Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #270 on: February 24, 2020, 02:06:58 pm »
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.

Actually, neither do you.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #271 on: February 24, 2020, 04:09:02 pm »
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.

Quote
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 power
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wet-suwet-en-rcmp-exclusion-zone-report-1.5469786

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP
https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/CRCC-Response-Concerns-RCMP-Actions-Wetsuweten-Territory
Quote
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".
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 Nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot%27in_Nation_v_British_Columbia

2) 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.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 05:11:43 pm by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #272 on: February 24, 2020, 05:50:40 pm »
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?
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.

no - I've done the research that you clearly haven't. I've repeatedly challenged you to cite passage within the 97 SCOC ruling that supports your repeated unsubstantiated claims/statements. You refuse to do so!, while I have quoted from it. Is there a problem for you?  ;D And yes, I've done so while giving you the actual ties to reconciliation - those ties to S.35 of the Constitution. What I've also done is highlight that, per SCOC rulings, your forever want to emphasize "duty to consult" has inherent limitations - limitations YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT, TO ACKNOWLEDGE; again:

what extends from the waldo's personal interest in seeing First Nations participation in improving their own economic standing, is my targeted review of related SCOC rulings that speak to limitations on granted title - limitations that particularly reflect resource related developments on claimed (or established) First Nations lands. Developments with a greater public interest attachment; ones that particularly bring significant benefits to impacted First Nations themselves. And again, my targeted review of those related SCOC rulings has been done to:

=> emphasize Crown duty to consult does not present First Nations, "a veto, a right to veto", say... public interest resource developments, and

=> tests have been established to more pointedly help ascertain and determine whether, for example, resource developments meet that test of being, 'in the public interest'. In that pointed regard, near the very beginning of this thread, I wrote:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #273 on: February 24, 2020, 06:12:11 pm »
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/VIA Rail - those that speak directly to track blockages?
At that location, yes. Nothing was ever blocked there.

notwithstanding the most intimidating large trucks/snowplows put directly adjacent to tracks by protestors, there are ready available pictures of protestors performing ceremony on the tracks - try a googly. By the by, are you now also choosing to be in solidarity with your favoured Mohawk protestors by ignoring the long-standing CN Safety Guideline directive advising that:

Quote
All workers, equipment and material have been positioned beyond the clearance limits or at any other location deemed safe by CN. (at least 5 meters (15 feet) from the nearest rail of the track on which the train is to pass with additional allowances for curvature and super elevation)

and then, of course, the waldo already schooled you by highlighting the VIA Rail public notifications; again:
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 emphasis the hilarity... 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 waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #274 on: February 24, 2020, 06:42:56 pm »
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.

;D such hyperbole! Not sure how you presume upon "burying the report", when the related interim findings report has been public knowledge for years (as reflects upon the 2013 Indigenous persons protests against shale gas exploration in New Brunswick)

but, in regards my direct question to you concerning RCMP injunction enforcement, let the waldo emphasize the Commission's review speaks positively to the overall 2013 RCMP engagement with Indigenous protestors in New Brunswick... you know... the one where "peaceful Indigenous protestors" torched those 5 police cruisers! - specifically:

Quote
With respect to the arrests made during the anti-shale gas protests, the Commission found that, in general terms and with certain exceptions, RCMP members had reasonable grounds to arrest persons for various offences, and the force used was necessary and proportional in the circumstances. The Commission also found that in most cases, the RCMP members handled post-arrest and detention procedures in a reasonable manner and in compliance with policy.

The Commission found that in policing the protests, RCMP members demonstrated that they understood and applied the "measured approach," often demonstrating considerable forbearance in fulfilling their duty to keep the peace and ensure public safety while respecting individuals' right to protest. The RCMP command team and Crisis Negotiation Team made considerable efforts to bring stakeholders together to achieve a resolution to the conflict. The Commission also found that RCMP members did not demonstrate bias in general, or engage in differential treatment of Indigenous protesters when making arrests. Although the Commission made several findings and recommendations regarding the need for training and policy development with regard to Indigenous cultural matters and the handling of sacred items, it found that RCMP members did not, either deliberately or unwittingly, unnecessarily interfere with Indigenous ceremonies or sacred items.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #275 on: February 24, 2020, 06:50:31 pm »
no - I've done the research that you clearly haven't. I've repeatedly challenged you to cite passage within the 97 SCOC ruling that supports your repeated unsubstantiated claims/statements. You refuse to do so!, while I have quoted from it. Is there a problem for you?  ;D And yes, I've done so while giving you the actual ties to reconciliation - those ties to S.35 of the Constitution. What I've also done is highlight that, per SCOC rulings, your forever want to emphasize "duty to consult" has inherent limitations - limitations YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT, TO ACKNOWLEDGE; again:

What are the Federal and BC government policies on the duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #276 on: February 24, 2020, 06:59:55 pm »
Actually, neither do you.

I try to contribute information, wilber.

And analyses that may shock and disturb,
But still tell only half the story.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #277 on: February 24, 2020, 07:32:35 pm »
At least in Ontario, the police have finally done their Effin' jobs!

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

Why did the Ontario police wait for Trudeau's "ok" to start enforcing court orders and the law?  Aren't the police simply suppose to maintain law and order and not act based on politics or direction from any provincial or federal politicians?
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #278 on: February 24, 2020, 08:19:43 pm »
Why did the Ontario police wait for Trudeau's "ok" to start enforcing court orders and the law?  Aren't the police simply suppose to maintain law and order and not act based on politics or direction from any provincial or federal politicians?

The police are not directed by the government in this country. What makes you think the OPP acted simply on JT's OK?

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #279 on: February 24, 2020, 09:06:04 pm »
The police are not directed by the government in this country. What makes you think the OPP acted simply on JT's OK?

So what does an injunction mean to you? Should court orders be optional and if so, at who's discretion?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #280 on: February 24, 2020, 09:20:45 pm »
So what does an injunction mean to you? Should court orders be optional and if so, at who's discretion?

I suspect I don't have to explain to you what injunctions are, and it is the responsibility of the local police to enforce them.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #281 on: February 24, 2020, 09:29:43 pm »
The police are not directed by the government in this country. What makes you think the OPP acted simply on JT's OK?

Because prior they did jack all.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #282 on: February 24, 2020, 09:31:47 pm »
I suspect I don't have to explain to you what injunctions are, and it is the responsibility of the local police to enforce them.

Why did Trudeau have to say anything?  Why did he have to say "it's time for the barricades come down".  Why didn't local police just do their jobs and enforce the law?
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #283 on: February 24, 2020, 10:35:00 pm »
I suspect I don't have to explain to you what injunctions are, and it is the responsibility of the local police to enforce them.

So you think court orders should be enforced, or not, at the discretion of the police alone. So I guess if it's fair that protesters are free to ignore them, it should be for the police as well.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 10:37:22 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #284 on: February 24, 2020, 10:56:57 pm »
notwithstanding the most intimidating large trucks/snowplows put directly adjacent to tracks by protestors, there are ready available pictures of protestors performing ceremony on the tracks - try a googly.

Ya, with the Minister of Indigenous Services, Marc Miller. Was he blockading too?  Lol

The plow truck was on the shoulder of the road, behind the train barrier (arm up),

If you're trying to lie about that, you'll lose.

The RCMP claim to have departed Wet'suet'en Territory  Friday afternoon.
That was not confirmed to the Mohawks at Tyendinaga.
It was their condition for leaving.

So now the BC and Federal government will begin to talk to the Wet'suet'en Council, on their territory.

And the Feds are apparently continuing to talk to the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy too.