they are just like any other police in canada.

Weird, huh ?  I used to work for CP.  We had some equipment go missing, so we called up the police.  Not the Toronto Police but OUR police.

There's a case now where an officer was let go and he said it was because he was investigating a crime that the higher-ups.  I think it was this:

https://www.richmondsentinel.ca/article-detail/4709/labour-groups-want-independent-investigation-into-death-of-3-cp-railway-workers
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 11, 2020, 05:41:40 am

The Mohawk territory near Belleville isn't even their traditional land, it was a piece of land they moved to after being given to them by the British in the late 18th century after their territory was lost in New York State when the US took it over after the US won the American Revolution vs the British.  It's a reserve that's was part of British Crown and now Canadian Crown territory.  This person doesn't even know what they're talking about lol.

I grew up around there and have friends from the Mohawk Territory.  It's kind of insulting to take down an area by saying "it's not even traditional territory".  The Mohawks and others moved around all of these areas as I understand, and at least there was a real agreement between the British and Natives that was honoured in this case.  Brantford and 6 Nations is the same.

I also don't know if non-coverage by local press, or any press is any kind of proof of anything, in this era of declining press.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: the_squid on February 11, 2020, 10:09:45 am
Vancouver Transit has police...    it’s not so weird. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 11, 2020, 10:50:33 am
Vancouver Transit has police...    it’s not so weird.

There are a lot of people on Vancouver Transit.  The only people riding on trains are the engineer and maybe a hobo once in awhile.

Are Vancouver Transit police employees of the city ?  Is Vancouver Transit a privately held corporation ?

Do you think Loblaws, Chuck E. Cheese and Rogers Cable should have the power of arrest ?  Have you ever spread the breath of an animatronic rat ?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 11, 2020, 10:55:53 am
CN Police service operates in both Canada and the United States. In Canada they are federally sworn police officers with power of arrest, and even though their primary responsibility is the CN infrastructure they can make arrests and enforce some provincial legislation such as the HIghway Traffic Act outside of CN property. In the US they have both national authority granted by the Secretary of Transportation for the rail infrastructure, and some states may extend their authority as well.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 11, 2020, 11:33:20 am
Vancouver Transit has police...    it’s not so weird.

over a many years travel period I had occasion to meet/know several Translink police officers - many of whom are retired RCMP and city police members... collecting full pensions from their prior police work
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 11, 2020, 12:07:26 pm
over a many years travel period I had occasion to meet/know several Translink police officers - many of whom are retired RCMP and city police members... collecting full pensions from their prior police work

Pretty cushy job, their constables are paid more than some of the municipal police forces
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 03:46:38 pm
Why would they cancel rail travel if they didn't block the lines?  They've blocked lines many times in the past.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/protesters-blocking-via-rail-tracks-force-train-cancellations-for-fourth-straight-day-1.4804912
"We're not blocking the tracks. We're just standing beside them."
Plow truck guy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4_HzYul6d7w&feature=share

Quote
Many of these protestors don't care about what's lawful or unlawful.  They don't even recognize Canadian law:

The Mohawk territory near Belleville isn't even their traditional land, it was a piece of land they moved to after being given to them by the British in the late 18th century after their territory was lost in New York State when the US took it over after the US won the American Revolution vs the British.  It's a reserve that's was part of British Crown and now Canadian Crown territory.  This person doesn't even know what they're talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culbertson_Tract_Land_Claim

The Culbertson Tract is bigger than the Tyendinaga reserve, part of the Simcoe Treaty.
Their claim is already validated and in negotiation for settlement (land/money) ... for 10+ years.

Quote
Anyways, this is all about a dispute over who is the rightful bargaining government agent:  the elected band councils, or the hereditary chiefs.  The elected band councils of all the bands with territory along the gasline route have consented to the pipeline project, but the hereditary chiefs haven't.  The [provincial] courts and BC gov says it's the band councils, but the chiefs and supporters disagree, so here we are. https://globalnews.ca/news/6517089/wetsuweten-bc-pipeline-protests/

It isn't about which is the rightful bargaining agent.
It's about all of them being consulted.

The traditional Chiefs and Council are the Aboriginal rights and title holders on behalf of the people. (SCoC: Delgamuukw 1997)

Their objection is that the BC Crown did not consult with them, though their title is recognized.

BC NDP Premier John Horgan has refused to consult with traditional Council, and in a very disrespectful manner.

He's counting on them not appealing the injunction to the higher courts, and he's likely right ... but it's slimey... not fair dealing ... evading the law ... typical of Canada and the Provinces.

The traditional Council has some ideas about where the pipeline could go without as much disruption to the salmon runs and village sites ... but no one has consulted with them.

The Crown has a duty to consult.
Failure to do so can also be taken to court.

Our governments continue to be slimey.

And we continue to have protest and disruption because rights and title are being violated.

The Supreme Court directed governments to reconcile Aboriginal and Crown titles.
When are governments going to start doing that instead of fomenting police violence and nation wide  disruption?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 04:37:11 pm
Pipelines are annoying

Getting rid of fossil fuels will solve quite a few problems.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 04:42:57 pm

Crown "duty to consult" does not give Indigenous Groups a veto; respective Supreme Court decisions as:

In this case the Crown's "duty to consult"  was not carried out.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 04:44:37 pm
In any election or referendum the only ones who count are the ones who voted.

Participation rates can be informative.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 05:33:03 pm

arrests by the RCMP in Wet'suwet'en claimed territory reflect enforcement of a court order... police arrests at the Port of Vancouver also reflect upon a court order being served. Near Belleville Ontario, more pointedly 'Tyendinaga Township':

as for your Facebook gem stating the OPP is investigating whether, as you say, "laws were broken or evidence falsified to get that Belleville area injunction"... mainstream media outlets have not written anything to support such a claim! The waldo calls bullshyte!

No worries. The OPP have it handled.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/protests-continue-1.5457149

“The OPP calls on those involved to abide by the injunction and to not (put) public peace or anyone’s safety in jeopardy.”

No one is on CN property.
Public peace and safety are not in jeopardy.
All ok.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 11, 2020, 07:17:11 pm
The Crown has a duty to consult.
Failure to do so can also be taken to court.

Our governments continue to be slimey.

And we continue to have protest and disruption because rights and title are being violated.

The Supreme Court directed governments to reconcile Aboriginal and Crown titles.
When are governments going to start doing that instead of fomenting police violence and nation wide  disruption?

In what world is an NDP and Green Party government in BC trying to ripoff natives?  If they can't respect natives, no government ever will.  Me thinks there's more to this story than you're leading on.

Is there precedent for the governments needing to and consulting with both elected councils and hereditary chiefs?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 11, 2020, 07:23:34 pm
Getting rid of fossil fuels will solve quite a few problems.

Sure, but the technology and economic will has to exist before that happens.  Blocking pipelines will not eliminate fossil fuels.  They'll just be out of their cut.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: kimmy on February 11, 2020, 08:05:43 pm
Getting rid of fossil fuels will solve quite a few problems.

We're not going to feed 7 billion people on this planet with fossil fuels. 

Getting rid of a few billion humans would in itself solve some environmental problems, but I have a hard time cheering for mass starvation regardless of how much it would benefit the ecology.

 -k
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: kimmy on February 11, 2020, 08:14:02 pm
After reading some comments on social media today, I gather a lot of people who support these protests are under the mistaken impression that they're fighting an oil (or bitumen) pipeline.



Premier Horgan thought people would be on board with the pipeline if it was transporting clean, safe liquified natural gas instead of gross messy bitumen.  LOL, nope.  We can't build anything in this country anymore.  This is becoming such a joke.

I can only imagine what kind of protests we will be seeing once the Transmountain expansion nears the BC lower mainland. It's going to be a complete gong show.



Transport Minister Garneau says that the disruptions of rail service are illegal, and that he is "very concerned". At some point something is going to be done.

 -k
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 11, 2020, 08:26:59 pm
After reading some comments on social media today, I gather a lot of people who support these protests are under the mistaken impression that they're fighting an oil (or bitumen) pipeline.



Premier Horgan thought people would be on board with the pipeline if it was transporting clean, safe liquified natural gas instead of gross messy bitumen.  LOL, nope.  We can't build anything in this country anymore.  This is becoming such a joke.

I can only imagine what kind of protests we will be seeing once the Transmountain expansion nears the BC lower mainland. It's going to be a complete gong show.



Transport Minister Garneau says that the disruptions of rail service are illegal, and that he is "very concerned". At some point something is going to be done.

 -k

TMX will be fine until it gets to Burnaby.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 11, 2020, 08:59:42 pm
Transport Minister Garneau says that the disruptions of rail service are illegal, and that he is "very concerned". At some point something is going to be done.

 -k

He also says rail protests need to be enforced or not by the provinces, not the feds.  If i were him, i wouldn't touch this with a 100,000 ft pole either.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 11, 2020, 09:02:22 pm
After reading some comments on social media today, I gather a lot of people who support these protests are under the mistaken impression that they're fighting an oil (or bitumen) pipeline.

Premier Horgan thought people would be on board with the pipeline if it was transporting clean, safe liquified natural gas instead of gross messy bitumen.  LOL, nope.  We can't build anything in this country anymore.  This is becoming such a joke.

I can only imagine what kind of protests we will be seeing once the Transmountain expansion nears the BC lower mainland. It's going to be a complete gong show.

You have the big oil exporter province relying on the greenest environmentalistiest province in Canada.  Sparks were inevitable.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 11, 2020, 09:41:08 pm
He also says rail protests need to be enforced or not by the provinces, not the feds.  If i were him, i wouldn't touch this with a 100,000 ft pole either.

Gee, and I thought transportation was a federal jurisdiction, that's why they are regulated by the Department of Transport. In the words of the Knights of the Holy Grail when confronted by the killer bunny. Run away, run away.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 11, 2020, 09:49:01 pm
This stuff is too complex.  Figure this out BC.  Good luck.

I think in an ironic twist when the native protestors leave they should pile their signs together, pour gas on them, and light them on fire.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 10:27:28 pm
In what world is an NDP and Green Party government in BC trying to ripoff natives?  If they can't respect natives, no government ever will.

Some government better, pretty soon.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-concerned-cn-rail-blockade-1.5459893

 
Quote
Me thinks there's more to this story than you're leading on.

Is there precedent for the governments needing to and consulting with both elected councils and hereditary chiefs?

Canada constructed and imposed elected Band Councils to administer funding to Bands and maintain  reserve communities, as required by treaty and other law. It works well as an administrative structure, except for perennial underfunding of public services (eg, water).

The Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights, title and treaty holders. Those are not Canada's First Nations elected Band Counicil but the larger Indigenous Nations they belong to who existed at contact or at treaty signing (where applicable).

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 11, 2020, 10:34:53 pm

Transport Minister Garneau says that the disruptions of rail service are illegal, and that he is "very concerned". At some point something is going to be done.
 -k

He said it's illegal if they're blocking the rails.
But if they're standing beside the tracks, not on CN land ... ?
Not clarified yet.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 12, 2020, 01:02:16 am
It isn't about which is the rightful bargaining agent. It's about all of them being consulted.

The traditional Chiefs and Council are the Aboriginal rights and title holders on behalf of the people. (SCoC: Delgamuukw 1997)

Their objection is that the BC Crown did not consult with them, though their title is recognized.

uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?

The Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights, title and treaty holders. Those are not Canada's First Nations elected Band Counicil but the larger Indigenous Nations they belong to who existed at contact or at treaty signing (where applicable).

no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

do you really expect the Crown/industry to bring differing opinion holders together (say hereditary versus band chiefs/councilors) and attempt to have them reach a consensus within their own ranks... as a part of the consult itself? Really? Talk about your expressed call for "fair dealings"!

and.... notwithstanding the Wet’suwet’en Nation across its respective band makeup is made up of less than 3500 persons in total... less than 3500 persons in total:

as you continue to place emphasis on that "duty to consult", I'll again bring some perspective/reality to your misplaced... and overreaching... emphasis; in the form of the crafted 'Sparrow test' laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada; a test that can, as its conditions are met, override Indigenous title in the public interest. Again:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do) --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 12, 2020, 01:11:21 am
"We're not blocking the tracks. We're just standing beside them." Plow truck guy
He said it's illegal if they're blocking the rails. But if they're standing beside the tracks, not on CN land ... ? Not clarified yet.

public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 12, 2020, 12:03:05 pm
uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?

no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

do you really expect the Crown/industry to bring differing opinion holders together (say hereditary versus band chiefs/councilors) and attempt to have them reach a consensus within their own ranks... as a part of the consult itself? Really? Talk about your expressed call for "fair dealings"!

and.... notwithstanding the Wet’suwet’en Nation across its respective band makeup is made up of less than 3500 persons in total... less than 3500 persons in total:

as you continue to place emphasis on that "duty to consult", I'll again bring some perspective/reality to your misplaced... and overreaching... emphasis; in the form of the crafted 'Sparrow test' laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada; a test that can, as its conditions are met, override Indigenous title in the public interest. Again:

Still schilling excuses, eh waldo!

Respect? , Reconciliation ? Rule of law from the Supreme Court of Canada? ... Nah, just the same old excuses for violence instead of negotiation.

The BC Crown has not fulfilled it's duty to consult with the hereditary Chiefs who hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation.

Despite direction from the Supreme Court to reconcile titles, our governments still choose to perpetrate disrespect and police violence instead:

 BC NDP  Premier John Horgan, December 2019:
""Let's sit down *with the title holders* whose land we want to conduct economic activity on and create partnerships as a way forward. That works," "
-------
BC NDP  Premier John Horgan,
January 2020:
 "Wet'suwet'en territory ... telling CBC he wasn't going to "drop everything I'm doing to come running when someone is saying they need to speak with me."
...
"the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C." to ensure work continues on the 670-km pipeline

Classic Canadian government double-talk, all governments the same, robot schills for the fossil fuel industry, increasingly desperate in its dying days.

Wet'suet'en Chiefs are now going back to the courts:

http://www.wetsuweten.com/media-centre/news/wetsuweten-hereditary-chiefs-launch-court-challenge-to-cgl-environmental-approval

Also interesting that it was CGL that walked away from the 7-day Wiggus talks, with Chiefs and BC gov still willing to talk. The enforcement of the injunction - apparently on CGL orders to the RCMP? - may now have sabotaged those talks too.

http://www.wetsuweten.com/media-centre/news/february-4-2020-immediate-release-wetsuweten-territory-smithers-b.c


What is learned from this?

So long as consultation requirements remain unclear, investments in projects that could affect any First Nation anywhere in Canada will be deterred.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/hold-the-champagne-on-the-trans-mountain-decision-for-a-few-more-months-at-least

True of CGL project, and now TransMountain being appealed.

Also learned ... A few people standing beside railway tracks can send a very strong message.

And it's informative to Canadians as well that our governments are all so owned by the fossil fuel industries that they are unable to plan for the future. Not surprising perhaps, but a clear indication that taking it to the streets (and railways) is increasingly the only way for progress to occur.
Democracy at its finest. : )
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 12, 2020, 01:40:20 pm
Still schilling excuses, eh waldo!

Respect? , Reconciliation ? Rule of law from the Supreme Court of Canada? ... Nah, just the same old excuses for violence instead of negotiation.

The BC Crown has not fulfilled it's duty to consult with the hereditary Chiefs who hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation.

no "schilling" / no excuses given - none needed! Care to offer a legal based citation that definitively states, as you say, "the hereditary Chiefs hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation." ... and that, more pointedly, they have been determined to be the persons/body to target "consultation duty" towards. And, most pointedly, that the Crown/industry has an obligation to determine consensus within the differing positions held within Indigenous Nations themselves.

I'm shocked you have no comment on my highlighting the dual roles held by 'some' hereditary chiefs... that they're also Band Councillors and were apart of the 5+ years negotiations (aka, duty to consult)... shocked, I tells ya!
The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.


Despite direction from the Supreme Court to reconcile titles, our governments still choose to perpetrate disrespect and police violence instead:

from the SCOC judgement you continue to rely upon, there is pointed reference to the lack of First Nation interveners joining the appellants in the related appeal case... with the most pointed statement, "It may, therefore, be advisable if those aboriginal nations intervened in any new litigation". The point being, the onus is on respective First Nations to initiate their respective requests/claims for title... "over said lands that were never ceded".

your emphasis on SCOC "direction" is rather "loose", notwithstanding its emphasis on 2-way negotiations, good faith & give & take... and reconciliation within the sovereignty of the Crown; re: para 186 of the judgement
(https://i.imgur.com/B7WX3c3.png)

as an interested outsider, the waldo certainly looks with interest to said 'next court challenges by Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs'. Given the overwhelming majority of the ~3500 band members support the gas pipeline, the Sparrow test 'public interest' (over some minimum number of "dissenters") shouldn't be difficult to realize. Again:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do) --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group

Q: can a few hundred (if that) dissenting Wet'suet'en band members supersede the public interest, a part of which itself brings significant economic relief/investment to the Wet'suet'en? Can it... should it?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 12, 2020, 02:29:47 pm
Gee, and I thought transportation was a federal jurisdiction, that's why they are regulated by the Department of Transport. In the words of the Knights of the Holy Grail when confronted by the killer bunny. Run away, run away.

Yes, there are many federal acts that govern railways in Canada. Enforcement however is a different question. The CN Police Service has primary responsibility on the right of way, and limited (enforcement of HTA for example) secondary responsibility outside that area. Most areas adjacent to the right of way would be primarily under provincial jurisdiction, and in some cases municipal.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 12, 2020, 04:29:34 pm
public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?

Racist smear much?
No such dangers have ever been encountered.

However, I concur that CN makes it's own choices about stopping its trains for its own reasons.

I'm just not clear on how standing beside train tracks on public property constitutes any kind of offence against the law.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 12, 2020, 04:47:19 pm
uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?


There is no contradiction. The Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal rights and title holders who care for the land on behalf of all Wet'suet'en Nation people.

The problem across Canada is that the Crown never consults with any Aboriginal groups regarding developments on their traditional territories. They just foist that duty onto industry, and are seldom held to account for their failure.

Wet'suet'en Nation Council refused to negotiate with CGL, and insisted on dealing with the BC Crown, as is appropriate.

First Nations are entitled to make deals with industry as they choose - cash for their reserve communities in return for their verbal  support for the project -  but they have limited authority to decide matters relevant to the entire traditional Wet'suet'en territory.

All are part of the discussions, all belong to the Wet'suet'en Nation, and the Chiefs and title holders  should have also been consulted by the Crown.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 12, 2020, 04:53:35 pm
public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?

Racist smear much?

much? How much? Based on what? ... there's nothing in the reply you've quoted that even remotely smears, racist or other!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 12, 2020, 05:03:12 pm
All are part of the discussions, all belong to the Wet'suet'en Nation, and the Chiefs and title holders  should have also been consulted by the Crown.

and the example I offered... the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest Wet'suet'en clan that were also Band Councillors during the 5+ years of negotiations (aka consult duty)? How selective and self-serving of you to continue to ignore that point I've stated, several times now.

again, you speak of "discussions": do you interpret it is the responsibility of the Crown/industry to reconcile differing views/opinions within the Wet'suet'en... to ascertain just who the participants should be within the Wet'suet'en... to determine just who the 'deciders' should be within the Wet'suet'en? Is there no responsibility of/onus on the Wet'suet'en to reach consensus within their own ranks?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 12, 2020, 08:35:41 pm
about that 'duty to consult'... as in the hereditary chiefs having a duty to consult with the peeps!  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/pRWHrwr.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 13, 2020, 05:08:49 am
https://native-land.ca/

Somebody had posted that the Mohawks were not on ancestral land.  Maybe, but this map shows that they are at least adjacent, and certainly not displaced into an entirely foreign terrain. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 13, 2020, 07:59:23 am
and the example I offered... the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest Wet'suet'en clan that were also Band Councillors during the 5+ years of negotiations (aka consult duty)? How selective and self-serving of you to continue to ignore that point I've stated, several times now.

again, you speak of "discussions": do you interpret it is the responsibility of the Crown/industry to reconcile differing views/opinions within the Wet'suet'en... to ascertain just who the participants should be within the Wet'suet'en... to determine just who the 'deciders' should be within the Wet'suet'en? Is there no responsibility of/onus on the Wet'suet'en to reach consensus within their own ranks?

Waldo, the Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights and title holders. That is clear.
Internal arrangements are their business.

I've seen no data indicating that a majority of Wet'suet'en Nation people voted for anything, but again, those are internal matters.

Your cherry-picking criticisms are irrelevant.
Your smear about "train derailing blockades" is just a racist smear. Nobody has taken such risks.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 13, 2020, 08:08:24 am
https://native-land.ca/

Somebody had posted that the Mohawks were not on ancestral land.  Maybe, but this map shows that they are at least adjacent, and certainly not displaced into an entirely foreign terrain.

Interesting map!
If you turn Territories off and turn Treaties on, you will see that they are on Treaty 3 1/2 territory ( part of the Simcoe Treaty). Tyendinaga Mohawks have a validated claim to the Culbertson Tract, highlighted on the Treaties map. (Wiki-link posted earlier), which is much larger than the reserve and includes the railway tracks.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2020, 08:41:06 am
Waldo, the Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights and title holders. That is clear. Internal arrangements are their business.

"Internal arrangements... their business" --- so... to determine "WHO TO CONSULT WITH", you apparently put the onus on the Crown/industry to reach... realize a consensus for the Wet'suet'en themselves - yes?; again:
and the example I offered... the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest Wet'suet'en clan that were also Band Councillors during the 5+ years of negotiations (aka consult duty)? How selective and self-serving of you to continue to ignore that point I've stated, several times now.

again, you speak of "discussions": do you interpret it is the responsibility of the Crown/industry to reconcile differing views/opinions within the Wet'suet'en... to ascertain just who the participants should be within the Wet'suet'en... to determine just who the 'deciders' should be within the Wet'suet'en? Is there no responsibility of/onus on the Wet'suet'en to reach consensus within their own ranks?

and again, per the Supreme Court of Canada: a 'duty to consult' does not provide an avenue for First Nations to veto!

I've seen no data indicating that a majority of Wet'suet'en Nation people voted for anything, but again, those are internal matters.

the earlier APTN linked reference speaks to a majority of the Wet'suet'en being in favour of the gas pipeline... the prior graphic I posted speaks to (per the 'National Coalition of Chiefs') 80% of the Wet'suet'en voting in favour of the CGL pipeline. If you have anything to counter... bring it!

Your cherry-picking criticisms are irrelevant. Your smear about "train derailing blockades" is just a racist smear. Nobody has taken such risks.

providing factual account is not cherry-picking. No smear was intended/none given... quit making shyte up!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2020, 08:41:26 am
per Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation --- The Question of Authority Shouldn't Divide First Nations (https://vancouversun.com/opinion/ellis-ross-the-question-of-authority-shouldnt-divide-first-nations)

Quote
The only people who have a right to decide who represents them are the band members themselves.

The fact is all 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — have each signed agreements with the company. Professional protesters and well-funded NGOs have merely seized the opportunity to divide our communities for their own gains, and ultimately will leave us penniless when they suddenly leave.

All 203 First Nations bands in B.C. have unique and different forms of governance and, for the most part, they are satisfied with their systems.

My fellow First Nation leaders, both elected and non-elected, spent years investigating everything we could about LNG through environmental assessments, reviewing permits, government-to-government negotiations, and all the while trying to keep our members apprised of our progress.

It is therefore truly ignorant for non-Aboriginals to declare that elected Aboriginal leaders are only responsible for “on reserve issues” or are a “construct of the Indian Act meant to annihilate the Indian.”

.
.
It’s up to our communities to answer the representation question without intimidation and the interference of “allies” who only seek to control the narrative.

Simplistic solutions to complex problems have always been a problem for band councils trying to make life better for their own.

Allowing outsiders to undermine and dismiss years of careful consideration and consultation with elected chiefs who want nothing more than to secure a brighter future for their membership, is quite unacceptable and I will continue to speak out against it.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 13, 2020, 12:24:42 pm
"Internal arrangements... their business" --- so... to determine "WHO TO CONSULT WITH", you apparently put the onus on the Crown/industry to reach... realize a consensus for the Wet'suet'en themselves - yes?; again:

The BC Crown has a duty to consult with the Aboriginal rights and title holders for the entire Wet'suet'en Nation. Until that occurs, the Crown's duty to consult is not fulfilled.
Premier Horgan has been rude and ignorant in his refusal, leading to strong resistance and nation-wide protests. His choice, his problem.

Quote
and again, per the Supreme Court of Canada: a 'duty to consult' does not provide an avenue for First Nations to veto!

We can't speculate on the outcome of Crown consultation with Aboriginal rights and title holders that has not occurred.

Quote
the earlier APTN linked reference speaks to a majority of the Wet'suet'en being in favour of the gas pipeline... the prior graphic I posted speaks to (per the 'National Coalition of Chiefs') 80% of the Wet'suet'en voting in favour of the CGL pipeline. If you have anything to counter... bring it!

I'm not aware of any post reporting such an overall vote among all Wet'suet'en Nation people.

Quote
providing factual account is not cherry-picking. No smear was intended/none given... quit making shyte up!

Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol]
Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!!
Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada.
You've gone over the line.

ETA... I am curious why an avid Liberal propagandist like yourself seems to be so determined to support a BC NDP government that has so clearly failed in its duty to uphold the Honour of the Crown, the law of the land.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: the_squid on February 13, 2020, 02:54:15 pm
These protestors are a bunch of thugs, mixed with professional protestors who protest anything with glee, mixed with anarchist a-holes, mixed with confused SJWs who think they are protesting oil pipelines. 

It’s time to start bashing in some heads if they don’t get out of the way.

And our PM hides while this is happening.   ::)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 03:47:58 pm
And our PM hides while this is happening.   ::)

This isn't even a federal issue. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: the_squid on February 13, 2020, 03:52:54 pm
This isn't even a federal issue.


Of course it is...   all things indigenous are federal issues.  Blockading CN is a federal issue.  The Federal government was the defendant in the recent court case that was dismissed.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 13, 2020, 03:56:43 pm
This isn't even a federal issue.
Transportation is a federal jurisdiction. Rail, air and water is regulated by the feds. It is most definitely a federal issue. My little boat sitting at the lake is registered with the federal government, not the province.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2020, 04:23:29 pm
public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?
Racist smear much?
much? How much? Based on what? ... there's nothing in the reply you've quoted that even remotely smears, racist or other!

Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol]. Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!! Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada. You've gone over the line.

as is your past displayed pattern, again now, when you're called out and been shown not to have an argument (you can support), you lash out with an over-the-top attack; one usually peppered with factual inaccuracies... not withstanding your underlying attempt to distract from your own inadequacies! I've bothered with your nonsense to the point of providing related exchanges; while also red-colour highlighting words that emphasis the hilarity... idiocy... of your attack/claims.

now, as an aside, it appears VIA Rail recognizes protestors have blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories have been issued by VIA Rail to the public:

(https://i.imgur.com/faWyAKK.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 04:30:37 pm

Of course it is...   all things indigenous are federal issues.  Blockading CN is a federal issue.  The Federal government was the defendant in the recent court case that was dismissed.

The injunctions are issued by provincial courts - that’s how our system works.  The situation in BC is about a dispute with the provincial crown.  The government doesn’t direct the police.  There is no place in this for politicians atm.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 04:31:46 pm
Transportation is a federal jurisdiction. Rail, air and water is regulated by the feds. It is most definitely a federal issue. My little boat sitting at the lake is registered with the federal government, not the province.

This is being handled by provincial courts.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2020, 04:41:35 pm
statement made by the 'Belleville area' protesters (as circulating on social media) - asserts they will remain until RCMP vacate their presence in, 'Wet’suwet’en traditional territories':

Quote
In regards to the injunction served on the people of Tyendinaga, We the people refuse to have your laws imposed upon us. We have, and have always had, our own laws and customs, prior to, during and thereafter your attempts at genocide and assimilation.

A paper ordering us to vacate our land, and or allow passage of foreign goods through our territory is meaningless. We will stand our ground, and as stated, not leave until the RCMP pull out of Wet’suwet’en traditional territories


inquiring waldo: from a First Nations perspective, what relationship/authority, grants standing for the (Ontario) Tyendinaga Mohawk First Nation to protest in solidarity with the (B.C.) Wet’suwet’en First Nation?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 13, 2020, 04:47:44 pm
statement made by the 'Belleville area' protesters (as circulating on social media) - asserts they will remain until RCMP vacate their presence in, 'Wet’suwet’en traditional territories':

As they have said from the beginning.

Quote
inquiring waldo: from a First Nations perspective, what relationship/authority, grants standing for the (Ontario) Tyendinaga Mohawk First Nation to protest in solidarity with the (B.C.) Wet’suwet’en First Nation?

Freedom of expression.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#h-38
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 04:50:32 pm
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-b-c-hope-meetings-with-indigenous-leaders-will-end-rail-blockades-1.4810426

Meetings upcoming to try to breach the impasse.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 13, 2020, 05:04:03 pm
You don't let any civilians blockade or threaten to blockade railways, roads, or whatnot.  That's not free speech, it's coercion and disturbing the peace and it's illegal.

Imagine any protest group with a strong opinion blocking city traffic whenever they felt like.  It would be chaos.

Governments are afraid of looking bad and hauling away natives in cuffs.  I don't blame them.  But it may be a critical error because it will just embolden them to do the same thing anytime they have a grievance.  Your level of outrage and victim group status, no matter how valid both are, don't give you license to shut down key infrastructure.

On the other hand, one can't help not also feeling bad for natives and sympathizing. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 05:16:40 pm
Governments don’t make the decisions on enforcement of the law.  This isn’t Trump’s America.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 13, 2020, 06:20:22 pm
inquiring waldo: from a First Nations perspective, what relationship/authority, grants standing for the (Ontario) Tyendinaga Mohawk First Nation to protest in solidarity with the (B.C.) Wet’suwet’en First Nation?
Freedom of expression.
You don't let any civilians blockade or threaten to blockade railways, roads, or whatnot.  That's not free speech, it's coercion and disturbing the peace and it's illegal.

notwithstanding the illegal actions and the refusal to recognize and respond to an Ontario Court injunction, my ask was about the First Nation relationship ((Ontario) Tyendinaga Mohawk & (B.C.) Wet’suwet’en) that exists (if any) to effect a, "protest in solidarity" - a phrase appearing extensively in media coverage; again:
statement made by the 'Belleville area' protesters (as circulating on social media) - asserts they will remain until RCMP vacate their presence in, 'Wet’suwet’en traditional territories':

Quote
In regards to the injunction served on the people of Tyendinaga, We the people refuse to have your laws imposed upon us. We have, and have always had, our own laws and customs, prior to, during and thereafter your attempts at genocide and assimilation.

A paper ordering us to vacate our land, and or allow passage of foreign goods through our territory is meaningless. We will stand our ground, and as stated, not leave until the RCMP pull out of Wet’suwet’en traditional territories

that's quite a conditional (and emboldened) assertion being made by the Tyendinaga Mohawk - that they will remain protesting until the RCMP leaves the claimed 'Wet’suwet’en land.
 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 13, 2020, 06:29:03 pm
You don't let any civilians blockade or threaten to blockade railways, roads, or whatnot.  That's not free speech, it's coercion and disturbing the peace and it's illegal.

Imagine any protest group with a strong opinion blocking city traffic whenever they felt like.  It would be chaos.

Governments are afraid of looking bad and hauling away natives in cuffs.  I don't blame them.  But it may be a critical error because it will just embolden them to do the same thing anytime they have a grievance.  Your level of outrage and victim group status, no matter how valid both are, don't give you license to shut down key infrastructure.

On the other hand, one can't help not also feeling bad for natives and sympathizing.

Railway lands are not excluded from Constitutional  Aboriginal rights, title and treaty territories, and Canada didn't have consent to put the railways there.
It's a complicating factor.
The OPP are managing well, trying to uphold everyone's Constitutional rights, as is their first duty.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 13, 2020, 07:44:28 pm
Governments don’t make the decisions on enforcement of the law.  This isn’t Trump’s America.

Law enforcement is government.  They make literally every single decision on enforcement of the law.

Do you think if there was a MAGA (Make America Graham Again) rally blockading the rails the police would allow it? 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 13, 2020, 07:50:04 pm
Railway lands are not excluded from Constitutional  Aboriginal rights, title and treaty territories, and Canada didn't have consent to put the railways there.
It's a complicating factor.
The OPP are managing well, trying to uphold everyone's Constitutional rights, as is their first duty.

It is complicated.

People have a lot of opinions about this.  I'll be the first to admit i'm pretty ignorant on aboriginal governance and rights and treaty law etc.  I think the entire populace is too.  Which is shameful, our schools, even high schools, need to teach these basics about our history and country.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 13, 2020, 07:57:01 pm
The injunctions are issued by provincial courts - that’s how our system works.  The situation in BC is about a dispute with the provincial crown.  The government doesn’t direct the police.  There is no place in this for politicians atm.

So what, it's the federal government that should be requesting the injunctions. They are allowed to use provincial courts you know.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 08:18:54 pm
Law enforcement is government.  They make literally every single decision on enforcement of the law.

Okay, but politicians don't direct them.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 08:22:18 pm
So what, it's the federal government that should be requesting the injunctions.

Why would it be?  The issues in BC are completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.  The issues on the CN line are completely within the purview of the company.  Each respective party has requested the injunctions and they have been granted.  The RCMP in BC, under the authority of the BC Crown (not the federal one) has been carrying out the injunction.  The OPP will not carry out the injunction on the CN line, and so far, the CN police aren't willing to act, looking for a more peaceful solution.  Both the BC government and Ottawa have sent ministers to try to broker a truce.  Literally everything is being done by the book.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 08:24:11 pm
People upset me.  They expect answers and solutions that are complicated and have to be given time to be worked out.  Life is messy.  Democracy is messy.  Indigenous title is complicated.  This isn't as simple as too many people are making it out to be.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 09:22:11 pm
A very competent minister is now on the file:

https://twitter.com/MarcGarneau/status/1228119719343017984?s=20
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 13, 2020, 09:31:33 pm
Why would it be?  The issues in BC are completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.  The issues on the CN line are completely within the purview of the company.  Each respective party has requested the injunctions and they have been granted.  The RCMP in BC, under the authority of the BC Crown (not the federal one) has been carrying out the injunction.  The OPP will not carry out the injunction on the CN line, and so far, the CN police aren't willing to act, looking for a more peaceful solution.  Both the BC government and Ottawa have sent ministers to try to broker a truce.  Literally everything is being done by the book.

Transportation, including pipelines are a federal jurisdiction.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 13, 2020, 10:12:48 pm
Transportation, including pipelines are a federal jurisdiction.

Only pipelines that cross provincial boundaries. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 13, 2020, 10:22:36 pm
So what, it's the federal government that should be requesting the injunctions. They are allowed to use provincial courts you know.

The federal government is asking to talk.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-services-marc-miller-tyendinaga-meeting-1.5462264

The BC government is asking to talk.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/premier-john-horgan-federal-minister-arrange-meetings-with-indigenous-leaders-over-blockades-1.4810712

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 13, 2020, 10:53:59 pm
Only pipelines that cross provincial boundaries.

Railways cross provincial boundaries.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 12:40:53 am
Shutting Canada down is easy.

full disclosure: the waldo is not a First Nation person... and you member Granny? If so, which First Nation?

is your statement, "Shutting Canada down is easy" simply a factual account, or given your most expressive advocacy throughout this thread, is your statement a part of that/your expressed and continued advocacy? 

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 01:15:14 am
ETA... I am curious why an avid Liberal propagandist like yourself seems to be so determined to support a BC NDP government that has so clearly failed in its duty to uphold the Honour of the Crown, the law of the land.

in my most immediate prior post I spoke of advocacy - yours. I've also expressed a personal advocacy throughout this thread; one that voiced support for the 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — those 20 First Nations that have each signed agreements with the company. As a part of my expressed personal advocacy/support, I also included direct representations from 2 First Nation organizations (the National Coalition of Chiefs & the FN LNG Alliance) and an extract of a linked letter from Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation.

you didn't misinterpret my advocacy/support for the impacted First Nations peoples; rather, you chose to ignore it... apparently you were too busy with the following unfounded & baseless attack accusing me of, "making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people"... while also implying, "I'm unlawful in inciting hatred"

Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol] Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!! Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada. You've gone over the line.

as is your most selective, self-serving way, you chose not to respond to the following... care to, this time?

public safety/interest is paramount. CN{/Via Rail} won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?
Racist smear much?
much? How much? Based on what? ... there's nothing in the reply you've quoted that even remotely smears, racist or other!

Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol]. Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!! Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada. You've gone over the line.

as is your past displayed pattern, again now, when you're called out and been shown not to have an argument (you can support), you lash out with an over-the-top attack; one usually peppered with factual inaccuracies... not withstanding your underlying attempt to distract from your own inadequacies! I've bothered with your nonsense to the point of providing related exchanges; while also red-colour highlighting words that emphasize the hilarity... the idiocy... of your attack/claims.

now, as an aside, it appears VIA Rail recognizes protestors have blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories have been issued by VIA Rail to the public:

(https://i.imgur.com/faWyAKK.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2020, 08:07:53 am
This needs to stop!

Actual needed goods are being held up. People are losing their jobs.

This is not even over an Oil Pipeline. It's LNG!!!!

I hope anyone who's opposed to LNG didn't heat there homes last night. It got to close to -20 C in the Toronto area.

JT's limp-wristed response to this is embarrassing. These protests are illegal and need to be treated as such.

I'm sure if people, who's livelihoods are being threatened by criminals shutting down the nation's rail lines, took this into their own hands, they'd be treated with the full force of the law.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 08:46:26 am
This needs to stop!

Actual needed goods are being held up. People are losing their jobs.

This is not even over an Oil Pipeline. It's LNG!!!!

I hope anyone who's opposed to LNG didn't heat there homes last night. It got to close to -20 C in the Toronto area.

JT's limp-wristed response to this is embarrassing. These protests are illegal and need to be treated as such.

I'm sure if people, who's livelihoods are being threatened by criminals shutting down the nation's rail lines, took this into their own hands, they'd be treated with the full force of the law.

It's LNG for export to China for private profit, heavily subsidized by Canadians. It has nothing to do with heating Canadian homes.

The OPP near Belleville are acting appropriately:
- No protesters there are impeding the tracks or roads. They are beside the tracks on public property, not on CN land. In fact, they are at the same distance from the tracks as cars would be if waiting behind the gate for a train to pass. No laws are being broken.
- Police Oath requires officers to first uphold Constitutional rights, and Constitutional rights include Aboriginal rights.

It appears that the federal government and BC have decided that negotiation is a good idea.

The rail protests are occurring because the BC government failed to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs as required.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2020, 09:43:44 am
LNG is probably the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. Exporting to China vs Coal is probably a net benefit to the Global Climate crisis.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2020, 09:54:50 am
I hope anyone who's opposed to LNG didn't heat there homes last night. It got to close to -20 C in the Toronto area.

I don't think any of that LNG went into heating any home in Canada. Our public dollars made the investment in the 1950's to get natural gas pipelines across much of Canada. Even though, through corporate socialism, those pipelines now provide profits to private industry. Most large centers in Ontario and Quebec are directly connected to those pipelines all the way to Quebec City. The only exception I am aware of is Sault Ste. Marie which is connected via the US. The major centers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are also connected, but again via a US pipeline.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 10:05:48 am
in my most immediate prior post I spoke of advocacy - yours. I've also expressed a personal advocacy throughout this thread; one that voiced support for the 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — those 20 First Nations that have each signed agreements with the company. As a part of my expressed personal advocacy/support, I also included direct representations from 2 First Nation organizations (the National Coalition of Chiefs & the FN LNG Alliance) and an extract of a linked letter from Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation.

you didn't misinterpret my advocacy/support for the impacted First Nations peoples; rather, you chose to ignore it...

CGL can make agreements with whomever they choose.
You can choose to support only First Nations elected governments if you wish.

 I don't play that colonial divide-and-conquer game.

Current Canadian law recognizes both elected and traditional Councils as valid. Defining their different  areas of responsibility is an ongoing challenge for them, but frankly, not our business, imo.

It is our business, however, to make sure that our governments are fulfilling the duty of the Crown to consult with Aboriginal peoples when developments on their traditional lands are proposed. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that Aboriginal rights, and the duty to consult, are not limited to consultation with elected Band Councils.
Traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs are recognized as Aboriginal rights and title holders. 

The Crown in Right of British Columbia has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights and title holders, and has so far failed to do so.

That BC government failure is the cause of current issues across the country.

Sooner or later, John Horgan is going to have to abide by that Supreme Court ruling: It is the rule of law in Canada.


Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 10:23:23 am
LNG is probably the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. Exporting to China vs Coal is probably a net benefit to the Global Climate crisis.
We know now that methane releases are very damaging to the atmosphere.
China is making great gains in renewable energy and it is beginning to appear that they may not need gas as an bridge from coal to renewables anymore. Also, the price of gas is much lower than it needs to be for this project to be viable. The ground has shifted considerably since the inception of this project, so those original arguments are not very persuasive anymore.

Regardless, the legal issue is that the BC government - 'the Crown' - failed to consult with the traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs and Council, whom the Supreme Court has recognized as the Aboriginal rights and title holders for the vast Wet'suet'en Nation territory.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 10:40:25 am
LNG is probably the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. Exporting to China vs Coal is probably a net benefit to the Global Climate crisis.

'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b05298)

notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).

and yes, OF COURSE, there is a private-for-profit element at play with B.C. LNG... of course. However, the Horgan NDP government has designs on significant monetary returns for natural gas as tied to royalties and taxes... as contributed to the so-called "Prosperity Fund" (as originally introduced by the Clark Liberal government), accepting that the government analysis behind the natural gas return projections has taken some legitimate criticism. And, again, notwithstanding the negotiated monetary gains directly to the impacted 20 First Nations who have signed agreements with Coastal GasLink!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 10:53:36 am
Regardless, the legal issue is that the BC government - 'the Crown' - failed to consult with the traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs and Council, whom the Supreme Court has recognized as the Aboriginal rights and title holders for the vast Wet'suet'en Nation territory.

you have stated variations of this at least a dozen times previously... I asked you once for a citation to that end. Again, I've previously provided a link to the Supreme Court ruling you keep referring to... I've even quoted from the ruling. That SCOC linked ruling has also been presented additional times through re-quoting of posts that include it. Somehow, you can manage to write post after post after post... but can't find your way to supporting your continued claim towards the hereditary chiefs.

speaking of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs (13 in total), I previously highlighted that the 5 hereditary chiefs of the major clan were also Band Councillors and, if not involved directly, were privy to the ongoing 5-year period of negotiations with Coastal GasLink. As I now read/interpret, of the 13 total hereditary chiefs... 8 - EIGHT... of them have voiced their support for the CGL pipeline. This has now come down to 5 hereditary chiefs holding Canada hostage!. Again, as I've presented previously, per the National Chiefs group, 80% of the (voting eligible) Wet'suet'en have given their approval for the, as negotiated, agreements with Coastal GasLink.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 10:55:53 am
**** bump ****

Shutting Canada down is easy.

full disclosure: the waldo is not a First Nation person... and you member Granny? If so, which First Nation?

is your statement, "Shutting Canada down is easy" simply a factual account, or given your most expressive advocacy throughout this thread, is your statement a part of that/your expressed and continued advocacy?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 11:36:30 am
you have stated variations of this at least a dozen times previously... I asked you once for a citation to that end. Again, I've previously provided a link to the Supreme Court ruling you keep referring to... I've even quoted from the ruling. That SCOC linked ruling has also been presented additional times through re-quoting of posts that include it. Somehow, you can manage to write post after post after post... but can't find your way to supporting your continued claim towards the hereditary chiefs.

speaking of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs (13 in total), I previously highlighted that the 5 hereditary chiefs of the major clan were also Band Councillors and, if not involved directly, were privy to the ongoing 5-year period of negotiations with Coastal GasLink. As I now read/interpret, of the 13 total hereditary chiefs... 8 - EIGHT... of them have voiced their support for the CGL pipeline. This has now come down to 5 hereditary chiefs holding Canada hostage!. Again, as I've presented previously, per the National Chiefs group, 80% of the (voting eligible) Wet'suet'en have given their approval for the, as negotiated, agreements with Coastal GasLink.

I haven't seen any link that supports that "80%" claim.

Since the BC Crown has not consulted with traditional Wet'suet'en Chiefs, I see no point in speculating about the outcome of talks that haven't taken place.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 11:51:13 am
**** bump ****

full disclosure: the waldo is not a First Nation person... and you member Granny? If so, which First Nation?

is your statement, "Shutting Canada down is easy" simply a factual account, or given your most expressive advocacy throughout this thread, is your statement a part of that/your expressed and continued advocacy?

It was quite surprising to me how easy it was for a few people standing beside the tracks to have such a large impact, so quickly ... drinking timmies by the tracks! Who knew!

No, I am not Indigenous.
Are you a cop?  Lol

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 14, 2020, 12:10:44 pm
I haven't seen any link that supports that "80%" claim.

Since the BC Crown has not consulted with traditional Wet'suet'en Chiefs, I see no point in speculating about the outcome of talks that haven't taken place.

It's up to FN to get their act together and presented a united position. How the hell is government supposed to deal with a people who can't even agree among themselves.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 12:27:00 pm
I haven't seen any link that supports that "80%" claim.

Since the BC Crown has not consulted with traditional Wet'suet'en Chiefs, I see no point in speculating about the outcome of talks that haven't taken place.

80% - a figure as put forward by the National Coalition of Chiefs... as highlighted by the FN LNG Alliance... as stated earlier and put forward in a linked graphic. I asked you to counter this figure. Apparently - you can't/won't. Rather, you relish this opportunity to posture an unsubstantiated claim around hereditary chiefs - a claim you attach to a SCOC ruling... one you have been asked to quote/link to within said ruling. You won't/apparently can't... you refuse to!

as I highlighted, as I read/interpret, only 5 of the 13 hereditary chiefs remain opposed to the CGL pipeline... notwithstanding the number of Wet'suet'en members is less than 3500 across the 5 respective clans. So, 5 hereditary chiefs and (accepting the 80% figure)... another 100 individuals (carrying the same 80% yes voting ratio to the, say... 500 voting eligible persons who didn't vote... 5 hereditary chiefs and 100 individuals (estimated) are holding Canada hostage!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2020, 12:34:22 pm
It was quite surprising to me how easy it was for a few people standing beside the tracks to have such a large impact, so quickly ... drinking timmies by the tracks! Who knew!

No, I am not Indigenous.
Are you a cop?  Lol

Funny how that works when the police don't do their job.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 12:42:56 pm
Shutting Canada down is easy.
It was quite surprising to me how easy it was for a few people standing beside the tracks to have such a large impact, so quickly ... drinking timmies by the tracks! Who knew!

keep doubling down! Notwithstanding there's already an existing natural gas pipeline crossing claimed Wet'suet'en lands (since 1959) and that 20 First Nations (including the Wet'suet'en') have signed agreements with CGL, you present a shameless and uncaring, 'I could give a shyte' attitude, as to the impact on Canada that some minority number of hereditary chiefs and a very small estimated number of band members (100... if) have. You relish this... your writing is outright brazenly gleeful!

No, I am not Indigenous. Are you a cop?  Lol

interesting that you would take such exception to a question asking for clarification... seeking perspective... a background reference as to why you're so perpetually supportive of First Nations... on all accounts through this and past threads - even if you can't substantiate much/most of what you say.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 01:02:33 pm
It's up to FN to get their act together and presented a united position. How the hell is government supposed to deal with a people who can't even agree among themselves.

**** winner **** (incidentally a position put forward by the National's At Issue Panel... that rarely has consensus within)

we read, at ad nauseum, member Granny squawking like a parrot: "Crown's duty to consult, Crown's duty to consult".... which in this circumstance is actually... "Crown's duty to figure out who to consult with, Crown's duty to figure out who deciders are, Crown's duty to figure out what the FN decision is - to arrive at a consensus for them"!

waldo reference point; re: duty to consult: a recent days (Feb 4) ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejected an appeal by four First Nations of the Canadian government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Quote
The court repeatedly said in its ruling that neither the duty to consult First Nations nor the concept of "consent" translates into a veto. The court noted that the Canadian government tried to get the consent of First Nations opposed to the pipeline expansion project. Failing to get that consent does not mean the project can be stopped.

The judges ruled that “reconciliation does not dictate any particular substantive outcome” on a given resource project. They wrote that requiring a “perfect” level of consultation would in turn create a kind of de facto veto on major projects, and said First Nations “cannot tactically use the consultation process as a means to try to veto it.”

“Canada was under no obligation to obtain consent prior to approving the Project,” the judges wrote. “That would, again, amount to giving Indigenous groups a veto.”
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 01:04:16 pm
It's up to FN to get their act together and presented a united position. How the hell is government supposed to deal with a people who can't even agree among themselves.

Government (BC) is supposed to consult with Aboriginal title holders, and they haven't yet. Premier Horgan preferred an injunction and RCMP raid instead. Now that he sees where that got him, he seems to be  moderating his tone somewhat:

Horgan has rejected calls from the Opposition Liberals to seek immediate injunctions to end the blockades and protests in B.C.

"We can't just use force," he said in the legislature. "It needs to be dealt with by co-operation, by consultation, by discussion so that we can all move forward."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipeline-protests-expected-to-continue-governments-to-meet-with-first-nations-1.4811735


Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 01:12:31 pm
Government (BC) is supposed to consult with Aboriginal title holders, and they haven't yet.

per the SCOC ruling quote I provided, said holders are not individualized; rather, the FN body at large, is the title holder. If you don't agree, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do, cite from the SCOC ruling you're presuming upon. Just step up and support your dozen+ statements claiming the hereditary chiefs as the title holders... JUST DO IT!

(https://mcdn.wallpapersafari.com/medium/26/15/1oTHBD.jpg)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 01:19:07 pm
Funny how that works when the police don't do their job.

I'm pretty sure police would prefer that governments resolve issues through negotiations.
Criminalizing protest is never a lasting solution. There is always a backlash, which is what is happening right now.

There is one person responsible for all of this: BC Premier John Horgan, who refused to consult with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs, the Aboriginal rights and title holders for Wet'suet'en territory.

Why should police end up being responsible for his failure to take appropriate action?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 01:29:52 pm
per the SCOC ruling quote I provided, said holders are not individualized; rather, the FN body at large, is the title holder. If you don't agree, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do, cite from the SCOC ruling you're presuming upon. Just step up and support your dozen+ statements claiming the hereditary chiefs as the title holders... JUST DO IT!

(https://mcdn.wallpapersafari.com/medium/26/15/1oTHBD.jpg)

Obviously they hold title on behalf of all Wet'suet'en Nation people. I have said so previously.

I have not found the link you claim re Wet'suet'en peoples' support for the pipeline. Can you link the post pls?

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 03:06:56 pm
Info re rail protest in BC:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/via-trains-at-standstill-as-talks-to-end-blockades-get-rolling-1.4811926
Indigenous leaders in B.C.'s northwest have invited federal and B.C. politicians to meetings, while following through on a promise to ensure a blockade of CN Rail tracks near New Hazelton, B.C. would come down during talks.

The blockade had been in place since Saturday, preventing shipments to the Port of Prince Rupert. But Indigenous leaders have warned the blockade could go back up if the province doesn't agree to cancel Coastal GasLink's pipeline permit during the scheduled talks.


It isn't stated in this article, but I read previously that the "Indigenous leaders" referred to are hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet'suet'en Nations.

Yes, here it is:

https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/rail-blockade-in-new-hazelton-coming-down-rcmp-say-1.24076260
The B.C. and federal governments have agreed to meet with Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to discuss a blockade near New Hazelton, B.C.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 03:12:31 pm
per the SCOC ruling quote I provided, said holders are not individualized; rather, the FN body at large, is the title holder. If you don't agree, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do, cite from the SCOC ruling you're presuming upon. Just step up and support your dozen+ statements claiming the hereditary chiefs as the title holders... JUST DO IT!

(https://mcdn.wallpapersafari.com/medium/26/15/1oTHBD.jpg)
Obviously they hold title on behalf of all Wet'suet'en Nation people. I have said so previously.

obviously?  ;D Yes, you most certainly have stated so previously... a dozen+ times now - and when you do so, you typically couch it in terms of a SCOC ruling stating so. Again, you've been challenged (several times now) to quote from the SCOC ruling to substantiate your continued UNSUBSTANTIATED statement... the one you now state is so OBVIOUS!

we read, at ad nauseum, member Granny squawking like a parrot: "Crown's duty to consult, Crown's duty to consult".... which in this circumstance is actually... "Crown's duty to figure out who to consult with, Crown's duty to figure out who deciders are, Crown's duty to figure out what the FN decision is - to arrive at a consensus for them"!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2020, 03:21:46 pm
It isn't stated in this article, but I read previously that the "Indigenous leaders" referred to are hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet'suet'en Nations.

Yes, here it is:

https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/rail-blockade-in-new-hazelton-coming-down-rcmp-say-1.24076260

 ;D perfect... let me quote you reality from your own link!

Quote
Protestors had been blocking the rail line connecting Prince George and Prince Rupert since Feb. 6, in solidarity with a group of Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs

a "group of"... I presume this would be the minority number opposed; again, as stated previously, as I read/interpret, 8 of the 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have indicated they favour the CGL pipeline - notwithstanding the Band Council in favour, notwithstanding the 80% of band members who have voted in favour (a figure per the National Coalition of Chiefs), notwithstanding the 20 First Nations that have signed agreements with Coastal Gas Link (including the Wet'suet'en First Nation Band Council). Hot damn waldo... that a lotta notwithstandings!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 04:20:26 pm
obviously?  ;D Yes, you most certainly have stated so previously... a dozen+ times now - and when you do so, you typically couch it in terms of a SCOC ruling stating so. Again, you've been challenged (several times now) to quote from the SCOC ruling to substantiate your continued UNSUBSTANTIATED statement... the one you now state is so OBVIOUS!

You can read it yourself: Delgamuukw 1997.
It was a landmark SCoC ruling saying that Aboriginal title had not been extinguished.

Here's a recent article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/delgamuukw-court-ruling-significance-1.5461763
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 14, 2020, 04:24:38 pm
Government (BC) is supposed to consult with Aboriginal title holders, and they haven't yet. Premier Horgan preferred an injunction and RCMP raid instead. Now that he sees where that got him, he seems to be  moderating his tone somewhat:

Horgan has rejected calls from the Opposition Liberals to seek immediate injunctions to end the blockades and protests in B.C.

"We can't just use force," he said in the legislature. "It needs to be dealt with by co-operation, by consultation, by discussion so that we can all move forward."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipeline-protests-expected-to-continue-governments-to-meet-with-first-nations-1.4811735

Who are the title holders and how many are there? If the FN can’t get their shot together how is the government going to do it for them?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 14, 2020, 04:41:21 pm
Who are the title holders and how many are there? If the FN can’t get their shot together how is the government going to do it for them?

The government can consult with them, as the Crown is legally required to do.

I'd like to point out also, that the Crown in BC has never held consultations with any of the Indigenous groups. The CGL pipeline construction company made agreements with elected Band Councils, but 'the Crown' was not involved.

It was clearly an attempt by Horgan's government to circumvent 'the Duty of the Crown', which has now backfired on them rather dramatically.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 14, 2020, 04:52:46 pm
The government can consult with them, as the Crown is legally required to do.

I'd like to point out also, that the Crown in BC has never held consultations with any of the Indigenous groups. The CGL pipeline construction company made agreements with elected Band Councils, but 'the Crown' was not involved.

It was clearly an attempt by Horgan's government to circumvent 'the Duty of the Crown', which has now backfired on them rather dramatically.

The Crown isn’t building the pipeline. Why should government interfere with agreements between bands and companies if its regulations are being followed? If there are financial agreements that is up to the builder, not government.

The courts are granting injunctions against the protestors, nothing has backfired, people are breaking the law.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 15, 2020, 12:44:16 am
no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.
You can read it yourself: Delgamuukw 1997. It was a landmark SCoC ruling saying that Aboriginal title had not been extinguished.

no! The point you continue to fail on is, 'who holds the title'... you claim it's the hereditary chiefs and attribute that to the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010. You also fail to comprehend what's been written/replied to you - I've read a significant amount of the ruling and I've quoted from it several times in this thread. When I ask you to substantiate your claim by quote citing passage within the ruling, you can't... you won't! You just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over again! You state your repeated claim is obvious!  ;D

by the by: this evening, news outlets were covering Alberta Premier Kenney's reaction/statement... in which he includes a reference to the hereditary chiefs - where he stated, "8 of 12 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have come out in favour of the CGL pipeline". The waldo is still running with "8 of 13", as I've posted several times earlier in this thread. You ain't got the numbers member Granny! Of course Premier justVisitingJason also ran the table to include just who else within impacted First Nations have given their support for the CGL pipeline... the point being this support narrative is now becoming front-&-center and the media is starting to play it against the naive and ignorant BC protestors who actually believe the Wet'suet'en members are against the CGL pipeline. About time - yes?

here, let me quote again from the SCOC ruling... you tell me if it lines up with what I've stated several times now in regards title; I've stated a few variants of this: "no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner.". Said quoted passage from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Quote
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

Finally, aboriginal title is held communally. - had enough yet member Granny?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 15, 2020, 08:46:56 am
‘They need to check their privilege’: Scheer calls for police to end demonstrations

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/02/14/they-need-to-check-their-privilege-scheer-calls-for-police-to-end-demonstrations/

Scheer... helping the Conservative brand on his way out the door...
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 15, 2020, 09:12:35 am
Meanwhile, JT makes sure he stays out of the country.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 15, 2020, 09:20:07 am
I feel Trudeau's response is softer - like Mulroney's to Oka - than I expected. 

I think protests are a good idea, but at some point it has to end.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 15, 2020, 10:05:27 am
What are they protesting though? If a local band comes to a business arrangement with a company and all the regulations and bylaws observed, all the permits are in place, should government jump in and ask for second opinions from others?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2020, 10:23:20 am
I think protests are a good idea, but at some point it has to end.

Yes, at some point it has to end. In any protest, there are [at least] two sides. What is interesting is ones expectation that the side they support should make no compromise.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 15, 2020, 10:33:23 am
Meanwhile, JT makes sure he stays out of the country.

He's literally in Ottawa.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 15, 2020, 10:35:21 am
I feel Trudeau's response is softer - like Mulroney's to Oka - than I expected. 

I think protests are a good idea, but at some point it has to end.

In late December 2012, at the height of the Idle No More movement, there was a 13-day blockade of a rail line near Sarnia, Ont. Before the protest ended, CN Rail conveyed its frustration to federal officials — but Stephen Harper's government didn't send in the RCMP or the military to break it up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-indigenous-first-nations-pipeline-rail-protests-1.5463827
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 15, 2020, 11:17:32 am
Yes, at some point it has to end. In any protest, there are [at least] two sides. What is interesting is ones expectation that the side they support should make no compromise.

I see this as an internal FN power struggle. Who speaks for FN, hereditary chiefs or elected band councils? The non FN people involved are either just useful fools or trying to use this particular struggle to advance their own agendas.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 15, 2020, 11:19:53 am
He's literally in Ottawa.
He was in Germany yesterday.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2020, 11:28:52 am
He was in Germany yesterday.

Dang, those new fangled flying machines certainly get people around quickly. In my day it took 4 days by rail, 18 days by steam ship, and another 3 days by rail to get from Germany to Ottawa.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 15, 2020, 11:57:33 am
He was in Germany yesterday.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/itineraries/2020/02/14/prime-ministers-itinerary-saturday-february-15-2020
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 10:25:32 am
Turns out the hereditary chiefs weren't against a pipeline after all, just parts of the present route.
Looking more and more like an internal turf war.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-coastal-gaslink-pipeline-alternative-path-1.5464945
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 10:34:03 am
Killing our oil and gas industry is going to save the planet all right.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/russian-arctic-oil-and-gas-explained-1.5462754

Well maybe our pipeline companies can make some money building them for the Russians if they can't build them here.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 02:25:11 pm
Turns out the hereditary chiefs weren't against a pipeline after all, just parts of the present route.
Looking more and more like an internal turf war.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-coastal-gaslink-pipeline-alternative-path-1.5464945

Seems like, the company should have been less stubborn.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 02:25:49 pm
Killing our oil and gas industry is going to save the planet all right.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/russian-arctic-oil-and-gas-explained-1.5462754

Well maybe our pipeline companies can make some money building them for the Russians if they can't build them here.

Russia is certainly a model for us to follow.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 02:30:13 pm
Russia is certainly a model for us to follow.

Nothing to do with following Russia. We kill our own industry and make ourselves poorer for nothing. Lowering demand is what will lower consumption, not Canadians trying to look noble while the rest of the world carries on.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 02:31:41 pm
Seems like, the company should have been less stubborn.

Sure, years more delays, 800 million in added costs and greater overall environmental risks. Nothing to be stubborn about.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 03:28:27 pm
Nothing to do with following Russia. We kill our own industry and make ourselves poorer for nothing. Lowering demand is what will lower consumption, not Canadians trying to look noble while the rest of the world carries on.

No one has suggested shutting down Canadian industry.  I keep using the examples of India and the EU as massive markets doing their part.  Most of the world's population is on board with action now.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 16, 2020, 03:53:15 pm
No one has suggested shutting down Canadian industry.  I keep using the examples of India and the EU as massive markets doing their part.  Most of the world's population is on board with action now.

Interesting discussion with Mark Carney this am who is now heading to the UN. He describes how the world's population is getting on board with focusing on the Paris Accord. I would suggest he brings with him some knowledge as to how economies work and how to ween them from fossil fuels.


"Every major company needs to have a strategy for net-zero," says Mark Carney, the next UN Special Envoy on Climate Change.

In conversation with The Sunday Edition's host Michael Enright, Carney stressed that citizens in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed, through their elected parliaments, to meet the target of the 2016 Paris Agreement to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that target cannot be met without reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

"It would be a bit odd if you're running a company and you haven't thought of your strategy to move to net-zero — or for a net-zero world — unless you're just planning on running down your company, in the next decade or so," said Carney, whose term as Governor of the Bank of England ends next month.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-february-16-2020-1.5459411/mark-carney-named-un-special-envoy-on-climate-change-says-the-smart-money-is-on-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.5462453
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 16, 2020, 04:42:58 pm
@waldo

Crown duty to consult ...
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201917E#a3-1

We can only know the outcome of the Crown's consultation when the Crown has actually done so.

Perhaps the BC government will now begin those consultations, as they (and the feds) are soon meeting with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 16, 2020, 04:54:17 pm
Sure, years more delays, 800 million in added costs and greater overall environmental risks. Nothing to be stubborn about.

It's the BC government that has been stubborn and refused to consult.
Any further delay is on them.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 16, 2020, 05:02:01 pm
I see this as an internal FN power struggle. Who speaks for FN, hereditary chiefs or elected band councils? The non FN people involved are either just useful fools or trying to use this particular struggle to advance their own agendas.

It isn't either/or.
Both should be consulted.
That has not happened.
The BC government failed to do so, and
Premier John Horgan was very disrespectful.
BC and federal reps are meeting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs this week.
It's probably best if Horgan doesn't go.
He's out of his depth.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 16, 2020, 05:06:08 pm
Interesting discussion with Mark Carney this am who is now heading to the UN. He describes how the world's population is getting on board with focusing on the Paris Accord. I would suggest he brings with him some knowledge as to how economies work and how to ween them from fossil fuels.


"Every major company needs to have a strategy for net-zero," says Mark Carney, the next UN Special Envoy on Climate Change.

In conversation with The Sunday Edition's host Michael Enright, Carney stressed that citizens in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed, through their elected parliaments, to meet the target of the 2016 Paris Agreement to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that target cannot be met without reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

"It would be a bit odd if you're running a company and you haven't thought of your strategy to move to net-zero — or for a net-zero world — unless you're just planning on running down your company, in the next decade or so," said Carney, whose term as Governor of the Bank of England ends next month.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-february-16-2020-1.5459411/mark-carney-named-un-special-envoy-on-climate-change-says-the-smart-money-is-on-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.5462453

There may be a better thread for this, but that's an amazing quote!  :  )
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 16, 2020, 05:30:46 pm
no! The point you continue to fail on is, 'who holds the title'... you claim it's the hereditary chiefs and attribute that to the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010. You also fail to comprehend what's been written/replied to you - I've read a significant amount of the ruling and I've quoted from it several times in this thread. When I ask you to substantiate your claim by quote citing passage within the ruling, you can't... you won't! You just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over again! You state your repeated claim is obvious!  ;D

by the by: this evening, news outlets were covering Alberta Premier Kenney's reaction/statement... in which he includes a reference to the hereditary chiefs - where he stated, "8 of 12 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have come out in favour of the CGL pipeline". The waldo is still running with "8 of 13", as I've posted several times earlier in this thread. You ain't got the numbers member Granny! Of course Premier justVisitingJason also ran the table to include just who else within impacted First Nations have given their support for the CGL pipeline... the point being this support narrative is now becoming front-&-center and the media is starting to play it against the naive and ignorant BC protestors who actually believe the Wet'suet'en members are against the CGL pipeline. About time - yes?

here, let me quote again from the SCOC ruling... you tell me if it lines up with what I've stated several times now in regards title; I've stated a few variants of this: "no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner.". Said quoted passage from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Quote
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

Finally, aboriginal title is held communally. - had enough yet member Granny?

@waldo

Crown duty to consult ...

We can only know the outcome of the Crown's consultation when the Crown has actually done so.

Perhaps the BC government will now begin those consultations, as they (and the feds) are soon meeting with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs.

you're so full of shyte! You now appear to have shifted away from your perpetual nattering (15+ posts) claim that, "the hereditary chiefs hold the title" - cause the waldo busted that lil' gem/sham claim of yours - yes!

and now... you're highlighting "duty to consult"!  ;D I expect I've probably had a like 15+ posts where I speak to "duty to consult"... in particular, posts highlighting its attachment to SCOC rulings... and what it means... and doesn't mean! More pointedly I've focused on the lack of consensus within the Wet'suet'en' themselves... that the Crown can't decide who represents the First Nation, can't decide who decides for the First Nation, can't bring the differing views of a First Nation together as a part of consultation, can't presume upon a consensus FOR THE FIRST NATION itself.

now most pointedly: again, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support for the CGL pipeline (including those 5 of the largest Wet'suet'en clan); 20 First Nation Councils (including that of the Wet'suet'en) have given their support (and at least 5 of the hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Council members through the 5+ years of consult); per the National Coalition of Chiefs, 80% of the Wet'suet'en have voted in favour of the pipeline. At least 3 departments of said Crown have been involved in the CGL/First Nation gas pipeline initiative... all through the 5+ year consult process... involved in terms of environmental assessment, certifications, permits, etc.. (Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources; Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development; Environmental Assessment Office)

at least 3 formal meetings (that included hereditary chiefs) have occurred between CGL and the Wet'suet'en... as I read, there have been a total of 40 "points of contact" between CGL, provincial departments and CGL. The current status would appear to have the hereditary chiefs refusing to acknowledge and reply to the CGL letter sent to the hereditary chiefs in 2014 - a letter I will expand upon in subsequent posts.

go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 16, 2020, 05:35:39 pm
It's the BC government that has been stubborn and refused to consult. Any further delay is on them.

consult with who? Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Who decides for the Wet'suet'en? Who arrives at consensus for the differing views of the Wet'suet'en - most pointedly, among the hereditary chiefs themselves... where only 5 of 13 are not in favour? Again:

and now... you're highlighting "duty to consult"!  ;D I expect I've probably had a like 15+ posts where I speak to "duty to consult"... in particular, posts highlighting its attachment to SCOC rulings... and what it means... and doesn't mean! More pointedly I've focused on the lack of consensus within the Wet'suet'en' themselves... that the Crown can't decide who represents the First Nation, can't decide who decides for the First Nation, can't bring the differing views of a First Nation together as a part of consultation, can't presume upon a consensus FOR THE FIRST NATION itself.

now most pointedly: again, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support for the CGL pipeline (including those 5 of the largest Wet'suet'en clan); 20 First Nation Councils (including that of the Wet'suet'en) have given their support (and at least 5 of the hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Council members through the 5+ years of consult); per the National Coalition of Chiefs, 80% of the Wet'suet'en have voted in favour of the pipeline. At least 3 departments of said Crown have been involved in the CGL/First Nation gas pipeline initiative... all through the 5+ year consult process... involved in terms of environmental assessment, certifications, permits, etc.. (Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources; Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development; Environmental Assessment Office)

at least 3 formal meetings (that included hereditary chiefs) have occurred between CGL and the Wet'suet'en... as I read, there have been a total of 40 "points of contact" between CGL, provincial departments and CGL. The current status would appear to have the hereditary chiefs refusing to acknowledge and reply to the CGL letter sent to the hereditary chiefs in 2014 - a letter I will expand upon in subsequent posts.

go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!

go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 06:19:29 pm
It isn't either/or.
Both should be consulted.
That has not happened.
The BC government failed to do so, and
Premier John Horgan was very disrespectful.
BC and federal reps are meeting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs this week.
It's probably best if Horgan doesn't go.
He's out of his depth.
So you consult both and they don't agree. We wind up right where we are now. FN need to get their **** together and stop wasting other people's time and money.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 06:21:19 pm
It's the BC government that has been stubborn and refused to consult.
Any further delay is on them.

The bands and the company came to an agreement. This is all on FN who can't get their shit together.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 06:57:25 pm
Sure, years more delays, 800 million in added costs and greater overall environmental risks. Nothing to be stubborn about.

We know that this routing has definitely avoided any delays.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 06:57:42 pm
The bands and the company came to an agreement. This is all on FN who can't get their **** together.

It's not that simple.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 08:07:10 pm
It's not that simple.

Ya, it is that simple.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 08:07:38 pm
We know that this routing has definitely avoided any delays.

What routing?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 08:37:38 pm
What routing?

The current routing seems to be costing them time and money just fine.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 08:39:38 pm
Ya, it is that simple.

It's not actually.  Indigenous people have title to the land.  The land was never ceded in this case.  The INA band council has control over the reserve lands, but not the traditional territory.  That title is held by the hereditary chiefs.  Like I said, this has been a long journey of understanding for me.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 08:51:23 pm
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-wetsuweten-are-more-united-than-pipeline-backers-want-you-to-think/
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 08:52:41 pm
https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/index/articles/438.php?fbclid=IwAR01bZJ0-XUPQxjI1lm6y8xhbwKqK1A7ITFM_5JlKMccTrcPt1DrfvftkUc
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 09:02:57 pm
It's not actually.  Indigenous people have title to the land.  The land was never ceded in this case.  The INA band council has control over the reserve lands, but not the traditional territory.  That title is held by the hereditary chiefs.  Like I said, this has been a long journey of understanding for me.

Who cares, get their shit together so people aren't chasing their tails trying to deal with them.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 09:03:44 pm
The current routing seems to be costing them time and money just fine.
And another routine wouldn't? Did you bother reading the article?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 16, 2020, 09:21:42 pm
And another routine wouldn't? Did you bother reading the article?

The hereditary chiefs wanted to negotiate on the routing.  As they don't have legal standing under Canadian law, they were ignored...and that was a bad idea.  You'd think pipeline companies would have learned by now.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 16, 2020, 09:38:54 pm
The hereditary chiefs wanted to negotiate on the routing.  As they don't have legal standing under Canadian law, they were ignored...and that was a bad idea.  You'd think pipeline companies would have learned by now.


They wanted a routing that went through the lands of other bands who hadn't been dealt with. So now the company is supposed to go back and negotiate with them but they can't get their shit together either because they are the same as this bunch and we wind up right where we are now. Aside from the fact the new routing also goes through more environmentally sensitive areas and will cost another 800 million to build.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 12:27:36 am
Indigenous people have title to the land.  The land was never ceded in this case.  The INA band council has control over the reserve lands, but not the traditional territory. That title is held by the hereditary chiefs.

no => from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Quote
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

now... from a First Nation perspective, there may be a perceived internal view as to who "has oversight/control" of reserve versus non-reserve land - but in the case of the Wet'suet'en, that view is quite clearly not a consensus view. If it were you wouldn't have the Wet'suet'en Band Council out negotiating and signing agreements with the province and with CGL - notwithstanding the 19 other impacted First Nations who have similarly negotiated their own respective agreements. And again, per media accounts, 8 of those 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs are said to have given their approval... and more pointedly, it appears but 2 of those 5 dissenting hereditary chiefs are the principal (hard-core) opponents.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 12:27:56 am
=> per negotiated agreements, along with revenue from Impact Benefits Agreements and Provincial Pipeline Agreements, Indigenous businesses will benefit from $620 million in contract work for the project’s right-of-way clearing, medical, security and camp management needs. There is another $400 million in additional contract and employment opportunities for Indigenous and local B.C. communities during pipeline construction.

distinct from the agreements between CGL and the 20 impacted First Nations, the province of B.C. has also signed its own benefits agreements with the 20 impacted First Nations related to the pipeline project. As of Aug, 2019, a provincial spokesperson stated 15 of those agreements are in effect... I've not been able to find a more recent status update in that regard.

particular to the Wet'suet'sen, the following details relate to the benefits agreement signed with the province of B.C. - again, separate and distinct from any benefits realized directly in regards the negotiations with CGL; specifically, per a 2014 press kit release by the Wet'suwet'en First Nation (WFN) Chief and Council:

Quote
The WFN will receive approximately $2.8 million from the province at three different stages for the Coastal Gas Link (CGL) gas pipeline project:

    - $464,000 within 90 days after signing the agreement
    - $1,160,000 when pipeline construction starts (scheduled to begin in 2015)
    - $1,160,000 when the pipeline is in service

The WFN will also receive a yet-to-be-determined share of $10 million in ongoing benefits for the life of the pipeline - estimated at 25 to 35 years.

The province committed $30 million towards an Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI); proposed ESI programs include: culvert removal/upgrade, beaver dam management, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration, access to traditional sites, riparian livestock/fencing management, moose winter range enhancement, and road access decommissioning and reclamation.

The province has also announced a $30 million education and training fund to develop the required employment skills needed for WFN members to work on the pipeline

geezaz waldo... that's a whole lotta consulting going down!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 17, 2020, 05:58:48 am
In late December 2012, at the height of the Idle No More movement, there was a 13-day blockade of a rail line near Sarnia, Ont. Before the protest ended, CN Rail conveyed its frustration to federal officials — but Stephen Harper's government didn't send in the RCMP or the military to break it up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-indigenous-first-nations-pipeline-rail-protests-1.5463827

Super informative.

Hey there Waldo, did you support the Harper government at that time?  ???

By the way... thanks all for this very well discussed and informative thread.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 07:28:54 am
Hey there Waldo, did you support the Harper government at that time?  ???

reference points are key, particularly when presuming upon the oft used phrase (per member Granny), "fair dealings"! By the by Member Hardner, are you able to offer a past instance of like Indigenous support for an energy resource development project as has been shown by the 20 First Nations impacted by the B.C. CGL pipeline route/development?

in any case, if nothing else, the Canadian nation crippling actions taken by the (Ontario resident... Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory resident - less than 2200 on reserve resident) Mohawk First Nation have been exposed as self-serving and focused more (if not all) on their raised concerns for the existence of the CN Rail tracks and the usage therein by CN/Via Rail for freight and passenger travel. Media accounts of social media commentary by "some" Mohawk protestors, suggests CN paying a passage toll might contribute to an end of their blockade/protest... so much for the false premise, "solidarity with the Wet'suet'en"!

your mention of Harper days is one that showcases today's weakAndy Scheer/O'Tool CPC differences with Harper - those today calling for political interference to direct RCMP/OPP policing... you know, police-state like interference with the most focused CPC/ConMedia political attacks against PM Trudeau for, in Scheer's own words, "failing to direct the national police force to enforce the law and end the illegal tactics".

Quote
{Feb 13th} - Indigenous Services Minister, Marc Miller said he wanted to renew a 17th century diplomatic treaty between the Iroquois and European settlers.

"I am writing to confirm what I agreed orally a short while ago: that pursuant to the principles of the Silver Chain Covenant, I hereby agree to polish the Chain with you and the Kanien'kehá:ka of Tyendinaga at a location of your choosing this coming Saturday {Feb 15th}," wrote Miller.

The Silver Chain Covenant — an agreement between Anglo-American settlers and the Mohawk that established hunting boundaries in present-day upstate New York — is often invoked when discussing contemporary affairs between the state and Indigenous peoples. The covenant included a promise to promote peace and trade between the peoples in colonial America.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 17, 2020, 08:55:25 am
No, I can't.

So you supported Harper ?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 17, 2020, 08:58:57 am
no => from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

now... from a First Nation perspective, there may be a perceived internal view as to who "has oversight/control" of reserve versus non-reserve land - but in the case of the Wet'suet'en, that view is quite clearly not a consensus view. If it were you wouldn't have the Wet'suet'en Band Council out negotiating and signing agreements with the province and with CGL - notwithstanding the 19 other impacted First Nations who have similarly negotiated their own respective agreements. And again, per media accounts, 8 of those 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs are said to have given their approval... and more pointedly, it appears but 2 of those 5 dissenting hereditary chiefs are the principal (hard-core) opponents.

It really isn't as simple as Canadian law on its own anymore.  The courts have also made that clear.  The traditions of indigenous people matter legally.  The groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs.  The RCMP operating under the BC court order needlessly escalated this.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 17, 2020, 09:03:59 am
It really isn't as simple as Canadian law on its own anymore.  The courts have also made that clear.  The traditions of indigenous people matter legally.  The groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs.  The RCMP operating under the BC court order needlessly escalated this.

So why are the courts issuing injunctions?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 17, 2020, 09:15:23 am
So why are the courts issuing injunctions?

Because the law as written says that they should.  The protesters don't recognize the legitimacy of the ruling.  Going in there and dismantling things is the best way to escalate this further.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 17, 2020, 10:04:23 am
Because the law as written says that they should.  The protesters don't recognize the legitimacy of the ruling.  Going in there and dismantling things is the best way to escalate this further.
So the protesters are breaking the law by blocking access to roads, buildings and railways. Glad we got that straight.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 10:24:03 am
Hey there Waldo, did you support the Harper government at that time?  ???
So you supported Harper ?

so... you're not commenting that I wrote on the key distinction between democracy and police-state infringements to it; that I contrasted the key differences to your Harper days reference and that of the recent days police-state like comments coming from Scheer/O'Toole; that I spoke to the highly partisan politicization Scheer/CPC have made of this latest Indigenous 'dust-up' - outright attacking PM Trudeau for their claimed 'lack of leadership'... all of that without you commenting on any of it - but you're still fixated on sumthin!  ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 17, 2020, 10:32:54 am
so... you're not commenting that I wrote on the key distinction between democracy and police-state infringements to it; that I contrasted the key differences to your Harper days reference and that of the recent days police-state like comments coming from Scheer/O'Toole; that I spoke to the highly partisan politicization Scheer/CPC have made of this latest Indigenous 'dust-up' - outright attacking PM Trudeau for their claimed 'lack of leadership'... all of that without you commenting on any of it - but you're still fixated on sumthin!  ;D

Your two points:

1) Disparaging the Mohawk effort because of some comments on social media ? 
2) Talking about Andrew Scheer

I can always tell when you're floundering in your undying support for the Liberal party line, and criticism of the Conservative one - even when they overlap you can find a way.  But the 'tell' is the length of the posts in which you don't say much at all !  :D

Worry not - I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just nudging you a lil... Cute, fluffy, Waldo... have some Liberal food pellets  :D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 10:57:21 am
Your two points:

1) Disparaging the Mohawk effort because of some comments on social media ?  {waldo: that was an example... disparagement is your interpretation. However, what is most clear as showcased in mainstream media, is that the real affront to the Mohawk seems to be their concerns over the rail line passing through their claimed territory. Amirite or not? Which, of course, has SFA to do with proclaimed "solidarity with the Wet'suet'en - ya think!}

2) Talking about Andrew Scheer {waldo: and O'Tool... don't forget that dipshyte O'Tool! Ya, quite relevant, particularly their calls for the government to direct police - you know... that infringement to a key tenet of democracy. Buddy, are you stating this Scheer/O'Toole/CPC positioning has no relevance/bearing - really?}

I can always tell when you're floundering in your undying support for the Liberal party line, and criticism of the Conservative one - even when they overlap you can find a way.  But the 'tell' is the length of the posts in which you don't say much at all !  :D {waldo: "floundering"? No, that's you repeatedly trying to solicit a response from me that has dickAll to do with this thread/topic!}

Worry not - I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just nudging you a lil... Cute, fluffy, Waldo... have some Liberal food pellets  :D {waldo: I'm always heartened to read the real Hardner coming out... not the fake/pumped-up image of yourself you perpetually project upon!}
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 11:00:02 am
no => from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Quote
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

now... from a First Nation perspective, there may be a perceived internal view as to who "has oversight/control" of reserve versus non-reserve land - but in the case of the Wet'suet'en, that view is quite clearly not a consensus view. If it were you wouldn't have the Wet'suet'en Band Council out negotiating and signing agreements with the province and with CGL - notwithstanding the 19 other impacted First Nations who have similarly negotiated their own respective agreements. And again, per media accounts, 8 of those 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs are said to have given their approval... and more pointedly, it appears but 2 of those 5 dissenting hereditary chiefs are the principal (hard-core) opponents.
It really isn't as simple as Canadian law on its own anymore.  The courts have also made that clear.  The traditions of indigenous people matter legally.  The groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs.  The RCMP operating under the BC court order needlessly escalated this.

re: "the groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs"... says, apparently, one opinion piece you linked to - I've not seen/read/heard anything to that end in any form of mainstream media covering this issue. Quite the contrary. Unless you're prepared to categorically state that the oft stated, "8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support", is now incorrect... unless you're prepared to categorically state that the oft expressed claims of 20 First Nations negotiating/signing agreements with both the province & CGL is now incorrect - or meaningless!

in any case, from a prior post:

from the SCOC judgement you continue to rely upon, there is pointed reference to the lack of First Nation interveners joining the appellants in the related appeal case... with the most pointed statement, "It may, therefore, be advisable if those aboriginal nations intervened in any new litigation". The point being, the onus is on respective First Nations to initiate their respective requests/claims for title... "over said lands that were never ceded".

your emphasis on SCOC "direction" is rather "loose", notwithstanding its emphasis on 2-way negotiations, good faith & give & take... and reconciliation within the sovereignty of the Crown; re: para 186 of the judgement
(https://i.imgur.com/B7WX3c3.png)

as an interested outsider, the waldo certainly looks with interest to said 'next court challenges by Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs'. Given the overwhelming majority of the ~3500 band members support the gas pipeline, the Sparrow test 'public interest' (over some minimum number of "dissenters") shouldn't be difficult to realize.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 17, 2020, 11:38:26 am
Their system is based on consensus.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 17, 2020, 12:12:13 pm
Their system is based on consensus.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks.

What is a consensus if not supported by a majority? According to Granny, hereditary chiefs are chosen by a bunch of Clan mothers from eligible relatives. The only consensus involved is among the Clan mothers as to which ones of their relatives are going to rule. Sounds an awful lot like royalty to me where new kings were chosen by a group of nobility. Always one of their own group.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 17, 2020, 12:27:57 pm
The real Hardner...

It's all real... Just because I am usually serious doesn't mean that I can't take the piss out of you once in awhile. ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 01:30:38 pm
Their system is based on consensus.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks.

again, the oft mentioned 'facts' that 20 impacted First Nation Band Councils negotiated and signed agreements with the province/CGL, that 8 of 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs gave their approval... that at least 5 of the 13 were also Band Council members of the Wet'suet'en (definitely those 5 of the major clan) during the 5+ years of negotiations with the province/CGL, that (per the National Coalition of Chiefs) 80% of the West'suet'en voted in favour of the CGL pipeline...

if your premise is that none of the above matters - that it has no meaning, under what authority/direction/guidance were all these First Nation hereditary chiefs, Band Council Chiefs, Band Councillors and general populace Wet'suet'en engaging in negotiations, signing agreements with the province/CGL, and voting their approval?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2020, 01:32:53 pm
It's all real... Just because I am usually serious doesn't mean that I can't take the **** out of you once in awhile. ;D

you wish! The waldo is the, as you say, 'taker'... not the 'takee' - next time try harderHardner!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 17, 2020, 01:36:42 pm
you wish! The waldo is the, as you say, 'taker'... not the 'takee' - next time try harderHardner!

Why try harder when I hit paydirt with minimal effort ?   :D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 17, 2020, 05:47:00 pm
Because the law as written says that they should.  The protesters don't recognize the legitimacy of the ruling.  Going in there and dismantling things is the best way to escalate this further.

Natives live in Canada, you're either in or you're out.  You don't get to choose which laws you follow.  If they don't recognize BC courts or the BC/Canadian government at large then they should be handing back their health cards, driver's licenses, passports, and any government money given to them for services and whatnot.  If they don't recognize Canadian law enforcement, then go pay for your own.

Giving these people this much leeway is a joke and PC gone amok.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 17, 2020, 06:27:02 pm
Natives live in Canada, you're either in or you're out.

That is an extremely ironic statement.  Canada exists on land that they hold title to (according to our laws).  It's only now that we've begun to recognize the reality of that, and what that means.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 17, 2020, 07:27:22 pm
That is an extremely ironic statement.  Canada exists on land that they hold title to (according to our laws).  It's only now that we've begun to recognize the reality of that, and what that means.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want.  There's laws and courts that should be followed until such time that it's changed in the law.  I'm perfectly fine with changing the law to meet their needs and sovereign claims but we can't have chaos until that happens.

They have territory in Canada, ok well what does the law say about building on that land?  If they want the law changed, ok let's work to change the law.  Until then, we go by what the law and the courts say as of right now.  If you want to challenge a court decision, then challenge it.  Lots of pro bono lawyers out there i'm sure willing to help them and make a name for themselves.

It's fine and good to listen to protestors, but we shouldn't be negotiating with them, it's ridiculous.  The law is the law, enforce the law.  The truth is the gov doesn't want to do it because it's bad PR, gotta be PC.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: JMT on February 17, 2020, 07:38:24 pm
It's fine and good to listen to protestors, but we shouldn't be negotiating with them, it's ridiculous.  The law is the law, enforce the law.

if you want an actual insurrection, then take down the blockades by force.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 17, 2020, 08:07:36 pm
if you want an actual insurrection, then take down the blockades by force.

Maybe that's what it will take. Right now there are 40 ships waiting to unload in Vancouver harbour that can't because of the rail blockade, some of them with perishable cargoes. That can't go on.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 17, 2020, 08:38:25 pm
We could try flu blankets.

Zing!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 17, 2020, 09:10:03 pm
Ryan is in serious but non life-threatening condition.   :o  Encouraging, I would say.  I can sleep now.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 17, 2020, 09:20:03 pm
When was young my racing heros were people like Jim Clark, Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, Bruce McLaren etc. Losing a driver or two every year was pretty normal.  Now it is rare but maybe that makes it even more traumatic when a driver is killed or seriously hurt.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 17, 2020, 10:51:01 pm
I saw Ford vs Ferrari, good movie, fun too.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 17, 2020, 11:45:57 pm
I saw Ford vs Ferrari, good movie, fun too.

Haven't seen it yet. Did the movie say that Ken Miles was killed testing a car shortly after. Bandini was killed a year later at Monaco and McLaren was killed testing one of his own cars in 1970.

Jackie Stewart was quoted as saying 27 drivers were killed during his career, and average of one every three months.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 17, 2020, 11:51:39 pm
That should be a hint as to what a dumb "sport" it is.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 18, 2020, 08:31:35 am
Haven't seen it yet. Did the movie say that Ken Miles was killed testing a car shortly after. Bandini was killed a year later at Monaco and McLaren was killed testing one of his own cars in 1970.


Spoiler Alert.  ::)

But yes Miles demise is shown.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 18, 2020, 09:16:25 am
That should be a hint as to what a dumb "sport" it is.

Much safer now. Since Senna’s death in 94 there has only been one driver fatality in F1, although there was one in  a F2 support race at the Belgian Gran Prix last year which shook everyone severely because they are so rare.  A much more dangerous sport is cross country in equestrian eventing.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 18, 2020, 09:29:21 am
Waugh... I started this thread drift by accident...

Back on track now...
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 18, 2020, 10:48:46 am
Waugh... I started this thread drift by accident...

Back on track now...

yes you did (not by accident)... but it didn't start with you showcasing you're a NASCAR luvin' good ole' boy... it started earlier with your personalized vanity posts targeting moi! Of course, your thread derailing is sooooo hypocritical in the face of your own lapdogToChazWillyNillyThreadDerailers suspending act!  ;D

carry on - back on track now...
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 18, 2020, 01:00:28 pm
yes you did (not by accident)... but it didn't start with you showcasing you're a NASCAR luvin' good ole' boy... it started earlier with your personalized vanity posts targeting moi! Of course, your thread derailing is sooooo hypocritical in the face of your own lapdogToChazWillyNillyThreadDerailers suspending act!  ;D

carry on - back on track now...

No, those were on topic... if experimental.  Kind of like when you take your dog for a walk (on topic) and you talk to him during that walk (off topic) to find out what he's thinking.

Mission accomplished...
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 01:01:29 am
No, those were on topic... if experimental.  Kind of like when you take your dog for a walk (on topic) and you talk to him during that walk (off topic) to find out what he's thinking.

Mission accomplished...

 ;D I did naziThatComing! So... a "mission accomplished" thread derail is just fine if off-topic comments are simply searching for the thoughts of others! You've certainly come a long way from your days as a gestapoModeratingChazPuppet... at the other place!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 01:01:44 am
waldo recap: today, weakAndy continued his pining for a violent end to the Mohawk/Wet'suet'en protests... continued to press for PM Trudeau to direct police intervention. Scheer extended beyond his earlier comments where he told Indigenous protesters/allies to “check their privilege”... now today, outright calling them, "radical activists aimed at the destruction of the Canadian energy industry". For good measure, mmmKay labeled them "thugs"! Just the required collective CPC measured tone needed!  ;D

why it seems PM Trudeau (and other oppoLeaders Singh, May & Blanchet) went so far as to 'eject a protestor' from today's related ad-hoc meeting of party leaders convened by PM Trudeau!

Quote from: Liberal Party leader - PM Trudeau
Mr. Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today
Quote from: Green Party leader - Elizabeth May
Mr. Scheer was excluded because the speech he gave following the PM's statement was viewed as disqualifying him from participation in a discussion on how to find solutions.
Quote from: NDP Party leader - Jagmeet Singh
Scheer's speech on the blockades this morning was reprehensible. What he said was divisive. It was purposely designed to pit some groups against another - and to me it needs to be denounced. What he is suggesting is not a way forward

as a topper, self-labeled "True Blue" O'Toole was just livid that Scheer wasn't at the meeting... sending off this twitter zinger:
(https://i.imgur.com/f7UnSxy.jpg)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 01:14:57 am
and FFS, today, Solomon had St. Jody as a panel member on 'PowerPlay'... the waldo suspects the heavy-hand of regular panel member 'Robert Fife' had an influence in her appearance (with a wink, wink, nod, nod to Warren Kinsella)!

and the waldo kidsYouNot: JWR expressed surprise that she wasn't invited to the Party Leaders meeting called seeking solutions to the blockading protests... such arrogance from the PartyOfNone JWR... she being the former Cabinet Minister who refused to accept the Indigenous Services file.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 19, 2020, 03:38:51 am
Sure, but that doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want.  There's laws and courts that should be followed until such time that it's changed in the law.  I'm perfectly fine with changing the law to meet their needs and sovereign claims but we can't have chaos until that happens.

They have territory in Canada, ok well what does the law say about building on that land?  If they want the law changed, ok let's work to change the law.  Until then, we go by what the law and the courts say as of right now.  If you want to challenge a court decision, then challenge it.  Lots of pro bono lawyers out there i'm sure willing to help them and make a name for themselves.

It's fine and good to listen to protestors, but we shouldn't be negotiating with them, it's ridiculous.  The law is the law, enforce the law.  The truth is the gov doesn't want to do it because it's bad PR, gotta be PC.

Enforcing the law means that the Crown in BC has a duty to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council prior to approving the pipeline route. But Premier John Horgan refused to talk with them, figured he'd just bully his way past that Supreme Court of Canada law and depend on the local provincial court and RCMP force.

We see where that got him now, and the rest of us too.

Maybe next time a Premier will respect the law, and not put the whole country at risk.

The federal government is now requesting meetings with Wet'suet'en Nation Council, to try to fix the mess that Horgan has created by flouting the law.


Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 04:03:59 am
Enforcing the law means that the Crown in BC has a duty to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council prior to approving the pipeline route. But Premier John Horgan refused to talk with them, figured he'd just bully his way past that Supreme Court of Canada law and depend on the local provincial court and RCMP force.

We see where that got him now, and the rest of us too.

Maybe next time a Premier will respect the law, and not put the whole country at risk.

The federal government is now requesting meetings with Wet'suet'en Nation Council, to try to fix the mess that Horgan has created by flouting the law.

"duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Native Council"... which is comprised of who... exactly who? And to you, what would be the nature of this consult that you're forever parroting on about?

now, are you claiming it's not correct that, as oft stated by politicians and the media, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs gave their approval? ... and that more pointedly, they gave their approval to the route being considered by CGL and the 20 First Nation Councils that have signed agreements with BOTH the province and CGL... are you claiming that is not correct?

are you claiming there has been no consultation between the province and impacted First Nations?

are you claiming it's not correct that (at least 5) hereditary chiefs were also Band Council members involved in the 5+ years of negotiations with the province and CGL?

are you claiming that no hereditary chiefs have been involved in related negotiations with the province/CGL?

again:
=> per negotiated agreements, along with revenue from Impact Benefits Agreements and Provincial Pipeline Agreements, Indigenous businesses will benefit from $620 million in contract work for the project’s right-of-way clearing, medical, security and camp management needs. There is another $400 million in additional contract and employment opportunities for Indigenous and local B.C. communities during pipeline construction.

distinct from the agreements between CGL and the 20 impacted First Nations, the province of B.C. has also signed its own benefits agreements with the 20 impacted First Nations related to the pipeline project. As of Aug, 2019, a provincial spokesperson stated 15 of those agreements are in effect... I've not been able to find a more recent status update in that regard.

particular to the Wet'suet'sen, the following details relate to the benefits agreement signed with the province of B.C. - again, separate and distinct from any benefits realized directly in regards the negotiations with CGL; specifically, per a 2014 press kit release by the Wet'suwet'en First Nation (WFN) Chief and Council:

Quote
The WFN will receive approximately $2.8 million from the province at three different stages for the Coastal Gas Link (CGL) gas pipeline project:

    - $464,000 within 90 days after signing the agreement
    - $1,160,000 when pipeline construction starts (scheduled to begin in 2015)
    - $1,160,000 when the pipeline is in service

The WFN will also receive a yet-to-be-determined share of $10 million in ongoing benefits for the life of the pipeline - estimated at 25 to 35 years.

The province committed $30 million towards an Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI); proposed ESI programs include: culvert removal/upgrade, beaver dam management, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration, access to traditional sites, riparian livestock/fencing management, moose winter range enhancement, and road access decommissioning and reclamation.

The province has also announced a $30 million education and training fund to develop the required employment skills needed for WFN members to work on the pipeline

geezaz waldo... that's a whole lotta consulting going down!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 04:09:00 am
The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

do you really expect the Crown/industry to bring differing opinion holders together (say hereditary versus band chiefs/councilors) and attempt to have them reach a consensus within their own ranks... as a part of the consult itself? Really? Talk about your expressed call for "fair dealings"!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 04:20:08 am
Enforcing the law means that the Crown in BC has a duty to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council prior to approving the pipeline route. But Premier John Horgan refused to talk with them, figured he'd just bully his way past that Supreme Court of Canada law and depend on the local provincial court and RCMP force.

by statute, please state the particular law you're referring to. As for the respective SCOC ruling you keep hanging on:

from the SCOC judgement you continue to rely upon, there is pointed reference to the lack of First Nation interveners joining the appellants in the related appeal case... with the most pointed statement, "It may, therefore, be advisable if those aboriginal nations intervened in any new litigation". The point being, the onus is on respective First Nations to initiate their respective requests/claims for title... "over said lands that were never ceded".

your emphasis on SCOC "direction" is rather "loose", notwithstanding its emphasis on 2-way negotiations, good faith & give & take... and reconciliation within the sovereignty of the Crown; re: para 186 of the judgement
(https://i.imgur.com/B7WX3c3.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 04:25:14 am
hey now member Granny... is this more of the "consult" you're after... more of the "fair dealings" you continue to speak to?

Feb 12 - Wet'suwet'en chiefs sue Ottawa to force Crown to act on climate change (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wet-suwet-en-climate-change-federal-court-1.5461273)

Quote
... two Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs are suing Ottawa in a bid to force the federal government to take action on climate change.

If the claim filed in federal court this week by leaders of the Likhts'amisyu Clan succeeds, Ottawa would be forced to revisit the approval of projects like the $6-billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline, if they kept Canada from meeting international commitments to lower greenhouse gas levels

"What the Likhts'amisyu are saying to the federal government is that you've talked the talk, now it's time to walk the walk," said Richard Overstall, the lawyer for the chiefs.

"And allowing these high greenhouse gas emitting projects to continue for 40 years isn't walking the walk."
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2020, 09:20:26 am
One way or another, these blockades will have to end.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 01:28:05 pm
waldo recap: today, weakAndy continued his pining for a violent end to the Mohawk/Wet'suet'en protests... continued to press for PM Trudeau to direct police intervention. Scheer extended beyond his earlier comments where he told Indigenous protesters/allies to “check their privilege”... now today, outright calling them, "radical activists aimed at the destruction of the Canadian energy industry". For good measure, mmmKay labeled them "thugs"! Just the required collective CPC measured tone needed!  ;D

why it seems PM Trudeau (and other oppoLeaders Singh, May & Blanchet) went so far as to 'eject a protestor' from today's related ad-hoc meeting of party leaders convened by PM Trudeau!

Quote from: Liberal Party leader - PM Trudeau
Mr. Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today
Quote from: Green Party leader - Elizabeth May
Mr. Scheer was excluded because the speech he gave following the PM's statement was viewed as disqualifying him from participation in a discussion on how to find solutions.
Quote from: NDP Party leader - Jagmeet Singh
Scheer's speech on the blockades this morning was reprehensible. What he said was divisive. It was purposely designed to pit some groups against another - and to me it needs to be denounced. What he is suggesting is not a way forward

as a topper, self-labeled "True Blue" O'Toole was just livid that Scheer wasn't at the meeting... sending off this twitter zinger:
(https://i.imgur.com/f7UnSxy.jpg)

One way or another, these blockades will have to end.

one way is/was to meet seeking {possible} solutions - everyone there except angryAndy!  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/kddk2wz.jpg)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2020, 01:36:00 pm

one way is/was to meet seeking {possible} solutions - everyone there except angryAndy!  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/kddk2wz.jpg)

Possibly, but if not, they will still have to end otherwise there will be violence of some sort.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 pm
Right now it is just about how much the economy is affected. Once more people start losing jobs and businesses and can't pay their bills, the anger will build and violence against demonstrators from the public will be likely.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 19, 2020, 02:19:41 pm
yup! Overnight a rail tracks blockade was set up by "Cuzzins for Wet'suwet'en"... just outside Edmonton but still under the policing jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton Police Services. Apparently, supporters from Yellow Vests, United We Roll and Wexit are planning a counter-protest 'sometime this afternoon'... CN seeking court injunction@ 13:00 MDT --- CN heads to court, seeking injunction against rail blockade in west Edmonton (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/rail-blockade-wet-suwet-en-edmonton-1.5468200)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 19, 2020, 09:49:41 pm
Why would CN not sue these groups or the government/police for not doing anything.

Oh well, not my money.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 19, 2020, 10:13:47 pm
Why would CN not sue these groups or the government/police for not doing anything.

Oh well, not my money.

Good luck finding a lawyer for that.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2020, 10:07:47 am
yup! Overnight a rail tracks blockade was set up by "Cuzzins for Wet'suwet'en"... just outside Edmonton but still under the policing jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton Police Services. Apparently, supporters from Yellow Vests, United We Roll and Wexit are planning a counter-protest 'sometime this afternoon'... CN seeking court injunction@ 13:00 MDT --- CN heads to court, seeking injunction against rail blockade in west Edmonton (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/rail-blockade-wet-suwet-en-edmonton-1.5468200)

it appears the 'counter-protestors' did a lil' cleanup in aisle 9... wait, what's this waldo - on the left of the graphic below is mmmKay's first tweet (now deleted), replaced shortly after with a series of tweets on the right. Hey now waldo, why would MacKay, a former Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada, delete his first comment?  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/wVc3ffX.png)


edit to add: MacKay faces backlash over now-deleted tweet that critics say promoted vigilantism (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-backlash-deleted-tweet-blockades-1.5470209)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2020, 04:10:31 pm
of course Ezrant goes beyond Peter MacKay's support for vigilantism... bigly beyond, indeed!

(https://i.imgur.com/u6qTGlU.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 20, 2020, 04:14:21 pm
of course Ezrant goes beyond Peter MacKay's support for vigilantism... bigly beyond, indeed!

(https://i.imgur.com/u6qTGlU.png)

Well at least now he has reduced his fees to reflect what he is worth.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 20, 2020, 04:44:03 pm
Good luck finding a lawyer for that.

Ezra Levant can find them one apparently.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 20, 2020, 05:45:05 pm
of course Ezrant goes beyond Peter MacKay's support for vigilantism... bigly beyond, indeed!

(https://i.imgur.com/u6qTGlU.png)
Cleaning up trash is not vigilantism. Leave your crap lying around in the road, expect someone to move it or likely steal it.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2020, 06:59:08 pm
Cleaning up trash is not vigilantism. Leave your crap lying around in the road, expect someone to move it or likely steal it.

oh please - try a googly on the videos showing the {verbal} confrontations between both sides. Having some good ole' redneck Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers go above and beyond the verbal to dismantle & take away the blockade (while the protestors were still there) is clearly a vigilante extension; one that certainly could have provoked violence!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 20, 2020, 07:16:43 pm
oh please - try a googly on the videos showing the {verbal} confrontations between both sides. Having some good ole' redneck Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers go above and beyond the verbal to dismantle & take away the blockade (while the protestors were still there) is clearly a vigilante extension; one that certainly could have provoked violence!
Oh bummer, what protesters are doing isn't vigilantism? The protesters aren''t provoking violence with their actions? If you were out of a job and couldn't pay your bills or feed your family because of these clowns your definition of provocation would likely be somewhat different.   If this goes on much longer it won't just be yellow vesters and truckers.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2020, 07:39:45 pm
Oh bummer, what protesters are doing isn't vigilantism? The protesters aren''t provoking violence with their actions? If you were out of a job and couldn't pay your bills or feed your family because of these clowns your definition of provocation would likely be somewhat different.   If this goes on much longer it won't just be yellow vesters and truckers.

of course protestors are acting illegally with their blockades - of course, as you say, they're provocative... but their actions certainly don't fit the measure of vigilante - of defined vigilantism!

Quote
vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

so, yes... by the above definition, Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers were vigilantes... engaged in vigilantism.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 20, 2020, 08:41:52 pm
They are meeting one protest with another. Tough, or do you think counter protests should never be allowed? Or just ones you don't agree with or might make Liberals look bad?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2020, 09:58:28 pm
They are meeting one protest with another. Tough, or do you think counter protests should never be allowed? Or just ones you don't agree with or might make Liberals look bad?

the redneckers stepped beyond their {right to} counter-protest into vigilantism. Here, let me repeat that definition for you:

Quote
vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

perhaps you could elaborate on your, "making Liberals look bad", comment. Is that why MacKay deleted his tweet?  ;D
MacKay faces backlash over now-deleted tweet that critics say promoted vigilantism (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mackay-backlash-deleted-tweet-blockades-1.5470209)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 20, 2020, 11:44:59 pm
the redneckers stepped beyond their {right to} counter-protest into vigilantism. Here, let me repeat that definition for you:

perhaps you could elaborate on your, "making Liberals look bad", comment. Is that why MacKay deleted his tweet?  ;D

So counter protesting is vigilantism. Putting  up barricades and preventing people from having freedom of movement and earn their livings is not
Quote
members of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate
? Putting barricades up is legitimate protest, taking them down is not. Was there any violence? Was there any force used against persons?

Give me an effing break.

You're just twisted because it was some Albertans who finally stood up to these clowns.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 12:12:20 am
of course protestors are acting illegally with their blockades - of course, as you say, they're provocative... but their actions certainly don't fit the measure of vigilante - of defined vigilantism!

so, yes... by the above definition, Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers were vigilantes... engaged in vigilantism.

One group of protestors put up a barricade.  Another group of protestors took down the barricade.  Ok.  How is one bad and the other not.  They're doing the same darn thing except one is acting illegally.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2020, 12:16:50 am
Give me an effing break. You're just twisted because it was some Albertans who finally stood up to these clowns.

member wilber... being member wilber - now joined by MAGAmanGraham!  ;D Step beyond your right-wing reflexive - try reading what I actually wrote. I said there was a right to counter-protest. Once your heroes stepped beyond the 'from a distance' shouting/hurling insults (by both sides), once they encroached into the immediate space of the protestors to dismantle the blockade, their actions became those of vigilantes.

Quote
vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

your emphasis on the absence of violence/force is meaningless - it's the action of vigilantes that increases the likelihood for violence.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 12:26:20 am
member wilber... being member wilber - now joined by MAGAmanGraham!  ;D Step beyond your right-wing reflexive - try reading what I actually wrote. I said there was a right to counter-protest. Once your heroes stepped beyond the 'from a distance' shouting/hurling insults (by both sides), once they encroached into the immediate space of the protestors to dismantle the blockade, their actions became those of vigilantes.

your emphasis on the absence of violence/force is meaningless - it's the action of vigilantes that increases the likelihood for violence.

They aren't acting like law enforcement, they aren't making arrests or detaining people or punishing anyone.  They're hauling debris off of rail tracks.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 12:32:15 am
Trudeau maintained that the best way to resolve the impasse is through further dialogue, not the use of force.

Trudeau told premiers he's ready to dispatch senior cabinet ministers to meet with Indigenous protesters to negotiate an end to the blockades — a plan Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said amounts to appeasement of "radical activists."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-rail-blockade-unacceptable-1.5469613

Dialogue?  Why are you negotiating with people who are breaking the law?  Why empower and embolden them?  What a weak fool.  Coercion by protestorss should be met with coercion by police.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2020, 12:34:36 am
(https://memeworld.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Dogbert_d3a322_1633476.jpg)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2020, 12:39:57 am
Trudeau ---  What a weak fool.

the same way weakAndy hasn't been able to string together anything he would do as PM..... actually do... steps he would take - practical steps/actions, let the waldo ask you to state your want for PM Trudeau to be your, uhhh... "strong champion". What would you have PM Trudeau do; specifically do - practical steps/actions?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 21, 2020, 01:20:43 am
the same way weakAndy hasn't been able to string together anything he would do as PM..... actually do... steps he would take - practical steps/actions, let the waldo ask you to state your want for PM Trudeau to be your, uhhh... "strong champion". What would you have PM Trudeau do; specifically do - practical steps/actions?

I venture a guess that anyone who adopts MAGA to their avatar has a relatively narrow minded concept to such things, similar to the idiots who wear MAGA hats. Everybody who challenges me, throw them in jail. I bet andy has a few of those hats in his closet. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 06:01:11 am
the same way weakAndy hasn't been able to string together anything he would do as PM..... actually do... steps he would take - practical steps/actions, let the waldo ask you to state your want for PM Trudeau to be your, uhhh... "strong champion". What would you have PM Trudeau do; specifically do - practical steps/actions?

Call out the blockades for what they are - illegal acts of extortion - and pressure the Premiers to have them end the blockades.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on February 21, 2020, 08:17:14 am
Call out the blockades for what they are - illegal acts of extortion - and pressure the Premiers to have them end the blockades.

This won't happen because no politician wants blood on their hands.  Dudley George's ghost stayed with the Conservatives for years, even today he is mentioned.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 21, 2020, 09:33:36 am
member wilber... being member wilber - now joined by MAGAmanGraham!  ;D Step beyond your right-wing reflexive - try reading what I actually wrote. I said there was a right to counter-protest. Once your heroes stepped beyond the 'from a distance' shouting/hurling insults (by both sides), once they encroached into the immediate space of the protestors to dismantle the blockade, their actions became those of vigilantes.

your emphasis on the absence of violence/force is meaningless - it's the action of vigilantes that increases the likelihood for violence.

The protesters aren’t encroaching on the space of others? That space belongs to the protesters? You mean the protesters who blocked entrance to the BC legislature and trie to make a citizens arrest on Horgan at his home? Oh what double standards you have,

I hope this can  be resolved peacefully but if it doesn’t happen fast, this is just the beginning of citizens taking action on their own.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2020, 10:43:25 am
The protesters aren’t encroaching on the space of others? That space belongs to the protesters? You mean the protesters who blocked entrance to the BC legislature and trie to make a citizens arrest on Horgan at his home? Oh what double standards you have,

you're just being silly now! My words: "the immediate space of the protestors", certainly doesn't presume upon or attach ownership to said space. My words: "encroached upon the immediate space of the protestors", speaks to the confrontational aspect of that encroachment with it's potential to solicit response that could result in violence between the 2 sides. 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2020, 11:00:29 am
Call out the blockades for what they are - illegal acts of extortion - and pressure the Premiers to have them end the blockades.

with a focused and repeated emphasis on required dialogue, PM Trudeau has also repeatedly spoken of the need for protestors to respect the rule of law; i.e., they're acting unlawfully in terms of injunctions issued by the respective provincial judiciary. PM Trudeau has also, several times now, acknowledged the most significant impacts the blockades are having. The word, your wanted word, "extortion" is not, quite obviously, conducive towards successful dialogue; a word, your wanted word, fitting the Conservative/CPC mould reflected by the recent words of CPC leader/candidates, weakAndy, mmmKay, O'Tool, etc..

perhaps you could further elaborate on what you mean/imply with your words "pressure the Premiers". Make sure to include, by extension, exactly what you believe/interpret the provincial Premiers can... should do; specifically so, particularly as to my inference that you're expecting political direction of law enforcement, ala police-state infringement upon democracy, upon democratic society.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 21, 2020, 11:06:40 am
It is extortion though. That’s the whole intent.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 21, 2020, 05:10:35 pm
It is extortion though. That’s the whole intent.

Nonsense.

Canadian governments have ignored the requests of Wet'suet'en Chiefs for over 20 years to come to the table and reconcile rights and titles.

It's the BC RCMP holding the country hostage right now. They haven't left Wet'suet'en Territory as they said they would.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 21, 2020, 06:08:02 pm
Nonsense.

Canadian governments have ignored the requests of Wet'suet'en Chiefs for over 20 years to come to the table and reconcile rights and titles.

It's the BC RCMP holding the country hostage right now. They haven't left Wet'suet'en Territory as they said they would.
Of course it is.

I’m not talking about the Wet’suet’en so much as all the others who have jumped on the bandwagon all over the country to use this dispute for their own purposes. My guess is that most of them don’t really care about the Wet’suet’en personally.

What’s the difference between blocking a road until you get what you want and taking control of someone’s computer until you get what you want? They are both extortion. The problem with the self righteous is they are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause, it justifies any actions they take, regardless of how it affects the rights of others.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 21, 2020, 06:56:17 pm
*** CoastalGasLink's final environmental report rejected. Construction will be delayed months. ***

https://ricochet.media/en/2945/coastal-gaslink-environmental-assessment-rejected-construction-to-be-delayed

Now CGL and RCMP can leave Wet'suet'en Territory and the governments can get to work to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown rights, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 21, 2020, 07:30:45 pm
Private companies soon won't touch Canada with a barge pole when it comes to infrastructure projects. Governments will have to do them on their own. Trans Mountain is just the first.

Coastal Gas Link was selected to build the line in 2012 and filed its first environmental assessment application in 2014. In future, what company is going to spend hundreds of millions and years in an exercise that is likely to be futile.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 10:33:48 pm
with a focused and repeated emphasis on required dialogue, PM Trudeau has also repeatedly spoken of the need for protestors to respect the rule of law; i.e., they're acting unlawfully in terms of injunctions issued by the respective provincial judiciary. PM Trudeau has also, several times now, acknowledged the most significant impacts the blockades are having. The word, your wanted word, "extortion" is not, quite obviously, conducive towards successful dialogue; a word, your wanted word, fitting the Conservative/CPC mould reflected by the recent words of CPC leader/candidates, weakAndy, mmmKay, O'Tool, etc..

perhaps you could further elaborate on what you mean/imply with your words "pressure the Premiers". Make sure to include, by extension, exactly what you believe/interpret the provincial Premiers can... should do; specifically so, particularly as to my inference that you're expecting political direction of law enforcement, ala police-state infringement upon democracy, upon democratic society.

Today Trudeau chose to do just what I said.  Move to end the blockades.  He didn't call them "extortion" (which they are), he chose more politically sensitive language.  But he did say they can't keep using illegal barricades and force thousands of people out of jobs and costing who knows how many companies lots of money.

Today Trudeau, i'm surprised, made a very good speech and said all the right things.  He was firm but respectful of the indigenous.  I think most would have liked this to come sooner, but it's a very complex situation with a ton of stakeholders and that takes time to coordinate.

All Trudeau is asking for is the same as my position: he wants the court injunctions followed, the law followed, and that means the illegal barricades coming down.  Law enforcement's job is to enforce the law, that's what they should do now:  enforce the court injunctions and ensure the barricades and protestors are removed from the tracks.  Trudeau said the police can do this in whatever way they see as best in order to best keep the peace, which i agree.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 11:12:45 pm
Nonsense.

Canadian governments have ignored the requests of Wet'suet'en Chiefs for over 20 years to come to the table and reconcile rights and titles.

It's the BC RCMP holding the country hostage right now. They haven't left Wet'suet'en Territory as they said they would.

That's not all the protestors want.  They also want the gasline construction entirely ceased.

Trudeau said the protestors haven't come to the table here, they want their demands met or nothing.  This is a complex situation and it's hard to figure who is supporting what and who speaks for who etc.

It's in the hands of the courts now.  The federal or BC governments nor the Wet'suet'en Chiefs can just do whatever they want.  Nobody on this forum is, to my knowledge, a lawyer on aboriginal rights and law in BC/Canada.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 21, 2020, 11:22:08 pm
That's not all the protestors want.  They also want the gasline construction entirely ceased.

Trudeau said the protestors haven't come to the table here, they want their demands met or nothing.  This is a complex situation and it's hard to figure who is supporting what and who speaks for who etc.

It's in the hands of the courts now.  The federal or BC governments nor the Wet'suet'en Chiefs can just do whatever they want.  Nobody on this forum is, to my knowledge, a lawyer on aboriginal rights and law in BC/Canada.

Apparently you're not. The BC courts have already issued injunctions some time ago. They simply have not been enforced in an attempt not to fan the flames. Latest I hear the RCMP is willing to back away here in BC and so the hereditary chiefs will now come to the table.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 21, 2020, 11:32:23 pm
Apparently you're not. The BC courts have already issued injunctions some time ago. They simply have not been enforced in an attempt not to fan the flames.

No sh!t.  You're not a lawyer either, you just read the news like everyone else.  And since you're not a lawyer you can't tell me if the injunction is constitutional or not.  The Wet'suet'en chiefs can appeal the injunction, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if they want.

The injunctions won't be deemed illegal just because the hereditary chiefs say so and a bunch of protestors block rails.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 21, 2020, 11:55:40 pm
No sh!t.  You're not a lawyer either, you just read the news like everyone else.  And since you're not a lawyer you can't tell me if the injunction is constitutional or not.  The Wet'suet'en chiefs can appeal the injunction, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if they want.

The injunctions won't be deemed illegal just because the hereditary chiefs say so and a bunch of protestors block rails.

Injunctions are court orders. That means they have the power of law. The supreme court says so. You could take it up as a constitutional issue if you like, but if you don't abide you might just find yourself in jail.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 01:15:09 am
... and the governments can get to work to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown rights, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.

no - each and every time you make this unsubstantiated statement, I will ask you to support it - to provide a citation that substantiates it; ideally quote from the SCOC ruling - sure you can! You have refused the many requests I've made of you to do so. Will you again refuse this one?

the waldo quoted the relevant passages from the ruling; again, there is no directive as you claim... there is no language that compels government to do anything and accordingly neither the provincial B.C. or federal governments have shifted {much} beyond their original bargaining positions. More pointedly, as I interpret, both governments chose to expand initiatives to promote First Nations economic development... both governments moved to encourage the integration of First Nations into B.C.'s mainstream economy, while intensifying consultations with First Nations in regards resource development on presumptive claimed lands.

given the many deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence that existed through the lower courts leading up to that 1997 SCOC case, its ruling didn't address title resolution for claimed Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en lands. Most pointedly, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en plaintiffs lost the case at trial. However, given the lower court deficiencies, the SCOC ordered a new trial - one that has never occurred to date!

member Granny - quit telling porkies!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 01:26:47 am
It is extortion though. That’s the whole intent.

the waldo has not been reserved in calling out the protestors; in the case of the Mohawk I've referred to them as self-serving opportunists - that their claim to be in solidarity with the Wet'suet'en is laughable in the face of their principle focus... their emphasis on the CN rail tracks through their claimed lands and the passage of CN freight and VIA Rail passenger trains on those tracks. Equally, while being most supportive of the Wet'suet'en who have worked with the province, with CGL... I've been very critical of the small minority of hereditary chiefs who have chosen to go against the will of their own people and the majority of the hereditary chiefs.

what I will say is the Mohawk and the minority of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have not been engaged in "fair dealings"!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 02:11:44 am
*** Coastal GasLink's final environmental report rejected. Construction will be delayed months. ***

no - not months. The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) has given both CGL and the Wet'suet'en 30 days to resolve the latest "new information" brought forward by the (less than fair dealing) minority of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs. Per EAO:
Quote
Following this 30 day period, CGL may update and resubmit COR2 to the EAO for our approval. The EAO will consider all the information available at the time, including the updated report, all appendices, CGL’s engagement record and any additional information provided by Dark House or other Indigenous groups, and may proceed to decision shortly thereafter.

per the EAO, as I interpret, the 'last minute' raised issue from the Wet'suet'en has principally to do with concerns they have over impacts to their "Unist’ot’en Healing Centre". I understand the centre is a full kilometer from the actual gas pipeline; however, it appears significant interim construction related traffic is passing heavily on a relatively adjacent roadway. Nothing says "unfair dealings" like the following:
- as I interpret, CGL had no access to be able to assess impacts to the centre... because protestor blockades had been put up around it.
- as I read: per Resource Works (https://www.resourceworks.com/unistoten) - the Unist'ot'en protest camp founder is Freda Huson.
Quote
Huson has described the Unist'ot'en as having been created over a matter of years for the sole purpose of blocking pipeline construction. She describes the strategy in detail here, in a video from several years ago: To quote the most salient statement Huson makes in that video:

Quote
“We decided to start a camp right directly in the path of Enbridge and Pacific Trails pipelines route. We started by putting up a log cabin right in the GPS route, and from there we decided we wanted to build a permanent camp. After we put the cabin here in the GPS route of Enbridge and Pacific Trails, they moved their route upstream about a kilometre, kilometre and a half. We were planning to build a pithouse anyways but we decided to put the pithouse in the GPS route of PTP, as well as the permaculture garden to block them.”
 

note: Resource Works describes its mission to - communicate with British Columbians about the importance of the province's resource sectors to their personal well-being - to demonstrate how responsible development of British Columbia's resources creates jobs and incomes throughout the province, both directly and indirectly, while maintaining a clean and healthy environment.

as I read, to allow CGL to properly address the latest Wet'suet'en concerns, the EAO is impressing the need for full dialogue and cooperation between CGL and the Wet'suet'en - impressing the need for CGL to maintain a most comprehensive and transparent engagement record with the Wet'suet'en over the next 30 days!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 10:15:09 am
Private companies soon won't touch Canada with a barge pole when it comes to infrastructure projects. Governments will have to do them on their own. Trans Mountain is just the first.

Coastal Gas Link was selected to build the line in 2012 and filed its first environmental assessment application in 2014. In future, what company is going to spend hundreds of millions and years in an exercise that is likely to be futile.
Nobody on this forum is, to my knowledge, a lawyer on aboriginal rights and law in BC/Canada.

that waldo guy plays one on tee-vee... and with that pretext: there have been several posts in this thread presuming upon SCOC rulings; however, in the waldo's humble opinion, none of these rulings are the definitive resource in regards the oft stated "Crown duty to consult". Rather, that duty stems from S.35 of the 1982 Constitution itself - hence more relatively recent emphasis on the singular word and phrases that include "reconciliation". More pointedly in regards establishing land title, this duty is not one of blanket application; rather, it applies, 'case-by-case' with an onus on First Nations to apply and make their case... with, it seems, judicial oversight required to determine the legitimacy of these 'case-by-case' submissions.

what extends from the waldo's personal interest in seeing First Nations participation in improving their own economic standing, is my targeted review of related SCOC rulings that speak to limitations on granted title - limitations that particularly reflect resource related developments on claimed (or established) First Nations lands. Developments with a greater public interest attachment; ones that particularly bring significant benefits to impacted First Nations themselves. And again, my targeted review of those related SCOC rulings has been done to:

=> emphasize Crown duty to consult does not present First Nations, "a veto, a right to veto", say... public interest resource developments, and

=> tests have been established to more pointedly help ascertain and determine whether, for example, resource developments meet that test of being, 'in the public interest'. In that pointed regard, near the very beginning of this thread, I wrote:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do) --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group

and yes, member wilber, private company engagement and investments therein are at risk until greater certainty becomes ingrained in relationships concerning First Nations land claims (titled, or not). If nothing else, the element of time/process required to determine said public interest (broader public good), might be enough to negatively influence a private company's decision making in considering resource related developments - something that, perhaps, protestors implicitly factor (knowingly, or not).
 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 22, 2020, 11:44:08 am
Injunctions are court orders. That means they have the power of law. The supreme court says so. You could take it up as a constitutional issue if you like, but if you don't abide you might just find yourself in jail.

Exactly.  If you see it that way then the issue is over.  The court has said for the protestors in BC to move and allow the gaslink work to continue.  If the chiefs have an issue with that, then file an appeal through the courts.  Which is exactly what i'm saying they should do.  So you and I agree.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2020, 12:09:35 pm
Quote
and yes, member wilber, private company engagement and investments therein are at risk until greater certainty becomes ingrained in relationships concerning First Nations land claims (titled, or not). If nothing else, the element of time/process required to determine said public interest (broader public good), might be enough to negatively influence a private company's decision making in considering resource related developments - something that, perhaps, protestors implicitly factor (knowingly, or not).
 

The simple fact is, doing anything resource related in this country is a crap shoot because you can't depend on any sort of consistency. If there are places to invest that don't have that uncertainty, Canada won't even get a look. I sure as hell wouldn't put any of my own money in any kind of resource development in Canada. As a tax payer I have been forced to invest in TMX because we made the project impossible for private industry.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 22, 2020, 12:34:51 pm
The simple fact is, doing anything resource related in this country is a crap shoot because you can't depend on any sort of consistency. If there are places to invest that don't have that uncertainty, Canada won't even get a look. I sure as hell wouldn't put any of my own money in any kind of resource development in Canada. As a tax payer I have been forced to invest in TMX because we made the project impossible for private industry.

You are right, Canada is not the wild west or giving you environmental exploitation rights by filling the right pockets like many other places. Also note that most of those places don't have consistency either, they generally have a high rate of inflation on the bribes.

I am Canadian, and I don't want to be a tinpot nation.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2020, 12:41:28 pm
You are right, Canada is not the wild west or giving you environmental exploitation rights by filling the right pockets like many other places. Also note that most of those places don't have consistency either, they generally have a high rate of inflation on the bribes.

I am Canadian, and I don't want to be a tinpot nation.

We are a tinpot nation because we don't have any rules that can be depended on. We don't have a clue so we make it up as we go along.

But don't worry, it won't be a problem after industry washes its hands of us.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 22, 2020, 02:32:50 pm
Private companies soon won't touch Canada with a barge pole when it comes to infrastructure projects.

To be clear, you are referring to fossil fuel "infrastructure", in this case not for domestic "infrastructure" needs, but for export, for private profit.


Quote
Governments will have to do them on their own. Trans Mountain is just the first.
We don't need any more fossil fuel infrastructure, so no problem.

Quote
Coastal Gas Link was selected to build the line in 2012 and filed its first environmental assessment application in 2014. In future, what company is going to spend hundreds of millions and years in an exercise that is likely to be futile.

Yes, it's true what you say: Fossil fuel production is futile, only barely propped up by public subsidies. Otherwise, renewable energy would already be more profitable ... but fossil fuel subsidies are constraining the free market in energy.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 22, 2020, 03:02:58 pm
To be clear, you are referring to fossil fuel "infrastructure", in this case not for domestic "infrastructure" needs, but for export, for private profit.



No I'm referring to any infrastructure but do you seriously think this country's economy doesn't need exports? If so we could also get rid of much of our farming as well.


Quote
We don't need any more fossil fuel infrastructure, so no problem.

The countries buying the stuff do. Perhaps California, Mexico and Florida should stop exporting vegetables to Canada, they don't need the extra themselves.


Quote
Yes, it's true what you say: Fossil fuel production is futile, only barely propped up by public subsidies. Otherwise, renewable energy would already be more profitable ... but fossil fuel subsidies are constraining the free market in energy.

The fossil fuel industry gets about 4.5 billion in tax incentives. As a result, Alberta sends 20 billon in net tax revenues to Ottawa. 4.5 billion for a 20 billion return sounds like a good investment to me.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 03:26:56 pm
To be clear, you are referring to fossil fuel "infrastructure", in this case not for domestic "infrastructure" needs, but for export, for private profit.

c'mon member Granny, you should aspire to be a broken clock rather than the broken record you are... at least then you'd occasionally be right on sumthin! Again, as I wrote earlier:

'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b05298)

notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).

and yes, OF COURSE, there is a private-for-profit element at play with B.C. LNG... of course. However, the Horgan NDP government has designs on significant monetary returns for natural gas as tied to royalties and taxes... as contributed to the so-called "Prosperity Fund" (as originally introduced by the Clark Liberal government), accepting that the government analysis behind the natural gas return projections has taken some legitimate criticism. And, again, notwithstanding the negotiated monetary gains directly to the impacted 20 First Nations who have signed agreements with Coastal GasLink!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 03:30:32 pm
in regards those... but 5 (of 13) hereditary chiefs opposed: trending => Wexit'suet'en chiefs  ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 22, 2020, 03:46:21 pm
by the by waldo, why is DOFO MIA... at least B.C.'s Premier Horgan has been responding to the heat, rightly or wrongly!

so... per B.C. jurisdiction, the RCMP have been active to enforce B.C. court injunctions against protestors/blockades. But not, per Ontario jurisdiction, the OPP! Wassup wit dat?

A very important point no one is making about the blockades — they’re Ontario's fault (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-a-very-important-point-no-one-is-making-about-the-blockades-theyre-ontarios-fault)

Quote
The RCMP in their role as British Columbia’s provincial police are happy to enforce court orders against blockades and encampments. Quebec Premier François Legault vowed Thursday that the Sûreté du Québec would enforce any injunction issued against a rail blockade in St-Lambert, on Montreal’s south shore, which has halted southbound CN traffic to the United States as well as suburban commuter train service. And he asked Mohawk Peacekeepers to enforce any injunction against a separate blockade of the CP tracks in nearby Kahnawake, which has severed Quebec’s other rail link to New York State.

It is only the Ontario Provincial Police who refuse to do the courts’ bidding, proudly letting the Mohawk blockade near Belleville drag on for coming up on two weeks.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: kimmy on February 23, 2020, 02:04:01 pm
by the by waldo, why is DOFO MIA... at least B.C.'s Premier Horgan has been responding to the heat, rightly or wrongly!

so... per B.C. jurisdiction, the RCMP have been active to enforce B.C. court injunctions against protestors/blockades. But not, per Ontario jurisdiction, the OPP! Wassup wit dat?

A very important point no one is making about the blockades — they’re Ontario's fault (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-a-very-important-point-no-one-is-making-about-the-blockades-theyre-ontarios-fault)

Wait, what happened to "politicians don't tell the police what to do in this country"?  How does that prior hot-take resolve with the new view that it's Dug Ford's fault that the OPP aren't enforcing court in junctions?   Have Horgan and Legault have broken some anti-banana-republic tradition by telling the cops to get off their asses, or was it always the right thing to do but we're only talking about it now that it's an opportunity to criticize Dug?

 -k
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: kimmy on February 23, 2020, 02:15:16 pm
as a topper, self-labeled "True Blue" O'Toole was just livid that Scheer wasn't at the meeting... sending off this twitter zinger:
(https://i.imgur.com/f7UnSxy.jpg)

one way is/was to meet seeking {possible} solutions - everyone there except angryAndy!  ;D

(https://i.imgur.com/kddk2wz.jpg)

Trudeau, Singh, Blanchet, and May, all in the same room at the same time! Wow! I can only wonder what groundbreaking solutions this galaxy-brain quartet talked about during their meeting.

And in the space of about 4 days, Andrew Scheer's position on the blockades went from "disqualifying" and "unacceptable" to being the government's course of action.

I can only assume that whatever the Fab Four talked about in the No Scheer Club clubhouse, it couldn't have been that great. Or maybe it was just a stunt from the start.

 -k
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2020, 02:31:45 pm
Trudeau, Singh, Blanchet, and May, all in the same room at the same time! Wow! I can only wonder what groundbreaking solutions this galaxy-brain quartet talked about during their meeting.

And in the space of about 4 days, Andrew Scheer's position on the blockades went from "disqualifying" and "unacceptable" to being the government's course of action.

I can only assume that whatever the Fab Four talked about in the No Scheer Club clubhouse, it couldn't have been that great. Or maybe it was just a stunt from the start.

 -k

Andy's little "check your privilege" comment once again demonstrated he has a bit of a racist attitude so who would want him at such a meeting! He's a has been anyway. And the Cons. seem to be having trouble finding a replacement to lead their party so maybe they have a few of their own internal issues they should try to deal with.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 24, 2020, 09:36:58 am
At least in Ontario, the police have finally done their Effin' jobs!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tyendinaga-mohawks-removal-blockades-1.5473490
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 10:55:11 am
At least in Ontario, the police have finally done their Effin' jobs!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tyendinaga-mohawks-removal-blockades-1.5473490

The OPP have been doing their job, monitoring the camp that never was a "blockade", pushing it back to the federal and BC governments to negotiate real solutions.
Police are not the answer to decades of governments ignoring and evading Supreme Court law.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 11:09:07 am
The OPP have been doing their job, monitoring the camp that never was a "blockade", pushing it back to the federal and BC governments to negotiate real solutions. Police are not the answer to decades of governments ignoring and evading Supreme Court law.

no - the OPP weren't doing their enforcing injunction job! As before, as always: cite and support your statements in regard "Supreme Court law".
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 11:24:07 am
And in the space of about 4 days, Andrew Scheer's position on the blockades went from "disqualifying" and "unacceptable" to being the government's course of action.

such member kimmy revisionism! Where was weakAndy's expressed committment to "dialogue" over the use of force? Why member kimmy, it was replaced by Scheer calling for police action... stating that, "PM Trudeau's reluctance to use the police to stop the illegal blockades was akin to appeasement, a stance that privileges activists over hard-working Canadians and Indigenous people who support development." You and weakAndy - proponents for politicians directing police actions - aka, "Canada, the PoliceState"!

and yes, "dialogue" broke down as the Indigenous protestors/leaders refused the most recent days multiple requests to meet... but at least there was an attempt for it - there was a pursuit towards resolution via dialogue. Which wasn't there with angryAndy!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 24, 2020, 11:30:35 am
The OPP have been doing their job, monitoring the camp that never was a "blockade", pushing it back to the federal and BC governments to negotiate real solutions.
Police are not the answer to decades of governments ignoring and evading Supreme Court law.

It is when they're holding up millions of dollars in goods and crippling the Canadian economy.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 11:31:08 am
no - the OPP weren't doing their enforcing injunction job! As before, as always: cite and support your statements in regard "Supreme Court law".

Yes, OPP did their job ... MUCH better than the RCMP in BC.
Police have considerable discretion in the "timing and manner" of enforcing an injunction, and this time they exercised it well to this point: The tracks and road were never blocked. There was no interference with road or rail traffic. The camp was peaceful.
OPP forced federal government involvement, when to that point the feds were still bleating that the issue was BC provincial jurisdiction.

We do not need police acting like hired thugs for a private company like the RCMP are doing in BC. That does not 'preserve the peace', nor does it lead to long term resolution of governments' evasion of their responsibilities.

BC NDP Premier John Horgan has caused the entire problem across the whole country, by evading the law, refusing to carry out the duty of the Crown to consult with Wet'suet'en rights and title holders as required.
Then he still stubbornly refused to meet with the Chiefs when the federal government pressured him.
He finally agreed to send a rep for talks, when the entire country was disrupted by his ignorant behaviour.
He won't be at the table, though, because he is a racist blowhard **** (like Scheer) who would sabotage any progress.

These are not police issues. These are issues of governments evading their legal duties. It's our responsibility to push governments to viable solutions.
Police violence is not a solution.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 11:33:06 am
Wait, what happened to "politicians don't tell the police what to do in this country"?  How does that prior hot-take resolve with the new view that it's Dug Ford's fault that the OPP aren't enforcing court in junctions?   Have Horgan and Legault have broken some anti-banana-republic tradition by telling the cops to get off their asses, or was it always the right thing to do but we're only talking about it now that it's an opportunity to criticize Dug?

nice try! Try reading what I actually wrote. DOFO was nowhere to be found; again, at least Horgan held media availability meets and answered questions - several times. Clearly, as was done during the election campaign DOFO took his marching orders to disappear for 3+ months from the federal CPCs, this purposeful absence of DOFO has the smell of collusion with the CPC... a full on intent to direct and be complicit in a media onslaught against the Liberals/PM Trudeau. But finally, cracks in this veneer began to appear and focus returned to emphasize OPP police inaction to enforce Ontario issued court injunctions - nothing to do with the federal government/PM Trudeau.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 11:39:34 am
It is when they're holding up millions of dollars in goods and crippling the Canadian economy.

That's the governments' fault, and it's governments' problem to solve, not the police.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 11:55:39 am
Yes, OPP did their job ... MUCH better than the RCMP in BC. Police have considerable discretion in the "timing and manner" of enforcing an injunction, and this time they exercised it well to this point: The tracks and road were never blocked. There was no interference with road or rail traffic. The camp was peaceful. OPP forced federal government involvement, when to that point the feds were still bleating that the issue was BC provincial jurisdiction.

so... are the OPP doing their job today by finally enforcing the injunction?  ;D And most certainly, CN Rail/VIA Rail could not put freight/passengers in peril - public safety is paramount... are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?

We do not need police acting like hired thugs for a private company like the RCMP are doing in BC. That does not 'preserve the peace', nor does it lead to long term resolution of governments' evasion of their responsibilities.

are you claiming the RCMP enforcement of legal injunction is unlawful - cite accordingly, please!

These are not police issues. These are issues of governments evading their legal duties.

yes - reconciliation per S.35 of the Constitution... but, as I keep impressing upon you, no SCOC case provides a definitive order to... or provides a compelling message towards, a/the "duty to consult". More pointedly, SCOC ruling has emphasized the need for dual 2-side aspects of engagement, for honest and fair dealings. Are you claiming the self-serving Mohawk actions focused on rail traffic and shutting down Canada's economy have/had anything to do with the Wet'-suet'-en... are you claiming those actions as a sign of Mohawk fair-dealings? Are you claiming the last minute protest by a minority subset of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs represents fair-dealings?

again, the Wet'suet'en' lost the initial court cases - the related 97 SCOC ruling acknowledges this and speaks to the need for a second trial - which has never occurred to-date. Before you continue with your "thug calling" and your repeated targeting of the B.C. government/Horgan, care to comment why the Wet'suet'en have never pressed for that second trial..... why that second trial has never occurred?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 12:02:26 pm
That's the governments' fault, and it's governments' problem to solve, not the police.

 ;D oh please! You can't be taken seriously if you advocate for unlawful blockades, for ignoring legal injunctions --- oh wait, that was you that gleefully stated, "it's so easy to shutdown Canada". Carry on!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 24, 2020, 12:15:53 pm
It's ironic that environmentalists would rather see BC remain North America's largest coal exporter than an exporter of cleaner NG as a replacement for coal. Switching from coal to NG would reduce worldwide carbon emissions by about 20%
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 24, 2020, 12:32:51 pm
It's as if member Granny is wilfully ignoring the fact that the protestors were trying to stop rail traffic.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 01:09:38 pm
;D oh please! You can't be taken seriously if you advocate for unlawful blockades, for ignoring legal injunctions --- oh wait, that was you that gleefully stated, "it's so easy to shutdown Canada". Carry on!

If the limits of your comprehension start AFTER the government takes decades to create the problem ... then you have nothing to contribute to the solutions.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 24, 2020, 02:06:58 pm
If the limits of your comprehension start AFTER the government takes decades to create the problem ... then you have nothing to contribute to the solutions.

Actually, neither do you.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 04:09:02 pm
are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?
At that location, yes. Nothing was ever blocked there.

Quote
are you claiming the RCMP enforcement of legal injunction is unlawful - cite accordingly, please!
I'm saying that the RCMP exercised far less  professional discretion than they could have, made themselves look like private hired pipeline thugs, used excessive force, violated laws in ways they were already under censure for (and have failed to address publicly as required).

The RCMP went rogue, immediately and directly causing a huge public backlash and nation-wide disruption.
A public hearing or inquiry into RCMP actions will be necessary, since the RCMP are already under censure and have tried to bury that report, and have repeated their violations continuously at Wet'suet'en.

Complaints commissioner says RCMP sitting on year-old report into alleged abuses of power
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wet-suwet-en-rcmp-exclusion-zone-report-1.5469786

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/CRCC-Response-Concerns-RCMP-Actions-Wetsuweten-Territory
Quote
yes - reconciliation per S.35 of the Constitution... but, as I keep impressing upon you, no SCOC case provides a definitive order to... or provides a compelling message towards, a/the "duty to consult".
That's a ridiculous statement. Do some research on summaries of SCoC case law on duty to consult ... and the Royal Proclamation, fiduciary duty, Honour of the Queen ... etc. You seem unfamiliar with the concept in law, and your attempts to minimize and dismiss it in this case are inflammatory and misleading.

Quote
Before you continue with your "thug calling" and your repeated targeting of the B.C. government/Horgan,

Truth hurts. Horgan and the RCMP both caused a lot of damage to a lot of people, and both remain unapologetically obstinate dangers to the peace and security of all people in Canada.
 I won't water that down.

Quote
care to comment why the Wet'suet'en have never pressed for that second trial..... why that second trial has never occurred?

1) Because the Tsilhqot'in case was being prepared to  address the necessary outstanding issue - whether Aboriginal title applied only to multiple postage-stamp areas of settlement and industry (No) or to the entire traditional territory (Yes).
Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqot'in First Nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot%27in_Nation_v_British_Columbia

2) Borders remain to be delineated in consultation with the federal government, who have evaded any consultation with traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council.

With those completed, a declaration of Aboriginal Title may not need to go to the Supreme Court: The SCoC has encouraged government to apply the criteria and make those declarations, rather than sending a huge number of cases to the SCoC.

After the Tsilhqot'in precedent, there is an avalanche of Title cases that will need to be addressed.

And an interesting footnote to that:
IF an Indigenous Nation agreed to cede control of certain land for certain uses through Treaty, with revenue shares to be paid to the Indigenous Nation,
AND the land was used but those revenues were never paid ...
IS that unceded land = Aboriginal Title?

An analogy: I accept your offer to buy my house. You fail to close the deal by paying. Can you take the house anyway? Who holds the title?

Aboriginal titles exist on UNCEDED lands without treaties.
Aboriginal titles also exist on many treaty lands where government did not fulfill the treaty/agreement terms.

Canada's temporary political governments have punted these issues down the field for 150 years, while stealing land and resources and killing the planet.

Time to reconcile titles.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 05:50:40 pm
yes - reconciliation per S.35 of the Constitution... but, as I keep impressing upon you, no SCOC case provides a definitive order to... or provides a compelling message towards, a/the "duty to consult". More pointedly, SCOC ruling has emphasized the need for dual 2-side aspects of engagement, for honest and fair dealings. Are you claiming the self-serving Mohawk actions focused on rail traffic and shutting down Canada's economy have/had anything to do with the Wet'-suet'-en... are you claiming those actions as a sign of Mohawk fair-dealings? Are you claiming the last minute protest by a minority subset of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs represents fair-dealings?

again, the Wet'suet'en' lost the initial court cases - the related 97 SCOC ruling acknowledges this and speaks to the need for a second trial - which has never occurred to-date. Before you continue with your "thug calling" and your repeated targeting of the B.C. government/Horgan, care to comment why the Wet'suet'en have never pressed for that second trial..... why that second trial has never occurred?
That's a ridiculous statement. Do some research on summaries of SCoC case law on duty to consult ... and the Royal Proclamation, fiduciary duty, Honour of the Queen ... etc. You seem unfamiliar with the concept in law, and your attempts to minimize and dismiss it in this case are inflammatory and misleading.

no - I've done the research that you clearly haven't. I've repeatedly challenged you to cite passage within the 97 SCOC ruling that supports your repeated unsubstantiated claims/statements. You refuse to do so!, while I have quoted from it. Is there a problem for you?  ;D And yes, I've done so while giving you the actual ties to reconciliation - those ties to S.35 of the Constitution. What I've also done is highlight that, per SCOC rulings, your forever want to emphasize "duty to consult" has inherent limitations - limitations YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT, TO ACKNOWLEDGE; again:

what extends from the waldo's personal interest in seeing First Nations participation in improving their own economic standing, is my targeted review of related SCOC rulings that speak to limitations on granted title - limitations that particularly reflect resource related developments on claimed (or established) First Nations lands. Developments with a greater public interest attachment; ones that particularly bring significant benefits to impacted First Nations themselves. And again, my targeted review of those related SCOC rulings has been done to:

=> emphasize Crown duty to consult does not present First Nations, "a veto, a right to veto", say... public interest resource developments, and

=> tests have been established to more pointedly help ascertain and determine whether, for example, resource developments meet that test of being, 'in the public interest'. In that pointed regard, near the very beginning of this thread, I wrote:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do) --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 06:12:11 pm
so... are the OPP doing their job today by finally enforcing the injunction?  ;D And most certainly, CN Rail/VIA Rail could not put freight/passengers in peril - public safety is paramount... are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail/VIA Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?
At that location, yes. Nothing was ever blocked there.

notwithstanding the most intimidating large trucks/snowplows put directly adjacent to tracks by protestors, there are ready available pictures of protestors performing ceremony on the tracks - try a googly. By the by, are you now also choosing to be in solidarity with your favoured Mohawk protestors by ignoring the long-standing CN Safety Guideline directive advising that:

Quote
All workers, equipment and material have been positioned beyond the clearance limits or at any other location deemed safe by CN. (at least 5 meters (15 feet) from the nearest rail of the track on which the train is to pass with additional allowances for curvature and super elevation)

and then, of course, the waldo already schooled you by highlighting the VIA Rail public notifications; again:
Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol]. Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!! Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada. You've gone over the line.

as is your past displayed pattern, again now, when you're called out and been shown not to have an argument (you can support), you lash out with an over-the-top attack; one usually peppered with factual inaccuracies... not withstanding your underlying attempt to distract from your own inadequacies! I've bothered with your nonsense to the point of providing related exchanges; while also red-colour highlighting words that emphasis the hilarity... idiocy... of your attack/claims.

now, as an aside, it appears VIA Rail recognizes protestors have blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories have been issued by VIA Rail to the public:

(https://i.imgur.com/faWyAKK.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2020, 06:42:56 pm
are you claiming the RCMP enforcement of legal injunction is unlawful - cite accordingly, please!

I'm saying that the RCMP exercised far less  professional discretion than they could have, made themselves look like private hired pipeline thugs, used excessive force, violated laws in ways they were already under censure for (and have failed to address publicly as required).

The RCMP went rogue, immediately and directly causing a huge public backlash and nation-wide disruption. A public hearing or inquiry into RCMP actions will be necessary, since the RCMP are already under censure and have tried to bury that report, and have repeated their violations continuously at Wet'suet'en.

;D such hyperbole! Not sure how you presume upon "burying the report", when the related interim findings report has been public knowledge for years (as reflects upon the 2013 Indigenous persons protests against shale gas exploration in New Brunswick)

but, in regards my direct question to you concerning RCMP injunction enforcement, let the waldo emphasize the Commission's review speaks positively to the overall 2013 RCMP engagement with Indigenous protestors in New Brunswick... you know... the one where "peaceful Indigenous protestors" torched those 5 police cruisers! - specifically:

Quote
With respect to the arrests made during the anti-shale gas protests, the Commission found that, in general terms and with certain exceptions, RCMP members had reasonable grounds to arrest persons for various offences, and the force used was necessary and proportional in the circumstances. The Commission also found that in most cases, the RCMP members handled post-arrest and detention procedures in a reasonable manner and in compliance with policy.

The Commission found that in policing the protests, RCMP members demonstrated that they understood and applied the "measured approach," often demonstrating considerable forbearance in fulfilling their duty to keep the peace and ensure public safety while respecting individuals' right to protest. The RCMP command team and Crisis Negotiation Team made considerable efforts to bring stakeholders together to achieve a resolution to the conflict. The Commission also found that RCMP members did not demonstrate bias in general, or engage in differential treatment of Indigenous protesters when making arrests. Although the Commission made several findings and recommendations regarding the need for training and policy development with regard to Indigenous cultural matters and the handling of sacred items, it found that RCMP members did not, either deliberately or unwittingly, unnecessarily interfere with Indigenous ceremonies or sacred items.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 06:50:31 pm
no - I've done the research that you clearly haven't. I've repeatedly challenged you to cite passage within the 97 SCOC ruling that supports your repeated unsubstantiated claims/statements. You refuse to do so!, while I have quoted from it. Is there a problem for you?  ;D And yes, I've done so while giving you the actual ties to reconciliation - those ties to S.35 of the Constitution. What I've also done is highlight that, per SCOC rulings, your forever want to emphasize "duty to consult" has inherent limitations - limitations YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT, TO ACKNOWLEDGE; again:

What are the Federal and BC government policies on the duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 06:59:55 pm
Actually, neither do you.

I try to contribute information, wilber.

And analyses that may shock and disturb,
But still tell only half the story.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 24, 2020, 07:32:35 pm
At least in Ontario, the police have finally done their Effin' jobs!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tyendinaga-mohawks-removal-blockades-1.5473490

Why did the Ontario police wait for Trudeau's "ok" to start enforcing court orders and the law?  Aren't the police simply suppose to maintain law and order and not act based on politics or direction from any provincial or federal politicians?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2020, 08:19:43 pm
Why did the Ontario police wait for Trudeau's "ok" to start enforcing court orders and the law?  Aren't the police simply suppose to maintain law and order and not act based on politics or direction from any provincial or federal politicians?

The police are not directed by the government in this country. What makes you think the OPP acted simply on JT's OK?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 24, 2020, 09:06:04 pm
The police are not directed by the government in this country. What makes you think the OPP acted simply on JT's OK?

So what does an injunction mean to you? Should court orders be optional and if so, at who's discretion?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2020, 09:20:45 pm
So what does an injunction mean to you? Should court orders be optional and if so, at who's discretion?

I suspect I don't have to explain to you what injunctions are, and it is the responsibility of the local police to enforce them.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 24, 2020, 09:29:43 pm
The police are not directed by the government in this country. What makes you think the OPP acted simply on JT's OK?

Because prior they did jack all.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 24, 2020, 09:31:47 pm
I suspect I don't have to explain to you what injunctions are, and it is the responsibility of the local police to enforce them.

Why did Trudeau have to say anything?  Why did he have to say "it's time for the barricades come down".  Why didn't local police just do their jobs and enforce the law?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 24, 2020, 10:35:00 pm
I suspect I don't have to explain to you what injunctions are, and it is the responsibility of the local police to enforce them.

So you think court orders should be enforced, or not, at the discretion of the police alone. So I guess if it's fair that protesters are free to ignore them, it should be for the police as well.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 10:56:57 pm
notwithstanding the most intimidating large trucks/snowplows put directly adjacent to tracks by protestors, there are ready available pictures of protestors performing ceremony on the tracks - try a googly.

Ya, with the Minister of Indigenous Services, Marc Miller. Was he blockading too?  Lol

The plow truck was on the shoulder of the road, behind the train barrier (arm up),

If you're trying to lie about that, you'll lose.

The RCMP claim to have departed Wet'suet'en Territory  Friday afternoon.
That was not confirmed to the Mohawks at Tyendinaga.
It was their condition for leaving.

So now the BC and Federal government will begin to talk to the Wet'suet'en Council, on their territory.

And the Feds are apparently continuing to talk to the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy too.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2020, 11:19:14 pm
So you think court orders should be enforced, or not, at the discretion of the police alone. So I guess if it's fair that protesters are free to ignore them, it should be for the police as well.

It's the job of the police to carry out the the orders of courts, such as injunctions. How they approach those tasks is at their discretion and their usual attempts to resolve this type of issue peacefully is something we should be thankful for. In this case they finally had to put the pressure on but did so in a sensible way from what I've seen so far.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 24, 2020, 11:32:40 pm
Why did Trudeau have to say anything?  Why did he have to say "it's time for the barricades come down".  Why didn't local police just do their jobs and enforce the law?

OPP used their discretion at a peaceful non-blockade, knowing that intervention could have a big backlash across the country.

Scheer Conservatives don't seem to grasp that concept of considering that the consequences may be worse.
Those are people who need to be taking orders, not giving them.
I mean, what person doesn't even think one step ahead!!!
Darwin Award candidates. Lol

The justsmashthrough'em brigade are a few bricks short of a load.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 24, 2020, 11:35:53 pm
It's the job of the police to carry out the the orders of courts, such as injunctions. How they approach those tasks is at their discretion and their usual attempts to resolve this type of issue peacefully is something we should be thankful for. In this case they finally had to put the pressure on but did so in a sensible way from what I've seen so far.
So you do think whether they are carried out is at their discretion alone.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2020, 11:47:37 pm
So you do think whether they are carried out is at their discretion alone.

Yep.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 24, 2020, 11:58:55 pm
Yep.

So if a court issues an order the police could wait years before they decide to enforce it or not even enforce it at all. WTF happened to rule of law?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 12:06:26 am
And most certainly, CN Rail/VIA Rail could not put freight/passengers in peril - public safety is paramount... are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail/VIA Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?
notwithstanding the most intimidating large trucks/snowplows put directly adjacent to tracks by protestors, there are ready available pictures of protestors performing ceremony on the tracks - try a googly. By the by, are you now also choosing to be in solidarity with your favoured Mohawk protestors by ignoring the long-standing CN Safety Guideline directive advising that:

Quote
All workers, equipment and material have been positioned beyond the clearance limits or at any other location deemed safe by CN. (at least 5 meters (15 feet) from the nearest rail of the track on which the train is to pass with additional allowances for curvature and super elevation)

and then, of course, the waldo already schooled you by highlighting the VIA Rail public notifications {where VIA Rail recognized protestors had blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories were issued by VIA Rail to the public}

The plow truck was on the shoulder of the road, behind the train barrier (arm up),

If you're trying to lie about that, you'll lose.

the only one here telling porkies is you... consistently so! You're so full of it.

Quote
The protest and the truck’s dangerously close proximity to the tracks led to a decision after Feb. 6 by CN railway owners to halt all trains for nearly three weeks on that section of railway – CN ships $250 billion a year in bulk cargo, much of it through this Toronto-Montreal corridor, one of the busiest in the country.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 12:21:21 am
Why did the Ontario police wait for Trudeau's "ok" to start enforcing court orders and the law?  Aren't the police simply suppose to maintain law and order and not act based on politics or direction from any provincial or federal politicians?

please provide citation to support your claim/implication that the OPP responded to, as you say, "Trudeau's ok to start enforcing court orders"... make sure it also includes the procedure/process that would allow federal political influence over an Ontario court issued injunction... that would act as a federal directive to halt the, as you say, "Ontario police wait".

of course, what really happened is that repeated federal attempts to bring protesting Indigenous leaders forward... were repeatedly rebuffed to the point there was no point in continuing the pursuit of dialogue... which, of course, resulted in PM Trudeau's speech that emphasized the illegal blockades must end. Up until that point, the OPP was quite content to let the federal government take the brunt of public and political pressure for its own unwillingness to enforce the court ordered injunction. And as I highlighted a short while back, this was also the weasel-like play behind the MIA DOFO... all a part of the collective Conservative strategy to press the media and public frustrations toward the federal government - toward PM Trudeau. I'd say led by angryAndy but that idgit hasn't the wherewithal to forge such a tactical... moving towards strategic attack.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 12:32:15 am
OPP used their discretion at a peaceful non-blockade, knowing that intervention could have a big backlash across the country.

Scheer Conservatives don't seem to grasp that concept of considering that the consequences may be worse.

so... what of the OPP discretion today, hey! Bustin' the blockade and arresting many of the so-called protestors... oh wait waldo, they insist on being called protectors, not protestors! So what of the OPP discretion you're speaking of, hey member Granny - what of it now?

of course what the protesting Indigenous fail to grasp is that a CPC government wouldn't give their calls for reconciliation, their calls for "a duty to consult", the time of day. The CPC would bring down the hammer, big time. Most pointedly, these economy influencing blockade actions have caused many Canadians to question Indigenous motives and doubt government actions to appease them... to doubt government moves toward reconciliation.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 12:56:47 am
yes - reconciliation per S.35 of the Constitution... but, as I keep impressing upon you, no SCOC case provides a definitive order to... or provides a compelling message towards, a/the "duty to consult". More pointedly, SCOC ruling has emphasized the need for dual 2-side aspects of engagement, for honest and fair dealings. Are you claiming the self-serving Mohawk actions focused on rail traffic and shutting down Canada's economy have/had anything to do with the Wet'-suet'-en... are you claiming those actions as a sign of Mohawk fair-dealings? Are you claiming the last minute protest by a minority subset of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs represents fair-dealings?

again, the Wet'suet'en' lost the initial court cases - the related 97 SCOC ruling acknowledges this and speaks to the need for a second trial - which has never occurred to-date. Before you continue with your "thug calling" and your repeated targeting of the B.C. government/Horgan, care to comment why the Wet'suet'en have never pressed for that second trial..... why that second trial has never occurred?
1) Because the Tsilhqot'in case was being prepared to  address the necessary outstanding issue - whether Aboriginal title applied only to multiple postage-stamp areas of settlement and industry (No) or to the entire traditional territory (Yes). Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqot'in First Nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot%27in_Nation_v_British_Columbia

 ;D geezaz! That's almost 2 decades of prep work! Of course this is just another of your porkies - yet another. Wait waldo, didn't you already highlight this SCOC case/ruling... and wasn't your focus away from the title aspect to more pointedly emphasize sumthin' else, like the rulings 'Sparrow like test' by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do) --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 01:58:48 am
2) Borders remain to be delineated in consultation with the federal government, who have evaded any consultation with traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council.

With those completed, a declaration of Aboriginal Title may not need to go to the Supreme Court: The SCoC has encouraged government to apply the criteria and make those declarations, rather than sending a huge number of cases to the SCoC.

as I've repeatedly stated, Wet'suet'en/First Nation "Aboriginal Title and rights are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982". Of course, the Wet'suet'en land claim was not/has not been accepted by the B.C. government - hence the court cases, appeals and 1997 SCOC ruling - a ruling that, in itself, did not offer a declaration. And that ordered new trial that never occurred, the one you ridiculously say isn't needed because of the unrelated 2014 Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia... it is/will be needed to arrive at an ultimate decision for the Wet'suet'en to establish said boundaries and, effectively, provide the inherent declaration related to boundary determination. Well, will be needed unless governments and the Wet'suet'en reconcile their current differing opinions that go all the way back to the 97 ruling... and the chance of that occurring is ???

by the by, reconciliation of the pre-existence of Indigenous societies... with established (agreed upon) boundaries and title declaration... that is all within the over-riding sovereignty of the Crown - yes? Surely member Granny, you don't dispute that, right?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 06:39:47 am
So you do think whether they are carried out is at their discretion alone.

Not "whether", but the OPP have discretion in the "timing and manner" of enforcing an injunction. They  enforced the injunction by ensuring that the tracks and road were not blocked and the protest was peaceful.

The Mohawks consistently said that they would leave when the RCMP left Wet'suet'en Territory,  which reportedly happened Friday afternoon, though I didn't see public confirmation of that until Monday,,after the OPP moved in to clear the Tyendinaga camp.

The OPP and the RCMP have a responsibility to facilitate government negotiations to resolve the larger outstanding issues.
As we have seen, the RCMP's initial lack of discretion, reliance on violent removal of Wet'suet'en people caused a nation-wide crisis. 
The OPP used their discretion and conducted themselves in ways that did not cause further disruptions, and facilitated government engagement.

I'm going to say again ... anybody who thinks police violence is the answer to legitimate Indigenous assertions of rights is someone who doesn't think two steps ahead to what the consequences of police violence may be, in this case, a national crisis.
Such short-sighted thinkers, like Andrew Scheer, (Mike Harris, John Horgan, etc) have no place in leadership, imo. That kind of thinking has caused every crisis we've regretted.

And all of those situations have occurred because of chronic long standing government failure to address Indigenous assertions of rights.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 07:04:50 am
Not "whether", but the OPP have discretion in the timing and manner of enforcing an injunction. They  enforced the injunction by ensuring that the tracks and road were not blocked and the protest was peaceful.

based upon the first 3 days of the blockade, CN Rail obtained an injunction issued by the Ontario Superior Court - by media accounts, an injunction that reads, "forbids any continued interference with the rail line under the threat of arrest".

and now you're claiming that the OPP, using its discretion, actually enforced the injunction all along!  ;D So, again, what happened yesterday - what did the blockaders do differently to cause the OPP to extend beyond the enforcement you claim they were engaged in?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 07:26:36 am
12 part twitter thread unrolled: "It's factually inaccurate to say the {Wet'suet'en} hereditary system is universally opposed {to the CGL gas pipeline}"

(https://i.imgur.com/bkKMM1I.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 07:28:11 am
based upon the first 3 days of the blockade, CN Rail obtained an injunction issued by the Ontario Superior Court - by media accounts, an injunction that reads, "forbids any continued interference with the rail line under the threat of arrest".

and now you're claiming that the OPP, using its discretion, actually enforced the injunction all along!  ;D So, again, what happened yesterday - what did the blockaders do differently to cause the OPP to extend beyond the enforcement you claim they were engaged in?

You'd have to ask the OPP for their rationale for their actions.

And why don't you also ask Horgan and Trudeau why they did not make any effort to resolve the outstanding issues of Wet'suet'en land rights BEFORE it became a national crisis?!!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 07:33:36 am
So if a court issues an order the police could wait years before they decide to enforce it or not even enforce it at all. WTF happened to rule of law?

The supreme rule of law is the Constitution Act, and Supreme Court case law that arises from it.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 07:40:05 am
You'd have to ask the OPP for their rationale for their actions.

by your ridiculous statement claiming the OPP has been enforcing the injunction... all along... aren't you its spokesperson?  ;D

And why don't you also ask Horgan and Trudeau why they did not make any effort to resolve the outstanding issues of Wet'suet'en land rights BEFORE it became a national crisis?!!

who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? The majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline. C'mon member Granny, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Cause it sure seems like none of those Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, band chiefs and council members, and band members wanted or contributed to, as you say, "a national crisis"! Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en, hey!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 07:47:50 am
So if a court issues an order the police could wait years before they decide to enforce it or not even enforce it at all. WTF happened to rule of law?
The supreme rule of law is the Constitution Act, and Supreme Court case law that arises from it.

uhhh... member wilber was speaking to court ordered injunctions not being enforced (in a timely manner) by police. Clearly nothing to do with the Constitution or SCOC rulings that reflect upon it. Oh wait... just wait a minute here: are you now shifting to imply the OPP didn't enforce the Ontario Superior Court issued injunction... cause they were deferring instead to...... the Constitution and related SCOC rulings?  ;D So ok, why did the OPP stop your implied deferral yesterday? Oh my, wildly spinning member Granny - oh my!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 08:56:19 am
by your ridiculous statement claiming the OPP has been enforcing the injunction... all along... aren't you its spokesperson?  ;D

who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? The majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline. C'mon member Granny, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Cause it sure seems like none of those Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, band chiefs and council members, and band members wanted or contributed to, as you say, "a national crisis"! Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en, hey!

Waldo, let's just let your boy Trudeau do his job as he has committed to, of consulting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council. I am not interested in guessing, speculating or arguing about any hypothetical outcomes from those long overdue discussions.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2020, 09:05:37 am
The supreme rule of law is the Constitution Act, and Supreme Court case law that arises from it.
All of which means sweet FA if no one enforces it.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 09:09:43 am
uhhh... member wilber was speaking to court ordered injunctions not being enforced (in a timely manner) by police. Clearly nothing to do with the Constitution or SCOC rulings that reflect upon it.

Waldo, if you expect me to take your comments seriously - increasingly unlikely - you have to stop saying ridiculous things.

A provincial injunction can always be appealed to the appellate court, and to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine it's constitutionality.

That wasn't done by the Wet'suet'en,  but it could have been.

Constitutionality always takes precedence.

Your statement, "nothing to do with the Constitution" is absurd.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 11:40:38 am
who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? The majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline. C'mon member Granny, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Cause it sure seems like none of those Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, band chiefs and council members, and band members wanted or contributed to, as you say, "a national crisis"! Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en, hey!

Waldo, let's just let your boy Trudeau do his job as he has committed to, of consulting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council. I am not interested in guessing, speculating or arguing about any hypothetical outcomes from those long overdue discussions.

no - there's no need to guess, no need to speculate, no need for argument and certainly... certainly, nothing hypothetical about my question to you; again, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en in regards the CGL pipeline? Clearly you won't answer - because its the same answer that reflects upon the divisiveness within the Wet'suet'en themselves - they don't know themselves! So... who do you want the government to meet with in regards the CGL pipeline project - who speaks for the Wet'suet'en - would that be the majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Chiefs/Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline?

but hey now, what about the recent days attempts by the federal government to meet with that minority of dissenting hereditary chiefs - you know, those attempts that were ignored/rebuffed by that smallish number of hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline {route}? I read your, as you say, boys... were too busy meeting/strategizing with the rail blockading Mohawks... too busy signing their names to the front loader piece of that snowplow!  ;D

but keep on harping about PM Trudeau's expressed wants toward reconciliation - you and your Indigenous ilk can help push towards a CPC alternative!  ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 12:02:32 pm
Waldo, if you expect me to take your comments seriously - increasingly unlikely - you have to stop saying ridiculous things.

A provincial injunction can always be appealed to the appellate court, and to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine it's constitutionality.

That wasn't done by the Wet'suet'en,  but it could have been.

Constitutionality always takes precedence.

Your statement, "nothing to do with the Constitution" is absurd.

 ;D considering all the focus had been on protestors interfering with the national/provincial economies, how surprising is it you deflect from the rail blockades, from the port blockades... back on over to the Wet'suet'en blockades that have, effectively, been given short-shrift throughout this thread! Nice try though! But hey, if you think the rail/port blocking protestors can take their cases to the SCOC seeking remedy to allow them to keep messin' with Canada's national/provincial economies, good on ya! I mean, who should be surprised at anything you say after your most gleeful statement emphasizing, as you did, "how easy it is to shut down Canada". 

as for the Wet'suet'en blockade and the B.C. court injunction granted to CGL... that reads, "The defendants may genuinely believe in their rights under Indigenous law to prevent the plaintiff from entering Dark House territory, but the law does not recognize any right to blockade and obstruct the plaintiff from pursuing lawfully authorized activities"

of course what you're not transparent about in your personal 'unfair dealings' is that a prior interim injunction had already been in place for "a year or so"... and the RCMP were stationed there in proximity enforcing that interim injunction. More about that judges order granting the most recent injunction:

Quote
The judge's order confirms an interim injunction that has been in place for the last year, and includes an order providing RCMP with the power to enforce it.

"In the face of the interim injunction order, the defendants refused to voluntarily comply with the order and enforcement action by the RCMP, as well as ongoing RCMP presence, was required to ensure compliance," Church wrote.

The judge said the company has all the necessary permits and authorizations, and had met the legal tests for an injunction.

and as I read/interpret, it's the same 2 hereditary chiefs involved in CGL seeking the prior interim injunction as were served with the latest injunction. The same 2 hereditary chiefs with the "loudest voices" drowning out all the other hereditary chiefs in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the Band Chiefs in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the Band Councils in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the very majority of the Wet'suet'en people who are in favour of the CGL pipeline.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 25, 2020, 12:05:26 pm
Waldo, if you expect me to take your comments seriously - increasingly unlikely - you have to stop saying ridiculous things.

A provincial injunction can always be appealed to the appellate court, and to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine it's constitutionality.

That wasn't done by the Wet'suet'en,  but it could have been.

Constitutionality always takes precedence.

Your statement, "nothing to do with the Constitution" is absurd.

Breaking the law is not constitutional. The courts ruled and until that ruling is changed, it is the law. Rather than appealing the ruling the Wet'suet'en are choosing to break the law. If they are not prepared to follow the law, the existing law needs to be enforced.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 12:06:05 pm
member Granny, speaking of the internal divisiveness within the Wet'suet'en, let's not have this waldoGem buried too deep before you get a chance to comment on it... cause surely you weren't ignoring it, right?  ;D

12 part twitter thread unrolled: "It's factually inaccurate to say the {Wet'suet'en} hereditary system is universally opposed {to the CGL gas pipeline}"

(https://i.imgur.com/bkKMM1I.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2020, 01:14:25 pm
whaaaa! Surely angryAndy couldn't have been aware of this - and why would he be trusted with it!

Behind CN, CP's quiet deal to skirt railway blockades and keep Canada's vital goods moving (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cp-cn-arrangement-blockade-1.5474684)

Quote
Quiet talks brokered by a government desperate to stop a growing economic threat led to two rail rivals coming together with a workaround to bypass the Tyendinaga blockade site.

Since last week, Canada's two largest railways — CN and Canadian Pacific — have been quietly sharing their rail lines to transport essential supplies to communities in need, according to multiple government, CN and industry sources.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 25, 2020, 01:25:26 pm
There have been many protests, and they all have been different. From what I understand, the ones in Ontario started in early February and the injunction was obtained a few days later. I also understand that the Ontario protests in the early days did not actually block the rail line, but were beside it on the public road allowance. I don't know the date they started a physical blockade, and how long before the police issued their warning. I believe it was only a day or two at the most between the OPP issuing the warning and actually enforcing the injunction.

If were are trying to tie events together, like Trudeau making his statement that the injunctions must be respected, then lets make sure we are tying all other events as well. Doing something in a vacuum does not prove anything. I haven't really paid close attention to this entire mess, and it is happening in at least 4 places across the country all with different parameters.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 02:56:58 pm
There have been many protests, and they all have been different. From what I understand, the ones in Ontario started in early February and the injunction was obtained a few days later. I also understand that the Ontario protests in the early days did not actually block the rail line, but were beside it on the public road allowance. I don't know the date they started a physical blockade, and how long before the police issued their warning. I believe it was only a day or two at the most between the OPP issuing the warning and actually enforcing the injunction.

If were are trying to tie events together, like Trudeau making his statement that the injunctions must be respected, then lets make sure we are tying all other events as well. Doing something in a vacuum does not prove anything. I haven't really paid close attention to this entire mess, and it is happening in at least 4 places across the country all with different parameters.

There never was a physical blockade at Tyendinaga.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 25, 2020, 03:18:27 pm
There never was a physical blockade at Tyendinaga.

Are you sure. I heard today they lit a tire on fire and threw it on the tracks. I don't know what the situation was in the past few days before the OPP moved in.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 04:38:20 pm
Are you sure. I heard today they lit a tire on fire and threw it on the tracks. I don't know what the situation was in the past few days before the OPP moved in.

After the arrests, and after the first train went through.
A minor issue.

They were always outside CN land, behind the train barrier, on the shoulder of the road and camped in a field (under land claim).
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 04:45:07 pm
but hey now, what about the recent days attempts by the federal government to meet with that minority of dissenting hereditary chiefs - you know, those attempts that were ignored/rebuffed by that smallish number of hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline {route}? I read your, as you say, boys... were too busy meeting/strategizing with the rail blockading Mohawks... too busy signing their names to the front loader piece of that snowplow!  ;D

I'm sure you paid enough attention to know that they were, and still are, waiting for the RCMP and CGL to get off their territory. They won't meet under duress.

So stop blowing smoke.

Maybe all you care about is Trudeau's image, but some of us actually care more about governments acting in good faith to actually settle some long outstanding issues with Indigenous peoples.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 25, 2020, 05:04:35 pm
whaaaa! Surely angryAndy couldn't have been aware of this - and why would he be trusted with it!

Behind CN, CP's quiet deal to skirt railway blockades and keep Canada's vital goods moving (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cp-cn-arrangement-blockade-1.5474684)

Angry Andy and all the angry vigilante wannabes are not shining examples of how to behave in a crisis. Lol
Those are all people who need to be taking orders, not giving them.

(Did I already say that?) Lol

And probably need anxiety meds or blood pressure meds too.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 25, 2020, 05:12:35 pm
After the arrests, and after the first train went through.
A minor issue.

They were always outside CN land, behind the train barrier, on the shoulder of the road and camped in a field (under land claim).

That's a lie you keep repeating.  I watched on TV today as a group around the GTA sat in lines on the ground directly across GO Train tracks:  https://www.680news.com/video/2020/02/25/protesters-leave-site-of-rail-blockade-near-hamilton-that-disrupted-go-train-service/

(https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/blockade-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=720)

(https://beta.cp24.com/content/dam/cp24/images/2020/2/25/1_4826513.jpg?cache_timestamp=1582639531493)

(https://wwwhive.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1582647545_%E2%80%98We%E2%80%99re-not-leaving-as-long-as-it%E2%80%99s-possible-to-be-here%E2%80%99-Wet%E2%80%99suwet%E2%80%99en-solidarity-blockades-halt-GO-trains-in-Hamilton.jpg)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 25, 2020, 05:18:32 pm
That's a lie you keep repeating.  I watched on TV today as a group around the GTA sat in lines on the ground directly across GO Train tracks:

That is not Belleville, although it is Ontario. Part of the reason I said the many protests are different.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: kimmy on February 25, 2020, 11:52:23 pm
As a country we apparently can't even deal with small groups of yahoos with lawn chairs.

How are we going to handle the inevitable confrontation when TMX reaches Burnaby? Because that is going to make the current protests look tiny in comparison.

Will the federal government have the resolve to actually see the project to completion? I'm not sure Trudeau has the fortitude to get it done, and I'm sure that future TMX protesters are feeling very emboldened by the weak response to the current protests.

 -k
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2020, 01:47:54 am
whaaaa! Surely angryAndy couldn't have been aware of this - and why would he be trusted with it!

Behind CN, CP's quiet deal to skirt railway blockades and keep Canada's vital goods moving (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cp-cn-arrangement-blockade-1.5474684)

Quote
Quiet talks brokered by a government desperate to stop a growing economic threat led to two rail rivals coming together with a workaround to bypass the Tyendinaga blockade site.

Since last week, Canada's two largest railways — CN and Canadian Pacific — have been quietly sharing their rail lines to transport essential supplies to communities in need, according to multiple government, CN and industry sources.

oddly I can't find statements from weakAndy or Jagoff Singh commending the Liberal government/PM Trudeau for this most impressive covert undertaking to ensure the delivery of those critical goods that were nearing shortage levels. Beauty CP/CN... CN unmarked cars, CP marked engines driven by specially trained CN engineers! Now that's political leadership, hey!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2020, 02:06:54 am
considering all the focus had been on protestors interfering with the national/provincial economies, how surprising is it you deflect from the rail blockades, from the port blockades... back on over to the Wet'suet'en blockades that have, effectively, been given short-shrift throughout this thread! Nice try though! But hey, if you think the rail/port blocking protestors can take their cases to the SCOC seeking remedy to allow them to keep messin' with Canada's national/provincial economies, good on ya! I mean, who should be surprised at anything you say after your most gleeful statement emphasizing, as you did, "how easy it is to shut down Canada". 

as for the Wet'suet'en blockade and the B.C. court injunction granted to CGL... that reads, "The defendants may genuinely believe in their rights under Indigenous law to prevent the plaintiff from entering Dark House territory, but the law does not recognize any right to blockade and obstruct the plaintiff from pursuing lawfully authorized activities"

of course what you're not transparent about in your personal 'unfair dealings' is that a prior interim injunction had already been in place for "a year or so"... and the RCMP were stationed there in proximity enforcing that interim injunction. More about that judges order granting the most recent injunction:

Quote
The judge's order confirms an interim injunction that has been in place for the last year, and includes an order providing RCMP with the power to enforce it.

"In the face of the interim injunction order, the defendants refused to voluntarily comply with the order and enforcement action by the RCMP, as well as ongoing RCMP presence, was required to ensure compliance," Church wrote.

The judge said the company has all the necessary permits and authorizations, and had met the legal tests for an injunction.

and as I read/interpret, it's the same 2 hereditary chiefs involved in CGL seeking the prior interim injunction as were served with the latest injunction. The same 2 hereditary chiefs with the "loudest voices" drowning out all the other hereditary chiefs in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the Band Chiefs in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the Band Councils in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the very majority of the Wet'suet'en people who are in favour of the CGL pipeline.

I'm sure you paid enough attention to know that they were, and still are, waiting for the RCMP and CGL to get off their territory. They won't meet under duress.

So stop blowing smoke.

Maybe all you care about is Trudeau's image, but some of us actually care more about governments acting in good faith to actually settle some long outstanding issues with Indigenous peoples.

as the latest injunction reads, "the law does not recognize any right to blockade and obstruct the plaintiff {CGL} from pursuing lawfully authorized activities". This latest injunction extends upon the prior interim junction (that's been in place for "a year now")... the dissenting subset of the Wet'suet'en refusing to abide by these lawful injunctions is but a very smallish grouping of the overall majority of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, Band Chiefs, Band Council members and band members who are in favour of the CGL pipeline.

and again member Granny, you refuse to answer the question as to, "who speaks for the Wet'suet'en":
no - there's no need to guess, no need to speculate, no need for argument and certainly... certainly, nothing hypothetical about my question to you; again, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en in regards the CGL pipeline? Clearly you won't answer - because its the same answer that reflects upon the divisiveness within the Wet'suet'en themselves - they don't know themselves! So... who do you want the government to meet with in regards the CGL pipeline project - who speaks for the Wet'suet'en - would that be the majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Chiefs/Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 07:52:11 am
That's a lie you keep repeating.  I watched on TV today as a group around the GTA sat in lines on the ground directly across GO Train tracks: 

I was talking about the 19 day action at Tyendinaga. They were never on the tracks.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GWLAEx6wrApmMDNv9
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 07:53:55 am
As a country we apparently can't even deal with small groups of yahoos with lawn chairs.

How are we going to handle the inevitable confrontation when TMX reaches Burnaby? Because that is going to make the current protests look tiny in comparison.

Will the federal government have the resolve to actually see the project to completion? I'm not sure Trudeau has the fortitude to get it done, and I'm sure that future TMX protesters are feeling very emboldened by the weak response to the current protests.

 -k

No, TMX is not going to go through.

People speak with their feet ... and their lawn chairs.  Lol
I kind of like that characterization, though the "yahoos" - ie, brutes - are brutish in determination and persistence only, and thus very effective.

We've seen pretty clearly who the physical "brutes" are - CGL pipeline company and their gone-rogue RCMP attack dogs - excuse me, - 'tactical unit'.

RCMP in Burnaby TMX protests had an injunction too, but they didn't set up "exclusion zones", illegally demand identification and harass every 'protester', illegally search people and vehicles and seize necessary supplies (food, shelter items, medicines, etc), illegally prevent media from being present to film and report on RCMP actions. Because the urban protesters in Burnaby were largely non-Indigenous.

That illegal RCMP behaviour is only being conducted against Indigenous people in a remote area where the public is relatively absent and intentionally uninformed about RCMP actions. 

Even so, and thanks to social media, sympathetic protests have erupted and engulfed the entire country.

So no, even if Trudeau has the "fortitude", he does not have the authority to prevent the coming Constitutionally protected protests against TMX, which will be persistent, urban and 'white-privileged'.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2020, 10:12:26 am
I was talking about the 19 day action at Tyendinaga. They were never on the tracks.

And most certainly, CN Rail/VIA Rail could not put freight/passengers in peril - public safety is paramount... are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail/VIA Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?

notwithstanding the most intimidating large trucks/snowplows put directly adjacent to tracks by protestors, there are ready available pictures of protestors performing ceremony on the tracks - try a googly. By the by, are you now also choosing to be in solidarity with your favoured Mohawk protestors by ignoring the long-standing CN Safety Guideline directive advising that:

Quote
All workers, equipment and material have been positioned beyond the clearance limits or at any other location deemed safe by CN. (at least 5 meters (15 feet) from the nearest rail of the track on which the train is to pass with additional allowances for curvature and super elevation)

and then, of course, the waldo already schooled you by highlighting the VIA Rail public notifications {where VIA Rail recognized protestors had blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories were issued by VIA Rail to the public}
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2020, 10:22:22 am
That illegal RCMP behaviour is only being conducted against Indigenous people in a remote area where the public is relatively absent and intentionally uninformed about RCMP actions.

your claim, vis-a-vis review of RCMP enforcement of the Wet'suet'en related injunctions (now 2 in number), has been deferred in lieu of similar like claims made in relation to the 2013 RCMP engagement with Indigenous protestors in New Brunswick. As I pointed out to you in that regard:

are you claiming the RCMP enforcement of legal injunction is unlawful - cite accordingly, please!

I'm saying that the RCMP exercised far less  professional discretion than they could have, made themselves look like private hired pipeline thugs, used excessive force, violated laws in ways they were already under censure for (and have failed to address publicly as required).

The RCMP went rogue, immediately and directly causing a huge public backlash and nation-wide disruption. A public hearing or inquiry into RCMP actions will be necessary, since the RCMP are already under censure and have tried to bury that report, and have repeated their violations continuously at Wet'suet'en.

;D such hyperbole! Not sure how you presume upon "burying the report", when the related interim findings report has been public knowledge for years (as reflects upon the 2013 Indigenous persons protests against shale gas exploration in New Brunswick)

but, in regards my direct question to you concerning RCMP injunction enforcement, let the waldo emphasize the Commission's review speaks positively to the overall 2013 RCMP engagement with Indigenous protestors in New Brunswick... you know... the one where "peaceful Indigenous protestors" torched those 5 police cruisers! - specifically:

Quote
With respect to the arrests made during the anti-shale gas protests, the Commission found that, in general terms and with certain exceptions, RCMP members had reasonable grounds to arrest persons for various offences, and the force used was necessary and proportional in the circumstances. The Commission also found that in most cases, the RCMP members handled post-arrest and detention procedures in a reasonable manner and in compliance with policy.

The Commission found that in policing the protests, RCMP members demonstrated that they understood and applied the "measured approach," often demonstrating considerable forbearance in fulfilling their duty to keep the peace and ensure public safety while respecting individuals' right to protest. The RCMP command team and Crisis Negotiation Team made considerable efforts to bring stakeholders together to achieve a resolution to the conflict. The Commission also found that RCMP members did not demonstrate bias in general, or engage in differential treatment of Indigenous protesters when making arrests. Although the Commission made several findings and recommendations regarding the need for training and policy development with regard to Indigenous cultural matters and the handling of sacred items, it found that RCMP members did not, either deliberately or unwittingly, unnecessarily interfere with Indigenous ceremonies or sacred items.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2020, 10:28:35 am
So no, even if Trudeau has the "fortitude", he does not have the authority to prevent the coming Constitutionally protected protests against TMX, which will be persistent, urban and 'white-privileged'.

no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.

try again member Granny, try again!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 10:44:49 am
and again member Granny, you refuse to answer the question as to, "who speaks for the Wet'suet'en":

Who speaks for the Canadians?
 Andrew Scheer? Trudeau?
It's a rhetorical question you've asked.

Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.

That kind of interference by non-Indigenous people is just perpetuation of colonial divide-and-conquer tactics, and the BC NDP government is up to its neck in a mess because they tried to bully their way through with that out-dated strategy.

Though far from perfect, Canadian law is the reference point we have. My support for traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council is based on the Delgamuukw 1997 Supreme Court of Canada recognition of the unceded,
unextinguished "existing" Aboriginal rights and title of the Wet'suet'en Nation people.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 26, 2020, 11:55:32 am
I was talking about the 19 day action at Tyendinaga. They were never on the tracks.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GWLAEx6wrApmMDNv9

A picture of them not being on the tracks isn't proof they were never on the tracks.

I heard on the news reports of indigenous driving up and down the tracks in defiance of Trudeau's speech.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 26, 2020, 12:01:56 pm
Who speaks for the Canadians?
 Andrew Scheer? Trudeau?
It's a rhetorical question you've asked.

Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.

Canada needs to deal with somebody.  There needs to be some legitimate representatives of the Wet'suet'en in order to broker relations and deals.

Trudeau is the PM, head of government, so he speaks for the federal government of Canada.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 12:12:56 pm
no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience

It is not that clear cut:
Certain acts of civil disobedience are permitted, eg, striking workers do block access to workplaces, generally a 15 minute or so delay, but can become firm under some circumstances. Stopping incoming and outgoing trains happens within industry boundaries during strikes. Protesters walk on streets, blocking traffic and businesses.
Etc etc
Civil disobedience is a gray area, with legal and policing discretion afforded in order to 'preserve the peace' and also facilitate freedom of assembly.

Quote
, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.

You are focusing on legal action, confrontation, domination, suppression...  on issues that are really a matter of public interest and safety.

The TransMountain Burnaby Terminal ... 13 dilbit storage tanks, being increased to 26 ... amid thousands of homes and businesses, and a university ...with only one road down the mountain, directly past the storage facility. How do people evacuate if those tanks are on fire? With any breach of the tanks, airborne release of diluents is immediate and has life changing to fatal effects on any humans in its path, NONE of whom can get out of the way.


https://www.transmountain.com/burnaby-terminal-and-tunnel

But to keep people happy ...

The tanks are [currently] painted green to minimize appearance on the landscape. ... Public input will help determine the colour of the tanks – lighter colours reduce emissions.

"Public input" ! Oh yay!
Now isn't that just special!

Civil contempt? Criminal contempt?
TransMountainCo certainly has a lot of that!

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 26, 2020, 12:16:53 pm
Who speaks for the Canadians?
 Andrew Scheer? Trudeau?
It's a rhetorical question you've asked.




Our elected governments speak for Canadians.

Quote
Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.

It sure as hell is when it starts destroying innocent people's livelihoods.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 12:17:45 pm
A picture of them not being on the tracks isn't proof they were never on the tracks.

I heard on the news reports of indigenous driving up and down the tracks in defiance of Trudeau's speech.

You really haven't been paying attention, or you're intentionally promoting a lie.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 12:45:29 pm
Canada needs to deal with somebody.  There needs to be some legitimate representatives of the Wet'suet'en in order to broker relations and deals.

Trudeau is the PM, head of government, so he speaks for the federal government of Canada.

It doesn't sound like Scheer agrees with you. He sure has a lot to say, undermining everything Trudeau says.

Are you getting my point yet?

We don't all speak with one voice. My mouth says whatever it wants to, and will continue to do so..

We have no reason to demand that Wet'suet'en or any other group or community in Canada all speak with 'one voice'. That's absurd.

The real issue is ... the duty of the Crown to consult, and accommodate Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title was not completed. The Crown Ministers in BC refused to meet with Wet'suet'en Nation Council to hear their perspective.

BC Premier John Horgan caused this whole problem, has remained unapologetic, persisted in refusing to meet even when the whole country erupted.



Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 26, 2020, 12:50:45 pm
Our elected governments speak for Canadians.

It sure as hell is when it starts destroying innocent people's livelihoods.

Wet'suet'en people did not do that.

BC  Premier John Horgan refusing to meet with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs did that.
Our Federal governments refusing to have talks with Wet'suet'en Chiefs since 1997 did that.
.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 26, 2020, 01:09:43 pm
You really haven't been paying attention, or you're intentionally promoting a lie.

So you're saying the CBC reporter on the radio was lying?  I wish i had a link, but it was radio.

Here's a protestor with a rail barricade on CN rails in Edmonton a week ago on Feb. 19th.  Counter-protestors weren't removing barricades blocking the side of the road, they were on the rails.

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4820553.1582225461!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/violent-ends-to-past-indigenous-protests-haunt-trudeau-government-1.4824035

Your narrative is the lie.  Yet more wishful thinking that doesn't match reality on the ground.  You can't just wish fantasy into existence.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 26, 2020, 01:16:43 pm
A picture of them not being on the tracks isn't proof they were never on the tracks.

I heard on the news reports of indigenous driving up and down the tracks in defiance of Trudeau's speech.

You are right that is not proof. Hearsay is also not proof. When you have something substantial to show that native protesters in Belleville were blocking the track, please provide it. As I said earlier, there were multiple protests across the nation and they are not all the same.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 26, 2020, 01:51:57 pm
You are right that is not proof. Hearsay is also not proof. When you have something substantial to show that native protesters in Belleville were blocking the track, please provide it. As I said earlier, there were multiple protests across the nation and they are not all the same.

Putting something right beside a track is the same as blockading it. Railways can't take the risk of a derailment because of some idiots messing around on the right of way.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 26, 2020, 01:54:32 pm
Putting something right beside a track is the same as blockading it. Railways can't take the risk of a derailment because of some idiots messing around on the right of way.

Was the railway's right of way infringed in any way? Are you saying that if my neighbour puts something right beside the property line then I can call him an idiot and have the police raid his back yard?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 26, 2020, 02:11:14 pm
Was the railway's right of way infringed in any way? Are you saying that if my neighbour puts something right beside the property line then I can call him an idiot and have the police raid his back yard?

I don't know, do you. If the railway deemed it a hazard they weren't prepared to accept, the result is the same. Maybe you should set up camp beside a runway at an airport and see what happens. After all, you aren't blocking the runway. I'm sure all the people on those aircraft can trust you not to do anything stupid, just like a few hundred people on a Montreal to Toronto passenger train.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: ?Impact on February 26, 2020, 02:44:06 pm
Maybe you should set up camp beside a runway at an airport and see what happens.

Not the same situation at all. Most airports that I am aware of own a lot of land, and are also fenced in. In that case it would be trespassing, rather than occupying a public road beside them. The better analogy is something that did happen to me when I was in Victoria several years back. To get exercise during the cold months [well at least what Victoria calls cold], I would often go to the evening swim at the various pools in the area. One was near Sidney, and I often would pick up take out food and eat it while watching the planes land at Victoria International Airport. As best as I can figure the place I parked was at 48.645719, -123.416796 which is outside of the fence, but I am not sure if it is on airport property or a public road. I don't remember seeing any sign saying private property. I did this several times, and once a cop or private security (don't remember which) showed up. They were polite, but told me I shouldn't be there but didn't ask me to leave. They were of course concerned about security but saw I was not really up to anything so might just have lied (as cops often do) to discourage me from returning. I am pretty sure I had returned after that, but only the once did they show up.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 26, 2020, 04:21:57 pm
Not the same situation at all. Most airports that I am aware of own a lot of land, and are also fenced in. In that case it would be trespassing, rather than occupying a public road beside them. The better analogy is something that did happen to me when I was in Victoria several years back. To get exercise during the cold months [well at least what Victoria calls cold], I would often go to the evening swim at the various pools in the area. One was near Sidney, and I often would pick up take out food and eat it while watching the planes land at Victoria International Airport. As best as I can figure the place I parked was at 48.645719, -123.416796 which is outside of the fence, but I am not sure if it is on airport property or a public road. I don't remember seeing any sign saying private property. I did this several times, and once a cop or private security (don't remember which) showed up. They were polite, but told me I shouldn't be there but didn't ask me to leave. They were of course concerned about security but saw I was not really up to anything so might just have lied (as cops often do) to discourage me from returning. I am pretty sure I had returned after that, but only the once did they show up.

It’s the same in that you can’t operate an airport or a railway under those conditions.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 27, 2020, 10:45:46 am
So no, even if Trudeau has the "fortitude", he does not have the authority to prevent the coming Constitutionally protected protests against TMX, which will be persistent, urban and 'white-privileged'.

no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.

try again member Granny, try again!

Civil disobedience is a gray area, with legal and policing discretion afforded in order to 'preserve the peace' and also facilitate freedom of assembly.

Civil contempt? Criminal contempt? TransMountainCo certainly has a lot of that!

yet another showcase example of you being completely, 'out of your element'! Discussion here hasn't centered around peaceful/lawful acts of "civil disobedience" - rather, as I emphasized, it's in regards those protester acts that reach the level of civil & criminal contempt of court... those that breach one or more terms of a court ordered injunction. In the case of those dissenting Wet'suet'en, they have been in breach of an interim injunction issued 'a year ago, or so', as well as the injunction issued recently (in January).

feel free to state your examples of, to make your case for, as you state: "Trans Mountain Corp certainly having a lot of civil and criminal contempt in regards to court ordered injunctions" - sure you can!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on February 27, 2020, 10:58:10 am
no - there's no need to guess, no need to speculate, no need for argument and certainly... certainly, nothing hypothetical about my question to you; again, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en in regards the CGL pipeline? Clearly you won't answer - because its the same answer that reflects upon the divisiveness within the Wet'suet'en themselves - they don't know themselves! So... who do you want the government to meet with in regards the CGL pipeline project - who speaks for the Wet'suet'en - would that be the majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Chiefs/Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline?
Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.
We have no reason to demand that Wet'suet'en or any other group or community in Canada all speak with 'one voice'. That's absurd.

when parrotGranny keeps squawking, post after post after post, "duty to consult, duty to consult"... just who speaks for and will present a consensus Wet'suet'en view/position in regards the CGL pipeline? Who is to be consulted parrotGranny, who - name them!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 27, 2020, 11:37:01 am
You are right that is not proof. Hearsay is also not proof. When you have something substantial to show that native protesters in Belleville were blocking the track, please provide it. As I said earlier, there were multiple protests across the nation and they are not all the same.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tyendinaga-train-fire-mohawk-freight-1.5476708

So much for that idea.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 27, 2020, 01:05:19 pm

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4820553.1582225461!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg)


I didn't know the Invisible Man was native.  Pretty sweet to have him on your side.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 27, 2020, 02:23:31 pm
You know what's proof that this was an actual obstruction of the track?

CN and VIA cancelled service!!! You think they'd do it for shits and giggles just to stick it to the public opinion of FN people?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on February 27, 2020, 08:23:32 pm
You know what's proof that this was an actual obstruction of the track?

CN and VIA cancelled service!!! You think they'd do it for shits and giggles just to stick it to the public opinion of FN people?

Stop promoting a lie. If you'd paid attention at the time, you would know this fact.

Ask CN why they stopped the trains.
Ask CN police why they had to park their own car on the tracks and take a photo of it in order to get an injunction.  Lol
Ask OPP why they only monitored the protest: Hint - because there was nothing on the tracks that needed to be removed.  Lol

Google images from Tyendinaga before the arrests and check them all carefully.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 27, 2020, 08:53:25 pm
Stop promoting a lie. If you'd paid attention at the time, you would know this fact.

Ask CN why they stopped the trains.
Ask CN police why they had to park their own car on the tracks and take a photo of it in order to get an injunction.  Lol
Ask OPP why they only monitored the protest: Hint - because there was nothing on the tracks that needed to be removed.  Lol

Google images from Tyendinaga before the arrests and check them all carefully.

What was this all about then?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tyendinaga-train-fire-mohawk-freight-1.5476708
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 27, 2020, 09:56:44 pm
What was this all about then?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tyendinaga-train-fire-mohawk-freight-1.5476708

Lighting fires on the side of the track is peaceful protest.  Fire is speech. 

Many of the protestors don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of government court injunctions (and fire laws) because of colonialism.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Boges on February 28, 2020, 07:51:16 am
Stop promoting a lie. If you'd paid attention at the time, you would know this fact.

Ask CN why they stopped the trains.
Ask CN police why they had to park their own car on the tracks and take a photo of it in order to get an injunction.  Lol
Ask OPP why they only monitored the protest: Hint - because there was nothing on the tracks that needed to be removed.  Lol

Google images from Tyendinaga before the arrests and check them all carefully.

Are you alleging some conspiracy? If you, you'll have to provide some evidence beyond isolated images. Because there are other images that show the contrary.

You have scant anecdotal evidence that there was NO, blockade and don't really have a theory as to why rail traffic would be shut down if there wasn't a public safety risk.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 28, 2020, 09:20:15 am
Lighting fires on the side of the track is peaceful protest.  Fire is speech. 

Many of the protestors don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of government court injunctions (and fire laws) because of colonialism.


They were putting burning pallets on the tracks and trying to burn the ties with gasoline.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 28, 2020, 05:47:53 pm
They were putting burning pallets on the tracks and trying to burn the ties with gasoline.

That's an act of terrorism.  If trains were derailed that would be not good.

Read a story of protestors laying on the tracks but the train didn't stop, they had to jump off the tracks at the last moment.  A lot of these protestors are young people, and if some keep getting out of hand like this somebody is going to get killed, and that wouldn't be good.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 29, 2020, 09:20:54 pm
Why do we need court injunctions to remove people off the highway? 

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-issues-injunction-against-protesters-blocking-victoria-highway-1.4829063

Who are these people?  Don't they have jobs?  Shouldn't they be in school?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on February 29, 2020, 09:31:46 pm
Why do we need court injunctions to remove people off the highway? 

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-issues-injunction-against-protesters-blocking-victoria-highway-1.4829063

Who are these people?  Don't they have jobs?  Shouldn't they be in school?

Has to do with "you interfere with my land rites, I'll interfere with yours". A tad more complicated than that, but just to give you an idea.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on February 29, 2020, 09:34:49 pm
Grand daughter is playing in a Canada West 7's tournament at UVIC this weekend. She better be able to get back to UBC tomorrow. Real students have exams coming.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 01, 2020, 07:05:44 pm
What was this all about then?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tyendinaga-train-fire-mohawk-freight-1.5476708

That was a bit of outrage by young people AFTER the arrests.

Read it.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 01, 2020, 07:22:02 pm
Are you alleging some conspiracy? If you, you'll have to provide some evidence beyond isolated images. Because there are other images that show the contrary.

You have scant anecdotal evidence that there was NO, blockade and don't really have a theory as to why rail traffic would be shut down if there wasn't a public safety risk.

For 19 days the Tyendinaga Mohawks protested peacefully BESIDE the tracks, BEHIND the train barrier, on the shoulder of the road and camped in a farmer's field. NOTHING was blocking the tracks or the road.

CN voluntarily stopped the trains due to safety concerns.
Then CN got an injunction.
The OPP monitored for 19 days, but did not have reason to intervene because the conditions of the injunction were being met.

Then Trudeau gave his speech (directing the operations of the police ... illegally), and the OPP dispersed or arrested the Mohawks.

There have been some young people playing dangerous games for a few days since, protesting the violent arrests.

But for 19 days there was only peaceful protest and NOTHING blocking the tracks.
Except the Minister of Indigenous Services when he came to talk to them.  Lol

Oh ... and the sneaky CN police parked their car on the tracks in the middle of the night and took a picture of it ... then magically got an injunction the next day.   Lol

The Tyendinaga Mohawks have blocked the tracks in the past, so CN took precautions.

I thought their strategy was absolutely brilliant this time.

I was disturbed by the video of the arrests, by tactical cops, very disrespectful and violent. It was just a few young people who stayed upfront and confronted police - the rest stepped back - and the youth were still speaking, trying to educate police about their land rights.
Tyendinaga Mohawks have a federally validated treaty  claim below and above the tracks & the 401. (Simcoe Treaty)
They never gave permission for the railway or highway  to go through their land, never received any compensation.

I was also disturbed by the account of one Mohawk man that an OPP officer stood on his arm while another officer yelled at him to put his hands behind his back. He couldn't, then they yelled "Stop resisting!" , and several cops started kicking him in the head.  That kind of illegal police brutality happens to Indigenous people all the time, and it is disgusting.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 01, 2020, 07:53:31 pm
Grand daughter is playing in a Canada West 7's tournament at UVIC this weekend. She better be able to get back to UBC tomorrow. Real students have exams coming.

There's going to be a pipeline put through your yard. This is your only notice,  so be glad I was nice enough to tell you. Machines arrive at 6 am.  Lol

I remember back 10 years or so, people in a very wealthy country area outside of Ottawa woke up to find machines and workers slashing through their bush, cutting down a swathe of mature trees, yanking out the roots, making a horrible mess of their pristine woodland view.
It was a prospecting company with permits. They can go anywhere, even on private property (you have no mineral rights), just to look and drill and see if they can find something worth mining.

The rich people RAN to the local Aboriginal community for help. A standoff ensued, but they lost and the damage was already done.

It can happen to ANYBODY, even on your own property.

Another community RAN to the local Aboriginal community for help when a huge landfill was to be put on top of the aquifer that provided their very clean water. A standoff ensued. They won!
Now they're fighting a huge gravel quarry on the moraine that filters the water that feeds the aquifer.

It can happen to YOU!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 01, 2020, 08:41:20 pm
Why do we need court injunctions to remove people off the highway? 

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b-c-supreme-court-issues-injunction-against-protesters-blocking-victoria-highway-1.4829063

Who are these people?  Don't they have jobs?  Shouldn't they be in school?

That's a sick old refrain.

(From my strike days I know that the ones yelling ignorant things like that and throwing garbage at you are the rich ones with the really expensive cars.
WTF do they have to complain about? Unbelievable. Until then I believed in the goodness in everyone. No more. There are some really sick f*cks with lots of money who lead miserable lives, just because they choose to be a**h*les. Sucks to be them.)

Protests are usually pretty fluid. People come and go as they are able. Have you never heard of shift work? Not everybody works days. And students have flexible schedules.
 Indigenous Elders are always there to protest.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on March 01, 2020, 09:17:14 pm
There's going to be a pipeline put through your yard. This is your only notice,  so be glad I was nice enough to tell you. Machines arrive at 6 am.  Lol

I remember back 10 years or so, people in a very wealthy country area outside of Ottawa woke up to find machines and workers slashing through their bush, cutting down a swathe of mature trees, yanking out the roots, making a horrible mess of their pristine woodland view.
It was a prospecting company with permits. They can go anywhere, even on private property (you have no mineral rights), just to look and drill and see if they can find something worth mining.

The rich people RAN to the local Aboriginal community for help. A standoff ensued, but they lost and the damage was already done.

It can happen to ANYBODY, even on your own property.

Another community RAN to the local Aboriginal community for help when a huge landfill was to be put on top of the aquifer that provided their very clean water. A standoff ensued. They won!
Now they're fighting a huge gravel quarry on the moraine that filters the water that feeds the aquifer.

It can happen to YOU!

This was negotiated with the band councils, there were no ultimatums.

The existing TMX passes about 2 km from us. Before we moved it was about 2 blocks from us for 23 years. I know people who are happy it was coming through their property because KM was going to give them a bunch of money for the inconvenience then replace fences and anything else they had to disturb with brand new stuff. The expansion runs through the city owned Ledgeview golf course which is getting a new clubhouse out of the deal.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 01, 2020, 09:27:44 pm
(From my strike days I know that the ones yelling ignorant things like that and throwing garbage at you are the rich ones with the really expensive cars.
WTF do they have to complain about? Unbelievable. Until then I believed in the goodness in everyone. No more. There are some really sick f*cks with lots of money who lead miserable lives, just because they choose to be a**h*les. Sucks to be them.)

I've worked with the public.  There are a-holes rich and poor and in-between.

I'm not rich and I don't throw garbage.  I also used to believe in the goodness in everyone, real life changes that pretty fast.

Quote
Protests are usually pretty fluid. People come and go as they are able. Have you never heard of shift work? Not everybody works days. And students have flexible schedules.

I suppose.  I knew this young dude who would head over after his university classes to the local Occupy Wall Street protest gathering (which I supported in theory even though it accomplished nothing).
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 01, 2020, 09:32:13 pm
Why don't they just pay off the hereditary chiefs?  I would think they and their communities need money as badly as anyone.  Hire the locals as security too.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 01, 2020, 11:37:19 pm
CN voluntarily stopped the trains due to safety concerns.

public safety is paramount - in the interests of public safety both CN Rail & VIA Rail properly considered safety risks to the public and stopped freight and passenger train travel. Member Granny, it is most unfortunate you align your misguided position with that of protestors continued interference with the rail line and their refusal to meet that key condition of the Ontario Superior Court issued injunction.

The OPP monitored for 19 days, but did not have reason to intervene because the conditions of the injunction were being met.

no - the Mohawk protestors did not meet the key condition of the injunction... from the initial point it was served on through to today.

Then Trudeau gave his speech (directing the operations of the police ... illegally), and the OPP dispersed or arrested the Mohawks.

yet another member Granny porky - yet another! PM Trudeau most certainly did not issue any directive to police. But please, continue your blatant lies! It only continues to showcase your personal lack of intellectual honesty... and your personal absence of the key phrase you repeatedly nattered on about - "fair dealings"!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 01, 2020, 11:45:19 pm
Why don't they just pay off the hereditary chiefs?

you need to qualify your reference to that minority subset of the overall number of hereditary chiefs. In recent days a few media outlets properly mentioned that the meetings being held were with FIVE - 5 - hereditary chiefs. However, what was missing from the latest media coverage was any mention that these FIVE - 5 - were but a minority subset of the total THIRTEEN - 13 - number of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs... and that the missing EIGHT - 8 - were in fact in favour of the CGL pipeline.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: MH on March 02, 2020, 07:04:37 am
In any case... The so-called payoff should have happened long ago.  Maybe it's happening now...
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 02, 2020, 10:55:12 am
in recent days, railway tracks owned by both CN Rail & CP Rail have had "protectors" attempt to set the tracks on fire with pallets and/or tires. Now some, certainly not the waldo, are drawing further conclusions:

(https://i.imgur.com/9oHYt0O.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on March 02, 2020, 12:34:19 pm
Does this mean the Kahnawake reserve the right to have the final say on Coastal Gaslink no matter what agreement the Wet'suet'en come to?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/coastal-gaslink-pipeline-construction-resumes-1.5482153
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 02, 2020, 04:44:35 pm
public safety is paramount - in the interests of public safety both CN Rail & VIA Rail properly considered safety risks to the public and stopped freight and passenger train travel. Member Granny, it is most unfortunate you align your misguided position with that of protestors continued interference with the rail line and their refusal to meet that key condition of the Ontario Superior Court issued injunction.

no - the Mohawk protestors did not meet the key condition of the injunction... from the initial point it was served on through to today.

Well, you can argue that with the OPP whose position seemed to be that nothing blocking the tracks and keeping the peace was sufficient.

Quote
yet another member Granny porky - yet another! PM Trudeau most certainly did not issue any directive to police. But please, continue your blatant lies! It only continues to showcase your personal lack of intellectual honesty... and your personal absence of the key phrase you repeatedly nattered on about - "fair dealings"!

Haha! Yes, a sensitive issue. Did he or did he not direct the operations of the police? It would take a court to decide.
At least government is aware of the issue now.

He didn't  quite say "Get the fucking Indians out of the park!"
But is "The barricades must come down." the equivalent?

And why did that even apply to Tyendinaga where there were no barricades?

This will be argued throughout history, no doubt.

Anyway, as someone who has pushed that issue forward through several situations it was a hoot watching Trudeau and Blair dance around putting pretty words around their 'orders'.  Lol

But the poor RCMP! So directionless without their masters' orders!  Like windup toys that just keep running into walls, just doing the same wrong thing over and over! Ultimately, preventing the government from arranging meetings - 'peace talks' - on Wet'suet'en territory! Classic keystone cops.  Lol

"Arrrrgh, we got an injunction, we go git some Wet'suet'en!"
Clunk.
"We go git some MORE Wet'suet'en!"
Clunk.
"Aarrrrgh! Head hurts! Let's go git some Gitxsan!"
Clunk. Clunk. Clunk.
"Supreme Court? What Supreme Court?! We got an injunction! We gotta keep the government out!!"

Hahaha! So cutely incompetent, breaking the law, running and smashing, doxing and dragging, terrorizing ... like big clumsy Flatfeet on crack!

Two reports of RCMP illegal behaviour ... first one still ignored, sat on, no response.
Somebody has to tell them how to do their jobs!
A Public Inquiry in waiting ...
Seems they can't read or write either.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 02, 2020, 07:15:22 pm
you need to qualify your reference to that minority subset of the overall number of hereditary chiefs. In recent days a few media outlets properly mentioned that the meetings being held were with FIVE - 5 - hereditary chiefs. However, what was missing from the latest media coverage was any mention that these FIVE - 5 - were but a minority subset of the total THIRTEEN - 13 - number of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs... and that the missing EIGHT - 8 - were in fact in favour of the CGL pipeline.

Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: wilber on March 02, 2020, 07:57:08 pm
Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?

Seems that way. What a dysfunctional country.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 12:00:41 am
Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?

but it gets better! Of the 5 hereditary chiefs said to be opposed to the pipeline, but 2 of those 5 are said to be really driving "the dissent"... the same 2 that are always in the news, the same 2 that are consistently sought out by media for comment... the same 2 that traveled east to meet with the self-serving Mohawk! And as mentioned previously, of the 5 clans of the Wet'suwet'en, the largest clans 5 hereditary chiefs were also Band Council members during the 5+ years of consultation between the Wet'suwet'en Band Chief/Council and the province... and CGL.

but ya, as I kept nattering away at member Granny, "who speaks for the Wet'suwet'en"? From a previous post:
per Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation --- The Question of Authority Shouldn't Divide First Nations (https://vancouversun.com/opinion/ellis-ross-the-question-of-authority-shouldnt-divide-first-nations)

Quote
The only people who have a right to decide who represents them are the band members themselves.

The fact is all 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — have each signed agreements with the company. Professional protesters and well-funded NGOs have merely seized the opportunity to divide our communities for their own gains, and ultimately will leave us penniless when they suddenly leave.

All 203 First Nations bands in B.C. have unique and different forms of governance and, for the most part, they are satisfied with their systems.

My fellow First Nation leaders, both elected and non-elected, spent years investigating everything we could about LNG through environmental assessments, reviewing permits, government-to-government negotiations, and all the while trying to keep our members apprised of our progress.

It is therefore truly ignorant for non-Aboriginals to declare that elected Aboriginal leaders are only responsible for “on reserve issues” or are a “construct of the Indian Act meant to annihilate the Indian.”

.
.
It’s up to our communities to answer the representation question without intimidation and the interference of “allies” who only seek to control the narrative.

Simplistic solutions to complex problems have always been a problem for band councils trying to make life better for their own.

Allowing outsiders to undermine and dismiss years of careful consideration and consultation with elected chiefs who want nothing more than to secure a brighter future for their membership, is quite unacceptable and I will continue to speak out against it.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 12:28:48 am
Well, you can argue that with the OPP whose position seemed to be that nothing blocking the tracks and keeping the peace was sufficient.

I'm shocked that your, "seemed to be", is completely self-serving intended to fit with your agenda - shocked I tells ya! You can't support this madeUpShyte of yours... you can't quote/link to an OPP statement advising the Mohawk protestors were adhering to the terms of the injunction - you can't, right?

Haha! Yes, a sensitive issue. Did he or did he not direct the operations of the police? It would take a court to decide.

no - PM Trudeau/cabinet ministers most certainly, most assuredly, DID NOT direct the police to do anything. You've been called out on this and, per your norm, you resort to GishGallop! You have no credibility - none. I mean, c'mon, you're the braniac who has repeatedly run with a wildAss Facebook originated claim that CN put one of it's own vehicles on a track, took a picture of that vehicle, and then used it as the principal causal tie to secure the injunction! That was YOU!  ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 03, 2020, 11:39:32 am
you need to qualify your reference to that minority subset of the overall number of hereditary chiefs. In recent days a few media outlets properly mentioned that the meetings being held were with FIVE - 5 - hereditary chiefs. However, what was missing from the latest media coverage was any mention that these FIVE - 5 - were but a minority subset of the total THIRTEEN - 13 - number of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs... and that the missing EIGHT - 8 - were in fact in favour of the CGL pipeline.

WHOA waldo!!
Not true.
Some positions are vacant.

Internal Wet'suet'en politics is just not our business.
Don't get suckered into that Conservative, racist mentality.
Canada's divide and conquer tactics are well known, and have intentionally divided  Indigenous communities. It is now our responsibility to butt out of their business,  stop contributing to the colonialist oppression that is Canada's way, and start respecting Indigenous self-determination.

Canada's responsibility is to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title. The traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council is the appropriate leadership for that Federal task.

The pipeline is still BC's issue.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 03, 2020, 11:42:30 am
in recent days, railway tracks owned by both CN Rail & CP Rail have had "protectors" attempt to set the tracks on fire with pallets and/or tires. Now some, certainly not the waldo, are drawing further conclusions.

Did you read where it is not connected to the Wet'suet'en issue, waldo?

By failing to clarify, you are being inflammatory, part of the racist propaganda machine.
How many false flags do you carry, waldo?

You are not helping your boy Trudeau with racist smears and propaganda.
That's Conservative mentality.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 12:31:10 pm
Internal Wet'suet'en politics is just not our business. Don't get suckered into that Conservative, racist mentality. It is now our responsibility to butt out of their business,  stop contributing to the colonialist oppression that is Canada's way, and start respecting Indigenous self-determination.

hard to reconcile your "not our business" with your many times expressed mad-squawking parrot act: squawk, duty-to-consult, squawk, duty-to-consult, squawk!  ;D Consult with who, hey! The divided Wet'suwet'en are struggling with their own internal self-determination - ya think!

Canada's responsibility is to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title sovereignty. The traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council is the appropriate leadership for that Federal task.

fixed it for ya! Crown sovereignty reigns... supreme, regardless of reconciled title. Care to dispute that, hey! C'mon - show us just how little you truly know.

wait, what's this! Why it's a member Granny own-goal... and a beauty! Fresh off her saying, "it's not our business", "butt out of their business", here comes member Granny weighing in with a definitive statement designating, as she said, "appropriate leadership". That's gold member Granny, real gold!  ;D

I'm kind of interested in what Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - former Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation, has had to say. After his debate dust-up with a First Nations activist on Solomon's Power Play, he's being regularly sought out for comment. Rightly or wrongly, he challenges the view that hereditary chiefs speak for the respective First Nation members. He emphasizes there is no case law to support that premise... and that there is no single common point of, "decision hierarchy", across the myriad of 120+ B.C. First Nations. And yet the hypocritical member Granny makes a call to respect Indigenous self-determination... while at the same time stating who/what she interprets as the, "appropriate leadership"! So hypocritical you are, hey member Granny!

The pipeline is still BC's issue.

perhaps tell that to your Mohawk protectors - yes?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 12:41:29 pm
Did you read where it is not connected to the Wet'suet'en issue, waldo?

By failing to clarify, you are being inflammatory, part of the racist propaganda machine.

you wigged out once already... let me replay that for you - somehow, you could never manage to reply to the following... never manage to pull back your charge/claim. By the by, what propaganda machine are you regularly inflaming here, hey!  ;D

in my most immediate prior post I spoke of advocacy - yours. I've also expressed a personal advocacy throughout this thread; one that voiced support for the 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — those 20 First Nations that have each signed agreements with the company. As a part of my expressed personal advocacy/support, I also included direct representations from 2 First Nation organizations (the National Coalition of Chiefs & the FN LNG Alliance) and an extract of a linked letter from Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation.

you didn't misinterpret my advocacy/support for the impacted First Nations peoples; rather, you chose to ignore it... apparently you were too busy with the following unfounded & baseless attack accusing me of, "making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people"... while also implying, "I'm unlawful in inciting hatred"

Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol] Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!! Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada. You've gone over the line.

as is your most selective, self-serving way, you chose not to respond to the following... care to, this time?

public safety/interest is paramount. CN{/Via Rail} won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?
Racist smear much?
much? How much? Based on what? ... there's nothing in the reply you've quoted that even remotely smears, racist or other!

Where is your "factual account" of "train-derailing protests", you lying ****!! [Oops. I've been asterisked! Lol]. Stop making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people!!! Incitement to hatred is against the law in Canada. You've gone over the line.

as is your past displayed pattern, again now, when you're called out and been shown not to have an argument (you can support), you lash out with an over-the-top attack; one usually peppered with factual inaccuracies... not withstanding your underlying attempt to distract from your own inadequacies! I've bothered with your nonsense to the point of providing related exchanges; while also red-colour highlighting words that emphasize the hilarity... the idiocy... of your attack/claims.

now, as an aside, it appears VIA Rail recognizes protestors have blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories have been issued by VIA Rail to the public:

(https://i.imgur.com/faWyAKK.png)
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 12:55:59 pm
in recent days, railway tracks owned by both CN Rail & CP Rail have had "protectors" attempt to set the tracks on fire with pallets and/or tires. Now some, certainly not the waldo, are drawing further conclusions:

Did you read where it is not connected to the Wet'suet'en issue, waldo?

By failing to clarify, you are being inflammatory, part of the racist propaganda machine.

as stated, some... are drawing further conclusions... but certainly not the waldo! Try reading, hey!

now, point in fact, yes, across all manner of social media and blogs and into comment sections of mainstream coverage, further conclusions have been drawn. The waldo suspects that fine outstanding work of the "protectors" trying to set fire to tracks, trying to derail trains... might have something to do with conclusions being drawn - yes? And by the by, I just checked: from the most recent RCMP statement, I read, "a motive has not yet been determined... but it is thought the fire has no affinity with/to the blockades" - it is thought! Why that sure doesn't line up with your most definitive statement, does it ever porkyTellingGranny - does it?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 03, 2020, 03:54:17 pm
In any case... The so-called payoff should have happened long ago.  Maybe it's happening now...

I'm pretty certain that CGL would have already offered a payoff to the Wet'suet'en Chiefs to approve their plan, as they did to all other Aboriginal groups.
However, the Chiefs didn't accept, suggested alternative routes instead, and CGL walked away.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 03, 2020, 03:57:54 pm
Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?

Waldo is wrong.
4 Chief positions are vacant.
I don't know where he got his numbers, but I would not trust his interpretation.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 03, 2020, 04:00:16 pm
Seems that way. What a dysfunctional country.

No, waldo is wrong.
See above.

It appears to me that waldo has ulterior motives here.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 03, 2020, 04:21:56 pm
I'm shocked that your, "seemed to be", is completely self-serving intended to fit with your agenda - shocked I tells ya! You can't support this madeUpShyte of yours... you can't quote/link to an OPP statement advising the Mohawk protestors were adhering to the terms of the injunction - you can't, right?

If you're interested in facts, you can google it as easily as I can. If you just want to do a smear job, you won't bother. 

This is certainly interesting: To extend the injunction, the only photo CN could provide with something blocking the tracks ... included OPP attending a learning session.  Lol  Otherwise, CN had nothing.

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/02/19/how-cn-rail-got-its-injunction-against-tyendinaga-mohawks/

Then CN provides the only photo in any of its court filings that clearly shows the Mohawks on the tracks.

“A photograph was taken showing protestors standing by a long table that has been placed in the middle of Wyman Road Crossing. Indigenous cultural items, including two wampum belts, were placed on the long table. A protestor is holding a Mohawk Warrior flag,” wrote Knorz in this second affidavit, sworn Feb. 12.

There’s also media on the tracks, as well as members of OPP who were meeting with the Mohawks. The 113-page affidavit doesn’t mention this. Only a brief description of the encounter is found in the daily log filed separately.


Quote
no - PM Trudeau/cabinet ministers most certainly, most assuredly, DID NOT direct the police to do anything. You've been called out on this and, per your norm, you resort to GishGallop! You have no credibility - none. I mean, c'mon, you're the braniac who has repeatedly run with a wildAss Facebook originated claim that CN put one of it's own vehicles on a track, took a picture of that vehicle, and then used it as the principal causal tie to secure the injunction! That was YOU!  ;D

No, I guess they decided not to use that one.  Lol

I don't think you're really interested in accurate information, waldo.
You have a political agenda that isn't swayed by facts.  Lol
I don't think you're helpful to your boy Trudeau either.
Disrespecting hereditary Wet'suet'en Chiefs while the feds have recognized them and are negotiating rights and titles issues with them?
Not helpful.

As for governments directing the operations of the police ... I'm just glad that they are now aware, and so is the public, that they can't legally do that. Police necessarily operate independently of government.

Otherwise we'd be a country where politicians in power would be jailing members of opposing political parties, and anyone else who criticizes or protests them.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 03, 2020, 05:53:16 pm
WHOA waldo!!
Not true.
Some positions are vacant.

Internal Wet'suet'en politics is just not our business.
Don't get suckered into that Conservative, racist mentality.
Canada's divide and conquer tactics are well known, and have intentionally divided  Indigenous communities. It is now our responsibility to butt out of their business,  stop contributing to the colonialist oppression that is Canada's way, and start respecting Indigenous self-determination.

If we're dealing with them their politics is our business, just like internal US politics is our business.  That doesn't mean we should interfere with their politics.   But it's in our interests to know who and what we're dealing with.  There's nothing colonial or oppressive about that.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 06:19:20 pm
As for governments directing the operations of the police ... I'm just glad that they are now aware, and so is the public, that they can't legally do that. Police necessarily operate independently of government.

Otherwise we'd be a country where politicians in power would be jailing members of opposing political parties, and anyone else who criticizes or protests them.

certainly, weakAndy... O'Tool... were openly calling for police action to enforce the injunctions. But not the government of Canada - not PM Trudeau! Is this your way of admitting you were wrong... that your multiple posts claiming PM Trudeau directed police action were wrong? It's too bad you haven't the intellectual honesty to directly say so! It appears to the waldo that you member Granny, you... have ulterior motives!

It appears to me that waldo has ulterior motives here.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 06:34:11 pm
Waldo is wrong. 4 Chief positions are vacant. I don't know where he got his numbers, but I would not trust his interpretation.

I got my numbers from media accounts. In one post, as I stated/quoted, no less than the Premier of Alberta stated that 8 Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs were in favour of the pipeline... I even went to the point of stating in my post that Jason Kenney's accounting differed from the one I had provided (per the multiple media accounts I've read, the total number of hereditary chiefs mentioned was 13... that 8 of those 13 were in stated to be in favour of the CGL pipeline)... where Jason Kenney mentioned a 12 count, rather than a 13 total count. I've previously quoted from and/or linked to these accounts - you've provided SFA!

and I believe 13 is the proper total count as it coincides with the 13 houses of the 5 clans... where each respective house has a chief. Now if you'd like to provide a different accounting, step-up! While you're giving a tally count of those hereditary chiefs in favour and those opposed, make sure you touch upon one of my favourite points that will always bite your squawking "duty-to-consult" parroting-azz... the one that has media accounts stating that (at least) 5 of those 13 hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Councilors... that were involved with consultations with CGL and the province... for some (if not all) of the 5+ year period of negotiations between CGL, the province and the respective Band Chiefs/Band Councils.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 03, 2020, 06:56:34 pm
I'm pretty certain that CGL would have already offered a payoff to the Wet'suet'en Chiefs to approve their plan, as they did to all other Aboriginal groups.

member Granny, what ulterior motive do you have in phrasing the negotiated benefits as a... "payoff"?  ;D I previously provided a proper, more representative accounting of the negotiated benefits... as negotiated between the Wet'suwet'en, CGL and the province of B.C..; as below:

=> per negotiated agreements, along with revenue from Impact Benefits Agreements and Provincial Pipeline Agreements, Indigenous businesses will benefit from $620 million in contract work for the project’s right-of-way clearing, medical, security and camp management needs. There is another $400 million in additional contract and employment opportunities for Indigenous and local B.C. communities during pipeline construction.

distinct from the agreements between CGL and the 20 impacted First Nations, the province of B.C. has also signed its own benefits agreements with the 20 impacted First Nations related to the pipeline project. As of Aug, 2019, a provincial spokesperson stated 15 of those agreements are in effect... I've not been able to find a more recent status update in that regard.

particular to the Wet'suet'sen, the following details relate to the benefits agreement signed with the province of B.C. - again, separate and distinct from any benefits realized directly in regards the negotiations with CGL; specifically, per a 2014 press kit release by the Wet'suwet'en First Nation (WFN) Chief and Council:

Quote
The WFN will receive approximately $2.8 million from the province at three different stages for the Coastal Gas Link (CGL) gas pipeline project:

    - $464,000 within 90 days after signing the agreement
    - $1,160,000 when pipeline construction starts (scheduled to begin in 2015)
    - $1,160,000 when the pipeline is in service

The WFN will also receive a yet-to-be-determined share of $10 million in ongoing benefits for the life of the pipeline - estimated at 25 to 35 years.

The province committed $30 million towards an Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI); proposed ESI programs include: culvert removal/upgrade, beaver dam management, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration, access to traditional sites, riparian livestock/fencing management, moose winter range enhancement, and road access decommissioning and reclamation.

The province has also announced a $30 million education and training fund to develop the required employment skills needed for WFN members to work on the pipeline

geezaz waldo... that's a whole lotta consulting going down!

However, the Chiefs didn't accept, suggested alternative routes instead, and CGL walked away.

no, not "the Chiefs"; rather, SOME Chiefs didn't accept. As I'm aware, as mentioned in prior posts, the dissenting minority of Chiefs favoured a single alternative route; one that CGL addressed with a significant review/analysis... an alternative route that wasn't feasible in terms of required land to support the width of the pipeline... an alternative route that required, for example, 13 additional water crossings.

member Granny, you should expand upon this - prior thread posts didn't give this route topic its required due... make it so member Granny, make it so!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 06:44:55 am
oh my! C'mon waldo, member Granny says the internals of the Wet'suwet'en is, "none of our business"... that we need to, "butt out of their business"!  ;D

Second Wet’suwet’en hereditary subchief speaks out against protest leaders (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-second-wetsuweten-hereditary-wing-chief-voices-concerns-about/)

Quote
A second Wet’suwet’en hereditary subchief is denouncing the hereditary leaders at the heart of the dispute over the future of the Coastal GasLink LNG project in Northern British Columbia.

“These five so-called hereditary chiefs, who say they are making decisions on behalf of all Wet’suwet’en, do not speak for the Wet’suwet’en,” Gary Naziel said. “They are neither following nor abiding by our traditional laws. They are changing them to suit their own purposes, to benefit themselves,” he told The Globe and Mail.

In doing so, Mr. Naziel adds, many hereditary chiefs and matriarchs are being disrespected, bullied and targeted. This echoes what Rita George, a hereditary subchief and expert in Wet’suwet’en law, said on Thursday. Mr. Naziel, from the Laksilyu (Small Frog) Clan who was groomed for leadership from birth, says the Wet’suwet’en name “is being dragged through the mud and used by other First Nations across Canada to wage their own battles.”
.
.
A growing movement of hereditary chiefs is considering taking action against the five men, possibly by blockading the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, a non-profit society governed by hereditary chiefs, which is known locally as “the OW,” he adds.

Mr. Naziel says he is coming forward in an attempt to “restore” the Wet’suwet’en legal system: “I am speaking out because they are changing our system. I find myself forced to go to media to try to save it.” Doing so causes him great pain, he adds: “Our elders taught us to be quiet until we are asked to speak. When you do, you weigh your words. You speak from the heart.”

“Many, many of us feel this way. More will come forward. Not in anger, but in trying to bring out the truth. We need to keep our system alive the true way. We have sat back long enough.”

.
.
Others share Mr. Naziel’s concerns.

Marion Tiljoe Shepherd is a member of the Witset First Nation. She is of the Gilseyhu (Big Frog) Clan, and a member of the Unist’ot’en (Dark House). Ms. Tiljoe Shepherd owns a trucking company in Houston, B.C. She traces her lineage to her grandmother, who served as Knedebeas, chief of Dark House. Her mother is a shareholder of a trap line near the pipeline route where police have twice raided protest camps.

She says the five hereditary chiefs who oppose the pipeline should be listening more.

“I don’t want to have to oppose them. But it’s not right what they are doing. They are not listening to their clan.”

Shirley Wilson (Big Frog Clan, Birch House) lives on the south shore of François Lake in the Skin Tyee First Nation, near the eastern boundary of Wet’suwet’en territory. Ms. Wilson initially opposed the pipeline, but has since come to see it as “an answer to the dilemma of poverty plaguing our people.”

“We are losing our cultural traditions over this pipeline battle. They are not following our traditions. They are not practising our real ways," she says of the five hereditary chiefs. "They are blending their own, modern perspectives, trying to fast-track the naming process. You have to earn your name.”

Mr. Naziel further says that lineage bars three of the five men from assuming the leadership roles they hold on behalf of the Wet’suwet’en.

“We are a matrilineal system. We inherit our lineage from our mothers. Alphonse Gagnon, Warner Naziel and Frank Alec are not from the Wet’suwet’en nation. [Mr. Gagnon] and [Mr. Naziel] are Gitxsan. [Mr. Alec] is from the Lake Babine Nation.”

This makes them “name holders,” not hereditary chiefs, he says. “Name holders cannot have any say for what happens on our territories. They cannot make decisions on behalf of the clan.”

on edit: so waldo, you've mentioned several times that it appears 2 of the 5 (as stated) dissenting hereditary chiefs appear to be driving "it all". Does the distinction being drawn in the above statement, "lineage bars three of the five men" ... does this, might this... account for that, "2 of the 5"? Just sayin', hey waldo!  ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 04, 2020, 08:32:46 am
If we're dealing with them their politics is our business, just like internal US politics is our business.  That doesn't mean we should interfere with their politics.   But it's in our interests to know who and what we're dealing with.  There's nothing colonial or oppressive about that.

It's just the same old colonial tactic of interfering in their politics, "picking their Indians" and sowing divisions in their communities to suit corporate and government FINANCIAL purpose, well described here:
https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/island-voices-fess-up-mr-horgan-you-picked-your-indians-1.24081392?utm_campaign=magnet


When the British Columbia Treaty Process was established in the 1990s, a First Nation’s Statement of Intent included the identification of who would represent the First Nation at the treaty table.

Both the federal and provincial government accepted the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, the body representing the hereditary chiefs, as the entity with the authority to negotiate the rights and title of the Wet’suwet’en people.

Now, because the chiefs with the sacred responsibility to steward their house territories for their people are not prepared to permit infringement of those rights and title, the corporation and government found their Indians in the elected band system and Bob’s your uncle — they claim they have consent.

Horgan and his government are trying to ride two horses at the same time. They’ve accepted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they’ve committed to reconciliation with First Nations, they’ve claimed to be committed to protect British Columbia’s priceless environments, all the while, shamelessly infringing on Aboriginal rights and title, fracking, damming, and further alienating those with whom they claim to be reconciling.

Fess up, Horgan. You can claim the LNG project and Site C are essential for the future of British Columbia — there are many knowledgeable people willing to debate you on that, but you cannot claim legitimate consent from the Wet’suwet’en.

You’ve picked your Indians and the current outrage across the country is justified.



Even more recently, clad in a gift 'blanket', swollen with pride at passing UNDRIP into law in BC:

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan, December 2019:
""Let's sit down *with the title holders* whose land we want to conduct economic activity on and create partnerships as a way forward. That works," "

But a month later when Wet'suet'en "title holders", objected to not being consulted by the Crown in BC, Horgan refused to talk to them:

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan,
January 2020:
 "Wet'suwet'en territory ... telling CBC he wasn't going to "drop everything I'm doing to come running when someone is saying they need to speak with me."
...
"the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C." to ensure work continues on the 670-km pipeline, "


'Picking his Indians', for each purpose.

Understanding Indigenous politics is good.
Manipulating, denigrating, dividing ... interfering ... is not.
Wet'suet'en people will make their own choices, come together in their own ways.
It is our business to make sure our governments respect Indigenous governance.
It is reprehensible to do as you are and set one against another.

That's old style colonial Canadian genocidal tactics - "intent to destroy".
It's not the way forward.

As Times Colonist says:
the current outrage across the country is justified.

And it is not just Indigenous people who are outraged. Many Canadians are also outraged that Liberal and NDP governments, expected to do better by their own supporters, are still not dealing 'in good faith' with Indigenous Peoples.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 04, 2020, 09:55:32 am
certainly, weakAndy... O'Tool... were openly calling for police action to enforce the injunctions. But not the government of Canada - not PM Trudeau! Is this your way of admitting you were wrong... that your multiple posts claiming PM Trudeau directed police action were wrong?

I think it's debatable, perhaps litigatable.

If you were following events ... The Wet'suet'en Chiefs were meeting that day in Tyendinaga, to clarify their conditions for talks with government to begin (also for Mohawk protest to end). I was waiting to hear their press conference ... when suddenly, without contacting or hearing from them, Trudeau was telling the country (and the police) that "The barricades must come down."

I know quitting time for federal employees is 4:15, and I guess that's when Trudeau's patience ran out. Lol

Ultimately, his aggressive speech resulted in a renewed surge of protest and blockade.

I am heartened by that, that Indigenous and supporting Canadians react to such aggressive moves by government with renewed conviction and persistence.

That's what democracy is for, pushing back against controlling money interests and the governments that toady to them.



Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 11:41:22 am
Waldo is wrong. 4 Chief positions are vacant.

Quote
March 1 - Over five days last week, The Globe and Mail travelled from Kitimat to Burns Lake and back, more than 1,250 kilometres in total, speaking to First Nations people who live along the most contested stretch of the proposed pipeline. The trip overlapped with talks between the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leadership and the federal and B.C. governments, which ended with a proposed agreement on Saturday.

further to your agenda driven narrative, the waldo will point out the following (per the G&M) - hardly seems like your oft expressed call for "fair dealings", right? Amirite? Does this account for your referenced "vacant positions"? Were you less than forthright in failing to speak to how positions became vacant?

Quote
Several matriarchs claim they are being silenced and bullied, their opinions disregarded by the all-male leadership. Three female hereditary chiefs supportive of the pipeline were stripped of their chiefly titles.

This is not “deni biits wa aden”–“the way the feast works,” Rita George, a hereditary sub chief and expert in Wet’suwet’en law, told The Globe and Mail last week. The phrase is commonly used to describe the nation’s legal system.

The feast is the core of Wet’suwet’en society, its court, its parliament, its art gallery, its library. In the participatory democracy, hereditary chiefs are legally obliged to listen to their members.

Critics further claim that three of the eight hereditary house chiefs opposing Coastal GasLink are not Wet’suwet’en.

Under Wet’suwet’en law, two are considered Gitxsan, and one is Babine, says Gary Naziel (Maxlaxlex'), a former Witset band councillor and a heavy-machine operator with Kyah Resources, which is sub-contracted by CGL.

Asked to respond to the claim, Frank Alec, who took the name Woos after it was stripped from Darlene Glaim, and who is said to be Babine, not Wet’suwet’en, said this: “I believe they’ve been fed a script. This is our territory. This is our responsibility. These are our duties. This is what we must do keep our clean air, water or culture and the freedoms that people enjoy.”

so, per the G&M, some hereditary chiefs in favour of the pipeline are said to have had their chiefly titles stripped... while, again per the G&M account, the legitimacy of 3 hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline is being questioned, being challenged! Fair dealings, hey member Granny - fair dealings!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 11:55:06 am
certainly, weakAndy... O'Tool... were openly calling for police action to enforce the injunctions. But not the government of Canada - not PM Trudeau! Is this your way of admitting you were wrong... that your multiple posts claiming PM Trudeau directed police action were wrong? It's too bad you haven't the intellectual honesty to directly say so!

I think it's debatable, perhaps litigatable.

just when I thought you were backing down, backpedaling... is this you now doubling-down? On what basis do you plan do bring litigation against PM Trudeau?  ;D

Ultimately, his aggressive speech resulted in a renewed surge of protest and blockade.

I am heartened by that, that Indigenous and supporting Canadians react to such aggressive moves by government with renewed conviction and persistence.

That's what democracy is for, pushing back against controlling money interests and the governments that toady to them.

given your most gleeful statement emphasizing how, "easy it was to shut down Canada", the waldo is not surprised you would refer to unlawful actions as, "renewed conviction and persistence" - your kind of "democracy in action"!

Discussion here hasn't centered around peaceful/lawful acts of "civil disobedience" - rather, as I emphasized, it's in regards those protester acts that reach the level of civil & criminal contempt of court... those that breach one or more terms of a court ordered injunction.
no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 04, 2020, 02:00:35 pm

given your most gleeful statement emphasizing how, "easy it was to shut down Canada", the waldo is not surprised you would refer to unlawful actions as, "renewed conviction and persistence" - your kind of "democracy in action"!

Do I really have to explain to you why freedom of thought, expression, association and assembly and civil disobedience are necessary to democracy?

Governments and corporations can't be trusted to do the right thing.
The only violence against people has been committed by police, with support of governments and corporations.

Civil disobedience occurs when governments persist in wrong directions for too long. It's the honourable thing, the right thing to do, to correct government and corporate intransigence.

Don't expect it to be pretty: Asking nicely has not worked. Electing a different political party has not worked (Lib Con NDP ... no difference. They all work on behalf of the corporations.)

https://leger360.com/voting-intentions/federal-politics-march-4th-2020/

A majority of respondents — 57 per cent — said they believe Indigenous land claims are valid and there was overwhelming support for the federal government to actively resolve them [72%]. Those surveyed also called for the government to consult with Indigenous groups on development projects [72%].

Those are big numbers, bigger public support than any political party can claim.

And only slightly lower in Alberta, and among 35-54 year olds (Gen X. Boomers are on board.)

We are at a tipping point. Keeping up the pressure is the road to real improvements, not just more of the lip service of the past.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 05:06:04 pm
Do I really have to explain to you why freedom of thought, expression, association and assembly and civil disobedience are necessary to democracy?

Governments and corporations can't be trusted to do the right thing.
The only violence against people has been committed by police, with support of governments and corporations.

Civil disobedience occurs when governments persist in wrong directions for too long. It's the honourable thing, the right thing to do, to correct government and corporate intransigence.

Don't expect it to be pretty: Asking nicely has not worked. Electing a different political party has not worked (Lib Con NDP ... no difference. They all work on behalf of the corporations.)

sad strawman - sad!! ;D Try addressing what I actually wrote; again:

Discussion here hasn't centered around peaceful/lawful acts of "civil disobedience" - rather, as I emphasized, it's in regards those protester acts that reach the level of civil & criminal contempt of court... those that breach one or more terms of a court ordered injunction.
no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 05:22:00 pm
A majority of respondents — 57 per cent — said they believe Indigenous land claims are valid and there was overwhelming support for the federal government to actively resolve them [72%]. Those surveyed also called for the government to consult with Indigenous groups on development projects [72%].

We are at a tipping point. Keeping up the pressure is the road to real improvements, not just more of the lip service of the past.

oh my! Not only did you put up an incorrect link to the related survey, it's from yet another 'closed shop' of people who have chosen to join the marketeer's club; those already predisposed to taking surveys (as in those offered incentives to take surveys) - hardly a random representative sampling of Canadians!

in any case, it's quite telling just how liberal your interpretation of the survey's related questions is - you're a real hoot, member Granny! Here's the actual questions and results... there's no nuance in your statement - none at all!  ;D Your summary statement doesn't seem to speak to the ,"somewhat valid, somewhat agree" categories of the questions... and the second question is set-up around being in favour of human rights, or not... cause people will never say they're against human rights, would they? Oh my, member Granny, oh my!
(https://i.imgur.com/PXv3cID.png)


but hey, should the waldo link to another recent days closed shop survey from Angus Reid; the one that holds that: Nearly half of respondents said patience and dialogue with those who oppose the natural gas pipeline in B.C. was the best way to resolution, while the other half said blockades should be brought down using whatever force necessary.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 04, 2020, 08:57:31 pm

"We need to come to a Wet'suwet'en solution together ... The whole nation should come together and discuss both the agreement and the pipeline itself," said George, whose band is one of five Wet'suwet'en First Nations that have signed deals with Coastal GasLink.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chief-dan-george-finding-wetsuweten-resolution-1.5482872
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 04, 2020, 10:59:17 pm

What does Aboriginal title mean?

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/03/03/by-offering-to-recognize-wetsuweten-land-rights-ottawa-is-changing-the-way-canada-is-governed-heres-how.html
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 11:43:37 pm
Waldo is wrong. 4 Chief positions are vacant. I don't know where he got his numbers, but I would not trust his interpretation.

I got my numbers from media accounts. In one post, as I stated/quoted, no less than the Premier of Alberta stated that 8 Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs were in favour of the pipeline... I even went to the point of stating in my post that Jason Kenney's accounting differed from the one I had provided (per the multiple media accounts I've read, the total number of hereditary chiefs mentioned was 13... that 8 of those 13 were in stated to be in favour of the CGL pipeline)... where Jason Kenney mentioned a 12 count, rather than a 13 total count. I've previously quoted from and/or linked to these accounts - you've provided SFA!

and I believe 13 is the proper total count as it coincides with the 13 houses of the 5 clans... where each respective house has a chief. Now if you'd like to provide a different accounting, step-up! While you're giving a tally count of those hereditary chiefs in favour and those opposed, make sure you touch upon one of my favourite points that will always bite your squawking "duty-to-consult" parroting-azz... the one that has media accounts stating that (at least) 5 of those 13 hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Councilors... that were involved with consultations with CGL and the province... for some (if not all) of the 5+ year period of negotiations between CGL, the province and the respective Band Chiefs/Band Councils.

no comment, member Granny? No comment?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 04, 2020, 11:47:30 pm
Waldo is wrong. 4 Chief positions are vacant.

further to your agenda driven narrative, the waldo will point out the following (per the G&M) - hardly seems like your oft expressed call for "fair dealings", right? Amirite? Does this account for your referenced "vacant positions"? Were you less than forthright in failing to speak to how positions became vacant?

Quote
Several matriarchs claim they are being silenced and bullied, their opinions disregarded by the all-male leadership. Three female hereditary chiefs supportive of the pipeline were stripped of their chiefly titles.

This is not “deni biits wa aden”–“the way the feast works,” Rita George, a hereditary sub chief and expert in Wet’suwet’en law, told The Globe and Mail last week. The phrase is commonly used to describe the nation’s legal system.

The feast is the core of Wet’suwet’en society, its court, its parliament, its art gallery, its library. In the participatory democracy, hereditary chiefs are legally obliged to listen to their members.

Critics further claim that three of the eight hereditary house chiefs opposing Coastal GasLink are not Wet’suwet’en.

Under Wet’suwet’en law, two are considered Gitxsan, and one is Babine, says Gary Naziel (Maxlaxlex'), a former Witset band councillor and a heavy-machine operator with Kyah Resources, which is sub-contracted by CGL.

Asked to respond to the claim, Frank Alec, who took the name Woos after it was stripped from Darlene Glaim, and who is said to be Babine, not Wet’suwet’en, said this: “I believe they’ve been fed a script. This is our territory. This is our responsibility. These are our duties. This is what we must do keep our clean air, water or culture and the freedoms that people enjoy.”

so, per the Globe&Mail, some hereditary chiefs in favour of the pipeline are said to have had their chiefly titles stripped... while, again per the Globe&Mail account, the legitimacy of 3 hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline is being questioned, being challenged! Fair dealings, hey member Granny - fair dealings!

no comment, member Granny? No comment?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 05, 2020, 12:11:58 am
Feb 28 - Open letter to Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs after Tsayu clan meeting - author Troy Young (Wit'suwet'en, matrilineally descended from Na’Moks Lucy Holland in the Tsayu clan, with my father clan being Laksilyu.) (https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/open-letter-to-wetsuweten-hereditary-chiefs-after-tsayu-clan-meeting)

Quote
We have seen three female chiefs being stripped of their name because they don’t agree with the “Hereditary Chiefs” within the society that is the Office of the Wet’suwet’en. This stripping was not done following our law. We have seen individuals be given Chief’s names that then flout our Law on many fronts. A newly named chief can’t speak for a year, yet these new chiefs have been vocal in the media. We have seen a chief break our Law by claiming a name from another house. We have seen a chief name be given to some whose parents sit together in the feast hall. We have seen adoptions across clans take place without merit or proper transfer.
.
The decisions seem to be taking place in Smithers at the Office of the Wet’suwet’en {OW}, a registered society created to negotiate treaty following the SCC victory. Our laws dictate that the feast hall is where decisions are made. This has not been followed, with the OW acting like a government, which they are not. Our chiefs are to meet with their house groups and do as the house group decides; they are not the decision makers. In the past the Tsayu clan representative has set up Tsayu clan meetings on a near monthly basis, and our chief has only ever showed up to the first meeting, never to meet with his clan again. How does he speak on behalf of a house group he doesn’t have time to meet with? Then the clan representative was changed, and the meetings became exclusive, with very limited notice to times and dates.
.
One chief complaint of some house chiefs has been that industry and government won’t talk to the OW. Now that they have been offered the opportunity, they have not taken advantage of the offer. The elected councils of Witset, Nee Tahi Buhn, Wet’suwet’en First Nation (Broman Lake), Skin Tyee, and Ts’il Kaz Koh (Burns Lake Band) all signed agreements with industry and government to provide a step to further discussions with government. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en also entered negotiation with industry and government over pipelines, but were removed by Witset because of internal disagreements over how the negotiations took place, and who was to benefit from any agreement reached. Even when Witset took over negotiations, Witset council invited the house chiefs to attend all negotiations to provide advice and counsel. The OW has prevented the chiefs from attending the negotiations under threat of removal from their paid positions.

I speak outside the Feast Hall now because some of our house chiefs have decided that only their voice matters and they are expressing it in the public. I call on all Witsuwit’en to talk to their elders, matriarchs, wing chiefs, and house chiefs to remind our house chiefs of their duties to uphold our Law, and for our house chiefs to listen. They must understand that they are chiefs so that they can carry our voice and do our bidding, they are not our dictators. They need to be reminded that they carry the name of someone who was remembered, and if they tarnish this memory, it will not be forgotten.
.
Witsuwit’en have wanted to get government talking, and now that the opportunity is here, some would sooner go to court. This makes no sense when we have the ability control how we negotiate; be we lose control if we let a court decide.

We have all talked about self-reliance and the need to control our future. Industry is paying our communities for access to the territory, with no control over how the money gets spent. Our leaders get to control the funds coming in to spend as their members wish, not at the behest of INAC agents. This is an important step, not having an overseer is admirable.

To be successful, we need our house chiefs and our elected chiefs to work for the betterment of all Witsuwit’en – our children, our elders, our chiefs, our matriarchs.

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 05, 2020, 08:09:55 am
Groups linked to oil companies funded Facebook ads denouncing the rail blockades

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5484039?fbclid=IwAR1nghzJIEFmG2CvpNTvC-kCmy9oKZeezHU5245LKqA-7_5lwCI_RHRJgSc&__twitter_impression=true

The most prolific online advertiser on the pipeline project, by far, is Coastal GasLink itself, which is building the 670-kilometre pipeline that will connect wells in British Columbia to the coast. It has run 80 ads since the start of the year — almost a quarter of all the ads in the data obtained by CBC. It spent roughly $50,000 on ads citing Indigenous support for the pipeline — almost half of all the money spent on Facebook ads about the project and the blockades.

Coastal GasLink is wearing all the backlash against their pipeline and their propaganda/divide-and-conquer tactics, but let's not forget that CGL is just a pipeline construction company, fully owned by TC Energy that will operate the pipeline.

Other buyers of ads include the usual "astroturf" (fake grassroots) lobby, fronts for oil and gas and developers: Canada Action, Canada Proud (Ontario Proud, Alberta Proud, etc), and some Conservative leadership candidates, most prominently Peter McKay.

   
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 05, 2020, 10:55:41 am
further to your agenda driven narrative, the waldo will point out the following (per the G&M) - hardly seems like your oft expressed call for "fair dealings", right? Amirite? Does this account for your referenced "vacant positions"? Were you less than forthright in failing to speak to how positions became vacant?

so, per the Globe&Mail, some hereditary chiefs in favour of the pipeline are said to have had their chiefly titles stripped... while, again per the Globe&Mail account, the legitimacy of 3 hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline is being questioned, being challenged! Fair dealings, hey member Granny - fair dealings!

no comment, member Granny? No comment?

No, no comment. Internal Wet'suet'en business is not my business, and I know the divisions are caused intentionally by corporate (TC Energy/CGL: $350m+? in bribes) and government (Federal & BC) money interests.

We are also fighting a pipeline in my community. There would and will be hell to pay if the pipeline company starts flinging millions of dollars around in bribes to nearby landowners and communities to create fake lobby groups and lobbyists (like yourself) to support that project. We already nailed Enbridge's a$$ for 'donating' money for ATVs to the police (so they can patrol Enbridge's pipeline and protesters?!)

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6087125-dreschel-enbridge-pulls-plug-on-police-grants/
Enbridge Pipelines has stopped giving equipment grants to police services across Canada because of criticisms from Hamilton activists.
Our community business is no one else's business to judge or try to manipulate people with propaganda or bribes.
Likewise, Wet'suet'en community business is nobody's business to judge or try to manipulate with propaganda or bribes.

Now, what is your opinion about the fake grassroots "astroturf" business and industry propaganda groups I posted above? Are you on their payroll?

And btw, you take up a lot of space with waldo-quoting-waldo, interfering with other people's discussions. Is that part of your propaganda strategy?


Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 05, 2020, 12:24:36 pm
The most prolific online advertiser on the pipeline project, by far, is Coastal GasLink itself, which is building the 670-kilometre pipeline that will connect wells in British Columbia to the coast. It has run 80 ads since the start of the year — almost a quarter of all the ads in the data obtained by CBC. It spent roughly $50,000 on ads citing Indigenous support for the pipeline — almost half of all the money spent on Facebook ads about the project and the blockades.

that's quite the CBC scoop! Imagine - CGL, the pipeline company, advertising the development of, wait for it... wait for it... its under-development pipeline!  ;D

so member Granny, that CBC article states 12% of the ads it reviewed were ads taking a position against the pipeline - surely you can't be in favour of those, right? Amirite?

I appreciate some of those ads are an inconvenient truth for you! You know, the ads that include first-person comments favouring the pipeline... from Wet'suwet'en members themselves. So inconvenient for you - yes?

as with any ads, the key should be whether or not the ads include false messaging... are they "fake news". Ads carrying a message you don't agree with doesn't necessarily make those ads false/fake, right? Amirite?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 05, 2020, 12:46:25 pm
No, no comment. Internal Wet'suet'en business is not my business, and I know the divisions are caused intentionally by corporate (TC Energy/CGL: $350m+? in bribes) and government (Federal & BC) money interests.

nice to see you rise to a conspiracy level! Obviously, you've never considered... accepted... the most legitimate/overwhelming internal Wet'suwet'en support for the CGL pipeline. And now you further denigrate those Wet'suwet'en claiming their decisions aren't their own! Oh my, member Granny - oh my!

now this latest round of questioning the legitimacy of the key proponent hereditary chiefs - that questioning has made itself known as a part of multiple mainstream media articles. And, of course, this is now being "weaponized" by CPC/Conservative supporters on a two-fold basis:
1 - questioning the legitimacy of who actually speaks for the Wet'suwet'en - hence questioning the current process/undertaking and, effectively, forming negative impressions against reconciliation itself.
2 - denigrating the federal government (and of course PM Trudeau himself) for being... supposedly... taken in by an illegitimate group; one falsely claiming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en at large

so ya, just who speaks (legitimately) for the Wet'suwet'en is a most significant point of interest... and need to know... for Canadians. I appreciate you'd just like any questioning to "go away" ala your perpetual plaintive wails of, "none of my business... no ones business but theirs"!

And btw, you take up a lot of space with waldo-quoting-waldo, interfering with other people's discussions. Is that part of your propaganda strategy?

so... opinion/fact that doesn't align with your opinion and treasure-trove of unsubstantiated statements/claims... that's, as you say, "propaganda"!  ;D And the waldo quotes the waldo when you purposely drop bull-shyte intended to bury those inconvenient (for you) waldo gems - the ones you forever ignore, the ones you refuse to comment on.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 06, 2020, 04:00:08 am
I'm not invested in pushing a fracked gas pipeline as you are, waldo. Your issues are not my issues and I don't answer your divide-and-conquer colonial propaganda nonsense. I don't even believe the pipeline and shipping terminal is viable anymore. I think after all the upheaval and some time passes, TC Energy will just quietly pull out, and by then it won't even be a surprise.

Wet'suet'en people will decide for themselves.

I'm more interested in the overriding issue of making progress at the federal level to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title. That's what will make consultations and relations more productive and avoid future conflicts.

The Delgamuukw decision: Putting the Wet’suwet’en conflict in perspective

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/03/04/the-delgamuukw-decision-putting-the-wetsuweten-conflict-in-perspective/
The conflict between the Wet’suwet’en Nation, the government and Coastal Gaslink didn’t happen overnight. They’ve been fighting for ownership of their language, culture and land since the day colonizers stepped foot on their territory.
...
Pierre Trudeau’s government released the White Paper in 1969. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs was formed in response. A decade later, chiefs and Elders from B.C. sent a delegation to England to lobby for inclusion of Aboriginal rights in the repatriated Canadian Constitution.

They got what they wanted in the form of Section 35(1): “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

The ink was barely dry on that 1982 document when the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs decided they were going to take their fight into the courts.

Prior to Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, no one knew for certain what Section 35 meant.
...
"Even though I’m Gitxsan, I speak Wet’suwet’en, and I know so many of the Wet’suwet’en. I worked with them mainly in them selecting their witnesses that were going to be on the stand. It was a very, very interesting process where the chiefs really showed me what they mean by respect. You know? They respected one another when they were doing their selection of the witnesses that were going to take the stand.”

The Houses met regularly to discuss strategy and goals.
...
Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en laws came into conflict with Canadian laws in a monumental case for which there was no real precedent
...
Out of those involved, few had a better perspective than Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Yagalahl of Spookwx House. She was a court monitor, liaison, and reporter throughout the case. She sat through all 374 court days that were spread out over four years.

She was present at the recent Smithers meetings too. She says she was “satisfied” with the draft arrangement, but remains tight-lipped until the nation can have a Feast to discuss it.


I'll be very interested to see the results when all Clans come together.
History in the making.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 06, 2020, 04:29:20 am
I'm not invested in pushing a fracked gas pipeline as you are, waldo. Your issues are not my issues and I don't answer your divide-and-conquer colonial propaganda nonsense. I don't even believe the pipeline and shipping terminal is viable anymore. I think after all the upheaval and some time passes, TC Energy will just quietly pull out, and by then it won't even be a surprise.

your naivety knows no bounds! You have no credibility around the climate file... you know bupkis about it! As I previously stated:

'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b05298)

notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).


Wet'suet'en people will decide for themselves.

of course you won't accept that the Wet'suwet'en have already decided for themselves... along with 19 other impacted First Nations who want the pipeline and have negotiated significant benefit agreements with both CGL and the province. You refuse to admit this and instead purposely conflate the pipeline with border declarations. You are one of the most dishonest and disingenuous... and flat-out purveyors of bullshyte I've ever encountered on any discussion board.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 06, 2020, 04:36:12 am
I'm more interested in the overriding issue of making progress at the federal level to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title. That's what will make consultations and relations more productive and avoid future conflicts.

you still don't get it!  ;D There's no such thing as reconciling, as you say, "title with title". What you mean to say... as I've already schooled you on, is reconcile title within Crown sovereignty, which is and will always remain absolute. I challenged you previously to dispute this. I appreciate you haven't the mettle to actually understand it... let alone the skills to articulate an argument against it. Clearly, you can barely rise above squawking your parroted talking points! 
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 06, 2020, 05:04:46 am
I'll be very interested to see the results when all Clans come together. History in the making.

very interested are you? And yet... somehow... you refuse to comment on those multiple media accounts and first hand challenges being made by some Wet'suwet'en that question the legitimacy of that small minority of anti-pipeline hereditary chiefs presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en. Accounts/challenges that speak to pipeline proponent chiefs being stripped of their hereditary titles; accounts that challenge the granting of hereditary chief title to non-Wet'suwet'en, etc.. How come you won't comment on this, as you say, history in the making? Oh wait, you have commented on these most inconvenient accounts/questions/challenges - after all your past blathering blusterbus throughout this thread, you do comment! You throw out your go-to lines, "not my business... no one's business but theirs"!

you also refuse to recognize that significant harm... perhaps irreparable harm on some levels, that has been done in terms of how many Canadians now negatively view reconciliation in relation to those railway blockades that significantly harmed the federal/provincial economies, that significantly impacted upon small business across Canada, that caused companies to layoff employees, that had many Canadians incensed at the unlawful actions of protestors openly ignoring court ordered injunctions, etc.. You know, all that and more that contributed to your most gleeful comment about, "how easy it was to shut Canada down"!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 09, 2020, 12:44:13 pm
Planning for a managed wind-down of B.C.’s fossil fuel sectors

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/marc-lee-planning-for-a-managed-wind-down-of-b-c-s-fossil-fuel-sectors

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 09, 2020, 12:55:57 pm
Activist-backed male chiefs’ attempt to ‘unperson’ female leaders ends up in court --- Female hereditary chiefs who are fighting for the future of their people share their stories in harrowing court documents. (https://www.resourceworks.com/unperson-chiefs)

Quote
Three independently-minded female Wet’suwet’en leaders have had enough of the attacks from a small group of activist-backed men, who claimed this spring to have “stripped” the hereditary chief titles given to the women by their families decades ago.

Now, the women are fighting back in court.

After years of mistreatment in their home communities, Theresa Tait-Day, Gloria George, and Darlene Glaim are speaking up, with powerful statements and stories about how they have been “unpersoned” 1984-style for merely trying to follow the will of their people. The experience has been traumatic for them, they say, describing how they have been shunned, insulted, demeaned, marginalized, and met with hostility for years ever since they decided to support a natural gas pipeline connecting Peace River country gas fields with Kitimat’s port, passing through their territory in the middle of northern BC.

The women provided sworn affidavits to support TC Energy Corp’s Coastal GasLink pipeline project, which was in court this week to ask the judge to extend an injunction preventing activists from harassing and impeding pipeline construction workers this summer.

They say a few male hereditary chiefs, propped up by activists intent on stopping the pipeline, had no authority to take away any of their hereditary titles. The female chiefs provided the court with details showing how the Wet’suwet’en political and cultural system functions, and why they cannot be “stripped” of their titles.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 10, 2020, 09:06:53 am
Activist-backed male chiefs’ attempt to ‘unperson’ female leaders ends up in court --- Female hereditary chiefs who are fighting for the future of their people share their stories in harrowing court documents. (https://www.resourceworks.com/unperson-chiefs)

Interesting from several perspectives.

Canada has three founding peoples: Indigenous, French and English.

Canadian Law includes three corresponding legal traditions: Indigenous Law, French Civil Code and English Common Law.


Traditionally, Indigenous Law exists in oral tradition sometimes associated with wampum belt and other forms of recording treaties and Indigenous Laws.

EG1, The principles of Peace, Power and Rightousness of the commonly adopted Indigenous Nations
 Great Law of Peace:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace

EG2, The over-arching pre-contract treaty among Indigenous peoples, that records Peace, Friendship and Respect among Indigenous Nations, and was also extended to European settlers on arrival in 'the New World',
Two Row Wampum Treaty

https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/a-short-introduction-to-the-two-row-wampum

The belt consists of two rows of purple wampum beads on a white background. Three rows of white beads symbolizing peace, friendship, and respect separate the two purple rows. The two purple rows symbolize two paths or two vessels travelling down the same river. One row symbolizes the Haudenosaunee people with their law and customs, while the other row symbolizes European laws and customs. As nations move together side-by-side on the River of Life, they are to avoid overlapping or interfering with one another.”

Prior to the Constitution Act (1982) Indigenous Law was not codified into Canadian Law (except, perhaps in some elements of the 'Indian' Act ?).
Following the Constitution Act (1982) that changed:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Elements of Indigenous Law are now codified into Canadian Law with every court case where Aboriginal rights are addressed because they intersect with, and  are "read in" to, and thus become codified in Canadian Law.

This case will be interesting because the issue of "stripping" traditional Chiefs of their titles and duties within an Indigenous Nation does not really intersect with existing Canadian Law, except perhaps in  Delgamuukw (1997) via its recognition of Wet'suet'en  (and Gitxsan) traditional Chiefs as Aboriginal rights holders for the people of their respective nations.

It is also noteworthy that Clan Mothers Councils traditionally hold equal power to male Chiefs Councils, and the power to appoint and to 'de-horn' Chiefs.
I'm not aware of any traditional law where women are appointed as Chiefs, and to me that seems a lessening of their power (but my feelings are irrelevant to their decisions).
The 'power' of a traditional Chief is not authoritarian, but derives from their position as receiver and spokesperson for of consensus decisions by all people within each of their Clans (facilitated by Clan Mothers).

So it will be interesting to see how, or whether,  Canadian courts and Canadian Law will address this intriguing issue of traditional Indigenous leadership.

It is noteworthy that some Indigenous Nations have become mired in white man's patriarchal distortions of leadership that disrespect women's roles and power, so again intriguing to see how these issues will be presented and addressed in white man's court.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 10, 2020, 04:25:48 pm
Hmmm ... just realized that your article is from July 2019, and the papers were filed to support the Coastal GasLink injunction granted in February.

So no judge will be adjudicating the issues raised by these women. I would have been very surprised if they had submitted it for adjudication.

So, it's just information from their perspective.
The headline is misleading because it is not current, and there is no adjudication as implied.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 11, 2020, 12:11:03 am
Hmmm ... just realized that your article is from July 2019, and the papers were filed to support the Coastal GasLink injunction granted in February.

The headline is misleading because it is not current, and there is no adjudication as implied.

no - you inferred incorrectly. The quote I provided states that the female hereditary chiefs provided affidavits in support of the CGL pipeline... affidavits that spoke to how "the illegitimate 5" either stole hereditary titles from the women or were improperly given their title. Again, this was intended to align with the waldo's continued emphasis on challenges to the legitimacy of this group of 5 suspect hereditary chiefs presuming to speak for... improperly speaking for... the Wet'suwet'en.

in any case, it was a waldo teaser; a teaser to set-up today's meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs - where the same Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait Day gave testimony that addressed the illegitimate makeup of the current group presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en... and how that group (together with anti-pipeline activists) worked to silence Wet'suwet'en proponents of the CGL pipeline:

=> video of complete 2.5 hour committee meeting (https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20200310/-1/32850?Language=English&Stream=Video)

note: (Chief Theresa Tait Day's 12 minute testimony begins at ~12:42:20... followed by Q&A with Committee members)

Pipeline project was 'hijacked' by 'group of five guys,' former Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief tells MPs --- The hereditary chiefs were being supported by environmentalists who were disrespecting the rest of the Wet’suwet’en community, Tait Day said (https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/pipeline-project-was-hijacked-by-group-of-five-guys-former-wetsuweten-hereditary-chief-tells-mps)

so ya member Granny, the waldo's past questioning of the legitimacy of the current 5 "hereditary chiefs" presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en was/is key... in spite of how you wigged out over it - no matter how loud you barked about it being, "none of our business... that it was only the business of the Wet'suwet'en themselves".
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 11, 2020, 02:09:05 pm
Be part of the 'divide and conquer' strategy if you wish.
I choose not.

Are you also going to try to divide my community as we fight a pipeline?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 11, 2020, 05:26:47 pm
Be part of the 'divide and conquer' strategy if you wish. I choose not.

throughout this thread the waldo has repeatedly advocated for that most significant majority of the Wet'suwet'en that stand in favour of the CGL pipeline... while also questioning and challenging the legitimacy of those select 5 "hereditary chiefs" who currently presume to speak for the Wet'suwet'en; those 5 "hereditary chief"s who are said to have either stolen their titles or had them inappropriately designated.

you'll need to properly state why you choose to ignore the wants (and needs) of the overwhelming majority of the Wet'suwet'en that is in favour of the pipeline - and why you choose to ignore questions about and challenges to the legitimacy of that select minority subset of but 5, "hereditary chiefs", who currently presume to speak for the whole Wet'suwet'en nation. Just what is your 'divide and conquer' strategy, hey member Granny?

Are you also going to try to divide my community as we fight a pipeline?

to properly respond, the waldo needs you to identify your community, the pipeline you're referencing... and the fight you're actively engaged in. You can do that, right? Sure you can!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 12, 2020, 08:59:44 pm
you'll need to properly state why ... 

I don't "need to" explain anything to you. 

The one thing I do know for certain is that Wet'suet'en people have many millennia of sticking together, and a very strong pull to continue that way. That should never be underestimated.

And we also should never underestimate the devious and underhanded tricks, payoffs and violence that governments and corporations will stoop to to try to divide and conquer Indigenous communities, for greed.

Why is this pipeline so important to you that you would join in their vicious attacks on the Wet'suet'en community? Malice? Money?

Quote
to properly respond, the waldo needs you to identify your community, the pipeline you're referencing... and the fight you're actively engaged in. You can do that, right? Sure you can!

It's irrelevant.

My question was ... would you stoop to devious divide and conquer attacks, payoffs and smear tactics to push a pipeline through a non-Indigenous community?

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 13, 2020, 12:18:59 am
Be part of the 'divide and conquer' strategy if you wish. I choose not.
throughout this thread the waldo has repeatedly advocated for that most significant majority of the Wet'suwet'en that stand in favour of the CGL pipeline... while also questioning and challenging the legitimacy of those select 5 "hereditary chiefs" who currently presume to speak for the Wet'suwet'en; those 5 "hereditary chief"s who are said to have either stolen their titles or had them inappropriately designated.

you'll need to properly state why you choose to ignore the wants (and needs) of the overwhelming majority of the Wet'suwet'en that is in favour of the pipeline - and why you choose to ignore questions about and challenges to the legitimacy of that select minority subset of but 5, "hereditary chiefs", who currently presume to speak for the whole Wet'suwet'en nation. Just what is your 'divide and conquer' strategy, hey member Granny?
And we also should never underestimate the devious and underhanded tricks, payoffs and violence that governments and corporations will stoop to to try to divide and conquer Indigenous communities, for greed.

Why is this pipeline so important to you that you would join in their vicious attacks on the Wet'suet'en community? Malice? Money?

your, "try to divide and conquer" phrasing is gold! Of course it presumes upon a cohesive united Wet'suwet'en being divided... which is, of course, you simply showcasing more of your agenda-driven bullshyte! Should I repeat that post where I detail the monetary and benefits packages negotiated between the province, CGL and the 20 First Nations impacted by the CGL pipeline route... the same post where I also further detail specific monetary/benefits realized by the Wet'suwet'en?

your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy is one that has you completely ignoring the 5+ year relationships struck between the respective Band Councils, the Province of B.C. and CGL... and the resulting negotiated settlements with their most significant monetary and benefits realized. More pointedly, your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy has you belittling the will of the First Nation Band Councils/members and, most pointedly per this threads focus, that of the overwhelming majority of the Wet'suwet'en themselves who are in favour of the CGL pipeline. Here, ignore this image detailing the 20 First Nations that negotiated agreements:

(https://4rfnv3jdfte8qj2229aqgj4h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/13538549_web1_PipelineAgreement.jpg)

Are you also going to try to divide my community as we fight a pipeline?
to properly respond, the waldo needs you to identify your community, the pipeline you're referencing... and the fight you're actively engaged in. You can do that, right? Sure you can!
It's irrelevant.

My question was ... would you stoop to devious divide and conquer attacks, payoffs and smear tactics to push a pipeline through a non-Indigenous community?

such puffery on your part!  ;D If you had any real conviction you'd identify the community you represent... and why you're against said pipeline (which ever pipeline that actually is... so strange you can't even state that!).

I repeated a post (several times now) that corrected your lack of knowledge concerning, just as one example, life-cycle emissions for B.C. fracked gas (particularly in relation to Asian export markets presently relying upon coal). Of course, I also knocked back your nonsense where you claimed the CGL pipeline brought no benefits to the general B.C. populace. Perhaps you could try a re-do and have another go as to why you're so set against the CGL pipeline... you know, where you come up with something other than the standard go-to claiming industry greed!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 13, 2020, 09:42:02 am

your, "try to divide and conquer" phrasing is gold! Of course it presumes upon a cohesive united Wet'suwet'en being divided... which is, of course, you simply showcasing more of your agenda-driven bullshyte! Should I repeat that post where I detail the monetary and benefits packages negotiated between the province, CGL and the 20 First Nations impacted by the CGL pipeline route... the same post where I also further detail specific monetary/benefits realized by the Wet'suwet'en?

your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy is one that has you completely ignoring the 5+ year relationships struck between the respective Band Councils, the Province of B.C. and CGL... and the resulting negotiated settlements with their most significant monetary and benefits realized. More pointedly, your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy has you belittling the will of the First Nation Band Councils/members

I belittle no one.

As I said above:

The one thing I do know for certain is that Wet'suet'en people have many millennia of sticking together, and a very strong pull to continue that way. That should never be underestimated.

As one pro-pipeline elected band chief, Dan George, recently said to the CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.5491009/elected-chiefs-should-have-been-at-the-table-for-wet-suwet-en-deal-says-chief-dan-george-1.5491011

“If we can come together and create a governance system and work together, I think that’s the only silver lining that can come out of this.”

I think all Wet'suet'en people have the same strong desire to be unified, to reach the "silver lining", to "come together".

Do not underestimate the power of that desire for unity. It has sustained the Wet'suet'en Nation for thousands of years, will continue to, and clearly does continue as evidenced by 'Chief' Dan George's statement.

Hereditary/traditional governance is reviving, after being outlawed by Canada, penalized, jailed, punished, decimated by Canada (via the RCMP) through most of the 20th century. Wives of traditional leaders were targeted for sterilization to disrupt hereditary lines, their children were targeted and treated most harshly in the 'Indian' Residential Schools. Ceremonies, regalia, wampum belts and other sacred things were stolen (RCMP), destroyed ... criminalized ... in Canada's attempts to make way for resource industries by stomping out traditional Councils, because they are the rights holders and protectors of the land.

Today's divisions - via CGL bribery, smear tactics and other colonial/industry attempts to divide-and-conquer the Wet'suet'en Nation, with RCMP continuing their 150+ years of complicity in carrying out the wishes of governments and industry and also protecting their own pension plan investments, to gain a for-profit (not for domestic use) gas pipeline - are just more of the 20th century tactics.

But as you see from Dan George's statement, even a pro-pipeline band chief still has a strong desire for unity among all Wet'suet'en people.

That unity may blossom through the current talks about the Federal process for establishing rights and title. It's quite likely that all Wet'suet'en members will come together and embrace an opportunity for declaration of Aboriginal title.

I make no predictions about agreement on the pipeline, though I will note that CGL's abrupt rejection of alternative routes proposed by hereditary Chiefs, and then walking away from talks with them, will no doubt again be a topic of discussion (following 'title' talks).

I also note that the current pipeline route is most destructive to the territory of the Clans that are most involved in the blockades. That unfairness may be a topic of discussion too.

There is space for Wet'suet'en people to come together around routing of the pipeline. It is a space -alternative routes - that CGL/TCEnergy has adamantly refused to consider.
If appealed, that failure to meaningfully consult and adequately accommodate concerns and alternate routes could be seen by the Supreme Court of Canada as a failure by the Crown/BC to fulfill its duties.
In that event, a project can be shut down.

My only prediction is ... it isn't over.  : - )
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 13, 2020, 11:47:42 am
I belittle no one. As I said above:

The one thing I do know for certain is that Wet'suet'en people have many millennia of sticking together, and a very strong pull to continue that way. That should never be underestimated.

of course you belittle the Wet'suwet'en... and the other 19 First Nations that want the CGL pipeline for the benefits and opportunities it presents to them. Your agenda doesn't allow you to accept that these 20 Band Chiefs/Councils can... and did make their own decisions in negotiating with the province of B.C. and the pipeline company CGL. And most certainly, you scored another own goal - yet another... cause nothing aligns more with your nattering "sticking together", than being able to shove those negotiated agreements down your fake/fraud festering mouth!

you have the gall to keep barking out your "sticking together" nonsense while refusing to recognize the questions about and challenges to the legitimacy of the "claimed illegitimate 5" that presumes to speak for the Wet'suwet'en... the 5 "hereditary chiefs" that are said to have either stolen their titles or had them inappropriately designated. Your kind of "sticking together", hey!  ;D

Today's divisions - via CGL bribery, smear tactics and other colonial/industry attempts to divide-and-conquer the Wet'suet'en Nation, with RCMP continuing their 150+ years of complicity in carrying out the wishes of governments and industry and also protecting their own pension plan investments, to gain a for-profit (not for domestic use) gas pipeline - are just more of the 20th century tactics.

as has been your personal showcased strategy of 'divide & conquer', you self-servingly and most selectively conflate the pipeline with rights/title... and you particularly do so when your failed talking points concerning the pipeline are repeatedly exposed - when that happens all of a sudden you quit mentioning the pipeline and pull rights/title from your bullshyte grab bag. As your emissions related talking point has been busted by the waldo, I see you're now reverting back to your other, "pipeline not for domestic use", bluster. In that regard, as I've mentioned previously, the Horgan NDP government has designs on significant monetary returns for natural gas as tied to royalties and taxes... as contributed to the so-called "Prosperity Fund".

you're nothing but a fake, fraud and dishonest purveyor of bullshyte. I will go so far as to categorically state that all rights/title means to you, is its another false ploy you utilize to attempt to support your prevailing anti-pipeline agenda. That's it! You're nothing more than a down&dirty enviro-activist plying your own special brand of 21st century colonialism against First Nations... 20 First Nations... who want/accept the CGL pipeline route and the benefits/opportunities the pipeline brings to them. Why are you trying to keep the IndigenousManWoman down, member Granny - why?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 13, 2020, 01:48:03 pm
I don't know whose payroll you're on, but clearly you have no interest in truly comprehending Indigenous societies, nor in any facts that don't fit the agenda you are here to push - BC's pipeline.

You do no favors to your Party, province, pipeline nor your preferred First Nations with your offensive and disparaging approach.

Read again the words of one of your preferred First Nation elected Chiefs:

“If we can come together and create a governance system and work together, I think that’s the only silver lining that can come out of this.”


I believe it would be beneficial to all of Canadian society if you shut your very divisive and extremely disrespectful yap, waldo.


/ignore

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 15, 2020, 01:32:10 pm
You do no favors to your... preferred First Nations with your offensive and disparaging approach.

I believe it would be beneficial to all of Canadian society if you shut your very divisive and extremely disrespectful yap, waldo.

"my preferred First Nations"? Oh my! Holding a position that aligns with the overwhelming majority of pipeline impacted First Nations, of the Wet'suet'en, only "offends" your anti-pipeline agenda. Highlighting those 3rd-party questions & challenges being made to the legitimacy of the existing minority subset of 5 "hereditary chiefs" presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en is disparaging only if that minority subset is legitimate. Member Granny, are you categorically stating those 5 "hereditary chiefs" hold/received their titles legitimately? Is that what you're saying member Granny?

how pompous of you to presume to speak for, "all of Canadian society"!  ;D
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Granny on March 15, 2020, 05:53:25 pm
I'm not one who decides that.
Nor are you.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on March 15, 2020, 06:38:46 pm
Highlighting those 3rd-party questions & challenges being made to the legitimacy of the existing minority subset of 5 "hereditary chiefs" presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en is disparaging only if that minority subset is legitimate. Member Granny, are you categorically stating those 5 "hereditary chiefs" hold/received their titles legitimately? Is that what you're saying member Granny?
I'm not one who decides that. Nor are you.

of course! You're banking on the legitimacy of that suspect minority (the claimed illegitimate 5) only because they stand against the pipeline. Of course you do. You don't respect the expressed wants... and very real needs of the 20 First Nations... of the Wet'suwet'en in favour of the pipeline; those who negotiated agreements with the province/CGL. Again, you're nothing but a fake, fraud and dishonest purveyor of bullshyte. I will go so far as to categorically state that all rights/title means to you, is its another false ploy you utilize to attempt to support your prevailing anti-pipeline agenda. That's it! You're nothing more than a down&dirty enviro-activist plying your own special brand of 21st century colonialism against First Nations... 20 First Nations... who want/accept the CGL pipeline route and the benefits/opportunities the pipeline brings to them. Why are you trying to keep the IndigenousManWoman down, member Granny - why?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: northlandmagus on November 01, 2020, 04:09:06 pm
Here is an article illustrating what a hopeless mess LIE-berals have made of the Native Affairs Ministry. With some comments of my own in brackets):
 
Saskatchewan First Nation wins $4.5-million from federal government
   
"Mr. Cameron said he hopes an improved relationship between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and indigenous peoples means the government will settle similar cases at a faster rate.

"Let's not waste thousands and thousands of dollars on legal fees. The decision has been made. Precedent has been set. Therefore compensate these bands a lot sooner than how long it took Beardy's and Okemasis to get a decision," he said."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/saskatchewan-first-nation-says-its-getting-45-million-from-feds-over-1885-rebellion/article33438197/

(OH my, natives are not blind. They have recognized that LIE-berals are frantic to buy votes and are cashing in on every issue that LIE-berals perceive as a weakness or embarrassment. The truth is that LIE-berals would do better if they encourage natives to look to the future rather than dwell in the past!)

(One has only to look at the debacle that is the LIE-beral Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women to recognize the problem. It is certainly tragic that so many native women have gone missing- but it is NOT racism that has prevented killers from being caught! The lack of killers on trial is a function of the awful life natives lead- a woman lost in drug addiction and desperate for another fix and intending to obtain the funds by prostitution is often careless of her situation and thus is vulnerable- and due to her illegal addiction she will be quite discreet about her activities and social contacts- which makes her difficult to track! One has only to look at the recent drastic drop in the number of killers arrested in Toronto to recognize how difficult it can be to track a gang or people who do not want to be followed!)

(The ugly reality is that the LAST thing natives need is to be treated like badly cared for pets! They should not be showered with un-earned gifts when they bark loudly or bite the keepers ankles! Corruption is ENDEMIC on too many reserves and LIE-berals would have a much greater and more beneficial influence on native lives if they knocked off the “poor sad native victim” and started to demand that natives function efficiently for their own sakes! Where is natives find gumption and get up and go if LIE-berals perpetuate the myth of native impotence?)

(The 1885 Metis Rebellion was a foolish and irresponsible attempt by Metis and Crees to turn back time and restore about a third of North America to the political state of anarchy existed during the time of the Hudson`s Bay Company administration- which was focused ONLY on the sale of furs and trade goods- there was NO law- as Peter C. Newman chronicles in his trilogy about the Gentleman Company of Adventurers of the Hudson`s Bay! Metis leader Lois Riel was a clever man who was educated by the Jesuits in Montreal- it is just toop bad for Riel that he did not keep up with political and technical advances and ended up judged as a traitor to Canada after botching his creation of an Alberta govt- he took too long and Ottawa beat him to the punch! The Metis Rebellion was a tragic comedy of foolish errors with a large cast of foolish players and does not represent any current political reality! It certainly is Not worth e4.5 million dollars- frankly it aint even worth $4.50! The award to Saskatchewan natives is nothing more than LIE-beral habit of sucking up to whiners and buying votes!)     
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on November 01, 2020, 04:41:22 pm
Here is an article illustrating what a hopeless mess Liberals have made of the Native Affairs Ministry. With some comments of my own in brackets):
 
Saskatchewan First Nation wins $4.5-million from federal government
   
"Mr. Cameron said he hopes an improved relationship between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and indigenous peoples means the government will settle similar cases at a faster rate.

"Let's not waste thousands and thousands of dollars on legal fees. The decision has been made. Precedent has been set. Therefore compensate these bands a lot sooner than how long it took Beardy's and Okemasis to get a decision," he said."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/saskatchewan-first-nation-says-its-getting-45-million-from-feds-over-1885-rebellion/article33438197/

(OH my, natives are not blind. They have recognized that Liberals are frantic to buy votes and are cashing in on every issue that Liberals perceive as a weakness or embarrassment. The truth is that Liberals would do better if they encourage natives to look to the future rather than dwell in the past!)

here, let the waldo correct your obvious confusion. That decision award was made by the Specific Claims Tribunal that Harper Conservatives established in 2008... the tribunal is, "an independent adjudicative body comprised of up to 6 full time Federal judges appointed from Provincial Superior Courts across the country."
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: northlandmagus on November 02, 2020, 12:57:42 pm
Oh MY! And should we be asking just how many LIE-berals had to be shoved onto the committee - BEFORE that award to natives could be sent out? And should we be asking whether that award was supposed to be INSTEAD of other grants, gifts and bribes subsequently offered by LIE-berals seeking to BUY native votes?  Meaning other grants, gifts and bribes that Harper WOULD NOT have offered!

LIE-berals are encouraging native radicals to run wild! Harper was demanding better behaviour and was prepared to BUY it by cutting off aid to bands that did not produce HONEST BOOKS and receipts!

            Here is yet another article illustrating just how careless LIE-berals are of public safety and justice issues. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Fear on the farm in Beiseker, Alta., after thefts raise safety concerns

Calgary Herald. By Yolande Cole. March 14/2018

As rural crime rates remain in the spotlight in Alberta, Beiseker-area farmer Howard Hixt is one of the latest residents to raise concerns about theft in his community.

RCMP are investigating after Hixt’s tractor was stolen over the weekend. It was the second time his family has had to file a police report, after his parents’ house in the area was broken into a few weeks ago.

“Somebody pried open the deadbolt on their front door and they had quite a bit of their possessions out of their house taken, so it’s getting to be kind of a concern in an area that we thought was safe for raising our family,” said Hixt.

Hixt, 44, added that since taking over his grandfather’s farm after graduating from university, this is the first time they’ve had farm equipment stolen.

“We’ve never had anything like this happen,” he said. “It seems like it’s something that’s getting out of hand in our community.”

He noted that a year ago, friends of theirs had their home broken into while one of the residents was at home having a nap.

“It’s a safety concern for us, our neighbours, our friends,” he said.

Beiseker RCMP Sgt. Norm Mercier said Mounties have been encouraging residents to call in any suspicious activities, vehicles or people.

(It is tempting to blame this epidemic of thefts from farms on natives - and there certainly have been a number of high profile shootings of native thieves caught by aggrieved white property owners- but I point out that Ontari-owe went through a phase where thefts of materials and construction equipment from housing sites was quite common. Shall we assume that the thieves who used to prey on Ontari-owe construction companies have moved on to other less well guarded sites?)

While there may be a perception that police can’t do anything in certain situations, “that’s not true,” he said.

(Yeah- making a report to cops after valuables are stolen is helpful in getting a faster settlement from your insurance company- and nets you higher premiums as well- so some good news and some bad!)

Sgt Mercier noted accurate police statistics can lead to additional members and funding, and can allow analysts in the force’s crime reduction unit to come up with solutions for areas that are being targeted more frequently.

(Oh yeah- we have all seen how well Toronto Silly Hall is responding to the gangs shooting each other in the city! And mayor Jackass John the Sorry Tory has told us he will hire 200 new cops this year- but so far has only managed to find 20 in 6 months! Shall we ask if NOBODY wants to be a cop in LIE-beral dominated Toronto where the Radical White Haters hold sway?)

(And its too bad LIE-berals DO NOT WANT ACCURATE POLICE STATISTICS anyway!!!!! If they had such statistics it would put the LIE to long standing LIE-beral assurances that crime rates are DOWN and no new cops are needed!)

The provincial government announced a rural crime plan Friday that includes funding for 39 new RCMP officers, 40 civilian staff and 10 Crown prosecutors focussed on rural crime.

(Shall we ask what good more cops are if the LIE-beral hug a thug judges are practicing their usual catch and release crap? More cops operating under LIE-beral rules simply means the paperwork is expedited and thugs get bail SOONER!)

The announcement came amid continued debate about rural crime and how far landowners can go to protect their property.

(What is really needed here is some SERIOUS DETERRENCE in the form of harsh sentences for the drunken and drug addled PARASITES plaguing us! But LIE-berals will refuse such a solution for fear of losing votes and for fear of the cost of incarcerating thugs! LIE-berals have much better and more selfish uses for our gravy than paying bills for jailed criminals!)

Last week, more than 150 people gathered outside the courthouse in Okotoks to support Edouard Maurice, who is facing charges of aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm following an incident on Feb. 24 when he woke up to find two suspected trespassers rummaging through vehicles on his property.

According to Alberta RCMP Supt. John Bennett, property crime in rural areas has increased 23 per cent over the last five years. Offences include break and enters, vehicle theft, theft under $5,000 and possession of stolen goods.

(And yet LIE-berals blandly assure us that ALL crime is DOWN!)

Violent crimes, however, are down, he said.

“We understand completely that people feel vulnerable and frustrated,” said Bennett, who is in charge of a squad that focuses on criminals who appear to be behind a disproportionate number of calls.

(Yes- a Toronto cop who defied the rules and collected race based statistics about 25 years ago, concluded that black gang members represent a SMALL MINORITY in Toronto but they commit the great majority of crimes! The LIE-beral response to the cops numbers was to rage at the lack of respect for the rules- AND LIE-BERALS WERE UTTERLY SILENT ABOUT THE TRUTH THAT WAS REVEALED! LIE-berals also questioned the accuracy of the numbers- with the cop simply pointing out: “I looked at the mug shots- with black guys going in one pile and other races in other piles”!)

(LIE-berals DO NOT wish to discuss the utter failure of their vote buying immigration policy that has bought us a criminal underclass infesting our not so affordable housing and that criminal class and its family members regularly vote LIE-beral in exchange for facing LIE-beral hug a thug judges operating a WEAK legal system! Our legal system offer up LOTS of chances for plea bargaining in which major crimes become small ones and minor crimes are completely FORGOTTEN!)

(AS I have said before- crime is evolving and becoming more sophisticated- and LIE-berals are DELIBERATELY IGNORING THIS REALITY!)

Sgt Mercier is encouraging people not to take on intruders themselves, but to leave it to police.

“You never know how someone may react when confronted,” he said. “We don’t want to see anyone getting hurt.”

(REALLY? WE don’t want to see people get hurt? LIE-berals demonstrate how out of touch they are with Cdns- a good many of whom think that a would be thief would BENEFIT from spending a few days in hospital after being riddled with buckshot from an angry property owner- especially since LIE-beral hug a thug judges practising their catch and release crap don’t see any reason to the PUNISH THIEVING PARASITES!!)

Hixt said he knows rural residents who have set up high-tech security systems — a move he is considering himself, following the tractor theft.

“I guess we’ll just have to factor that into our expenses,” he said.

(Yes- the need for and cost of expanded personal security in a suddenly more dangerous world is just one more dubious gift from our LIE-beral overlords!)

Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Montgomery on November 02, 2020, 03:34:04 pm
Oh MY! And should we be asking just how many LIE-berals had to be shoved onto the committee - BEFORE that award to natives could be sent out? And should we be asking whether that award was supposed to be INSTEAD of other grants, gifts and bribes subsequently offered by LIE-berals seeking to BUY native votes?  Meaning other grants, gifts and bribes that Harper WOULD NOT have offered!

LIE-berals are encouraging native radicals to run wild! Harper was demanding better behaviour and was prepared to BUY it by cutting off aid to bands that did not produce HONEST BOOKS and receipts!

            Here is yet another article illustrating just how careless LIE-berals are of public safety and justice issues. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Fear on the farm in Beiseker, Alta., after thefts raise safety concerns

Calgary Herald. By Yolande Cole. March 14/2018

As rural crime rates remain in the spotlight in Alberta, Beiseker-area farmer Howard Hixt is one of the latest residents to raise concerns about theft in his community.

RCMP are investigating after Hixt’s tractor was stolen over the weekend. It was the second time his family has had to file a police report, after his parents’ house in the area was broken into a few weeks ago.

“Somebody pried open the deadbolt on their front door and they had quite a bit of their possessions out of their house taken, so it’s getting to be kind of a concern in an area that we thought was safe for raising our family,” said Hixt.

Hixt, 44, added that since taking over his grandfather’s farm after graduating from university, this is the first time they’ve had farm equipment stolen.

“We’ve never had anything like this happen,” he said. “It seems like it’s something that’s getting out of hand in our community.”

He noted that a year ago, friends of theirs had their home broken into while one of the residents was at home having a nap.

“It’s a safety concern for us, our neighbours, our friends,” he said.

Beiseker RCMP Sgt. Norm Mercier said Mounties have been encouraging residents to call in any suspicious activities, vehicles or people.

(It is tempting to blame this epidemic of thefts from farms on natives - and there certainly have been a number of high profile shootings of native thieves caught by aggrieved white property owners- but I point out that Ontari-owe went through a phase where thefts of materials and construction equipment from housing sites was quite common. Shall we assume that the thieves who used to prey on Ontari-owe construction companies have moved on to other less well guarded sites?)

While there may be a perception that police can’t do anything in certain situations, “that’s not true,” he said.

(Yeah- making a report to cops after valuables are stolen is helpful in getting a faster settlement from your insurance company- and nets you higher premiums as well- so some good news and some bad!)

Sgt Mercier noted accurate police statistics can lead to additional members and funding, and can allow analysts in the force’s crime reduction unit to come up with solutions for areas that are being targeted more frequently.

(Oh yeah- we have all seen how well Toronto Silly Hall is responding to the gangs shooting each other in the city! And mayor Jackass John the Sorry Tory has told us he will hire 200 new cops this year- but so far has only managed to find 20 in 6 months! Shall we ask if NOBODY wants to be a cop in LIE-beral dominated Toronto where the Radical White Haters hold sway?)

(And its too bad LIE-berals DO NOT WANT ACCURATE POLICE STATISTICS anyway!!!!! If they had such statistics it would put the LIE to long standing LIE-beral assurances that crime rates are DOWN and no new cops are needed!)

The provincial government announced a rural crime plan Friday that includes funding for 39 new RCMP officers, 40 civilian staff and 10 Crown prosecutors focussed on rural crime.

(Shall we ask what good more cops are if the LIE-beral hug a thug judges are practicing their usual catch and release crap? More cops operating under LIE-beral rules simply means the paperwork is expedited and thugs get bail SOONER!)

The announcement came amid continued debate about rural crime and how far landowners can go to protect their property.

(What is really needed here is some SERIOUS DETERRENCE in the form of harsh sentences for the drunken and drug addled PARASITES plaguing us! But LIE-berals will refuse such a solution for fear of losing votes and for fear of the cost of incarcerating thugs! LIE-berals have much better and more selfish uses for our gravy than paying bills for jailed criminals!)

Last week, more than 150 people gathered outside the courthouse in Okotoks to support Edouard Maurice, who is facing charges of aggravated assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm following an incident on Feb. 24 when he woke up to find two suspected trespassers rummaging through vehicles on his property.

According to Alberta RCMP Supt. John Bennett, property crime in rural areas has increased 23 per cent over the last five years. Offences include break and enters, vehicle theft, theft under $5,000 and possession of stolen goods.

(And yet LIE-berals blandly assure us that ALL crime is DOWN!)

Violent crimes, however, are down, he said.

“We understand completely that people feel vulnerable and frustrated,” said Bennett, who is in charge of a squad that focuses on criminals who appear to be behind a disproportionate number of calls.

(Yes- a Toronto cop who defied the rules and collected race based statistics about 25 years ago, concluded that black gang members represent a SMALL MINORITY in Toronto but they commit the great majority of crimes! The LIE-beral response to the cops numbers was to rage at the lack of respect for the rules- AND LIE-BERALS WERE UTTERLY SILENT ABOUT THE TRUTH THAT WAS REVEALED! LIE-berals also questioned the accuracy of the numbers- with the cop simply pointing out: “I looked at the mug shots- with black guys going in one pile and other races in other piles”!)

(LIE-berals DO NOT wish to discuss the utter failure of their vote buying immigration policy that has bought us a criminal underclass infesting our not so affordable housing and that criminal class and its family members regularly vote LIE-beral in exchange for facing LIE-beral hug a thug judges operating a WEAK legal system! Our legal system offer up LOTS of chances for plea bargaining in which major crimes become small ones and minor crimes are completely FORGOTTEN!)

(AS I have said before- crime is evolving and becoming more sophisticated- and LIE-berals are DELIBERATELY IGNORING THIS REALITY!)

Sgt Mercier is encouraging people not to take on intruders themselves, but to leave it to police.

“You never know how someone may react when confronted,” he said. “We don’t want to see anyone getting hurt.”

(REALLY? WE don’t want to see people get hurt? LIE-berals demonstrate how out of touch they are with Cdns- a good many of whom think that a would be thief would BENEFIT from spending a few days in hospital after being riddled with buckshot from an angry property owner- especially since LIE-beral hug a thug judges practising their catch and release crap don’t see any reason to the PUNISH THIEVING PARASITES!!)

Hixt said he knows rural residents who have set up high-tech security systems — a move he is considering himself, following the tractor theft.

“I guess we’ll just have to factor that into our expenses,” he said.

(Yes- the need for and cost of expanded personal security in a suddenly more dangerous world is just one more dubious gift from our LIE-beral overlords!)

I haven't read any of your posts because they're too long. If you care then you'll do something about that.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Omni on November 02, 2020, 04:10:30 pm
I haven't read any of your posts because they're too long. If you care then you'll do something about that.

Quite sure you're not alone on that.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: northlandmagus on November 03, 2020, 09:52:53 am
   Ah yes! The STANDARD LIE-beral reply: "the posts are too long" so LIE-berals will not read them and can thus REMAIN IGNORANT!

Here is an article illustrating much that is wrong with LIE-beral handling of native issues!

Kashechewan stands on the Hudson Bay LOWLANDS with an AVERAGE ELEVATION OF 6FT above sea level!

NOTE THAT .....................AVERAGE ELEVATION!

ANY significant CHANGE in elevation in the area is the result of HUMAN ACTIVITY!

When the govt PAID contractors to build the drinking water treatment plan and the sewage treatment plant.......and had BOTH built by white people because natives dont have the skills!

THE FIRST THING the white people did was PILE UP SAND AND GRAVEL!
The whites made HUGE GRAVEL PLATFORMS for the two plants to sit UP on - out of reach of flood waters!

This is SENSIBLE building style on a flood plain! PUT STUFF out of reach of the water - were its possible! Sand and gravel are available up there FOR FREE since the Hudson Bay Lowlands is a VAST SET of river deltas!

YES - ten thousand years worth of erosion have built up a HUGE FLOOD PLAIN! Hudson Bay Lowlands is a 1.5 MILLION SQUARE KM of sand and gravel! And many of the houses in Kash FLOOD because the natives DID NOT BOTHER building up those handy gravel piles for the houses to sit on- high and dry!

As for the suggestion to use the river to power pumps to keep the town dry?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

The town is FLOODING because the river is ICE DAMMED! Pumps DON’T WORK in a river that has no current because it is ice choked! Thus there is NO CURRENT to speak of!!

The local rivers run from the warming south into the STILL FROZEN NORTH!
And that mass of half frozen slush and chunks of ice BLOCKS the rivers! And I seriously doubt there is a pump on this planet that could cope with 50 tonnes of ice choking its impellers!

After all- Hydro One has SHIELDS in place to divert ice away from its turbines at Niagara Falls! And there is MUCH LESS ICE on the Niagara River than on rivers around Kash - Since Kash is roughly a couple of thousand Km NORTH of Niagara! Even the mighty James Bay Hydro electric generators see a Thirty percent reduction in production in winter!

And yes - I suppose you COULD build dikes and levees to try to guide the water away from town - but given the amount of ice flowing in the area - such dikes would be CHEWED FLAT in no time at all! The fiscal cost of building and maintaining such dikes each year WOULD BE HUGE! Not to mention the massive carbon foot print so much diesel equipment would produce!

And of course ANY heavy machinery needed for earth moving in Kash MUST be barged in from Newfoundland! Ocean going ships DONT GO to Kash - even though it is on the sea coast - because the water is SO SHALLOW around the Hudson`s Bay Lowlands!

It is so shallow and shoaly along that western Hudson Bay shoreline that a KAYAK will ground half a mile out from the high tide mark!

A Winnipeg man named Don Starkell tried to paddle a kayak from Moosonee through the North West Passage and found the western shore to be a mass of mud and boulders with only inches of sea water in many places - up to a MILE OUT from shore - even at high tide! Shallow draft barges are the ONLY WAY to bring in any heavy object!

This is why LIE-berals have decided it is EASIER to fly Kash residents OUT to Thunder Bay instead of doing any flood control!

The one thing I cannot answer is WHY IN HELL LIE-berals dont simply fly Kash residents OUT and LEAVE them some place where it is high and dry?

Do LIE-berals think leaving natives to live in a flood prone MESS - with the only food and fuel available being COSTLY stuff that is either flown in - or else BARGED IN from Nain or Goose Bay or some other such spot on the Labrador Coast - thousands of KM from Kash! How are LIE-berals actually “helping natives” by allowing them to live in a flooded village, with no work and nothing to do all day but drink and blame white people for ALL their problems?

Do LIE-berals really think that such treatment of natives will win LIE-berals some actual votes? Natives have a longer attention span than the average LIE-beral and we can be assured that natives WILL figure out who is behind their major problems!


Nor do LIE-berals seem to realize that giving tax payers a break with this costly  YEARLY evacuation might actually wint them some votes!

The Toronto Red Star newspaper was grudgingly FORCED to admit much of this stuff as their original coverage of the Kash "tragedy" was exposed as being so very wrong!

Kash is the ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of ALL that is wrong with LIE-beral policy with regard to natives and and the reserve system!

And the capper to all this LIE-beral crapper is that LIE-beals keep telling us they want us to STOP USING fossil fuel! And then they FLY an entire community of 2500 people plus pets and spare clothing and etc - in and out of Thunder Bay EVERY DAMNED YEAR!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: waldo on November 03, 2020, 10:59:23 am
Kash is the ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of ALL that is wrong with Liberal policy with regard to natives and and the reserve system!

member northlandmagus - notwithstanding your too long-winded copy/paste prowess, you are so full of shyte!

Kashechewan community residents had a relocation commitment in 2005 under the Paul Martin Liberal government. That deal was scrapped when Stephen Harper's Conservatives were elected... Harper Conservatives never returned to it!

despite your narrow-minded, skewed attempt to singularly target the current Liberal federal government, it is that government that has realized a new agreement in 2017; one intended to complete in 5-to-8 years - one that relies upon the 3 levels of government involved. Somehow you fail to recognize the role of the current Ontario Conservative Ford provincial government in terms of formalizing the transfer of Crown land to reserve land, of building significant infrastructure components to support the transition of the community, etc..

get off the pipe member northlandmagus!
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Montgomery on November 11, 2020, 03:14:40 pm
member northlandmagus - notwithstanding your too long-winded copy/paste prowess, you are so full of shyte!

Kashechewan community residents had a relocation commitment in 2005 under the Paul Martin Liberal government. That deal was scrapped when Stephen Harper's Conservatives were elected... Harper Conservatives never returned to it!

despite your narrow-minded, skewed attempt to singularly target the current Liberal federal government, it is that government that has realized a new agreement in 2017; one intended to complete in 5-to-8 years - one that relies upon the 3 levels of government involved. Somehow you fail to recognize the role of the current Ontario Conservative Ford provincial government in terms of formalizing the transfer of Crown land to reserve land, of building significant infrastructure components to support the transition of the community, etc..

get off the pipe member northlandmagus!

With a bit of luck he's decided to show his tail. He was never going to condense it down a readble size in his own words. Still, there's always hope that some rightwing extremist will come along who can hold some ground on their batshit crazed agenda?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: the_squid on November 11, 2020, 06:15:03 pm
Still, there's always hope that some rightwing extremist will come along who can hold some ground on their batshit crazed agenda?

What do you mean?
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: Montgomery on November 12, 2020, 11:52:50 am
What do you mean?

Are you ready to change your attitude so that I can feel that it's worth replying to your questions?


If so then I'll say that we need a Conservative with real commitment on this board, and then be able to elaborate further.
Title: Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
Post by: the_squid on November 12, 2020, 12:03:22 pm
Are you ready to change your attitude so that I can feel that it's worth replying to your questions?


If so then I'll say that we need a Conservative with real commitment on this board, and then be able to elaborate further.

What a dumb fuck.