Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 9729 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #375 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:


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #376 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?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #377 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.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #378 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.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #379 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.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #380 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.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2020, 06:29:09 pm by Granny »

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8405
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #381 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.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #382 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.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #383 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.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #384 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!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #385 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

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
« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 06:55:21 am by waldo »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #386 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.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 09:25:18 am by Granny »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #387 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.




Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #388 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!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #389 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.