Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11600 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #330 on: February 26, 2020, 12:16:53 pm »
Who speaks for the Canadians?
 Andrew Scheer? Trudeau?
It's a rhetorical question you've asked.




Our elected governments speak for Canadians.

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

It sure as hell is when it starts destroying innocent people's livelihoods.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #331 on: February 26, 2020, 12:17:45 pm »
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.

You really haven't been paying attention, or you're intentionally promoting a lie.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #332 on: February 26, 2020, 12:45:29 pm »
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.

It doesn't sound like Scheer agrees with you. He sure has a lot to say, undermining everything Trudeau says.

Are you getting my point yet?

We don't all speak with one voice. My mouth says whatever it wants to, and will continue to do so..

We have no reason to demand that Wet'suet'en or any other group or community in Canada all speak with 'one voice'. That's absurd.

The real issue is ... the duty of the Crown to consult, and accommodate Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title was not completed. The Crown Ministers in BC refused to meet with Wet'suet'en Nation Council to hear their perspective.

BC Premier John Horgan caused this whole problem, has remained unapologetic, persisted in refusing to meet even when the whole country erupted.




Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #333 on: February 26, 2020, 12:50:45 pm »
Our elected governments speak for Canadians.

It sure as hell is when it starts destroying innocent people's livelihoods.

Wet'suet'en people did not do that.

BC  Premier John Horgan refusing to meet with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs did that.
Our Federal governments refusing to have talks with Wet'suet'en Chiefs since 1997 did that.
.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 12:55:35 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #334 on: February 26, 2020, 01:09:43 pm »
You really haven't been paying attention, or you're intentionally promoting a lie.

So you're saying the CBC reporter on the radio was lying?  I wish i had a link, but it was radio.

Here's a protestor with a rail barricade on CN rails in Edmonton a week ago on Feb. 19th.  Counter-protestors weren't removing barricades blocking the side of the road, they were on the rails.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/violent-ends-to-past-indigenous-protests-haunt-trudeau-government-1.4824035

Your narrative is the lie.  Yet more wishful thinking that doesn't match reality on the ground.  You can't just wish fantasy into existence.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #335 on: February 26, 2020, 01:16:43 pm »
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.

You are right that is not proof. Hearsay is also not proof. When you have something substantial to show that native protesters in Belleville were blocking the track, please provide it. As I said earlier, there were multiple protests across the nation and they are not all the same.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #336 on: February 26, 2020, 01:51:57 pm »
You are right that is not proof. Hearsay is also not proof. When you have something substantial to show that native protesters in Belleville were blocking the track, please provide it. As I said earlier, there were multiple protests across the nation and they are not all the same.

Putting something right beside a track is the same as blockading it. Railways can't take the risk of a derailment because of some idiots messing around on the right of way.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #337 on: February 26, 2020, 01:54:32 pm »
Putting something right beside a track is the same as blockading it. Railways can't take the risk of a derailment because of some idiots messing around on the right of way.

Was the railway's right of way infringed in any way? Are you saying that if my neighbour puts something right beside the property line then I can call him an idiot and have the police raid his back yard?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #338 on: February 26, 2020, 02:11:14 pm »
Was the railway's right of way infringed in any way? Are you saying that if my neighbour puts something right beside the property line then I can call him an idiot and have the police raid his back yard?

I don't know, do you. If the railway deemed it a hazard they weren't prepared to accept, the result is the same. Maybe you should set up camp beside a runway at an airport and see what happens. After all, you aren't blocking the runway. I'm sure all the people on those aircraft can trust you not to do anything stupid, just like a few hundred people on a Montreal to Toronto passenger train.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #339 on: February 26, 2020, 02:44:06 pm »
Maybe you should set up camp beside a runway at an airport and see what happens.

Not the same situation at all. Most airports that I am aware of own a lot of land, and are also fenced in. In that case it would be trespassing, rather than occupying a public road beside them. The better analogy is something that did happen to me when I was in Victoria several years back. To get exercise during the cold months [well at least what Victoria calls cold], I would often go to the evening swim at the various pools in the area. One was near Sidney, and I often would pick up take out food and eat it while watching the planes land at Victoria International Airport. As best as I can figure the place I parked was at 48.645719, -123.416796 which is outside of the fence, but I am not sure if it is on airport property or a public road. I don't remember seeing any sign saying private property. I did this several times, and once a cop or private security (don't remember which) showed up. They were polite, but told me I shouldn't be there but didn't ask me to leave. They were of course concerned about security but saw I was not really up to anything so might just have lied (as cops often do) to discourage me from returning. I am pretty sure I had returned after that, but only the once did they show up.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #340 on: February 26, 2020, 04:21:57 pm »
Not the same situation at all. Most airports that I am aware of own a lot of land, and are also fenced in. In that case it would be trespassing, rather than occupying a public road beside them. The better analogy is something that did happen to me when I was in Victoria several years back. To get exercise during the cold months [well at least what Victoria calls cold], I would often go to the evening swim at the various pools in the area. One was near Sidney, and I often would pick up take out food and eat it while watching the planes land at Victoria International Airport. As best as I can figure the place I parked was at 48.645719, -123.416796 which is outside of the fence, but I am not sure if it is on airport property or a public road. I don't remember seeing any sign saying private property. I did this several times, and once a cop or private security (don't remember which) showed up. They were polite, but told me I shouldn't be there but didn't ask me to leave. They were of course concerned about security but saw I was not really up to anything so might just have lied (as cops often do) to discourage me from returning. I am pretty sure I had returned after that, but only the once did they show up.

It’s the same in that you can’t operate an airport or a railway under those conditions.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #341 on: February 27, 2020, 10:45:46 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!

Civil disobedience is a gray area, with legal and policing discretion afforded in order to 'preserve the peace' and also facilitate freedom of assembly.

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

yet another showcase example of you being completely, 'out of your element'! Discussion here hasn't centered around peaceful/lawful acts of "civil disobedience" - rather, as I emphasized, it's in regards those protester acts that reach the level of civil & criminal contempt of court... those that breach one or more terms of a court ordered injunction. In the case of those dissenting Wet'suet'en, they have been in breach of an interim injunction issued 'a year ago, or so', as well as the injunction issued recently (in January).

feel free to state your examples of, to make your case for, as you state: "Trans Mountain Corp certainly having a lot of civil and criminal contempt in regards to court ordered injunctions" - sure you can!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #342 on: February 27, 2020, 10:58:10 am »
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?
Wet'suet'en internal politics is not our business.
We have no reason to demand that Wet'suet'en or any other group or community in Canada all speak with 'one voice'. That's absurd.

when parrotGranny keeps squawking, post after post after post, "duty to consult, duty to consult"... just who speaks for and will present a consensus Wet'suet'en view/position in regards the CGL pipeline? Who is to be consulted parrotGranny, who - name them!

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #343 on: February 27, 2020, 11:37:01 am »
You are right that is not proof. Hearsay is also not proof. When you have something substantial to show that native protesters in Belleville were blocking the track, please provide it. As I said earlier, there were multiple protests across the nation and they are not all the same.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tyendinaga-train-fire-mohawk-freight-1.5476708

So much for that idea.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #344 on: February 27, 2020, 01:05:19 pm »




I didn't know the Invisible Man was native.  Pretty sweet to have him on your side.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley