Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11568 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #360 on: March 01, 2020, 09:27:44 pm »
(From my strike days I know that the ones yelling ignorant things like that and throwing garbage at you are the rich ones with the really expensive cars.
WTF do they have to complain about? Unbelievable. Until then I believed in the goodness in everyone. No more. There are some really sick f*cks with lots of money who lead miserable lives, just because they choose to be a**h*les. Sucks to be them.)

I've worked with the public.  There are a-holes rich and poor and in-between.

I'm not rich and I don't throw garbage.  I also used to believe in the goodness in everyone, real life changes that pretty fast.

Quote
Protests are usually pretty fluid. People come and go as they are able. Have you never heard of shift work? Not everybody works days. And students have flexible schedules.

I suppose.  I knew this young dude who would head over after his university classes to the local Occupy Wall Street protest gathering (which I supported in theory even though it accomplished nothing).
"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 #361 on: March 01, 2020, 09:32:13 pm »
Why don't they just pay off the hereditary chiefs?  I would think they and their communities need money as badly as anyone.  Hire the locals as security too.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #362 on: March 01, 2020, 11:37:19 pm »
CN voluntarily stopped the trains due to safety concerns.

public safety is paramount - in the interests of public safety both CN Rail & VIA Rail properly considered safety risks to the public and stopped freight and passenger train travel. Member Granny, it is most unfortunate you align your misguided position with that of protestors continued interference with the rail line and their refusal to meet that key condition of the Ontario Superior Court issued injunction.

The OPP monitored for 19 days, but did not have reason to intervene because the conditions of the injunction were being met.

no - the Mohawk protestors did not meet the key condition of the injunction... from the initial point it was served on through to today.

Then Trudeau gave his speech (directing the operations of the police ... illegally), and the OPP dispersed or arrested the Mohawks.

yet another member Granny porky - yet another! PM Trudeau most certainly did not issue any directive to police. But please, continue your blatant lies! It only continues to showcase your personal lack of intellectual honesty... and your personal absence of the key phrase you repeatedly nattered on about - "fair dealings"!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #363 on: March 01, 2020, 11:45:19 pm »
Why don't they just pay off the hereditary chiefs?

you need to qualify your reference to that minority subset of the overall number of hereditary chiefs. In recent days a few media outlets properly mentioned that the meetings being held were with FIVE - 5 - hereditary chiefs. However, what was missing from the latest media coverage was any mention that these FIVE - 5 - were but a minority subset of the total THIRTEEN - 13 - number of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs... and that the missing EIGHT - 8 - were in fact in favour of the CGL pipeline.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #364 on: March 02, 2020, 07:04:37 am »
In any case... The so-called payoff should have happened long ago.  Maybe it's happening now...

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #365 on: March 02, 2020, 10:55:12 am »
in recent days, railway tracks owned by both CN Rail & CP Rail have had "protectors" attempt to set the tracks on fire with pallets and/or tires. Now some, certainly not the waldo, are drawing further conclusions:


Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #366 on: March 02, 2020, 12:34:19 pm »
Does this mean the Kahnawake reserve the right to have the final say on Coastal Gaslink no matter what agreement the Wet'suet'en come to?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/coastal-gaslink-pipeline-construction-resumes-1.5482153
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #367 on: March 02, 2020, 04:44:35 pm »
public safety is paramount - in the interests of public safety both CN Rail & VIA Rail properly considered safety risks to the public and stopped freight and passenger train travel. Member Granny, it is most unfortunate you align your misguided position with that of protestors continued interference with the rail line and their refusal to meet that key condition of the Ontario Superior Court issued injunction.

no - the Mohawk protestors did not meet the key condition of the injunction... from the initial point it was served on through to today.

Well, you can argue that with the OPP whose position seemed to be that nothing blocking the tracks and keeping the peace was sufficient.

Quote
yet another member Granny porky - yet another! PM Trudeau most certainly did not issue any directive to police. But please, continue your blatant lies! It only continues to showcase your personal lack of intellectual honesty... and your personal absence of the key phrase you repeatedly nattered on about - "fair dealings"!

Haha! Yes, a sensitive issue. Did he or did he not direct the operations of the police? It would take a court to decide.
At least government is aware of the issue now.

He didn't  quite say "Get the **** Indians out of the park!"
But is "The barricades must come down." the equivalent?

And why did that even apply to Tyendinaga where there were no barricades?

This will be argued throughout history, no doubt.

Anyway, as someone who has pushed that issue forward through several situations it was a hoot watching Trudeau and Blair dance around putting pretty words around their 'orders'.  Lol

But the poor RCMP! So directionless without their masters' orders!  Like windup toys that just keep running into walls, just doing the same wrong thing over and over! Ultimately, preventing the government from arranging meetings - 'peace talks' - on Wet'suet'en territory! Classic keystone cops.  Lol

"Arrrrgh, we got an injunction, we go git some Wet'suet'en!"
Clunk.
"We go git some MORE Wet'suet'en!"
Clunk.
"Aarrrrgh! Head hurts! Let's go git some Gitxsan!"
Clunk. Clunk. Clunk.
"Supreme Court? What Supreme Court?! We got an injunction! We gotta keep the government out!!"

Hahaha! So cutely incompetent, breaking the law, running and smashing, doxing and dragging, terrorizing ... like big clumsy Flatfeet on crack!

Two reports of RCMP illegal behaviour ... first one still ignored, sat on, no response.
Somebody has to tell them how to do their jobs!
A Public Inquiry in waiting ...
Seems they can't read or write either.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #368 on: March 02, 2020, 07:15:22 pm »
you need to qualify your reference to that minority subset of the overall number of hereditary chiefs. In recent days a few media outlets properly mentioned that the meetings being held were with FIVE - 5 - hereditary chiefs. However, what was missing from the latest media coverage was any mention that these FIVE - 5 - were but a minority subset of the total THIRTEEN - 13 - number of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs... and that the missing EIGHT - 8 - were in fact in favour of the CGL pipeline.

Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?
"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 #369 on: March 02, 2020, 07:57:08 pm »
Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?

Seems that way. What a dysfunctional country.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #370 on: March 03, 2020, 12:00:41 am »
Seriously?  The 8 were in favour?  LOL.  All this over 5 chiefs?

but it gets better! Of the 5 hereditary chiefs said to be opposed to the pipeline, but 2 of those 5 are said to be really driving "the dissent"... the same 2 that are always in the news, the same 2 that are consistently sought out by media for comment... the same 2 that traveled east to meet with the self-serving Mohawk! And as mentioned previously, of the 5 clans of the Wet'suwet'en, the largest clans 5 hereditary chiefs were also Band Council members during the 5+ years of consultation between the Wet'suwet'en Band Chief/Council and the province... and CGL.

but ya, as I kept nattering away at member Granny, "who speaks for the Wet'suwet'en"? From a previous post:
per Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - formerly Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation --- The Question of Authority Shouldn't Divide First Nations

Quote
The only people who have a right to decide who represents them are the band members themselves.

The fact is all 20 First Nations whose territory runs along the pathway of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — including the Wet’suwet’en — have each signed agreements with the company. Professional protesters and well-funded NGOs have merely seized the opportunity to divide our communities for their own gains, and ultimately will leave us penniless when they suddenly leave.

All 203 First Nations bands in B.C. have unique and different forms of governance and, for the most part, they are satisfied with their systems.

My fellow First Nation leaders, both elected and non-elected, spent years investigating everything we could about LNG through environmental assessments, reviewing permits, government-to-government negotiations, and all the while trying to keep our members apprised of our progress.

It is therefore truly ignorant for non-Aboriginals to declare that elected Aboriginal leaders are only responsible for “on reserve issues” or are a “construct of the Indian Act meant to annihilate the Indian.”

.
.
It’s up to our communities to answer the representation question without intimidation and the interference of “allies” who only seek to control the narrative.

Simplistic solutions to complex problems have always been a problem for band councils trying to make life better for their own.

Allowing outsiders to undermine and dismiss years of careful consideration and consultation with elected chiefs who want nothing more than to secure a brighter future for their membership, is quite unacceptable and I will continue to speak out against it.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #371 on: March 03, 2020, 12:28:48 am »
Well, you can argue that with the OPP whose position seemed to be that nothing blocking the tracks and keeping the peace was sufficient.

I'm shocked that your, "seemed to be", is completely self-serving intended to fit with your agenda - shocked I tells ya! You can't support this madeUpShyte of yours... you can't quote/link to an OPP statement advising the Mohawk protestors were adhering to the terms of the injunction - you can't, right?

Haha! Yes, a sensitive issue. Did he or did he not direct the operations of the police? It would take a court to decide.

no - PM Trudeau/cabinet ministers most certainly, most assuredly, DID NOT direct the police to do anything. You've been called out on this and, per your norm, you resort to GishGallop! You have no credibility - none. I mean, c'mon, you're the braniac who has repeatedly run with a wildAss Facebook originated claim that CN put one of it's own vehicles on a track, took a picture of that vehicle, and then used it as the principal causal tie to secure the injunction! That was YOU!  ;D

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #372 on: March 03, 2020, 11:39:32 am »
you need to qualify your reference to that minority subset of the overall number of hereditary chiefs. In recent days a few media outlets properly mentioned that the meetings being held were with FIVE - 5 - hereditary chiefs. However, what was missing from the latest media coverage was any mention that these FIVE - 5 - were but a minority subset of the total THIRTEEN - 13 - number of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs... and that the missing EIGHT - 8 - were in fact in favour of the CGL pipeline.

WHOA waldo!!
Not true.
Some positions are vacant.

Internal Wet'suet'en politics is just not our business.
Don't get suckered into that Conservative, racist mentality.
Canada's divide and conquer tactics are well known, and have intentionally divided  Indigenous communities. It is now our responsibility to butt out of their business,  stop contributing to the colonialist oppression that is Canada's way, and start respecting Indigenous self-determination.

Canada's responsibility is to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title. The traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council is the appropriate leadership for that Federal task.

The pipeline is still BC's issue.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2020, 12:04:59 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #373 on: March 03, 2020, 11:42:30 am »
in recent days, railway tracks owned by both CN Rail & CP Rail have had "protectors" attempt to set the tracks on fire with pallets and/or tires. Now some, certainly not the waldo, are drawing further conclusions.

Did you read where it is not connected to the Wet'suet'en issue, waldo?

By failing to clarify, you are being inflammatory, part of the racist propaganda machine.
How many false flags do you carry, waldo?

You are not helping your boy Trudeau with racist smears and propaganda.
That's Conservative mentality.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2020, 11:53:35 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #374 on: March 03, 2020, 12:31:10 pm »
Internal Wet'suet'en politics is just not our business. Don't get suckered into that Conservative, racist mentality. It is now our responsibility to butt out of their business,  stop contributing to the colonialist oppression that is Canada's way, and start respecting Indigenous self-determination.

hard to reconcile your "not our business" with your many times expressed mad-squawking parrot act: squawk, duty-to-consult, squawk, duty-to-consult, squawk!  ;D Consult with who, hey! The divided Wet'suwet'en are struggling with their own internal self-determination - ya think!

Canada's responsibility is to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title sovereignty. The traditional Wet'suet'en Nation Council is the appropriate leadership for that Federal task.

fixed it for ya! Crown sovereignty reigns... supreme, regardless of reconciled title. Care to dispute that, hey! C'mon - show us just how little you truly know.

wait, what's this! Why it's a member Granny own-goal... and a beauty! Fresh off her saying, "it's not our business", "butt out of their business", here comes member Granny weighing in with a definitive statement designating, as she said, "appropriate leadership". That's gold member Granny, real gold!  ;D

I'm kind of interested in what Skeena MLA Ellis Ross - former Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation, has had to say. After his debate dust-up with a First Nations activist on Solomon's Power Play, he's being regularly sought out for comment. Rightly or wrongly, he challenges the view that hereditary chiefs speak for the respective First Nation members. He emphasizes there is no case law to support that premise... and that there is no single common point of, "decision hierarchy", across the myriad of 120+ B.C. First Nations. And yet the hypocritical member Granny makes a call to respect Indigenous self-determination... while at the same time stating who/what she interprets as the, "appropriate leadership"! So hypocritical you are, hey member Granny!

The pipeline is still BC's issue.

perhaps tell that to your Mohawk protectors - yes?