Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 993 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2020, 01:15:14 am »
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.

in my most immediate prior post I spoke of advocacy - yours. I've also expressed a personal advocacy throughout this thread; one that voiced support for the 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — those 20 First Nations that have each signed agreements with the company. As a part of my expressed personal advocacy/support, I also included direct representations from 2 First Nation organizations (the National Coalition of Chiefs & the FN LNG Alliance) and an extract of a linked letter from Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation.

you didn't misinterpret my advocacy/support for the impacted First Nations peoples; rather, you chose to ignore it... apparently you were too busy with the following unfounded & baseless attack accusing me of, "making racist shyte up to smear Indigenous people"... while also implying, "I'm unlawful in inciting hatred"

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 most selective, self-serving way, you chose not to respond to the following... care to, this time?

public safety/interest is paramount. CN{/Via Rail} 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 emphasize the hilarity... the 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 Boges

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #91 on: February 14, 2020, 08:07:53 am »
This needs to stop!

Actual needed goods are being held up. People are losing their jobs.

This is not even over an Oil Pipeline. It's LNG!!!!

I hope anyone who's opposed to LNG didn't heat there homes last night. It got to close to -20 C in the Toronto area.

JT's limp-wristed response to this is embarrassing. These protests are illegal and need to be treated as such.

I'm sure if people, who's livelihoods are being threatened by criminals shutting down the nation's rail lines, took this into their own hands, they'd be treated with the full force of the law.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2020, 08:46:26 am »
This needs to stop!

Actual needed goods are being held up. People are losing their jobs.

This is not even over an Oil Pipeline. It's LNG!!!!

I hope anyone who's opposed to LNG didn't heat there homes last night. It got to close to -20 C in the Toronto area.

JT's limp-wristed response to this is embarrassing. These protests are illegal and need to be treated as such.

I'm sure if people, who's livelihoods are being threatened by criminals shutting down the nation's rail lines, took this into their own hands, they'd be treated with the full force of the law.

It's LNG for export to China for private profit, heavily subsidized by Canadians. It has nothing to do with heating Canadian homes.

The OPP near Belleville are acting appropriately:
- No protesters there are impeding the tracks or roads. They are beside the tracks on public property, not on CN land. In fact, they are at the same distance from the tracks as cars would be if waiting behind the gate for a train to pass. No laws are being broken.
- Police Oath requires officers to first uphold Constitutional rights, and Constitutional rights include Aboriginal rights.

It appears that the federal government and BC have decided that negotiation is a good idea.

The rail protests are occurring because the BC government failed to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs as required.

Offline Boges

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2020, 09:43:44 am »
LNG is probably the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. Exporting to China vs Coal is probably a net benefit to the Global Climate crisis.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2878
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #94 on: February 14, 2020, 09:54:50 am »
I hope anyone who's opposed to LNG didn't heat there homes last night. It got to close to -20 C in the Toronto area.

I don't think any of that LNG went into heating any home in Canada. Our public dollars made the investment in the 1950's to get natural gas pipelines across much of Canada. Even though, through corporate socialism, those pipelines now provide profits to private industry. Most large centers in Ontario and Quebec are directly connected to those pipelines all the way to Quebec City. The only exception I am aware of is Sault Ste. Marie which is connected via the US. The major centers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are also connected, but again via a US pipeline.

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #95 on: February 14, 2020, 10:05:48 am »
in my most immediate prior post I spoke of advocacy - yours. I've also expressed a personal advocacy throughout this thread; one that voiced support for the 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — those 20 First Nations that have each signed agreements with the company. As a part of my expressed personal advocacy/support, I also included direct representations from 2 First Nation organizations (the National Coalition of Chiefs & the FN LNG Alliance) and an extract of a linked letter from Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation.

you didn't misinterpret my advocacy/support for the impacted First Nations peoples; rather, you chose to ignore it...

CGL can make agreements with whomever they choose.
You can choose to support only First Nations elected governments if you wish.

 I don't play that colonial divide-and-conquer game.

Current Canadian law recognizes both elected and traditional Councils as valid. Defining their different  areas of responsibility is an ongoing challenge for them, but frankly, not our business, imo.

It is our business, however, to make sure that our governments are fulfilling the duty of the Crown to consult with Aboriginal peoples when developments on their traditional lands are proposed. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that Aboriginal rights, and the duty to consult, are not limited to consultation with elected Band Councils.
Traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs are recognized as Aboriginal rights and title holders. 

The Crown in Right of British Columbia has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights and title holders, and has so far failed to do so.

That BC government failure is the cause of current issues across the country.

Sooner or later, John Horgan is going to have to abide by that Supreme Court ruling: It is the rule of law in Canada.



Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #96 on: February 14, 2020, 10:23:23 am »
LNG is probably the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. Exporting to China vs Coal is probably a net benefit to the Global Climate crisis.
We know now that methane releases are very damaging to the atmosphere.
China is making great gains in renewable energy and it is beginning to appear that they may not need gas as an bridge from coal to renewables anymore. Also, the price of gas is much lower than it needs to be for this project to be viable. The ground has shifted considerably since the inception of this project, so those original arguments are not very persuasive anymore.

Regardless, the legal issue is that the BC government - 'the Crown' - failed to consult with the traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs and Council, whom the Supreme Court has recognized as the Aboriginal rights and title holders for the vast Wet'suet'en Nation territory.


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #97 on: February 14, 2020, 10:40:25 am »
LNG is probably the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. Exporting to China vs Coal is probably a net benefit to the Global Climate crisis.

'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).

and yes, OF COURSE, there is a private-for-profit element at play with B.C. LNG... of course. However, the Horgan NDP government has designs on significant monetary returns for natural gas as tied to royalties and taxes... as contributed to the so-called "Prosperity Fund" (as originally introduced by the Clark Liberal government), accepting that the government analysis behind the natural gas return projections has taken some legitimate criticism. And, again, notwithstanding the negotiated monetary gains directly to the impacted 20 First Nations who have signed agreements with Coastal GasLink!

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #98 on: February 14, 2020, 10:53:36 am »
Regardless, the legal issue is that the BC government - 'the Crown' - failed to consult with the traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs and Council, whom the Supreme Court has recognized as the Aboriginal rights and title holders for the vast Wet'suet'en Nation territory.

you have stated variations of this at least a dozen times previously... I asked you once for a citation to that end. Again, I've previously provided a link to the Supreme Court ruling you keep referring to... I've even quoted from the ruling. That SCOC linked ruling has also been presented additional times through re-quoting of posts that include it. Somehow, you can manage to write post after post after post... but can't find your way to supporting your continued claim towards the hereditary chiefs.

speaking of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs (13 in total), I previously highlighted that the 5 hereditary chiefs of the major clan were also Band Councillors and, if not involved directly, were privy to the ongoing 5-year period of negotiations with Coastal GasLink. As I now read/interpret, of the 13 total hereditary chiefs... 8 - EIGHT... of them have voiced their support for the CGL pipeline. This has now come down to 5 hereditary chiefs holding Canada hostage!. Again, as I've presented previously, per the National Chiefs group, 80% of the (voting eligible) Wet'suet'en have given their approval for the, as negotiated, agreements with Coastal GasLink.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #99 on: February 14, 2020, 10:55:53 am »
**** bump ****

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?

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #100 on: February 14, 2020, 11:36:30 am »
you have stated variations of this at least a dozen times previously... I asked you once for a citation to that end. Again, I've previously provided a link to the Supreme Court ruling you keep referring to... I've even quoted from the ruling. That SCOC linked ruling has also been presented additional times through re-quoting of posts that include it. Somehow, you can manage to write post after post after post... but can't find your way to supporting your continued claim towards the hereditary chiefs.

speaking of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs (13 in total), I previously highlighted that the 5 hereditary chiefs of the major clan were also Band Councillors and, if not involved directly, were privy to the ongoing 5-year period of negotiations with Coastal GasLink. As I now read/interpret, of the 13 total hereditary chiefs... 8 - EIGHT... of them have voiced their support for the CGL pipeline. This has now come down to 5 hereditary chiefs holding Canada hostage!. Again, as I've presented previously, per the National Chiefs group, 80% of the (voting eligible) Wet'suet'en have given their approval for the, as negotiated, agreements with Coastal GasLink.

I haven't seen any link that supports that "80%" claim.

Since the BC Crown has not consulted with traditional Wet'suet'en Chiefs, I see no point in speculating about the outcome of talks that haven't taken place.

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #101 on: February 14, 2020, 11:51:13 am »
**** bump ****

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?

It was quite surprising to me how easy it was for a few people standing beside the tracks to have such a large impact, so quickly ... drinking timmies by the tracks! Who knew!

No, I am not Indigenous.
Are you a cop?  Lol


Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4377
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #102 on: February 14, 2020, 12:10:44 pm »
I haven't seen any link that supports that "80%" claim.

Since the BC Crown has not consulted with traditional Wet'suet'en Chiefs, I see no point in speculating about the outcome of talks that haven't taken place.

It's up to FN to get their act together and presented a united position. How the hell is government supposed to deal with a people who can't even agree among themselves.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #103 on: February 14, 2020, 12:27:00 pm »
I haven't seen any link that supports that "80%" claim.

Since the BC Crown has not consulted with traditional Wet'suet'en Chiefs, I see no point in speculating about the outcome of talks that haven't taken place.

80% - a figure as put forward by the National Coalition of Chiefs... as highlighted by the FN LNG Alliance... as stated earlier and put forward in a linked graphic. I asked you to counter this figure. Apparently - you can't/won't. Rather, you relish this opportunity to posture an unsubstantiated claim around hereditary chiefs - a claim you attach to a SCOC ruling... one you have been asked to quote/link to within said ruling. You won't/apparently can't... you refuse to!

as I highlighted, as I read/interpret, only 5 of the 13 hereditary chiefs remain opposed to the CGL pipeline... notwithstanding the number of Wet'suet'en members is less than 3500 across the 5 respective clans. So, 5 hereditary chiefs and (accepting the 80% figure)... another 100 individuals (carrying the same 80% yes voting ratio to the, say... 500 voting eligible persons who didn't vote... 5 hereditary chiefs and 100 individuals (estimated) are holding Canada hostage!

Offline Boges

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #104 on: February 14, 2020, 12:34:22 pm »
It was quite surprising to me how easy it was for a few people standing beside the tracks to have such a large impact, so quickly ... drinking timmies by the tracks! Who knew!

No, I am not Indigenous.
Are you a cop?  Lol

Funny how that works when the police don't do their job.