Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11594 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #315 on: February 25, 2020, 05:04:35 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

Angry Andy and all the angry vigilante wannabes are not shining examples of how to behave in a crisis. Lol
Those are all people who need to be taking orders, not giving them.

(Did I already say that?) Lol

And probably need anxiety meds or blood pressure meds too.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 05:06:34 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #316 on: February 25, 2020, 05:12:35 pm »
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).

That's a lie you keep repeating.  I watched on TV today as a group around the GTA sat in lines on the ground directly across GO Train tracks:  https://www.680news.com/video/2020/02/25/protesters-leave-site-of-rail-blockade-near-hamilton-that-disrupted-go-train-service/





"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #317 on: February 25, 2020, 05:18:32 pm »
That's a lie you keep repeating.  I watched on TV today as a group around the GTA sat in lines on the ground directly across GO Train tracks:

That is not Belleville, although it is Ontario. Part of the reason I said the many protests are different.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #318 on: February 25, 2020, 11:52:23 pm »
As a country we apparently can't even deal with small groups of yahoos with lawn chairs.

How are we going to handle the inevitable confrontation when TMX reaches Burnaby? Because that is going to make the current protests look tiny in comparison.

Will the federal government have the resolve to actually see the project to completion? I'm not sure Trudeau has the fortitude to get it done, and I'm sure that future TMX protesters are feeling very emboldened by the weak response to the current protests.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #319 on: February 26, 2020, 01:47:54 am »
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.

oddly I can't find statements from weakAndy or Jagoff Singh commending the Liberal government/PM Trudeau for this most impressive covert undertaking to ensure the delivery of those critical goods that were nearing shortage levels. Beauty CP/CN... CN unmarked cars, CP marked engines driven by specially trained CN engineers! Now that's political leadership, hey!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #320 on: February 26, 2020, 02:06:54 am »
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.

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.

as the latest injunction reads, "the law does not recognize any right to blockade and obstruct the plaintiff {CGL} from pursuing lawfully authorized activities". This latest injunction extends upon the prior interim junction (that's been in place for "a year now")... the dissenting subset of the Wet'suet'en refusing to abide by these lawful injunctions is but a very smallish grouping of the overall majority of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs, Band Chiefs, Band Council members and band members who are in favour of the CGL pipeline.

and again member Granny, you refuse to answer the question as to, "who speaks for the Wet'suet'en":
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?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #321 on: February 26, 2020, 07:52:11 am »
That's a lie you keep repeating.  I watched on TV today as a group around the GTA sat in lines on the ground directly across GO Train tracks: 

I was talking about the 19 day action at Tyendinaga. They were never on the tracks.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GWLAEx6wrApmMDNv9
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 10:56:23 am by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #322 on: February 26, 2020, 07:53:55 am »
As a country we apparently can't even deal with small groups of yahoos with lawn chairs.

How are we going to handle the inevitable confrontation when TMX reaches Burnaby? Because that is going to make the current protests look tiny in comparison.

Will the federal government have the resolve to actually see the project to completion? I'm not sure Trudeau has the fortitude to get it done, and I'm sure that future TMX protesters are feeling very emboldened by the weak response to the current protests.

 -k

No, TMX is not going to go through.

People speak with their feet ... and their lawn chairs.  Lol
I kind of like that characterization, though the "yahoos" - ie, brutes - are brutish in determination and persistence only, and thus very effective.

We've seen pretty clearly who the physical "brutes" are - CGL pipeline company and their gone-rogue RCMP attack dogs - excuse me, - 'tactical unit'.

RCMP in Burnaby TMX protests had an injunction too, but they didn't set up "exclusion zones", illegally demand identification and harass every 'protester', illegally search people and vehicles and seize necessary supplies (food, shelter items, medicines, etc), illegally prevent media from being present to film and report on RCMP actions. Because the urban protesters in Burnaby were largely non-Indigenous.

That illegal RCMP behaviour is only being conducted against Indigenous people in a remote area where the public is relatively absent and intentionally uninformed about RCMP actions. 

Even so, and thanks to social media, sympathetic protests have erupted and engulfed the entire country.

So no, even if Trudeau has the "fortitude", he does not have the authority to prevent the coming Constitutionally protected protests against TMX, which will be persistent, urban and 'white-privileged'.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 09:26:07 am by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #323 on: February 26, 2020, 10:12:26 am »
I was talking about the 19 day action at Tyendinaga. They were never on the tracks.

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}

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #324 on: February 26, 2020, 10:22:22 am »
That illegal RCMP behaviour is only being conducted against Indigenous people in a remote area where the public is relatively absent and intentionally uninformed about RCMP actions.

your claim, vis-a-vis review of RCMP enforcement of the Wet'suet'en related injunctions (now 2 in number), has been deferred in lieu of similar like claims made in relation to the 2013 RCMP engagement with Indigenous protestors in New Brunswick. As I pointed out to you in that regard:

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 waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #325 on: February 26, 2020, 10:28:35 am »
So no, even if Trudeau has the "fortitude", he does not have the authority to prevent the coming Constitutionally protected protests against TMX, which will be persistent, urban and 'white-privileged'.

no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.

try again member Granny, try again!

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #326 on: February 26, 2020, 10:44:49 am »
and again member Granny, you refuse to answer the question as to, "who speaks for the Wet'suet'en":

Who speaks for the Canadians?
 Andrew Scheer? Trudeau?
It's a rhetorical question you've asked.

Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.

That kind of interference by non-Indigenous people is just perpetuation of colonial divide-and-conquer tactics, and the BC NDP government is up to its neck in a mess because they tried to bully their way through with that out-dated strategy.

Though far from perfect, Canadian law is the reference point we have. My support for traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council is based on the Delgamuukw 1997 Supreme Court of Canada recognition of the unceded,
unextinguished "existing" Aboriginal rights and title of the Wet'suet'en Nation people.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #327 on: February 26, 2020, 11:55:32 am »
I was talking about the 19 day action at Tyendinaga. They were never on the tracks.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GWLAEx6wrApmMDNv9

A picture of them not being on the tracks isn't proof they were never on the tracks.

I heard on the news reports of indigenous driving up and down the tracks in defiance of Trudeau's speech.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #328 on: February 26, 2020, 12:01:56 pm »
Who speaks for the Canadians?
 Andrew Scheer? Trudeau?
It's a rhetorical question you've asked.

Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.

Canada needs to deal with somebody.  There needs to be some legitimate representatives of the Wet'suet'en in order to broker relations and deals.

Trudeau is the PM, head of government, so he speaks for the federal government of Canada.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #329 on: February 26, 2020, 12:12:56 pm »
no - Constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression... freedom of association... those most notably don't apply in relation to protestors acts of civil disobedience

It is not that clear cut:
Certain acts of civil disobedience are permitted, eg, striking workers do block access to workplaces, generally a 15 minute or so delay, but can become firm under some circumstances. Stopping incoming and outgoing trains happens within industry boundaries during strikes. Protesters walk on streets, blocking traffic and businesses.
Etc etc
Civil disobedience is a gray area, with legal and policing discretion afforded in order to 'preserve the peace' and also facilitate freedom of assembly.

Quote
, particularly those that rise to the level of charges of civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court in regards breaching one or more terms of a court ordered injunction issued to prevent interference with the legal rights of a person, company, or government.

You are focusing on legal action, confrontation, domination, suppression...  on issues that are really a matter of public interest and safety.

The TransMountain Burnaby Terminal ... 13 dilbit storage tanks, being increased to 26 ... amid thousands of homes and businesses, and a university ...with only one road down the mountain, directly past the storage facility. How do people evacuate if those tanks are on fire? With any breach of the tanks, airborne release of diluents is immediate and has life changing to fatal effects on any humans in its path, NONE of whom can get out of the way.


https://www.transmountain.com/burnaby-terminal-and-tunnel

But to keep people happy ...

The tanks are [currently] painted green to minimize appearance on the landscape. ... Public input will help determine the colour of the tanks – lighter colours reduce emissions.

"Public input" ! Oh yay!
Now isn't that just special!

Civil contempt? Criminal contempt?
TransMountainCo certainly has a lot of that!

« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 12:22:20 pm by Granny »