Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 1776 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #405 on: March 06, 2020, 05:04:46 am »
I'll be very interested to see the results when all Clans come together. History in the making.

very interested are you? And yet... somehow... you refuse to comment on those multiple media accounts and first hand challenges being made by some Wet'suwet'en that question the legitimacy of that small minority of anti-pipeline hereditary chiefs presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en. Accounts/challenges that speak to pipeline proponent chiefs being stripped of their hereditary titles; accounts that challenge the granting of hereditary chief title to non-Wet'suwet'en, etc.. How come you won't comment on this, as you say, history in the making? Oh wait, you have commented on these most inconvenient accounts/questions/challenges - after all your past blathering blusterbus throughout this thread, you do comment! You throw out your go-to lines, "not my business... no one's business but theirs"!

you also refuse to recognize that significant harm... perhaps irreparable harm on some levels, that has been done in terms of how many Canadians now negatively view reconciliation in relation to those railway blockades that significantly harmed the federal/provincial economies, that significantly impacted upon small business across Canada, that caused companies to layoff employees, that had many Canadians incensed at the unlawful actions of protestors openly ignoring court ordered injunctions, etc.. You know, all that and more that contributed to your most gleeful comment about, "how easy it was to shut Canada down"!
Old Old x 1 View List


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #407 on: March 09, 2020, 12:55:57 pm »
Activist-backed male chiefs’ attempt to ‘unperson’ female leaders ends up in court --- Female hereditary chiefs who are fighting for the future of their people share their stories in harrowing court documents.

Quote
Three independently-minded female Wet’suwet’en leaders have had enough of the attacks from a small group of activist-backed men, who claimed this spring to have “stripped” the hereditary chief titles given to the women by their families decades ago.

Now, the women are fighting back in court.

After years of mistreatment in their home communities, Theresa Tait-Day, Gloria George, and Darlene Glaim are speaking up, with powerful statements and stories about how they have been “unpersoned” 1984-style for merely trying to follow the will of their people. The experience has been traumatic for them, they say, describing how they have been shunned, insulted, demeaned, marginalized, and met with hostility for years ever since they decided to support a natural gas pipeline connecting Peace River country gas fields with Kitimat’s port, passing through their territory in the middle of northern BC.

The women provided sworn affidavits to support TC Energy Corp’s Coastal GasLink pipeline project, which was in court this week to ask the judge to extend an injunction preventing activists from harassing and impeding pipeline construction workers this summer.

They say a few male hereditary chiefs, propped up by activists intent on stopping the pipeline, had no authority to take away any of their hereditary titles. The female chiefs provided the court with details showing how the Wet’suwet’en political and cultural system functions, and why they cannot be “stripped” of their titles.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #408 on: March 10, 2020, 09:06:53 am »
Activist-backed male chiefs’ attempt to ‘unperson’ female leaders ends up in court --- Female hereditary chiefs who are fighting for the future of their people share their stories in harrowing court documents.

Interesting from several perspectives.

Canada has three founding peoples: Indigenous, French and English.

Canadian Law includes three corresponding legal traditions: Indigenous Law, French Civil Code and English Common Law.


Traditionally, Indigenous Law exists in oral tradition sometimes associated with wampum belt and other forms of recording treaties and Indigenous Laws.

EG1, The principles of Peace, Power and Rightousness of the commonly adopted Indigenous Nations
 Great Law of Peace:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace

EG2, The over-arching pre-contract treaty among Indigenous peoples, that records Peace, Friendship and Respect among Indigenous Nations, and was also extended to European settlers on arrival in 'the New World',
Two Row Wampum Treaty

https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/a-short-introduction-to-the-two-row-wampum

The belt consists of two rows of purple wampum beads on a white background. Three rows of white beads symbolizing peace, friendship, and respect separate the two purple rows. The two purple rows symbolize two paths or two vessels travelling down the same river. One row symbolizes the Haudenosaunee people with their law and customs, while the other row symbolizes European laws and customs. As nations move together side-by-side on the River of Life, they are to avoid overlapping or interfering with one another.”

Prior to the Constitution Act (1982) Indigenous Law was not codified into Canadian Law (except, perhaps in some elements of the 'Indian' Act ?).
Following the Constitution Act (1982) that changed:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Elements of Indigenous Law are now codified into Canadian Law with every court case where Aboriginal rights are addressed because they intersect with, and  are "read in" to, and thus become codified in Canadian Law.

This case will be interesting because the issue of "stripping" traditional Chiefs of their titles and duties within an Indigenous Nation does not really intersect with existing Canadian Law, except perhaps in  Delgamuukw (1997) via its recognition of Wet'suet'en  (and Gitxsan) traditional Chiefs as Aboriginal rights holders for the people of their respective nations.

It is also noteworthy that Clan Mothers Councils traditionally hold equal power to male Chiefs Councils, and the power to appoint and to 'de-horn' Chiefs.
I'm not aware of any traditional law where women are appointed as Chiefs, and to me that seems a lessening of their power (but my feelings are irrelevant to their decisions).
The 'power' of a traditional Chief is not authoritarian, but derives from their position as receiver and spokesperson for of consensus decisions by all people within each of their Clans (facilitated by Clan Mothers).

So it will be interesting to see how, or whether,  Canadian courts and Canadian Law will address this intriguing issue of traditional Indigenous leadership.

It is noteworthy that some Indigenous Nations have become mired in white man's patriarchal distortions of leadership that disrespect women's roles and power, so again intriguing to see how these issues will be presented and addressed in white man's court.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 10:09:31 am by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #409 on: March 10, 2020, 04:25:48 pm »
Hmmm ... just realized that your article is from July 2019, and the papers were filed to support the Coastal GasLink injunction granted in February.

So no judge will be adjudicating the issues raised by these women. I would have been very surprised if they had submitted it for adjudication.

So, it's just information from their perspective.
The headline is misleading because it is not current, and there is no adjudication as implied.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 04:28:35 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #410 on: March 11, 2020, 12:11:03 am »
Hmmm ... just realized that your article is from July 2019, and the papers were filed to support the Coastal GasLink injunction granted in February.

The headline is misleading because it is not current, and there is no adjudication as implied.

no - you inferred incorrectly. The quote I provided states that the female hereditary chiefs provided affidavits in support of the CGL pipeline... affidavits that spoke to how "the illegitimate 5" either stole hereditary titles from the women or were improperly given their title. Again, this was intended to align with the waldo's continued emphasis on challenges to the legitimacy of this group of 5 suspect hereditary chiefs presuming to speak for... improperly speaking for... the Wet'suwet'en.

in any case, it was a waldo teaser; a teaser to set-up today's meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs - where the same Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait Day gave testimony that addressed the illegitimate makeup of the current group presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en... and how that group (together with anti-pipeline activists) worked to silence Wet'suwet'en proponents of the CGL pipeline:

=> video of complete 2.5 hour committee meeting

note: (Chief Theresa Tait Day's 12 minute testimony begins at ~12:42:20... followed by Q&A with Committee members)

Pipeline project was 'hijacked' by 'group of five guys,' former Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief tells MPs --- The hereditary chiefs were being supported by environmentalists who were disrespecting the rest of the Wet’suwet’en community, Tait Day said

so ya member Granny, the waldo's past questioning of the legitimacy of the current 5 "hereditary chiefs" presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en was/is key... in spite of how you wigged out over it - no matter how loud you barked about it being, "none of our business... that it was only the business of the Wet'suwet'en themselves".
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #411 on: March 11, 2020, 02:09:05 pm »
Be part of the 'divide and conquer' strategy if you wish.
I choose not.

Are you also going to try to divide my community as we fight a pipeline?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #412 on: March 11, 2020, 05:26:47 pm »
Be part of the 'divide and conquer' strategy if you wish. I choose not.

throughout this thread the waldo has repeatedly advocated for that most significant majority of the Wet'suwet'en that stand in favour of the CGL pipeline... while also questioning and challenging the legitimacy of those select 5 "hereditary chiefs" who currently presume to speak for the Wet'suwet'en; those 5 "hereditary chief"s who are said to have either stolen their titles or had them inappropriately designated.

you'll need to properly state why you choose to ignore the wants (and needs) of the overwhelming majority of the Wet'suwet'en that is in favour of the pipeline - and why you choose to ignore questions about and challenges to the legitimacy of that select minority subset of but 5, "hereditary chiefs", who currently presume to speak for the whole Wet'suwet'en nation. Just what is your 'divide and conquer' strategy, hey member Granny?

Are you also going to try to divide my community as we fight a pipeline?

to properly respond, the waldo needs you to identify your community, the pipeline you're referencing... and the fight you're actively engaged in. You can do that, right? Sure you can!

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #413 on: March 12, 2020, 08:59:44 pm »
you'll need to properly state why ... 

I don't "need to" explain anything to you. 

The one thing I do know for certain is that Wet'suet'en people have many millennia of sticking together, and a very strong pull to continue that way. That should never be underestimated.

And we also should never underestimate the devious and underhanded tricks, payoffs and violence that governments and corporations will stoop to to try to divide and conquer Indigenous communities, for greed.

Why is this pipeline so important to you that you would join in their vicious attacks on the Wet'suet'en community? Malice? Money?

Quote
to properly respond, the waldo needs you to identify your community, the pipeline you're referencing... and the fight you're actively engaged in. You can do that, right? Sure you can!

It's irrelevant.

My question was ... would you stoop to devious divide and conquer attacks, payoffs and smear tactics to push a pipeline through a non-Indigenous community?


Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #414 on: March 13, 2020, 12:18:59 am »
Be part of the 'divide and conquer' strategy if you wish. I choose not.
throughout this thread the waldo has repeatedly advocated for that most significant majority of the Wet'suwet'en that stand in favour of the CGL pipeline... while also questioning and challenging the legitimacy of those select 5 "hereditary chiefs" who currently presume to speak for the Wet'suwet'en; those 5 "hereditary chief"s who are said to have either stolen their titles or had them inappropriately designated.

you'll need to properly state why you choose to ignore the wants (and needs) of the overwhelming majority of the Wet'suwet'en that is in favour of the pipeline - and why you choose to ignore questions about and challenges to the legitimacy of that select minority subset of but 5, "hereditary chiefs", who currently presume to speak for the whole Wet'suwet'en nation. Just what is your 'divide and conquer' strategy, hey member Granny?
And we also should never underestimate the devious and underhanded tricks, payoffs and violence that governments and corporations will stoop to to try to divide and conquer Indigenous communities, for greed.

Why is this pipeline so important to you that you would join in their vicious attacks on the Wet'suet'en community? Malice? Money?

your, "try to divide and conquer" phrasing is gold! Of course it presumes upon a cohesive united Wet'suwet'en being divided... which is, of course, you simply showcasing more of your agenda-driven bullshyte! Should I repeat that post where I detail the monetary and benefits packages negotiated between the province, CGL and the 20 First Nations impacted by the CGL pipeline route... the same post where I also further detail specific monetary/benefits realized by the Wet'suwet'en?

your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy is one that has you completely ignoring the 5+ year relationships struck between the respective Band Councils, the Province of B.C. and CGL... and the resulting negotiated settlements with their most significant monetary and benefits realized. More pointedly, your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy has you belittling the will of the First Nation Band Councils/members and, most pointedly per this threads focus, that of the overwhelming majority of the Wet'suwet'en themselves who are in favour of the CGL pipeline. Here, ignore this image detailing the 20 First Nations that negotiated agreements:



Are you also going to try to divide my community as we fight a pipeline?
to properly respond, the waldo needs you to identify your community, the pipeline you're referencing... and the fight you're actively engaged in. You can do that, right? Sure you can!
It's irrelevant.

My question was ... would you stoop to devious divide and conquer attacks, payoffs and smear tactics to push a pipeline through a non-Indigenous community?

such puffery on your part!  ;D If you had any real conviction you'd identify the community you represent... and why you're against said pipeline (which ever pipeline that actually is... so strange you can't even state that!).

I repeated a post (several times now) that corrected your lack of knowledge concerning, just as one example, life-cycle emissions for B.C. fracked gas (particularly in relation to Asian export markets presently relying upon coal). Of course, I also knocked back your nonsense where you claimed the CGL pipeline brought no benefits to the general B.C. populace. Perhaps you could try a re-do and have another go as to why you're so set against the CGL pipeline... you know, where you come up with something other than the standard go-to claiming industry greed!

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #415 on: March 13, 2020, 09:42:02 am »

your, "try to divide and conquer" phrasing is gold! Of course it presumes upon a cohesive united Wet'suwet'en being divided... which is, of course, you simply showcasing more of your agenda-driven bullshyte! Should I repeat that post where I detail the monetary and benefits packages negotiated between the province, CGL and the 20 First Nations impacted by the CGL pipeline route... the same post where I also further detail specific monetary/benefits realized by the Wet'suwet'en?

your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy is one that has you completely ignoring the 5+ year relationships struck between the respective Band Councils, the Province of B.C. and CGL... and the resulting negotiated settlements with their most significant monetary and benefits realized. More pointedly, your personal agenda-driven divide & conquer strategy has you belittling the will of the First Nation Band Councils/members

I belittle no one.

As I said above:

The one thing I do know for certain is that Wet'suet'en people have many millennia of sticking together, and a very strong pull to continue that way. That should never be underestimated.

As one pro-pipeline elected band chief, Dan George, recently said to the CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.5491009/elected-chiefs-should-have-been-at-the-table-for-wet-suwet-en-deal-says-chief-dan-george-1.5491011

“If we can come together and create a governance system and work together, I think that’s the only silver lining that can come out of this.”

I think all Wet'suet'en people have the same strong desire to be unified, to reach the "silver lining", to "come together".

Do not underestimate the power of that desire for unity. It has sustained the Wet'suet'en Nation for thousands of years, will continue to, and clearly does continue as evidenced by 'Chief' Dan George's statement.

Hereditary/traditional governance is reviving, after being outlawed by Canada, penalized, jailed, punished, decimated by Canada (via the RCMP) through most of the 20th century. Wives of traditional leaders were targeted for sterilization to disrupt hereditary lines, their children were targeted and treated most harshly in the 'Indian' Residential Schools. Ceremonies, regalia, wampum belts and other sacred things were stolen (RCMP), destroyed ... criminalized ... in Canada's attempts to make way for resource industries by stomping out traditional Councils, because they are the rights holders and protectors of the land.

Today's divisions - via CGL bribery, smear tactics and other colonial/industry attempts to divide-and-conquer the Wet'suet'en Nation, with RCMP continuing their 150+ years of complicity in carrying out the wishes of governments and industry and also protecting their own pension plan investments, to gain a for-profit (not for domestic use) gas pipeline - are just more of the 20th century tactics.

But as you see from Dan George's statement, even a pro-pipeline band chief still has a strong desire for unity among all Wet'suet'en people.

That unity may blossom through the current talks about the Federal process for establishing rights and title. It's quite likely that all Wet'suet'en members will come together and embrace an opportunity for declaration of Aboriginal title.

I make no predictions about agreement on the pipeline, though I will note that CGL's abrupt rejection of alternative routes proposed by hereditary Chiefs, and then walking away from talks with them, will no doubt again be a topic of discussion (following 'title' talks).

I also note that the current pipeline route is most destructive to the territory of the Clans that are most involved in the blockades. That unfairness may be a topic of discussion too.

There is space for Wet'suet'en people to come together around routing of the pipeline. It is a space -alternative routes - that CGL/TCEnergy has adamantly refused to consider.
If appealed, that failure to meaningfully consult and adequately accommodate concerns and alternate routes could be seen by the Supreme Court of Canada as a failure by the Crown/BC to fulfill its duties.
In that event, a project can be shut down.

My only prediction is ... it isn't over.  : - )
« Last Edit: March 13, 2020, 11:03:25 am by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #416 on: March 13, 2020, 11:47:42 am »
I belittle no one. As I said above:

The one thing I do know for certain is that Wet'suet'en people have many millennia of sticking together, and a very strong pull to continue that way. That should never be underestimated.

of course you belittle the Wet'suwet'en... and the other 19 First Nations that want the CGL pipeline for the benefits and opportunities it presents to them. Your agenda doesn't allow you to accept that these 20 Band Chiefs/Councils can... and did make their own decisions in negotiating with the province of B.C. and the pipeline company CGL. And most certainly, you scored another own goal - yet another... cause nothing aligns more with your nattering "sticking together", than being able to shove those negotiated agreements down your fake/fraud festering mouth!

you have the gall to keep barking out your "sticking together" nonsense while refusing to recognize the questions about and challenges to the legitimacy of the "claimed illegitimate 5" that presumes to speak for the Wet'suwet'en... the 5 "hereditary chiefs" that are said to have either stolen their titles or had them inappropriately designated. Your kind of "sticking together", hey!  ;D

Today's divisions - via CGL bribery, smear tactics and other colonial/industry attempts to divide-and-conquer the Wet'suet'en Nation, with RCMP continuing their 150+ years of complicity in carrying out the wishes of governments and industry and also protecting their own pension plan investments, to gain a for-profit (not for domestic use) gas pipeline - are just more of the 20th century tactics.

as has been your personal showcased strategy of 'divide & conquer', you self-servingly and most selectively conflate the pipeline with rights/title... and you particularly do so when your failed talking points concerning the pipeline are repeatedly exposed - when that happens all of a sudden you quit mentioning the pipeline and pull rights/title from your bullshyte grab bag. As your emissions related talking point has been busted by the waldo, I see you're now reverting back to your other, "pipeline not for domestic use", bluster. In that regard, as I've mentioned previously, the Horgan NDP government has designs on significant monetary returns for natural gas as tied to royalties and taxes... as contributed to the so-called "Prosperity Fund".

you're nothing but a fake, fraud and dishonest purveyor of bullshyte. I will go so far as to categorically state that all rights/title means to you, is its another false ploy you utilize to attempt to support your prevailing anti-pipeline agenda. That's it! You're nothing more than a down&dirty enviro-activist plying your own special brand of 21st century colonialism against First Nations... 20 First Nations... who want/accept the CGL pipeline route and the benefits/opportunities the pipeline brings to them. Why are you trying to keep the IndigenousManWoman down, member Granny - why?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #417 on: March 13, 2020, 01:48:03 pm »
I don't know whose payroll you're on, but clearly you have no interest in truly comprehending Indigenous societies, nor in any facts that don't fit the agenda you are here to push - BC's pipeline.

You do no favors to your Party, province, pipeline nor your preferred First Nations with your offensive and disparaging approach.

Read again the words of one of your preferred First Nation elected Chiefs:

“If we can come together and create a governance system and work together, I think that’s the only silver lining that can come out of this.”


I believe it would be beneficial to all of Canadian society if you shut your very divisive and extremely disrespectful yap, waldo.


/ignore

« Last Edit: March 13, 2020, 03:03:19 pm by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4031
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #418 on: March 15, 2020, 01:32:10 pm »
You do no favors to your... preferred First Nations with your offensive and disparaging approach.

I believe it would be beneficial to all of Canadian society if you shut your very divisive and extremely disrespectful yap, waldo.

"my preferred First Nations"? Oh my! Holding a position that aligns with the overwhelming majority of pipeline impacted First Nations, of the Wet'suet'en, only "offends" your anti-pipeline agenda. Highlighting those 3rd-party questions & challenges being made to the legitimacy of the existing minority subset of 5 "hereditary chiefs" presuming to speak for the Wet'suwet'en is disparaging only if that minority subset is legitimate. Member Granny, are you categorically stating those 5 "hereditary chiefs" hold/received their titles legitimately? Is that what you're saying member Granny?

how pompous of you to presume to speak for, "all of Canadian society"!  ;D

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #419 on: March 15, 2020, 05:53:25 pm »
I'm not one who decides that.
Nor are you.