Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11548 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #300 on: February 25, 2020, 07:40:05 am »
You'd have to ask the OPP for their rationale for their actions.

by your ridiculous statement claiming the OPP has been enforcing the injunction... all along... aren't you its spokesperson?  ;D

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?!!

who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? The majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline. C'mon member Granny, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Cause it sure seems like none of those Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, band chiefs and council members, and band members wanted or contributed to, as you say, "a national crisis"! Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en, hey!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #301 on: February 25, 2020, 07:47:50 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.

uhhh... member wilber was speaking to court ordered injunctions not being enforced (in a timely manner) by police. Clearly nothing to do with the Constitution or SCOC rulings that reflect upon it. Oh wait... just wait a minute here: are you now shifting to imply the OPP didn't enforce the Ontario Superior Court issued injunction... cause they were deferring instead to...... the Constitution and related SCOC rulings?  ;D So ok, why did the OPP stop your implied deferral yesterday? Oh my, wildly spinning member Granny - oh my!

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #302 on: February 25, 2020, 08:56:19 am »
by your ridiculous statement claiming the OPP has been enforcing the injunction... all along... aren't you its spokesperson?  ;D

who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? The majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline. C'mon member Granny, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Cause it sure seems like none of those Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, band chiefs and council members, and band members wanted or contributed to, as you say, "a national crisis"! Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en, hey!

Waldo, let's just let your boy Trudeau do his job as he has committed to, of consulting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council. I am not interested in guessing, speculating or arguing about any hypothetical outcomes from those long overdue discussions.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #303 on: February 25, 2020, 09:05:37 am »
The supreme rule of law is the Constitution Act, and Supreme Court case law that arises from it.
All of which means sweet FA if no one enforces it.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #304 on: February 25, 2020, 09:09:43 am »
uhhh... member wilber was speaking to court ordered injunctions not being enforced (in a timely manner) by police. Clearly nothing to do with the Constitution or SCOC rulings that reflect upon it.

Waldo, if you expect me to take your comments seriously - increasingly unlikely - you have to stop saying ridiculous things.

A provincial injunction can always be appealed to the appellate court, and to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine it's constitutionality.

That wasn't done by the Wet'suet'en,  but it could have been.

Constitutionality always takes precedence.

Your statement, "nothing to do with the Constitution" is absurd.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 10:21:24 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #305 on: February 25, 2020, 11:40:38 am »
who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? The majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline. C'mon member Granny, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Cause it sure seems like none of those Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, band chiefs and council members, and band members wanted or contributed to, as you say, "a national crisis"! Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en, hey!

Waldo, let's just let your boy Trudeau do his job as he has committed to, of consulting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council. I am not interested in guessing, speculating or arguing about any hypothetical outcomes from those long overdue discussions.

no - there's no need to guess, no need to speculate, no need for argument and certainly... certainly, nothing hypothetical about my question to you; again, who speaks for the Wet'suet'en in regards the CGL pipeline? Clearly you won't answer - because its the same answer that reflects upon the divisiveness within the Wet'suet'en themselves - they don't know themselves! So... who do you want the government to meet with in regards the CGL pipeline project - who speaks for the Wet'suet'en - would that be the majority of its people that want the pipeline... it's Band Chiefs/Councils that have negotiated related benefits with both the B.C. government & CGL... or the majority of its 13 hereditary chiefs (8 of the 13) who are not opposed to the pipeline?

but hey now, what about the recent days attempts by the federal government to meet with that minority of dissenting hereditary chiefs - you know, those attempts that were ignored/rebuffed by that smallish number of hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline {route}? I read your, as you say, boys... were too busy meeting/strategizing with the rail blockading Mohawks... too busy signing their names to the front loader piece of that snowplow!  ;D

but keep on harping about PM Trudeau's expressed wants toward reconciliation - you and your Indigenous ilk can help push towards a CPC alternative!  ;D

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #306 on: February 25, 2020, 12:02:32 pm »
Waldo, if you expect me to take your comments seriously - increasingly unlikely - you have to stop saying ridiculous things.

A provincial injunction can always be appealed to the appellate court, and to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine it's constitutionality.

That wasn't done by the Wet'suet'en,  but it could have been.

Constitutionality always takes precedence.

Your statement, "nothing to do with the Constitution" is absurd.

 ;D considering all the focus had been on protestors interfering with the national/provincial economies, how surprising is it you deflect from the rail blockades, from the port blockades... back on over to the Wet'suet'en blockades that have, effectively, been given short-shrift throughout this thread! Nice try though! But hey, if you think the rail/port blocking protestors can take their cases to the SCOC seeking remedy to allow them to keep messin' with Canada's national/provincial economies, good on ya! I mean, who should be surprised at anything you say after your most gleeful statement emphasizing, as you did, "how easy it is to shut down Canada". 

as for the Wet'suet'en blockade and the B.C. court injunction granted to CGL... that reads, "The defendants may genuinely believe in their rights under Indigenous law to prevent the plaintiff from entering Dark House territory, but the law does not recognize any right to blockade and obstruct the plaintiff from pursuing lawfully authorized activities"

of course what you're not transparent about in your personal 'unfair dealings' is that a prior interim injunction had already been in place for "a year or so"... and the RCMP were stationed there in proximity enforcing that interim injunction. More about that judges order granting the most recent injunction:

Quote
The judge's order confirms an interim injunction that has been in place for the last year, and includes an order providing RCMP with the power to enforce it.

"In the face of the interim injunction order, the defendants refused to voluntarily comply with the order and enforcement action by the RCMP, as well as ongoing RCMP presence, was required to ensure compliance," Church wrote.

The judge said the company has all the necessary permits and authorizations, and had met the legal tests for an injunction.

and as I read/interpret, it's the same 2 hereditary chiefs involved in CGL seeking the prior interim injunction as were served with the latest injunction. The same 2 hereditary chiefs with the "loudest voices" drowning out all the other hereditary chiefs in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the Band Chiefs in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the Band Councils in favour of the CGL pipeline... drowning out the very majority of the Wet'suet'en people who are in favour of the CGL pipeline.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #307 on: February 25, 2020, 12:05:26 pm »
Waldo, if you expect me to take your comments seriously - increasingly unlikely - you have to stop saying ridiculous things.

A provincial injunction can always be appealed to the appellate court, and to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine it's constitutionality.

That wasn't done by the Wet'suet'en,  but it could have been.

Constitutionality always takes precedence.

Your statement, "nothing to do with the Constitution" is absurd.

Breaking the law is not constitutional. The courts ruled and until that ruling is changed, it is the law. Rather than appealing the ruling the Wet'suet'en are choosing to break the law. If they are not prepared to follow the law, the existing law needs to be enforced.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #308 on: February 25, 2020, 12:06:05 pm »
member Granny, speaking of the internal divisiveness within the Wet'suet'en, let's not have this waldoGem buried too deep before you get a chance to comment on it... cause surely you weren't ignoring it, right?  ;D

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 waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #309 on: February 25, 2020, 01:14:25 pm »
whaaaa! Surely angryAndy couldn't have been aware of this - and why would he be trusted with it!

Behind CN, CP's quiet deal to skirt railway blockades and keep Canada's vital goods moving

Quote
Quiet talks brokered by a government desperate to stop a growing economic threat led to two rail rivals coming together with a workaround to bypass the Tyendinaga blockade site.

Since last week, Canada's two largest railways — CN and Canadian Pacific — have been quietly sharing their rail lines to transport essential supplies to communities in need, according to multiple government, CN and industry sources.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #310 on: February 25, 2020, 01:25:26 pm »
There have been many protests, and they all have been different. From what I understand, the ones in Ontario started in early February and the injunction was obtained a few days later. I also understand that the Ontario protests in the early days did not actually block the rail line, but were beside it on the public road allowance. I don't know the date they started a physical blockade, and how long before the police issued their warning. I believe it was only a day or two at the most between the OPP issuing the warning and actually enforcing the injunction.

If were are trying to tie events together, like Trudeau making his statement that the injunctions must be respected, then lets make sure we are tying all other events as well. Doing something in a vacuum does not prove anything. I haven't really paid close attention to this entire mess, and it is happening in at least 4 places across the country all with different parameters.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #311 on: February 25, 2020, 02:56:58 pm »
There have been many protests, and they all have been different. From what I understand, the ones in Ontario started in early February and the injunction was obtained a few days later. I also understand that the Ontario protests in the early days did not actually block the rail line, but were beside it on the public road allowance. I don't know the date they started a physical blockade, and how long before the police issued their warning. I believe it was only a day or two at the most between the OPP issuing the warning and actually enforcing the injunction.

If were are trying to tie events together, like Trudeau making his statement that the injunctions must be respected, then lets make sure we are tying all other events as well. Doing something in a vacuum does not prove anything. I haven't really paid close attention to this entire mess, and it is happening in at least 4 places across the country all with different parameters.

There never was a physical blockade at Tyendinaga.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #312 on: February 25, 2020, 03:18:27 pm »
There never was a physical blockade at Tyendinaga.

Are you sure. I heard today they lit a tire on fire and threw it on the tracks. I don't know what the situation was in the past few days before the OPP moved in.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #313 on: February 25, 2020, 04:38:20 pm »
Are you sure. I heard today they lit a tire on fire and threw it on the tracks. I don't know what the situation was in the past few days before the OPP moved in.

After the arrests, and after the first train went through.
A minor issue.

They were always outside CN land, behind the train barrier, on the shoulder of the road and camped in a field (under land claim).

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #314 on: February 25, 2020, 04:45:07 pm »
but hey now, what about the recent days attempts by the federal government to meet with that minority of dissenting hereditary chiefs - you know, those attempts that were ignored/rebuffed by that smallish number of hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline {route}? I read your, as you say, boys... were too busy meeting/strategizing with the rail blockading Mohawks... too busy signing their names to the front loader piece of that snowplow!  ;D

I'm sure you paid enough attention to know that they were, and still are, waiting for the RCMP and CGL to get off their territory. They won't meet under duress.

So stop blowing smoke.

Maybe all you care about is Trudeau's image, but some of us actually care more about governments acting in good faith to actually settle some long outstanding issues with Indigenous peoples.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 04:51:06 pm by Granny »