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 #60 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.


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #61 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!

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #62 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

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.


Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #63 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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 12:40:49 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3101
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #64 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.   ::)
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2928
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2020, 03:47:58 pm »
And our PM hides while this is happening.   ::)

This isn't even a federal issue. 

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3101
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #66 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.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5910
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #67 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #68 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:


Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2928
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #69 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2928
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #70 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.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #71 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?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #72 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
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 05:27:38 pm by Granny »
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2928
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5097
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #74 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. 
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.