Canadian Politics Today

Do I really have to explain to you why freedom of thought, expression, association and assembly and civil disobedience are necessary to democracy?

Governments and corporations can't be trusted to do the right thing.
The only violence against people has been committed by police, with support of governments and corporations.

Civil disobedience occurs when governments persist in wrong directions for too long. It's the honourable thing, the right thing to do, to correct government and corporate intransigence.

Don't expect it to be pretty: Asking nicely has not worked. Electing a different political party has not worked (Lib Con NDP ... no difference. They all work on behalf of the corporations.)

sad strawman - sad!! Try addressing what I actually wrote; again:

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.

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.

"We need to come to a Wet'suwet'en solution together ... The whole nation should come together and discuss both the agreement and the pipeline itself," said George, whose band is one of five Wet'suwet'en First Nations that have signed deals with Coastal GasLink.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chief-dan-george-finding-wetsuweten-resolution-1.5482872

Quote from: Granny on March 03, 2020, 03:57:54 pm

Waldo is wrong. 4 Chief positions are vacant. I don't know where he got his numbers, but I would not trust his interpretation.

I got my numbers from media accounts. In one post, as I stated/quoted, no less than the Premier of Alberta stated that 8 Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs were in favour of the pipeline... I even went to the point of stating in my post that Jason Kenney's accounting differed from the one I had provided (per the multiple media accounts I've read, the total number of hereditary chiefs mentioned was 13... that 8 of those 13 were in stated to be in favour of the CGL pipeline)... where Jason Kenney mentioned a 12 count, rather than a 13 total count. I've previously quoted from and/or linked to these accounts - you've provided SFA!

and I believe 13 is the proper total count as it coincides with the 13 houses of the 5 clans... where each respective house has a chief. Now if you'd like to provide a different accounting, step-up! While you're giving a tally count of those hereditary chiefs in favour and those opposed, make sure you touch upon one of my favourite points that will always bite your squawking "duty-to-consult" parroting-azz... the one that has media accounts stating that (at least) 5 of those 13 hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Councilors... that were involved with consultations with CGL and the province... for some (if not all) of the 5+ year period of negotiations between CGL, the province and the respective Band Chiefs/Band Councils.

no comment, member Granny? No comment?

Feb 28 - Open letter to Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs after Tsayu clan meeting - author Troy Young (Wit'suwet'en, matrilineally descended from Na’Moks Lucy Holland in the Tsayu clan, with my father clan being Laksilyu.)

We have seen three female chiefs being stripped of their name because they don’t agree with the “Hereditary Chiefs” within the society that is the Office of the Wet’suwet’en. This stripping was not done following our law. We have seen individuals be given Chief’s names that then flout our Law on many fronts. A newly named chief can’t speak for a year, yet these new chiefs have been vocal in the media. We have seen a chief break our Law by claiming a name from another house. We have seen a chief name be given to some whose parents sit together in the feast hall. We have seen adoptions across clans take place without merit or proper transfer.
.
The decisions seem to be taking place in Smithers at the Office of the Wet’suwet’en {OW}, a registered society created to negotiate treaty following the SCC victory. Our laws dictate that the feast hall is where decisions are made. This has not been followed, with the OW acting like a government, which they are not. Our chiefs are to meet with their house groups and do as the house group decides; they are not the decision makers. In the past the Tsayu clan representative has set up Tsayu clan meetings on a near monthly basis, and our chief has only ever showed up to the first meeting, never to meet with his clan again. How does he speak on behalf of a house group he doesn’t have time to meet with? Then the clan representative was changed, and the meetings became exclusive, with very limited notice to times and dates.
.
One chief complaint of some house chiefs has been that industry and government won’t talk to the OW. Now that they have been offered the opportunity, they have not taken advantage of the offer. The elected councils of Witset, Nee Tahi Buhn, Wet’suwet’en First Nation (Broman Lake), Skin Tyee, and Ts’il Kaz Koh (Burns Lake Band) all signed agreements with industry and government to provide a step to further discussions with government. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en also entered negotiation with industry and government over pipelines, but were removed by Witset because of internal disagreements over how the negotiations took place, and who was to benefit from any agreement reached. Even when Witset took over negotiations, Witset council invited the house chiefs to attend all negotiations to provide advice and counsel. The OW has prevented the chiefs from attending the negotiations under threat of removal from their paid positions.

I speak outside the Feast Hall now because some of our house chiefs have decided that only their voice matters and they are expressing it in the public. I call on all Witsuwit’en to talk to their elders, matriarchs, wing chiefs, and house chiefs to remind our house chiefs of their duties to uphold our Law, and for our house chiefs to listen. They must understand that they are chiefs so that they can carry our voice and do our bidding, they are not our dictators. They need to be reminded that they carry the name of someone who was remembered, and if they tarnish this memory, it will not be forgotten.
.
Witsuwit’en have wanted to get government talking, and now that the opportunity is here, some would sooner go to court. This makes no sense when we have the ability control how we negotiate; be we lose control if we let a court decide.

We have all talked about self-reliance and the need to control our future. Industry is paying our communities for access to the territory, with no control over how the money gets spent. Our leaders get to control the funds coming in to spend as their members wish, not at the behest of INAC agents. This is an important step, not having an overseer is admirable.

To be successful, we need our house chiefs and our elected chiefs to work for the betterment of all Witsuwit’en – our children, our elders, our chiefs, our matriarchs.

further to your agenda driven narrative, the waldo will point out the following (per the G&M) - hardly seems like your oft expressed call for "fair dealings", right? Amirite? Does this account for your referenced "vacant positions"? Were you less than forthright in failing to speak to how positions became vacant?

so, per the Globe&Mail, some hereditary chiefs in favour of the pipeline are said to have had their chiefly titles stripped... while, again per the Globe&Mail account, the legitimacy of 3 hereditary chiefs opposed to the pipeline is being questioned, being challenged! Fair dealings, hey member Granny - fair dealings!

no comment, member Granny? No comment?

No, no comment. Internal Wet'suet'en business is not my business, and I know the divisions are caused intentionally by corporate (TC Energy/CGL: $350m+? in bribes) and government (Federal & BC) money interests.

We are also fighting a pipeline in my community. There would and will be hell to pay if the pipeline company starts flinging millions of dollars around in bribes to nearby landowners and communities to create fake lobby groups and lobbyists (like yourself) to support that project. We already nailed Enbridge's a$$ for 'donating' money for ATVs to the police (so they can patrol Enbridge's pipeline and protesters?!)

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6087125-dreschel-enbridge-pulls-plug-on-police-grants/
Enbridge Pipelines has stopped giving equipment grants to police services across Canada because of criticisms from Hamilton activists.
Our community business is no one else's business to judge or try to manipulate people with propaganda or bribes.
Likewise, Wet'suet'en community business is nobody's business to judge or try to manipulate with propaganda or bribes.

Now, what is your opinion about the fake grassroots "astroturf" business and industry propaganda groups I posted above? Are you on their payroll?

And btw, you take up a lot of space with waldo-quoting-waldo, interfering with other people's discussions. Is that part of your propaganda strategy?

No, no comment. Internal Wet'suet'en business is not my business, and I know the divisions are caused intentionally by corporate (TC Energy/CGL: $350m+? in bribes) and government (Federal & BC) money interests.

nice to see you rise to a conspiracy level! Obviously, you've never considered... accepted... the most legitimate/overwhelming internal Wet'suwet'en support for the CGL pipeline. And now you further denigrate those Wet'suwet'en claiming their decisions aren't their own! Oh my, member Granny - oh my!

now this latest round of questioning the legitimacy of the key proponent hereditary chiefs - that questioning has made itself known as a part of multiple mainstream media articles. And, of course, this is now being "weaponized" by CPC/Conservative supporters on a two-fold basis:
1 - questioning the legitimacy of who actually speaks for the Wet'suwet'en - hence questioning the current process/undertaking and, effectively, forming negative impressions against reconciliation itself.
2 - denigrating the federal government (and of course PM Trudeau himself) for being... supposedly... taken in by an illegitimate group; one falsely claiming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en at large

so ya, just who speaks (legitimately) for the Wet'suwet'en is a most significant point of interest... and need to know... for Canadians. I appreciate you'd just like any questioning to "go away" ala your perpetual plaintive wails of, "none of my business... no ones business but theirs"!

And btw, you take up a lot of space with waldo-quoting-waldo, interfering with other people's discussions. Is that part of your propaganda strategy?

so... opinion/fact that doesn't align with your opinion and treasure-trove of unsubstantiated statements/claims... that's, as you say, "propaganda"!  And the waldo quotes the waldo when you purposely drop bull-shyte intended to bury those inconvenient (for you) waldo gems - the ones you forever ignore, the ones you refuse to comment on.

I'm not invested in pushing a fracked gas pipeline as you are, waldo. Your issues are not my issues and I don't answer your divide-and-conquer colonial propaganda nonsense. I don't even believe the pipeline and shipping terminal is viable anymore. I think after all the upheaval and some time passes, TC Energy will just quietly pull out, and by then it won't even be a surprise.

your naivety knows no bounds! You have no credibility around the climate file... you know bupkis about it! As I previously stated:

'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation

notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).

Wet'suet'en people will decide for themselves.

of course you won't accept that the Wet'suwet'en have already decided for themselves... along with 19 other impacted First Nations who want the pipeline and have negotiated significant benefit agreements with both CGL and the province. You refuse to admit this and instead purposely conflate the pipeline with border declarations. You are one of the most dishonest and disingenuous... and flat-out purveyors of bullshyte I've ever encountered on any discussion board.