are you disputing the statements and public notices put out by CN Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?
At that location, yes. Nothing was ever blocked there.
are you claiming the RCMP enforcement of legal injunction is unlawful - cite accordingly, please!
I'm saying that the RCMP exercised far less professional discretion than they could have, made themselves look like private hired pipeline thugs, used excessive force, violated laws in ways they were already under censure for (and have failed to address publicly as required).
The RCMP went rogue, immediately and directly causing a huge public backlash and nation-wide disruption.
A public hearing or inquiry into RCMP actions will be necessary, since the RCMP are already under censure and have tried to bury that report, and have repeated their violations continuously at Wet'suet'en. Complaints commissioner says RCMP sitting on year-old report into alleged abuses of powerhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wet-suwet-en-rcmp-exclusion-zone-report-1.5469786Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/CRCC-Response-Concerns-RCMP-Actions-Wetsuweten-Territoryyes - 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".
That's a ridiculous statement. Do some research on summaries of SCoC case law on duty to consult ... and the Royal Proclamation, fiduciary duty, Honour of the Queen ... etc. You seem unfamiliar with the concept in law, and your attempts to minimize and dismiss it in this case are inflammatory and misleading.
Before you continue with your "thug calling" and your repeated targeting of the B.C. government/Horgan,
Truth hurts. Horgan and the RCMP both caused a lot of damage to a lot of people, and both remain unapologetically obstinate dangers to the peace and security of all people in Canada.
I won't water that down.
care to comment why the Wet'suet'en have never pressed for that second trial..... why that second trial has never occurred?
1) Because the Tsilhqot'in case was being prepared to address the necessary outstanding issue - whether Aboriginal title applied only to multiple postage-stamp areas of settlement and industry (No) or to the entire traditional territory (Yes).
Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqot'in First Nationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot%27in_Nation_v_British_Columbia2) Borders remain to be delineated in consultation with the federal government, who have evaded any consultation with traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council.
With those completed, a declaration of Aboriginal Title may not need to go to the Supreme Court: The SCoC has encouraged government to apply the criteria and make those declarations, rather than sending a huge number of cases to the SCoC.
After the Tsilhqot'in precedent, there is an avalanche of Title cases that will need to be addressed.
And an interesting footnote to that:
IF an Indigenous Nation agreed to cede control of certain land for certain uses through Treaty, with revenue shares to be paid to the Indigenous Nation,
AND the land was used but those revenues were never paid ...
IS that unceded land = Aboriginal Title?
An analogy: I accept your offer to buy my house. You fail to close the deal by paying. Can you take the house anyway? Who holds the title?
Aboriginal titles exist on UNCEDED lands without treaties.
Aboriginal titles also exist on many treaty lands where government did not fulfill the treaty/agreement terms.
Canada's temporary political governments have punted these issues down the field for 150 years, while stealing land and resources and killing the planet.
Time to reconcile titles.