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 #105 on: February 14, 2020, 12:42:56 pm »
Shutting Canada down is easy.
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!

keep doubling down! Notwithstanding there's already an existing natural gas pipeline crossing claimed Wet'suet'en lands (since 1959) and that 20 First Nations (including the Wet'suet'en') have signed agreements with CGL, you present a shameless and uncaring, 'I could give a shyte' attitude, as to the impact on Canada that some minority number of hereditary chiefs and a very small estimated number of band members (100... if) have. You relish this... your writing is outright brazenly gleeful!

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

interesting that you would take such exception to a question asking for clarification... seeking perspective... a background reference as to why you're so perpetually supportive of First Nations... on all accounts through this and past threads - even if you can't substantiate much/most of what you say.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #106 on: February 14, 2020, 01:02:33 pm »
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.

**** winner **** (incidentally a position put forward by the National's At Issue Panel... that rarely has consensus within)

we read, at ad nauseum, member Granny squawking like a parrot: "Crown's duty to consult, Crown's duty to consult".... which in this circumstance is actually... "Crown's duty to figure out who to consult with, Crown's duty to figure out who deciders are, Crown's duty to figure out what the FN decision is - to arrive at a consensus for them"!

waldo reference point; re: duty to consult: a recent days (Feb 4) ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejected an appeal by four First Nations of the Canadian government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Quote
The court repeatedly said in its ruling that neither the duty to consult First Nations nor the concept of "consent" translates into a veto. The court noted that the Canadian government tried to get the consent of First Nations opposed to the pipeline expansion project. Failing to get that consent does not mean the project can be stopped.

The judges ruled that “reconciliation does not dictate any particular substantive outcome” on a given resource project. They wrote that requiring a “perfect” level of consultation would in turn create a kind of de facto veto on major projects, and said First Nations “cannot tactically use the consultation process as a means to try to veto it.”

“Canada was under no obligation to obtain consent prior to approving the Project,” the judges wrote. “That would, again, amount to giving Indigenous groups a veto.”

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #107 on: February 14, 2020, 01:04:16 pm »
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.

Government (BC) is supposed to consult with Aboriginal title holders, and they haven't yet. Premier Horgan preferred an injunction and RCMP raid instead. Now that he sees where that got him, he seems to be  moderating his tone somewhat:

Horgan has rejected calls from the Opposition Liberals to seek immediate injunctions to end the blockades and protests in B.C.

"We can't just use force," he said in the legislature. "It needs to be dealt with by co-operation, by consultation, by discussion so that we can all move forward."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipeline-protests-expected-to-continue-governments-to-meet-with-first-nations-1.4811735



Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #108 on: February 14, 2020, 01:12:31 pm »
Government (BC) is supposed to consult with Aboriginal title holders, and they haven't yet.

per the SCOC ruling quote I provided, said holders are not individualized; rather, the FN body at large, is the title holder. If you don't agree, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do, cite from the SCOC ruling you're presuming upon. Just step up and support your dozen+ statements claiming the hereditary chiefs as the title holders... JUST DO IT!


Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #109 on: February 14, 2020, 01:19:07 pm »
Funny how that works when the police don't do their job.

I'm pretty sure police would prefer that governments resolve issues through negotiations.
Criminalizing protest is never a lasting solution. There is always a backlash, which is what is happening right now.

There is one person responsible for all of this: BC Premier John Horgan, who refused to consult with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs, the Aboriginal rights and title holders for Wet'suet'en territory.

Why should police end up being responsible for his failure to take appropriate action?

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #110 on: February 14, 2020, 01:29:52 pm »
per the SCOC ruling quote I provided, said holders are not individualized; rather, the FN body at large, is the title holder. If you don't agree, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do, cite from the SCOC ruling you're presuming upon. Just step up and support your dozen+ statements claiming the hereditary chiefs as the title holders... JUST DO IT!



Obviously they hold title on behalf of all Wet'suet'en Nation people. I have said so previously.

I have not found the link you claim re Wet'suet'en peoples' support for the pipeline. Can you link the post pls?


Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #111 on: February 14, 2020, 03:06:56 pm »
Info re rail protest in BC:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/via-trains-at-standstill-as-talks-to-end-blockades-get-rolling-1.4811926
Indigenous leaders in B.C.'s northwest have invited federal and B.C. politicians to meetings, while following through on a promise to ensure a blockade of CN Rail tracks near New Hazelton, B.C. would come down during talks.

The blockade had been in place since Saturday, preventing shipments to the Port of Prince Rupert. But Indigenous leaders have warned the blockade could go back up if the province doesn't agree to cancel Coastal GasLink's pipeline permit during the scheduled talks.


It isn't stated in this article, but I read previously that the "Indigenous leaders" referred to are hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet'suet'en Nations.

Yes, here it is:

https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/rail-blockade-in-new-hazelton-coming-down-rcmp-say-1.24076260
The B.C. and federal governments have agreed to meet with Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to discuss a blockade near New Hazelton, B.C.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 03:15:02 pm by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #112 on: February 14, 2020, 03:12:31 pm »
per the SCOC ruling quote I provided, said holders are not individualized; rather, the FN body at large, is the title holder. If you don't agree, as you've been repeatedly challenged to do, cite from the SCOC ruling you're presuming upon. Just step up and support your dozen+ statements claiming the hereditary chiefs as the title holders... JUST DO IT!

Obviously they hold title on behalf of all Wet'suet'en Nation people. I have said so previously.

obviously?  ;D Yes, you most certainly have stated so previously... a dozen+ times now - and when you do so, you typically couch it in terms of a SCOC ruling stating so. Again, you've been challenged (several times now) to quote from the SCOC ruling to substantiate your continued UNSUBSTANTIATED statement... the one you now state is so OBVIOUS!

we read, at ad nauseum, member Granny squawking like a parrot: "Crown's duty to consult, Crown's duty to consult".... which in this circumstance is actually... "Crown's duty to figure out who to consult with, Crown's duty to figure out who deciders are, Crown's duty to figure out what the FN decision is - to arrive at a consensus for them"!

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #113 on: February 14, 2020, 03:21:46 pm »
It isn't stated in this article, but I read previously that the "Indigenous leaders" referred to are hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet'suet'en Nations.

Yes, here it is:

https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/rail-blockade-in-new-hazelton-coming-down-rcmp-say-1.24076260

 ;D perfect... let me quote you reality from your own link!

Quote
Protestors had been blocking the rail line connecting Prince George and Prince Rupert since Feb. 6, in solidarity with a group of Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs

a "group of"... I presume this would be the minority number opposed; again, as stated previously, as I read/interpret, 8 of the 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have indicated they favour the CGL pipeline - notwithstanding the Band Council in favour, notwithstanding the 80% of band members who have voted in favour (a figure per the National Coalition of Chiefs), notwithstanding the 20 First Nations that have signed agreements with Coastal Gas Link (including the Wet'suet'en First Nation Band Council). Hot damn waldo... that a lotta notwithstandings!

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #114 on: February 14, 2020, 04:20:26 pm »
obviously?  ;D Yes, you most certainly have stated so previously... a dozen+ times now - and when you do so, you typically couch it in terms of a SCOC ruling stating so. Again, you've been challenged (several times now) to quote from the SCOC ruling to substantiate your continued UNSUBSTANTIATED statement... the one you now state is so OBVIOUS!

You can read it yourself: Delgamuukw 1997.
It was a landmark SCoC ruling saying that Aboriginal title had not been extinguished.

Here's a recent article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/delgamuukw-court-ruling-significance-1.5461763

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4377
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #115 on: February 14, 2020, 04:24:38 pm »
Government (BC) is supposed to consult with Aboriginal title holders, and they haven't yet. Premier Horgan preferred an injunction and RCMP raid instead. Now that he sees where that got him, he seems to be  moderating his tone somewhat:

Horgan has rejected calls from the Opposition Liberals to seek immediate injunctions to end the blockades and protests in B.C.

"We can't just use force," he said in the legislature. "It needs to be dealt with by co-operation, by consultation, by discussion so that we can all move forward."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pipeline-protests-expected-to-continue-governments-to-meet-with-first-nations-1.4811735

Who are the title holders and how many are there? If the FN can’t get their shot together how is the government going to do it for them?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #116 on: February 14, 2020, 04:41:21 pm »
Who are the title holders and how many are there? If the FN can’t get their shot together how is the government going to do it for them?

The government can consult with them, as the Crown is legally required to do.

I'd like to point out also, that the Crown in BC has never held consultations with any of the Indigenous groups. The CGL pipeline construction company made agreements with elected Band Councils, but 'the Crown' was not involved.

It was clearly an attempt by Horgan's government to circumvent 'the Duty of the Crown', which has now backfired on them rather dramatically.

Online wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4377
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #117 on: February 14, 2020, 04:52:46 pm »
The government can consult with them, as the Crown is legally required to do.

I'd like to point out also, that the Crown in BC has never held consultations with any of the Indigenous groups. The CGL pipeline construction company made agreements with elected Band Councils, but 'the Crown' was not involved.

It was clearly an attempt by Horgan's government to circumvent 'the Duty of the Crown', which has now backfired on them rather dramatically.

The Crown isn’t building the pipeline. Why should government interfere with agreements between bands and companies if its regulations are being followed? If there are financial agreements that is up to the builder, not government.

The courts are granting injunctions against the protestors, nothing has backfired, people are breaking the law.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #118 on: February 15, 2020, 12:44:16 am »
no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.
You can read it yourself: Delgamuukw 1997. It was a landmark SCoC ruling saying that Aboriginal title had not been extinguished.

no! The point you continue to fail on is, 'who holds the title'... you claim it's the hereditary chiefs and attribute that to the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010. You also fail to comprehend what's been written/replied to you - I've read a significant amount of the ruling and I've quoted from it several times in this thread. When I ask you to substantiate your claim by quote citing passage within the ruling, you can't... you won't! You just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over again! You state your repeated claim is obvious!  ;D

by the by: this evening, news outlets were covering Alberta Premier Kenney's reaction/statement... in which he includes a reference to the hereditary chiefs - where he stated, "8 of 12 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have come out in favour of the CGL pipeline". The waldo is still running with "8 of 13", as I've posted several times earlier in this thread. You ain't got the numbers member Granny! Of course Premier justVisitingJason also ran the table to include just who else within impacted First Nations have given their support for the CGL pipeline... the point being this support narrative is now becoming front-&-center and the media is starting to play it against the naive and ignorant BC protestors who actually believe the Wet'suet'en members are against the CGL pipeline. About time - yes?

here, let me quote again from the SCOC ruling... you tell me if it lines up with what I've stated several times now in regards title; I've stated a few variants of this: "no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner.". Said quoted passage from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Quote
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

Finally, aboriginal title is held communally. - had enough yet member Granny?

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #119 on: February 15, 2020, 08:46:56 am »
‘They need to check their privilege’: Scheer calls for police to end demonstrations

https://aptnnews.ca/2020/02/14/they-need-to-check-their-privilege-scheer-calls-for-police-to-end-demonstrations/

Scheer... helping the Conservative brand on his way out the door...
Funny Funny x 1 View List