Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 1778 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2020, 08:06:23 pm »
There may be two sets of representatives.

Yes. One suppressed for decades, but respected.
Some Band Councillors are traditional leaders too.
 And they all struggle with jurisdiction, caring for the land v administering a community and Canadian government affairs of the people.

The numbers who vote in Band Council elections and eg CGL votes would be interesting too.

It's a process.

It could be a whole lot less traumatic if our governments would refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and do as directed.

Reconcile titles, define jurisdictions, share the land as agreed.
Fair dealing.

Ditch fossil fuels.
Traditional and elected Councils may welcome renewable energy projects. Problem solved.

Even Jason Kenney is getting on board now. % )

And I love the lawful peaceful people standing beside the tracks ... disrupting business as usual across the nation. All west to east rails go through Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. And they never had consent to put it there.

 Powerful. Lawful. Peaceful.

Shutting Canada down is easy.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 08:26:28 pm by Granny »

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7934
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2020, 08:50:45 pm »
More like security guards.

They can arrest you.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2020, 09:48:17 pm »
They can arrest you.

Hot jesus yes you're right they are just like any other police in canada.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2020, 09:49:08 pm »
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.

A majority of members, or a majority of those who voted?

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2020, 10:05:44 pm »
A majority of members, or a majority of those who voted?

I assume the ones who voted.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2020, 10:07:45 pm »
Pipelines are annoying
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5954
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2020, 10:08:59 pm »
A majority of members, or a majority of those who voted?

In any election or referendum the only ones who count are the ones who voted.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2020, 10:39:43 pm »
And I love the lawful peaceful people standing beside the tracks ... disrupting business as usual across the nation. All west to east rails go through Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. And they never had consent to put it there.

 Powerful. Lawful. Peaceful.

Shutting Canada down is easy.

Why would they cancel rail travel if they didn't block the lines?  They've blocked lines many times in the past.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/protesters-blocking-via-rail-tracks-force-train-cancellations-for-fourth-straight-day-1.4804912

Many of these protestors don't care about what's lawful or unlawful.  They don't even recognize Canadian law:

Quote
Canadian National Railway says it has been granted an injunction order to remove protesters from the site near Belleville.

Andrew Brant, of the nearby Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, said the protesters in Belleville are not worried about the injunction, and they will remain at the protest site until the RCMP leave Wet'suwet'en territory.

“We’re still standing here strong [and] supporting everybody, doesn’t matter what they do to us, what they say, [if] they try to move us,” Brant told CTV News Toronto.

“The [injunction] doesn’t mean anything; it’s just a piece of paper. To us, that is not our government; that’s not our law, so when they serve it to us, it’s just a piece of paper.”

The Mohawk territory near Belleville isn't even their traditional land, it was a piece of land they moved to after being given to them by the British in the late 18th century after their territory was lost in New York State when the US took it over after the US won the American Revolution vs the British.  It's a reserve that's was part of British Crown and now Canadian Crown territory.  This person doesn't even know what they're talking about lol.

Anyways, this is all about a dispute over who is the rightful bargaining government agent:  the elected band councils, or the hereditary chiefs.  The elected band councils of all the bands with territory along the gasline route have consented to the pipeline project, but the hereditary chiefs haven't.  The courts and BC gov says it's the band councils, but the chiefs and supporters disagree, so here we are. https://globalnews.ca/news/6517089/wetsuweten-bc-pipeline-protests/
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 10:41:49 pm by Progressive Graham »
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2020, 12:47:09 am »
Shutting Canada down is easy.
easy hey! What a dumbazz statement!

arrests by the RCMP in Wet'suwet'en claimed territory reflect enforcement of a court order... police arrests at the Port of Vancouver also reflect upon a court order being served. Near Belleville Ontario, more pointedly 'Tyendinaga Township':

Quote from: Bill Dickson, communications officer for Ontario Provincial Police
OPP officers are actively involved in the situation. Members of our provincial liaison team are in contact with the demonstrators. We respect the right of everyone (to have) freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. CN Rail police, who have jurisdiction over the rail lines, have received an injunction to remove protesters from the area. Given that Tyendinaga Township falls under OPP jurisdiction, provincial police are required to act on these court orders.

as for your Facebook gem stating the OPP is investigating whether, as you say, "laws were broken or evidence falsified to get that Belleville area injunction"... mainstream media outlets have not written anything to support such a claim! The waldo calls bullshyte!


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2020, 02:05:00 am »
It could be a whole lot less traumatic if our governments would refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and do as directed. Reconcile titles, define jurisdictions, share the land as agreed. Fair dealing.

Oct 11, 2018 - 2018 SCC 40 - Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council) --- Supreme Court rules Ottawa has no duty to consult with Indigenous people before drafting laws
Quote
7-2 decision rules against Mikisew Cree First Nation claim that government needed to consult on omnibus bills. Canada's lawmakers do not have a duty to consult with Indigenous people before introducing legislation that might affect constitutionally protected Indigenous and treaty rights, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. In its 7-2 decision, the top court has ruled against the Mikisew Cree First Nation in Alberta, which had argued that two omnibus budget bills introduced by the former Conservative federal government in 2012 affected its constitutionally protected treaty rights because they amended regulatory protections for waterways and the environment.

In four separate sets of reasons, the Court went on to consider whether the duty to consult applies to legislative action. A seven-judge majority of the Court held that it does not, confirming that "the development, passage, and enactment of legislation — does not trigger the duty to consult".  The reason for this is two-fold:

- First, the separation of powers protects the law-making process of the legislature from judicial oversight — in the words of Justice Brown, the entire law-making process is an exercise of legislative power that is “immune” from judicial interference. Allowing courts to review how legislatures make laws would offend this important principle.
   
- Second, parliamentary sovereignty and privilege protect the freedom of the legislature to "make or unmake any law it wishes", within the confines of its constitutional authority.
============================================================================

Crown "duty to consult" does not give Indigenous Groups a veto; respective Supreme Court decisions as:

Quote
July 26, 2017 - 2017 SCC 41 - Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
(para 59) In Carrier Sekani, this Court recognized that “[t]he constitutional dimension of the duty to consult gives rise to a special public interest” which surpasses economic concerns (para. 70). A decision to authorize a project cannot be in the public interest if the Crown’s duty to consult has not been met (Clyde River, at para. 40; Carrier Sekani, at para. 70). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the interests of Indigenous groups cannot be balanced with other interests at the accommodation stage. Indeed, it is for this reason that the duty to consult does not provide Indigenous groups with a “veto” over final Crown decisions (Haida, at para. 48). Rather, proper accommodation “stress[es] the need to balance competing societal interests with Aboriginal and treaty rights” (Haida, at para. 50).

November 18, 2004 - 2004 SCC 73 - Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests)
(para 48) This process does not give Aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of the claim.  The Aboriginal “consent” spoken of in Delgamuukw is appropriate only in cases of established rights, and then by no means in every case.  Rather, what is required is a process of balancing interests, of give and take.
============================================================================

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7934
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2020, 05:36:48 am »
Hot jesus yes you're right they are just like any other police in canada.

Weird, huh ?  I used to work for CP.  We had some equipment go missing, so we called up the police.  Not the Toronto Police but OUR police.

There's a case now where an officer was let go and he said it was because he was investigating a crime that the higher-ups.  I think it was this:

https://www.richmondsentinel.ca/article-detail/4709/labour-groups-want-independent-investigation-into-death-of-3-cp-railway-workers

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7934
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2020, 05:41:40 am »

The Mohawk territory near Belleville isn't even their traditional land, it was a piece of land they moved to after being given to them by the British in the late 18th century after their territory was lost in New York State when the US took it over after the US won the American Revolution vs the British.  It's a reserve that's was part of British Crown and now Canadian Crown territory.  This person doesn't even know what they're talking about lol.

I grew up around there and have friends from the Mohawk Territory.  It's kind of insulting to take down an area by saying "it's not even traditional territory".  The Mohawks and others moved around all of these areas as I understand, and at least there was a real agreement between the British and Natives that was honoured in this case.  Brantford and 6 Nations is the same.

I also don't know if non-coverage by local press, or any press is any kind of proof of anything, in this era of declining press.

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3114
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2020, 10:09:45 am »
Vancouver Transit has police...    it’s not so weird. 

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7934
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2020, 10:50:33 am »
Vancouver Transit has police...    it’s not so weird.

There are a lot of people on Vancouver Transit.  The only people riding on trains are the engineer and maybe a hobo once in awhile.

Are Vancouver Transit police employees of the city ?  Is Vancouver Transit a privately held corporation ?

Do you think Loblaws, Chuck E. Cheese and Rogers Cable should have the power of arrest ?  Have you ever spread the breath of an animatronic rat ?

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2020, 10:55:53 am »
CN Police service operates in both Canada and the United States. In Canada they are federally sworn police officers with power of arrest, and even though their primary responsibility is the CN infrastructure they can make arrests and enforce some provincial legislation such as the HIghway Traffic Act outside of CN property. In the US they have both national authority granted by the Secretary of Transportation for the rail infrastructure, and some states may extend their authority as well.