Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 1780 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
BC v Wet'suet'en
« 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
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 01:15:53 am by Granny »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #1 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

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5966
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #2 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7943
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #3 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5119
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #4 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.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7943
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #5 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...

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5966
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #6 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC


Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7943
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2020, 03:47:05 pm »
Democracy isn't the ultimate measure of legitimacy.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5966
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #9 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.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5119
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #10 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.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7943
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #11 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.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #12 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


« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 06:57:15 pm by Granny »
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7943
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #13 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 ? 

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5119
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #14 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.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.