Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 1775 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #390 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.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2020, 02:19:33 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #391 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.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #392 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!



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.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #393 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


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #395 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?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #396 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?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #397 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.)

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.


Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #398 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.

   

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #399 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?


« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 11:01:35 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #400 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?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #401 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.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #402 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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 04:16:50 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #403 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

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.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #404 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!