Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11551 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #285 on: February 24, 2020, 11:19:14 pm »
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.

It's the job of the police to carry out the the orders of courts, such as injunctions. How they approach those tasks is at their discretion and their usual attempts to resolve this type of issue peacefully is something we should be thankful for. In this case they finally had to put the pressure on but did so in a sensible way from what I've seen so far.
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #286 on: February 24, 2020, 11:32:40 pm »
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?

OPP used their discretion at a peaceful non-blockade, knowing that intervention could have a big backlash across the country.

Scheer Conservatives don't seem to grasp that concept of considering that the consequences may be worse.
Those are people who need to be taking orders, not giving them.
I mean, what person doesn't even think one step ahead!!!
Darwin Award candidates. Lol

The justsmashthrough'em brigade are a few bricks short of a load.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #287 on: February 24, 2020, 11:35:53 pm »
It's the job of the police to carry out the the orders of courts, such as injunctions. How they approach those tasks is at their discretion and their usual attempts to resolve this type of issue peacefully is something we should be thankful for. In this case they finally had to put the pressure on but did so in a sensible way from what I've seen so far.
So you do think whether they are carried out is at their discretion alone.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #288 on: February 24, 2020, 11:47:37 pm »
So you do think whether they are carried out is at their discretion alone.

Yep.

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #289 on: February 24, 2020, 11:58:55 pm »
Yep.

So if a court issues an order the police could wait years before they decide to enforce it or not even enforce it at all. WTF happened to rule of law?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #290 on: February 25, 2020, 12:06:26 am »
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?
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 {where VIA Rail recognized protestors had blocked tracks; accordingly, in the interest of public safety, travel advisories were issued by VIA Rail to the public}

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 only one here telling porkies is you... consistently so! You're so full of it.

Quote
The protest and the truck’s dangerously close proximity to the tracks led to a decision after Feb. 6 by CN railway owners to halt all trains for nearly three weeks on that section of railway – CN ships $250 billion a year in bulk cargo, much of it through this Toronto-Montreal corridor, one of the busiest in the country.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #291 on: February 25, 2020, 12:21:21 am »
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?

please provide citation to support your claim/implication that the OPP responded to, as you say, "Trudeau's ok to start enforcing court orders"... make sure it also includes the procedure/process that would allow federal political influence over an Ontario court issued injunction... that would act as a federal directive to halt the, as you say, "Ontario police wait".

of course, what really happened is that repeated federal attempts to bring protesting Indigenous leaders forward... were repeatedly rebuffed to the point there was no point in continuing the pursuit of dialogue... which, of course, resulted in PM Trudeau's speech that emphasized the illegal blockades must end. Up until that point, the OPP was quite content to let the federal government take the brunt of public and political pressure for its own unwillingness to enforce the court ordered injunction. And as I highlighted a short while back, this was also the weasel-like play behind the MIA DOFO... all a part of the collective Conservative strategy to press the media and public frustrations toward the federal government - toward PM Trudeau. I'd say led by angryAndy but that idgit hasn't the wherewithal to forge such a tactical... moving towards strategic attack.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #292 on: February 25, 2020, 12:32:15 am »
OPP used their discretion at a peaceful non-blockade, knowing that intervention could have a big backlash across the country.

Scheer Conservatives don't seem to grasp that concept of considering that the consequences may be worse.

so... what of the OPP discretion today, hey! Bustin' the blockade and arresting many of the so-called protestors... oh wait waldo, they insist on being called protectors, not protestors! So what of the OPP discretion you're speaking of, hey member Granny - what of it now?

of course what the protesting Indigenous fail to grasp is that a CPC government wouldn't give their calls for reconciliation, their calls for "a duty to consult", the time of day. The CPC would bring down the hammer, big time. Most pointedly, these economy influencing blockade actions have caused many Canadians to question Indigenous motives and doubt government actions to appease them... to doubt government moves toward reconciliation.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #293 on: February 25, 2020, 12:56:47 am »
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?
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

 ;D geezaz! That's almost 2 decades of prep work! Of course this is just another of your porkies - yet another. Wait waldo, didn't you already highlight this SCOC case/ruling... and wasn't your focus away from the title aspect to more pointedly emphasize sumthin' else, like the rulings 'Sparrow like test' by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest:

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 #294 on: February 25, 2020, 01:58:48 am »
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.

as I've repeatedly stated, Wet'suet'en/First Nation "Aboriginal Title and rights are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982". Of course, the Wet'suet'en land claim was not/has not been accepted by the B.C. government - hence the court cases, appeals and 1997 SCOC ruling - a ruling that, in itself, did not offer a declaration. And that ordered new trial that never occurred, the one you ridiculously say isn't needed because of the unrelated 2014 Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia... it is/will be needed to arrive at an ultimate decision for the Wet'suet'en to establish said boundaries and, effectively, provide the inherent declaration related to boundary determination. Well, will be needed unless governments and the Wet'suet'en reconcile their current differing opinions that go all the way back to the 97 ruling... and the chance of that occurring is ???

by the by, reconciliation of the pre-existence of Indigenous societies... with established (agreed upon) boundaries and title declaration... that is all within the over-riding sovereignty of the Crown - yes? Surely member Granny, you don't dispute that, right?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #295 on: February 25, 2020, 06:39:47 am »
So you do think whether they are carried out is at their discretion alone.

Not "whether", but the OPP have discretion in the "timing and manner" of enforcing an injunction. They  enforced the injunction by ensuring that the tracks and road were not blocked and the protest was peaceful.

The Mohawks consistently said that they would leave when the RCMP left Wet'suet'en Territory,  which reportedly happened Friday afternoon, though I didn't see public confirmation of that until Monday,,after the OPP moved in to clear the Tyendinaga camp.

The OPP and the RCMP have a responsibility to facilitate government negotiations to resolve the larger outstanding issues.
As we have seen, the RCMP's initial lack of discretion, reliance on violent removal of Wet'suet'en people caused a nation-wide crisis. 
The OPP used their discretion and conducted themselves in ways that did not cause further disruptions, and facilitated government engagement.

I'm going to say again ... anybody who thinks police violence is the answer to legitimate Indigenous assertions of rights is someone who doesn't think two steps ahead to what the consequences of police violence may be, in this case, a national crisis.
Such short-sighted thinkers, like Andrew Scheer, (Mike Harris, John Horgan, etc) have no place in leadership, imo. That kind of thinking has caused every crisis we've regretted.

And all of those situations have occurred because of chronic long standing government failure to address Indigenous assertions of rights.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 07:16:50 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #296 on: February 25, 2020, 07:04:50 am »
Not "whether", but the OPP have discretion in the timing and manner of enforcing an injunction. They  enforced the injunction by ensuring that the tracks and road were not blocked and the protest was peaceful.

based upon the first 3 days of the blockade, CN Rail obtained an injunction issued by the Ontario Superior Court - by media accounts, an injunction that reads, "forbids any continued interference with the rail line under the threat of arrest".

and now you're claiming that the OPP, using its discretion, actually enforced the injunction all along!  ;D So, again, what happened yesterday - what did the blockaders do differently to cause the OPP to extend beyond the enforcement you claim they were engaged in?

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #297 on: February 25, 2020, 07:26:36 am »
12 part twitter thread unrolled: "It's factually inaccurate to say the {Wet'suet'en} hereditary system is universally opposed {to the CGL gas pipeline}"


Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #298 on: February 25, 2020, 07:28:11 am »
based upon the first 3 days of the blockade, CN Rail obtained an injunction issued by the Ontario Superior Court - by media accounts, an injunction that reads, "forbids any continued interference with the rail line under the threat of arrest".

and now you're claiming that the OPP, using its discretion, actually enforced the injunction all along!  ;D So, again, what happened yesterday - what did the blockaders do differently to cause the OPP to extend beyond the enforcement you claim they were engaged in?

You'd have to ask the OPP for their rationale for their actions.

And why don't you also ask Horgan and Trudeau why they did not make any effort to resolve the outstanding issues of Wet'suet'en land rights BEFORE it became a national crisis?!!

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #299 on: February 25, 2020, 07:33:36 am »
So if a court issues an order the police could wait years before they decide to enforce it or not even enforce it at all. WTF happened to rule of law?

The supreme rule of law is the Constitution Act, and Supreme Court case law that arises from it.