Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 1838 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #75 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.
Winner Winner x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5047
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #76 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.
 

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #77 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.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6376
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #78 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? 
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6376
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #79 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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 07:53:42 pm by MAGA Graham »
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7476
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #80 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #81 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #82 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.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #83 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.
Agree Agree x 3 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #84 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

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7476
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #85 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #86 on: February 13, 2020, 10:12:48 pm »
Transportation, including pipelines are a federal jurisdiction.

Only pipelines that cross provincial boundaries. 

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #87 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


Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7476
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #88 on: February 13, 2020, 10:53:59 pm »
Only pipelines that cross provincial boundaries.

Railways cross provincial boundaries.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5047
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #89 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?