Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #165 on: February 17, 2020, 09:15:23 am »
So why are the courts issuing injunctions?

Because the law as written says that they should.  The protesters don't recognize the legitimacy of the ruling.  Going in there and dismantling things is the best way to escalate this further.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #166 on: February 17, 2020, 10:04:23 am »
Because the law as written says that they should.  The protesters don't recognize the legitimacy of the ruling.  Going in there and dismantling things is the best way to escalate this further.
So the protesters are breaking the law by blocking access to roads, buildings and railways. Glad we got that straight.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #167 on: February 17, 2020, 10:24:03 am »
Hey there Waldo, did you support the Harper government at that time?  ???
So you supported Harper ?

so... you're not commenting that I wrote on the key distinction between democracy and police-state infringements to it; that I contrasted the key differences to your Harper days reference and that of the recent days police-state like comments coming from Scheer/O'Toole; that I spoke to the highly partisan politicization Scheer/CPC have made of this latest Indigenous 'dust-up' - outright attacking PM Trudeau for their claimed 'lack of leadership'... all of that without you commenting on any of it - but you're still fixated on sumthin!  ;D

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #168 on: February 17, 2020, 10:32:54 am »
so... you're not commenting that I wrote on the key distinction between democracy and police-state infringements to it; that I contrasted the key differences to your Harper days reference and that of the recent days police-state like comments coming from Scheer/O'Toole; that I spoke to the highly partisan politicization Scheer/CPC have made of this latest Indigenous 'dust-up' - outright attacking PM Trudeau for their claimed 'lack of leadership'... all of that without you commenting on any of it - but you're still fixated on sumthin!  ;D

Your two points:

1) Disparaging the Mohawk effort because of some comments on social media ? 
2) Talking about Andrew Scheer

I can always tell when you're floundering in your undying support for the Liberal party line, and criticism of the Conservative one - even when they overlap you can find a way.  But the 'tell' is the length of the posts in which you don't say much at all !  :D

Worry not - I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just nudging you a lil... Cute, fluffy, Waldo... have some Liberal food pellets  :D

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #169 on: February 17, 2020, 10:57:21 am »
Your two points:

1) Disparaging the Mohawk effort because of some comments on social media ?  {waldo: that was an example... disparagement is your interpretation. However, what is most clear as showcased in mainstream media, is that the real affront to the Mohawk seems to be their concerns over the rail line passing through their claimed territory. Amirite or not? Which, of course, has SFA to do with proclaimed "solidarity with the Wet'suet'en - ya think!}

2) Talking about Andrew Scheer {waldo: and O'Tool... don't forget that dipshyte O'Tool! Ya, quite relevant, particularly their calls for the government to direct police - you know... that infringement to a key tenet of democracy. Buddy, are you stating this Scheer/O'Toole/CPC positioning has no relevance/bearing - really?}

I can always tell when you're floundering in your undying support for the Liberal party line, and criticism of the Conservative one - even when they overlap you can find a way.  But the 'tell' is the length of the posts in which you don't say much at all !  :D {waldo: "floundering"? No, that's you repeatedly trying to solicit a response from me that has dickAll to do with this thread/topic!}

Worry not - I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just nudging you a lil... Cute, fluffy, Waldo... have some Liberal food pellets  :D {waldo: I'm always heartened to read the real Hardner coming out... not the fake/pumped-up image of yourself you perpetually project upon!}

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #170 on: February 17, 2020, 11:00:02 am »
no => 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.

now... from a First Nation perspective, there may be a perceived internal view as to who "has oversight/control" of reserve versus non-reserve land - but in the case of the Wet'suet'en, that view is quite clearly not a consensus view. If it were you wouldn't have the Wet'suet'en Band Council out negotiating and signing agreements with the province and with CGL - notwithstanding the 19 other impacted First Nations who have similarly negotiated their own respective agreements. And again, per media accounts, 8 of those 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs are said to have given their approval... and more pointedly, it appears but 2 of those 5 dissenting hereditary chiefs are the principal (hard-core) opponents.
It really isn't as simple as Canadian law on its own anymore.  The courts have also made that clear.  The traditions of indigenous people matter legally.  The groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs.  The RCMP operating under the BC court order needlessly escalated this.

re: "the groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs"... says, apparently, one opinion piece you linked to - I've not seen/read/heard anything to that end in any form of mainstream media covering this issue. Quite the contrary. Unless you're prepared to categorically state that the oft stated, "8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support", is now incorrect... unless you're prepared to categorically state that the oft expressed claims of 20 First Nations negotiating/signing agreements with both the province & CGL is now incorrect - or meaningless!

in any case, from a prior post:

from the SCOC judgement you continue to rely upon, there is pointed reference to the lack of First Nation interveners joining the appellants in the related appeal case... with the most pointed statement, "It may, therefore, be advisable if those aboriginal nations intervened in any new litigation". The point being, the onus is on respective First Nations to initiate their respective requests/claims for title... "over said lands that were never ceded".

your emphasis on SCOC "direction" is rather "loose", notwithstanding its emphasis on 2-way negotiations, good faith & give & take... and reconciliation within the sovereignty of the Crown; re: para 186 of the judgement


as an interested outsider, the waldo certainly looks with interest to said 'next court challenges by Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs'. Given the overwhelming majority of the ~3500 band members support the gas pipeline, the Sparrow test 'public interest' (over some minimum number of "dissenters") shouldn't be difficult to realize.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #171 on: February 17, 2020, 11:38:26 am »
Their system is based on consensus.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #172 on: February 17, 2020, 12:12:13 pm »
Their system is based on consensus.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks.

What is a consensus if not supported by a majority? According to Granny, hereditary chiefs are chosen by a bunch of Clan mothers from eligible relatives. The only consensus involved is among the Clan mothers as to which ones of their relatives are going to rule. Sounds an awful lot like royalty to me where new kings were chosen by a group of nobility. Always one of their own group.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 12:14:07 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #173 on: February 17, 2020, 12:27:57 pm »
The real Hardner...

It's all real... Just because I am usually serious doesn't mean that I can't take the **** out of you once in awhile. ;D

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #174 on: February 17, 2020, 01:30:38 pm »
Their system is based on consensus.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks.

again, the oft mentioned 'facts' that 20 impacted First Nation Band Councils negotiated and signed agreements with the province/CGL, that 8 of 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs gave their approval... that at least 5 of the 13 were also Band Council members of the Wet'suet'en (definitely those 5 of the major clan) during the 5+ years of negotiations with the province/CGL, that (per the National Coalition of Chiefs) 80% of the West'suet'en voted in favour of the CGL pipeline...

if your premise is that none of the above matters - that it has no meaning, under what authority/direction/guidance were all these First Nation hereditary chiefs, Band Council Chiefs, Band Councillors and general populace Wet'suet'en engaging in negotiations, signing agreements with the province/CGL, and voting their approval?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #175 on: February 17, 2020, 01:32:53 pm »
It's all real... Just because I am usually serious doesn't mean that I can't take the **** out of you once in awhile. ;D

you wish! The waldo is the, as you say, 'taker'... not the 'takee' - next time try harderHardner!

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #176 on: February 17, 2020, 01:36:42 pm »
you wish! The waldo is the, as you say, 'taker'... not the 'takee' - next time try harderHardner!

Why try harder when I hit paydirt with minimal effort ?   :D

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #177 on: February 17, 2020, 05:47:00 pm »
Because the law as written says that they should.  The protesters don't recognize the legitimacy of the ruling.  Going in there and dismantling things is the best way to escalate this further.

Natives live in Canada, you're either in or you're out.  You don't get to choose which laws you follow.  If they don't recognize BC courts or the BC/Canadian government at large then they should be handing back their health cards, driver's licenses, passports, and any government money given to them for services and whatnot.  If they don't recognize Canadian law enforcement, then go pay for your own.

Giving these people this much leeway is a joke and PC gone amok.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #178 on: February 17, 2020, 06:27:02 pm »
Natives live in Canada, you're either in or you're out.

That is an extremely ironic statement.  Canada exists on land that they hold title to (according to our laws).  It's only now that we've begun to recognize the reality of that, and what that means.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #179 on: February 17, 2020, 07:27:22 pm »
That is an extremely ironic statement.  Canada exists on land that they hold title to (according to our laws).  It's only now that we've begun to recognize the reality of that, and what that means.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want.  There's laws and courts that should be followed until such time that it's changed in the law.  I'm perfectly fine with changing the law to meet their needs and sovereign claims but we can't have chaos until that happens.

They have territory in Canada, ok well what does the law say about building on that land?  If they want the law changed, ok let's work to change the law.  Until then, we go by what the law and the courts say as of right now.  If you want to challenge a court decision, then challenge it.  Lots of pro bono lawyers out there i'm sure willing to help them and make a name for themselves.

It's fine and good to listen to protestors, but we shouldn't be negotiating with them, it's ridiculous.  The law is the law, enforce the law.  The truth is the gov doesn't want to do it because it's bad PR, gotta be PC.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley