Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11569 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #255 on: February 23, 2020, 02:15:16 pm »
as a topper, self-labeled "True Blue" O'Toole was just livid that Scheer wasn't at the meeting... sending off this twitter zinger:


one way is/was to meet seeking {possible} solutions - everyone there except angryAndy!  ;D


Trudeau, Singh, Blanchet, and May, all in the same room at the same time! Wow! I can only wonder what groundbreaking solutions this galaxy-brain quartet talked about during their meeting.

And in the space of about 4 days, Andrew Scheer's position on the blockades went from "disqualifying" and "unacceptable" to being the government's course of action.

I can only assume that whatever the Fab Four talked about in the No Scheer Club clubhouse, it couldn't have been that great. Or maybe it was just a stunt from the start.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #256 on: February 23, 2020, 02:31:45 pm »
Trudeau, Singh, Blanchet, and May, all in the same room at the same time! Wow! I can only wonder what groundbreaking solutions this galaxy-brain quartet talked about during their meeting.

And in the space of about 4 days, Andrew Scheer's position on the blockades went from "disqualifying" and "unacceptable" to being the government's course of action.

I can only assume that whatever the Fab Four talked about in the No Scheer Club clubhouse, it couldn't have been that great. Or maybe it was just a stunt from the start.

 -k

Andy's little "check your privilege" comment once again demonstrated he has a bit of a racist attitude so who would want him at such a meeting! He's a has been anyway. And the Cons. seem to be having trouble finding a replacement to lead their party so maybe they have a few of their own internal issues they should try to deal with.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #257 on: February 24, 2020, 09:36:58 am »
At least in Ontario, the police have finally done their Effin' jobs!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tyendinaga-mohawks-removal-blockades-1.5473490

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #258 on: February 24, 2020, 10:55:11 am »
At least in Ontario, the police have finally done their Effin' jobs!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tyendinaga-mohawks-removal-blockades-1.5473490

The OPP have been doing their job, monitoring the camp that never was a "blockade", pushing it back to the federal and BC governments to negotiate real solutions.
Police are not the answer to decades of governments ignoring and evading Supreme Court law.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #259 on: February 24, 2020, 11:09:07 am »
The OPP have been doing their job, monitoring the camp that never was a "blockade", pushing it back to the federal and BC governments to negotiate real solutions. Police are not the answer to decades of governments ignoring and evading Supreme Court law.

no - the OPP weren't doing their enforcing injunction job! As before, as always: cite and support your statements in regard "Supreme Court law".

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #260 on: February 24, 2020, 11:24:07 am »
And in the space of about 4 days, Andrew Scheer's position on the blockades went from "disqualifying" and "unacceptable" to being the government's course of action.

such member kimmy revisionism! Where was weakAndy's expressed committment to "dialogue" over the use of force? Why member kimmy, it was replaced by Scheer calling for police action... stating that, "PM Trudeau's reluctance to use the police to stop the illegal blockades was akin to appeasement, a stance that privileges activists over hard-working Canadians and Indigenous people who support development." You and weakAndy - proponents for politicians directing police actions - aka, "Canada, the PoliceState"!

and yes, "dialogue" broke down as the Indigenous protestors/leaders refused the most recent days multiple requests to meet... but at least there was an attempt for it - there was a pursuit towards resolution via dialogue. Which wasn't there with angryAndy!

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #261 on: February 24, 2020, 11:30:35 am »
The OPP have been doing their job, monitoring the camp that never was a "blockade", pushing it back to the federal and BC governments to negotiate real solutions.
Police are not the answer to decades of governments ignoring and evading Supreme Court law.

It is when they're holding up millions of dollars in goods and crippling the Canadian economy.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #262 on: February 24, 2020, 11:31:08 am »
no - the OPP weren't doing their enforcing injunction job! As before, as always: cite and support your statements in regard "Supreme Court law".

Yes, OPP did their job ... MUCH better than the RCMP in BC.
Police have considerable discretion in the "timing and manner" of enforcing an injunction, and this time they exercised it well to this point: The tracks and road were never blocked. There was no interference with road or rail traffic. The camp was peaceful.
OPP forced federal government involvement, when to that point the feds were still bleating that the issue was BC provincial jurisdiction.

We do not need police acting like hired thugs for a private company like the RCMP are doing in BC. That does not 'preserve the peace', nor does it lead to long term resolution of governments' evasion of their responsibilities.

BC NDP Premier John Horgan has caused the entire problem across the whole country, by evading the law, refusing to carry out the duty of the Crown to consult with Wet'suet'en rights and title holders as required.
Then he still stubbornly refused to meet with the Chiefs when the federal government pressured him.
He finally agreed to send a rep for talks, when the entire country was disrupted by his ignorant behaviour.
He won't be at the table, though, because he is a racist blowhard **** (like Scheer) who would sabotage any progress.

These are not police issues. These are issues of governments evading their legal duties. It's our responsibility to push governments to viable solutions.
Police violence is not a solution.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 11:37:03 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #263 on: February 24, 2020, 11:33:06 am »
Wait, what happened to "politicians don't tell the police what to do in this country"?  How does that prior hot-take resolve with the new view that it's Dug Ford's fault that the OPP aren't enforcing court in junctions?   Have Horgan and Legault have broken some anti-banana-republic tradition by telling the cops to get off their asses, or was it always the right thing to do but we're only talking about it now that it's an opportunity to criticize Dug?

nice try! Try reading what I actually wrote. DOFO was nowhere to be found; again, at least Horgan held media availability meets and answered questions - several times. Clearly, as was done during the election campaign DOFO took his marching orders to disappear for 3+ months from the federal CPCs, this purposeful absence of DOFO has the smell of collusion with the CPC... a full on intent to direct and be complicit in a media onslaught against the Liberals/PM Trudeau. But finally, cracks in this veneer began to appear and focus returned to emphasize OPP police inaction to enforce Ontario issued court injunctions - nothing to do with the federal government/PM Trudeau.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #264 on: February 24, 2020, 11:39:34 am »
It is when they're holding up millions of dollars in goods and crippling the Canadian economy.

That's the governments' fault, and it's governments' problem to solve, not the police.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #265 on: February 24, 2020, 11:55:39 am »
Yes, OPP did their job ... MUCH better than the RCMP in BC. Police have considerable discretion in the "timing and manner" of enforcing an injunction, and this time they exercised it well to this point: The tracks and road were never blocked. There was no interference with road or rail traffic. The camp was peaceful. OPP forced federal government involvement, when to that point the feds were still bleating that the issue was BC provincial jurisdiction.

so... are the OPP doing their job today by finally enforcing the injunction?  ;D And most certainly, CN Rail/VIA Rail could not put freight/passengers in peril - public safety is paramount... are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?

We do not need police acting like hired thugs for a private company like the RCMP are doing in BC. That does not 'preserve the peace', nor does it lead to long term resolution of governments' evasion of their responsibilities.

are you claiming the RCMP enforcement of legal injunction is unlawful - cite accordingly, please!

These are not police issues. These are issues of governments evading their legal duties.

yes - reconciliation per S.35 of the Constitution... but, as I keep impressing upon you, no SCOC case provides a definitive order to... or provides a compelling message towards, a/the "duty to consult". More pointedly, SCOC ruling has emphasized the need for dual 2-side aspects of engagement, for honest and fair dealings. Are you claiming the self-serving Mohawk actions focused on rail traffic and shutting down Canada's economy have/had anything to do with the Wet'-suet'-en... are you claiming those actions as a sign of Mohawk fair-dealings? Are you claiming the last minute protest by a minority subset of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs represents fair-dealings?

again, the Wet'suet'en' lost the initial court cases - the related 97 SCOC ruling acknowledges this and speaks to the need for a second trial - which has never occurred to-date. Before you continue with your "thug calling" and your repeated targeting of the B.C. government/Horgan, care to comment why the Wet'suet'en have never pressed for that second trial..... why that second trial has never occurred?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #266 on: February 24, 2020, 12:02:26 pm »
That's the governments' fault, and it's governments' problem to solve, not the police.

 ;D oh please! You can't be taken seriously if you advocate for unlawful blockades, for ignoring legal injunctions --- oh wait, that was you that gleefully stated, "it's so easy to shutdown Canada". Carry on!

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #267 on: February 24, 2020, 12:15:53 pm »
It's ironic that environmentalists would rather see BC remain North America's largest coal exporter than an exporter of cleaner NG as a replacement for coal. Switching from coal to NG would reduce worldwide carbon emissions by about 20%
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 12:18:39 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1310
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #268 on: February 24, 2020, 12:32:51 pm »
It's as if member Granny is wilfully ignoring the fact that the protestors were trying to stop rail traffic.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #269 on: February 24, 2020, 01:09:38 pm »
;D oh please! You can't be taken seriously if you advocate for unlawful blockades, for ignoring legal injunctions --- oh wait, that was you that gleefully stated, "it's so easy to shutdown Canada". Carry on!

If the limits of your comprehension start AFTER the government takes decades to create the problem ... then you have nothing to contribute to the solutions.