[Canadian Politics] Trudeau says only his Guns allowed

13335373839

Posts

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »

    Question on this: I'm assuming this is the BC pipeline issue? From what I've read, the pipeline company signed agreements with every elected band council along the route and the opposition is coming from the fact that a number of hereditary chiefs believe that their assent is needed too. The courts have consistently ruled for the pipeline company due to the assent of the elected councils, so while I understand that, in general, Canada hasn't the best record with indigenous affairs, I have a harder time supporting the notion of a hereditary ruling class over-ruling the elected officials here.

    Its a bit more complicated than that, this is from last year:

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/01/10/Unistoten-Movement-Law-Its-Side/

    A snippet from the article but it is informative to give the whole thing a read, not sure what exactly has changed significantly in the courts for this to not be a solid break down of the contention at the heart of this:
    Public opinion on who is right and who is wrong continues to rage on social media and in the news. Inquiring minds want to understand why the Wet’suwet’en want to stop the development of the pipeline. They want to understand the differences between hereditary and Indian Act elected chiefs and council. Once you have answers to these questions, you can decide if this was an injustice.

    I think there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Hereditary Chiefs, a term the rest of us assigned them actually, when we consider them all to be similar to monarchs when that is not the case. When I personally have inquired as to just what a chief does, usually when I've heard a First Nation member complaining about their Sachem or Ha'wiih, its struck me as very similar to our Senators:
    • multiple positions aka not a lone ruler
    • not elected
    • supposed to lead with honour and be aspirational community members
    • meant to be life long appointments
    • meant to represent long term welfare of a nation
    • meant to be a chamber of sober second thought
    • a part of the approval process of the ascension of decisions to laws
    • they hold votes among themselves
    And while our federation’s senators also have its detractors, especially when senators don’t conduct themselves with honour, they are recognized as official but First Nations hereditary chiefs and elder institutions are not recognized as official, even when they are recognized in that First Nation’s constitution that they developed rather than imposed obligations in the Indian Act.

    And dependent on which First Nation you got to know by listening to their life stories, I think you might find Chiefs aren’t ‘just born’ either, they are moulded by the teachings of their elders, recognizing their ancestors, and raised by their communities. In some of the harder hit communities, Residential School did generational damage to their family units and subsequently the chiefs institutions suffered as well. I learned about this when I asked “Who was the first set of chiefs that made the hereditary chiefs a thing?”and “By what criteria are new chiefs appointed?” Different Nations had different answers, not all their chiefs were the same, but more often than not I was told their duties and it sounded very similar to the role a Senator commits to.
    Prior to colonization, many Indigenous nations, such as the Haida, Nisga’a, Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka’wakw had hereditary chiefs. The Indian Act imposed a system of governance in which chiefs had to be elected. For Indigenous nations that already had established lines of hereditary chiefs, this new system threatened to overturn traditional modes of governance. Even for people who were familiar with selecting chiefs by group consensus prior to the Indian Act, such as some Cree and Mohawkbands, the Act abolished various customs, such as women’s involvement in the election process (until 1951 when the Indian Act was amended).
    Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chief

    Imagine tomorrow if the USA made our Senate illegal, not recognizing it in much the same manner, saying only our House of Commons would be recognized and only if we followed the rules exactly as set out in their North America Act. I am willing to bet, a bunch of Canadians would still recognize the Senate, disconnects between approved bills and the Senators would arise and protests would happen. That’s essentially what we are doing to Nations within our Federation when we don’t recognize their political structures as holding validity and why not finishing treaty ratification before land use agreements are signed like this leads to an up swell of protest. It is unfortunately a deeper issue than just a pipeline.

    OK, but

    the people who actually got the mandate from the masses made a deal.

  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »

    Question on this: I'm assuming this is the BC pipeline issue? From what I've read, the pipeline company signed agreements with every elected band council along the route and the opposition is coming from the fact that a number of hereditary chiefs believe that their assent is needed too. The courts have consistently ruled for the pipeline company due to the assent of the elected councils, so while I understand that, in general, Canada hasn't the best record with indigenous affairs, I have a harder time supporting the notion of a hereditary ruling class over-ruling the elected officials here.

    Its a bit more complicated than that, this is from last year:

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/01/10/Unistoten-Movement-Law-Its-Side/

    A snippet from the article but it is informative to give the whole thing a read, not sure what exactly has changed significantly in the courts for this to not be a solid break down of the contention at the heart of this:
    Public opinion on who is right and who is wrong continues to rage on social media and in the news. Inquiring minds want to understand why the Wet’suwet’en want to stop the development of the pipeline. They want to understand the differences between hereditary and Indian Act elected chiefs and council. Once you have answers to these questions, you can decide if this was an injustice.

    I think there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Hereditary Chiefs, a term the rest of us assigned them actually, when we consider them all to be similar to monarchs when that is not the case. When I personally have inquired as to just what a chief does, usually when I've heard a First Nation member complaining about their Sachem or Ha'wiih, its struck me as very similar to our Senators:
    • multiple positions aka not a lone ruler
    • not elected
    • supposed to lead with honour and be aspirational community members
    • meant to be life long appointments
    • meant to represent long term welfare of a nation
    • meant to be a chamber of sober second thought
    • a part of the approval process of the ascension of decisions to laws
    • they hold votes among themselves
    And while our federation’s senators also have its detractors, especially when senators don’t conduct themselves with honour, they are recognized as official but First Nations hereditary chiefs and elder institutions are not recognized as official, even when they are recognized in that First Nation’s constitution that they developed rather than imposed obligations in the Indian Act.

    And dependent on which First Nation you got to know by listening to their life stories, I think you might find Chiefs aren’t ‘just born’ either, they are moulded by the teachings of their elders, recognizing their ancestors, and raised by their communities. In some of the harder hit communities, Residential School did generational damage to their family units and subsequently the chiefs institutions suffered as well. I learned about this when I asked “Who was the first set of chiefs that made the hereditary chiefs a thing?”and “By what criteria are new chiefs appointed?” Different Nations had different answers, not all their chiefs were the same, but more often than not I was told their duties and it sounded very similar to the role a Senator commits to.
    Prior to colonization, many Indigenous nations, such as the Haida, Nisga’a, Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka’wakw had hereditary chiefs. The Indian Act imposed a system of governance in which chiefs had to be elected. For Indigenous nations that already had established lines of hereditary chiefs, this new system threatened to overturn traditional modes of governance. Even for people who were familiar with selecting chiefs by group consensus prior to the Indian Act, such as some Cree and Mohawkbands, the Act abolished various customs, such as women’s involvement in the election process (until 1951 when the Indian Act was amended).
    Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chief

    Imagine tomorrow if the USA made our Senate illegal, not recognizing it in much the same manner, saying only our House of Commons would be recognized and only if we followed the rules exactly as set out in their North America Act. I am willing to bet, a bunch of Canadians would still recognize the Senate, disconnects between approved bills and the Senators would arise and protests would happen. That’s essentially what we are doing to Nations within our Federation when we don’t recognize their political structures as holding validity and why not finishing treaty ratification before land use agreements are signed like this leads to an up swell of protest. It is unfortunately a deeper issue than just a pipeline.

    OK, but

    the people who actually got the mandate from the masses made a deal.

    It's a mandate resulting from an externally imposed system, though.

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    The Cow KingCanadianWolverineJacoby
  • BlarghyBlarghy Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »

    Question on this: I'm assuming this is the BC pipeline issue? From what I've read, the pipeline company signed agreements with every elected band council along the route and the opposition is coming from the fact that a number of hereditary chiefs believe that their assent is needed too. The courts have consistently ruled for the pipeline company due to the assent of the elected councils, so while I understand that, in general, Canada hasn't the best record with indigenous affairs, I have a harder time supporting the notion of a hereditary ruling class over-ruling the elected officials here.

    Its a bit more complicated than that, this is from last year:

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/01/10/Unistoten-Movement-Law-Its-Side/

    A snippet from the article but it is informative to give the whole thing a read, not sure what exactly has changed significantly in the courts for this to not be a solid break down of the contention at the heart of this:
    Public opinion on who is right and who is wrong continues to rage on social media and in the news. Inquiring minds want to understand why the Wet’suwet’en want to stop the development of the pipeline. They want to understand the differences between hereditary and Indian Act elected chiefs and council. Once you have answers to these questions, you can decide if this was an injustice.

    I think there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Hereditary Chiefs, a term the rest of us assigned them actually, when we consider them all to be similar to monarchs when that is not the case. When I personally have inquired as to just what a chief does, usually when I've heard a First Nation member complaining about their Sachem or Ha'wiih, its struck me as very similar to our Senators:
    • multiple positions aka not a lone ruler
    • not elected
    • supposed to lead with honour and be aspirational community members
    • meant to be life long appointments
    • meant to represent long term welfare of a nation
    • meant to be a chamber of sober second thought
    • a part of the approval process of the ascension of decisions to laws
    • they hold votes among themselves
    And while our federation’s senators also have its detractors, especially when senators don’t conduct themselves with honour, they are recognized as official but First Nations hereditary chiefs and elder institutions are not recognized as official, even when they are recognized in that First Nation’s constitution that they developed rather than imposed obligations in the Indian Act.

    And dependent on which First Nation you got to know by listening to their life stories, I think you might find Chiefs aren’t ‘just born’ either, they are moulded by the teachings of their elders, recognizing their ancestors, and raised by their communities. In some of the harder hit communities, Residential School did generational damage to their family units and subsequently the chiefs institutions suffered as well. I learned about this when I asked “Who was the first set of chiefs that made the hereditary chiefs a thing?”and “By what criteria are new chiefs appointed?” Different Nations had different answers, not all their chiefs were the same, but more often than not I was told their duties and it sounded very similar to the role a Senator commits to.
    Prior to colonization, many Indigenous nations, such as the Haida, Nisga’a, Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka’wakw had hereditary chiefs. The Indian Act imposed a system of governance in which chiefs had to be elected. For Indigenous nations that already had established lines of hereditary chiefs, this new system threatened to overturn traditional modes of governance. Even for people who were familiar with selecting chiefs by group consensus prior to the Indian Act, such as some Cree and Mohawkbands, the Act abolished various customs, such as women’s involvement in the election process (until 1951 when the Indian Act was amended).
    Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chief

    Imagine tomorrow if the USA made our Senate illegal, not recognizing it in much the same manner, saying only our House of Commons would be recognized and only if we followed the rules exactly as set out in their North America Act. I am willing to bet, a bunch of Canadians would still recognize the Senate, disconnects between approved bills and the Senators would arise and protests would happen. That’s essentially what we are doing to Nations within our Federation when we don’t recognize their political structures as holding validity and why not finishing treaty ratification before land use agreements are signed like this leads to an up swell of protest. It is unfortunately a deeper issue than just a pipeline.

    OK, but

    the people who actually got the mandate from the masses made a deal.

    It's a mandate resulting from an externally imposed system, though.

    Understood, but while system might be imposed, if its elective, why aren't the traditional chiefs just elected to official positions as a matter of course? Or, if they prefer to sit out, why aren't the elected representatives following their elder's guidance? Maybe its all a giant a protest against the illegitimacy of the system, but it also seems to be the case that, perhaps, the traditional chiefs aren't quite as universally recognized as authorities as they might like.

  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King scuz me ur under dog arrest Registered User regular
    edited January 14
    The land in the west is extra stolen and only now are we maybe getting white historians to actually believe oral accounts of history and tradition (Europeans have destroyed and ignored and changed so much history cause of their distaste for oral tradition btw so you should always assume the historian your reading was a piece of shit)
    Canada’s neglecting to mention the surrender clause during the treaty negotiation was not innocent forgetfulness. The surrender of lands was ignored during the negotiation of Treaties 1 through 7, which cover most of Western Canada. This was part of a strategic plan employed by the treaty commissioners to distance the Indigenous leadership from the treaty text. The treaty commissioners focused the negotiations on the verbal promises, including assistance with farming, the payment of annuities and education. They neglected to mention the jurisdiction of reserved lands, or the surrender of rights. The text of treaty was read publicly at each negotiation, but the commissioners carefully selected interpreters who were in favour of treaty, and held the readings only after the close of negotiations. The Indigenous chiefs were not required to sign the treaty or make their mark. They merely touched the pen of the clerk, or shook hands with the commissioners to show their agreement. The government’s approach to the numbered treaties was not naive. They employed former Hudson’s Bay Co. traders who knew the Indigenous communities well. They used this expertise to obfuscate the surrender of rights and lands to the point that the Indigenous leadership viewed the treaties as solemn agreements of peace and friendship.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-to-understand-why-the-land-remains-indigenous-look-to-history/

    The Cow King on
    icGJy2C.png
    CanadianWolverine
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    Corvus wrote: »

    Wouldn't regime change in Saudi Arabia also achieve this goal?



    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
    T-bolt
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    It's pretty silly to think your average Canadian would give much of a shit about the Senate disappearing imo.

    They would if it was a foreign government colonizing us by force and imposing that the Senate will disappear because they don't approve of this mode of governance.

    In fact, I think your average Canadian would become a staunch defender of the Senate in this scenario.

    Nah. I think they would definitely dislike the imposition of government from the outside but you wouldn't find much traction with trying to use "they took away The Senate!" as some sort of rallying cry.

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Corvus wrote: »

    Wouldn't regime change in Saudi Arabia also achieve this goal?

    Yes but, you see, that would reduce quarterly profits and is therefore the worst possible option.

    Ticaldfjam
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Corvus wrote: »

    Regime change certainly helped Canada in 2015...

    CorvusRichyshrykeZibblsnrtMuzzmuzzTicaldfjam
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited January 14
    Found a mini-documentary, hopefully it can help inform (edit - doesn't look like the preview is loading, sorry. Its a mini-doc about the Unist’ot’en Camp):



    Also, here is a civil moment on the bridge I found interesting (cute dog too):

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Blarghy wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »

    Question on this: I'm assuming this is the BC pipeline issue? From what I've read, the pipeline company signed agreements with every elected band council along the route and the opposition is coming from the fact that a number of hereditary chiefs believe that their assent is needed too. The courts have consistently ruled for the pipeline company due to the assent of the elected councils, so while I understand that, in general, Canada hasn't the best record with indigenous affairs, I have a harder time supporting the notion of a hereditary ruling class over-ruling the elected officials here.

    Its a bit more complicated than that, this is from last year:

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/01/10/Unistoten-Movement-Law-Its-Side/

    A snippet from the article but it is informative to give the whole thing a read, not sure what exactly has changed significantly in the courts for this to not be a solid break down of the contention at the heart of this:
    Public opinion on who is right and who is wrong continues to rage on social media and in the news. Inquiring minds want to understand why the Wet’suwet’en want to stop the development of the pipeline. They want to understand the differences between hereditary and Indian Act elected chiefs and council. Once you have answers to these questions, you can decide if this was an injustice.

    I think there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Hereditary Chiefs, a term the rest of us assigned them actually, when we consider them all to be similar to monarchs when that is not the case. When I personally have inquired as to just what a chief does, usually when I've heard a First Nation member complaining about their Sachem or Ha'wiih, its struck me as very similar to our Senators:
    • multiple positions aka not a lone ruler
    • not elected
    • supposed to lead with honour and be aspirational community members
    • meant to be life long appointments
    • meant to represent long term welfare of a nation
    • meant to be a chamber of sober second thought
    • a part of the approval process of the ascension of decisions to laws
    • they hold votes among themselves
    And while our federation’s senators also have its detractors, especially when senators don’t conduct themselves with honour, they are recognized as official but First Nations hereditary chiefs and elder institutions are not recognized as official, even when they are recognized in that First Nation’s constitution that they developed rather than imposed obligations in the Indian Act.

    And dependent on which First Nation you got to know by listening to their life stories, I think you might find Chiefs aren’t ‘just born’ either, they are moulded by the teachings of their elders, recognizing their ancestors, and raised by their communities. In some of the harder hit communities, Residential School did generational damage to their family units and subsequently the chiefs institutions suffered as well. I learned about this when I asked “Who was the first set of chiefs that made the hereditary chiefs a thing?”and “By what criteria are new chiefs appointed?” Different Nations had different answers, not all their chiefs were the same, but more often than not I was told their duties and it sounded very similar to the role a Senator commits to.
    Prior to colonization, many Indigenous nations, such as the Haida, Nisga’a, Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka’wakw had hereditary chiefs. The Indian Act imposed a system of governance in which chiefs had to be elected. For Indigenous nations that already had established lines of hereditary chiefs, this new system threatened to overturn traditional modes of governance. Even for people who were familiar with selecting chiefs by group consensus prior to the Indian Act, such as some Cree and Mohawkbands, the Act abolished various customs, such as women’s involvement in the election process (until 1951 when the Indian Act was amended).
    Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chief

    Imagine tomorrow if the USA made our Senate illegal, not recognizing it in much the same manner, saying only our House of Commons would be recognized and only if we followed the rules exactly as set out in their North America Act. I am willing to bet, a bunch of Canadians would still recognize the Senate, disconnects between approved bills and the Senators would arise and protests would happen. That’s essentially what we are doing to Nations within our Federation when we don’t recognize their political structures as holding validity and why not finishing treaty ratification before land use agreements are signed like this leads to an up swell of protest. It is unfortunately a deeper issue than just a pipeline.

    OK, but

    the people who actually got the mandate from the masses made a deal.

    It's a mandate resulting from an externally imposed system, though.

    Understood, but while system might be imposed, if its elective, why aren't the traditional chiefs just elected to official positions as a matter of course? Or, if they prefer to sit out, why aren't the elected representatives following their elder's guidance? Maybe its all a giant a protest against the illegitimacy of the system, but it also seems to be the case that, perhaps, the traditional chiefs aren't quite as universally recognized as authorities as they might like.

    I was just about to ask that exact question. Why doesn't the tribe just elect the hereditary chiefs and thus keep their leadership despite the Indian Act? I know it's not an ideal situation, but until we get a government willing to reopen the Indian Act it's a solution that would allow them to keep the leadership they want despite the rules imposed on them.

    sig.gif
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »

    Question on this: I'm assuming this is the BC pipeline issue? From what I've read, the pipeline company signed agreements with every elected band council along the route and the opposition is coming from the fact that a number of hereditary chiefs believe that their assent is needed too. The courts have consistently ruled for the pipeline company due to the assent of the elected councils, so while I understand that, in general, Canada hasn't the best record with indigenous affairs, I have a harder time supporting the notion of a hereditary ruling class over-ruling the elected officials here.

    Its a bit more complicated than that, this is from last year:

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/01/10/Unistoten-Movement-Law-Its-Side/

    A snippet from the article but it is informative to give the whole thing a read, not sure what exactly has changed significantly in the courts for this to not be a solid break down of the contention at the heart of this:
    Public opinion on who is right and who is wrong continues to rage on social media and in the news. Inquiring minds want to understand why the Wet’suwet’en want to stop the development of the pipeline. They want to understand the differences between hereditary and Indian Act elected chiefs and council. Once you have answers to these questions, you can decide if this was an injustice.

    I think there is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Hereditary Chiefs, a term the rest of us assigned them actually, when we consider them all to be similar to monarchs when that is not the case. When I personally have inquired as to just what a chief does, usually when I've heard a First Nation member complaining about their Sachem or Ha'wiih, its struck me as very similar to our Senators:
    • multiple positions aka not a lone ruler
    • not elected
    • supposed to lead with honour and be aspirational community members
    • meant to be life long appointments
    • meant to represent long term welfare of a nation
    • meant to be a chamber of sober second thought
    • a part of the approval process of the ascension of decisions to laws
    • they hold votes among themselves
    And while our federation’s senators also have its detractors, especially when senators don’t conduct themselves with honour, they are recognized as official but First Nations hereditary chiefs and elder institutions are not recognized as official, even when they are recognized in that First Nation’s constitution that they developed rather than imposed obligations in the Indian Act.

    And dependent on which First Nation you got to know by listening to their life stories, I think you might find Chiefs aren’t ‘just born’ either, they are moulded by the teachings of their elders, recognizing their ancestors, and raised by their communities. In some of the harder hit communities, Residential School did generational damage to their family units and subsequently the chiefs institutions suffered as well. I learned about this when I asked “Who was the first set of chiefs that made the hereditary chiefs a thing?”and “By what criteria are new chiefs appointed?” Different Nations had different answers, not all their chiefs were the same, but more often than not I was told their duties and it sounded very similar to the role a Senator commits to.
    Prior to colonization, many Indigenous nations, such as the Haida, Nisga’a, Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka’wakw had hereditary chiefs. The Indian Act imposed a system of governance in which chiefs had to be elected. For Indigenous nations that already had established lines of hereditary chiefs, this new system threatened to overturn traditional modes of governance. Even for people who were familiar with selecting chiefs by group consensus prior to the Indian Act, such as some Cree and Mohawkbands, the Act abolished various customs, such as women’s involvement in the election process (until 1951 when the Indian Act was amended).
    Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chief

    Imagine tomorrow if the USA made our Senate illegal, not recognizing it in much the same manner, saying only our House of Commons would be recognized and only if we followed the rules exactly as set out in their North America Act. I am willing to bet, a bunch of Canadians would still recognize the Senate, disconnects between approved bills and the Senators would arise and protests would happen. That’s essentially what we are doing to Nations within our Federation when we don’t recognize their political structures as holding validity and why not finishing treaty ratification before land use agreements are signed like this leads to an up swell of protest. It is unfortunately a deeper issue than just a pipeline.

    OK, but

    the people who actually got the mandate from the masses made a deal.

    It's a mandate resulting from an externally imposed system, though.

    Whatever system is in the treaty can be considered an externally imposed system. No population will ever be 100% happy with any decision so there needs to be a recognized set of leadership that we can make agreements with on behalf of the bands. We are going to require some sort of democratically accountable leadership no matter what, and if one of the provinces decided to make their legislatures only unelected I would expect the federal government to step in there too. Requiring an additional unelected senate-like body would be extraordinary - all provinces that have once had upper houses have dissolved them for example

    We are not making the Hereditary Chiefs illegal, we are just saying "we are only acting on what the elected council decides" and if the council chooses to listen to the chiefs or is even composed of the chiefs, we don't care, that's an internal matter, we just want to ensure that who we are talking with has the support of the population.

  • ElaroElaro Mister No Fun AllowedRegistered User regular
    Are we seriously, seriously, defending the right of oil companies to build oil pipelines in this, the year of "Oh my god, Australia is ON FIRE!" 2020?

    "Most people don't look at the world through your asshole"
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Disco11Gnome-Interruptus
  • ElaroElaro Mister No Fun AllowedRegistered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    "Most people don't look at the world through your asshole"
    The Cow King
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    "The pipeline shouldn't be built at all" and "Nobles should have veto power" are very different statements.

    The conservative equivalent of this is the carbon tax "unconstitutional because fuck the Liberals" lawsuits and those are also ridiculous.

    shrykeRichyGnome-InterruptusApogee
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    And Rona Ambrose announces she won't run for the CPC leadership. This is big, first of all because preliminary polls put her well in the lead. With her out it's anybody's race. And second, because she was the only western candidate. With her out, all interested contenders are from Ontario, Quebec, or the Atlantic Provinces.

    sig.gif
    CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    Everyone has been surviving without solar panels for thousands of years dude. They were only invented in the 1800s. Humanity goes back a lot further then that.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    Yikes.

    I did notice we're in a climate crisis I'm just unwilling to recommend people just subsistence hunt/farm from my cozy city where there are lots of good paying jobs that sustain my family.
    People have done without a lot of things for thousands of years but I've no interest in taking us back there.

    If you need to keep calling people names for siding with the 20 nations who's land this is then feel free.

    Disco11Gnome-InterruptusDescendant XSteelhawkApogee
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    i know you are passionate about this but come on dude

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
    Disco11ArcticLancershrykeKetBraBroloSteelhawkBeef AvengerApogee
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    I also wish we could hit a big switch and suddenly the world no longer needs oil.

    unfortunately we do not live in a magical world where wishes are fact and unicorns are our daily drivers.

    oil is and will be a big part of the world economy for the force able future and unless you have a solution for that name calling just makes you look like a child.

    Edit As Aridhol mentioned above the large majority of the native population in those lands (and their self elected officials) are onboard. Tribes must be consulted and I really hope they got some sweet $$$ out of the deal.

    Disco11 on
    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Gnome-InterruptusAridholApogee
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    The whole debate is silly as the expansion of the Alberta oil industry is not commercially viable regardless and won't be for the foreseeable due to the shale revolution. Alberta is currently in a similar sort of situation Cape Breton in the 1960s and, as the likely future currently looks, the notion of Alberta oil wealth is going to sound as ridiculous to people in 2120 as the Sydney Millionaires ice hockey team sounds to us today. As economic illiterates, the Conservative establishment does not want to hear what the market is telling them and seeks to redirect the blame for market forces on to Trudeau specifically and environmental groups generally.



    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
    Gnome-InterruptusArcticLancershrykeElaroTubularLuggageCanadianWolverine
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    "The pipeline shouldn't be built at all" and "Nobles should have veto power" are very different statements.

    The conservative equivalent of this is the carbon tax "unconstitutional because fuck the Liberals" lawsuits and those are also ridiculous.

    Tribal elders are not like European nobles. And the law is deliberately vague on this. Remember that the BC government has not signed a treaty with the Wetsuwet'en nation and this is unceded land. Just because your neighbour says it's okay to build a pipeline through your property does not give anyone the right to do so.

    A first nation not bending the knee to colonial powers is not the same as conservative propaganda, and the notion that you equate the two is fucking appalling.

    The Cow KingElaroCanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    "The pipeline shouldn't be built at all" and "Nobles should have veto power" are very different statements.

    The conservative equivalent of this is the carbon tax "unconstitutional because fuck the Liberals" lawsuits and those are also ridiculous.

    Tribal elders are not like European nobles. And the law is deliberately vague on this. Remember that the BC government has not signed a treaty with the Wetsuwet'en nation and this is unceded land. Just because your neighbour says it's okay to build a pipeline through your property does not give anyone the right to do so.

    A first nation not bending the knee to colonial powers is not the same as conservative propaganda, and the notion that you equate the two is fucking appalling.

    I'm curious about what the main distinction that is relevant to whether or not it's democratic is.

    I'm not saying it's necessarily bad because it's not democratic, just that I'm not sure what the distinction along those lines is here, given that that seems to be the main thing people are pointing out.

  • ElaroElaro Mister No Fun AllowedRegistered User regular
    I understand now why
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    i know you are passionate about this but come on dude

    You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. This is not a matter of passion. This is a matter of not wanting my species to die in my fifties. Let me put it as a metaphor: A huge fucking nuke is descending towards Earth. If it makes contact, all life on Earth will be wiped out. Now, we have plans for an anti-nuke missile, but no one has started building it yet. Unfortunately, a bunch of assholes are building a magnet that is accelerating the nuke towards us. In this scenario, clearly, the reasonable, rational, life-loving, sane move is to imprison the assholes building the magnet and build the anti-nuke missile. So why in the hell are you guys, whom I thought were sane, life-loving people, making excuses for the magnet-building motherfuckers?

    "Most people don't look at the world through your asshole"
  • BlarghyBlarghy Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    "The pipeline shouldn't be built at all" and "Nobles should have veto power" are very different statements.

    The conservative equivalent of this is the carbon tax "unconstitutional because fuck the Liberals" lawsuits and those are also ridiculous.

    Tribal elders are not like European nobles. And the law is deliberately vague on this. Remember that the BC government has not signed a treaty with the Wetsuwet'en nation and this is unceded land. Just because your neighbour says it's okay to build a pipeline through your property does not give anyone the right to do so.

    A first nation not bending the knee to colonial powers is not the same as conservative propaganda, and the notion that you equate the two is fucking appalling.

    And who would the BC government actually sign a treaty with? Its all fine and good to repeat that tribal elders aren't European nobles, but if the band is given the choice on whom it wants to be represented by and they specifically choose people other than the elders, what then? Its great to say that the entire system is illegitimate because of colonialism, but if there's a choice between an elder who is nebulously molded and shaped by the community and someone who the community has actually casted votes for in a fair election with anonomous ballots, then I'm going to have a hard time saying that the elders are the true authority.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    CanadianWolverineThe Cow King
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Elaro wrote: »
    I understand now why
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    i know you are passionate about this but come on dude

    You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. This is not a matter of passion. This is a matter of not wanting my species to die in my fifties. Let me put it as a metaphor: A huge fucking nuke is descending towards Earth. If it makes contact, all life on Earth will be wiped out. Now, we have plans for an anti-nuke missile, but no one has started building it yet. Unfortunately, a bunch of assholes are building a magnet that is accelerating the nuke towards us. In this scenario, clearly, the reasonable, rational, life-loving, sane move is to imprison the assholes building the magnet and build the anti-nuke missile. So why in the hell are you guys, whom I thought were sane, life-loving people, making excuses for the magnet-building motherfuckers?

    Removing some of the hyperbole from this.

    The human race isn’t going to suddenly go extinct in 50 years.

    There will be increased instability from having less abundant resources which may actually see a contraction of population as well as a lot of migration and conflict over remaining resources.

    Though as a species if we had a sudden and irreversible stoppage in all petrochemical use and production you would also see the same or perhaps more instability.

    Which means that as a society we have to reduce our dependence gradually, but not too gradually, and I don’t think I have seen a single poster here argue that we are weaning ourselves from petrochemical and carbon emissions too quickly.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Aridhol
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 15
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Nova_C on
    The Cow KingPhoenix-DT-bolt
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited January 15
    Elaro wrote: »
    I understand now why
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Rule of law still applies yes.


    Or sure, maybe they can make solar panels in remote ass places with little to no infrastructure and access to labour and markets.
    Maybe they can eat and drink and pay for housing with good feelings and appreciation from us here in comfortable cities with all of that shit already.

    Hey, silly goose? They've been surviving without solar panels for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

    Hey, super silly goose? Maybe they could eat what they catch and drink from the hydrosphere if we DIDN'T FUCKING POLLUTE IT WITH OIL.

    Hey, ascended super silly goose? If you haven't noticed, we're in a climate crisis, so the less oil we get out of the ground, especially tar sand oil, the better. The more difficult it is for oil to be profitable, the faster the transition to clean energy sources will happen, and the more likely our survival.

    i know you are passionate about this but come on dude

    You seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. This is not a matter of passion. This is a matter of not wanting my species to die in my fifties. Let me put it as a metaphor: A huge fucking nuke is descending towards Earth. If it makes contact, all life on Earth will be wiped out. Now, we have plans for an anti-nuke missile, but no one has started building it yet. Unfortunately, a bunch of assholes are building a magnet that is accelerating the nuke towards us. In this scenario, clearly, the reasonable, rational, life-loving, sane move is to imprison the assholes building the magnet and build the anti-nuke missile. So why in the hell are you guys, whom I thought were sane, life-loving people, making excuses for the magnet-building motherfuckers?

    I'm not sure I can say "come on dude" any harder than before

    Hardtarget on
    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
    Gnome-InterruptusDisco11InvectivusApogee
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Those same "colonial powers" you are talking about come from similar traditions though and that's not an answer to the question.

    Aridhol
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    The alternative, where you negotiate with the hereditary chief, means one or more random people get to hold everyone else hostage. Democracy is not just for white people.

    Apogee
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Those same "colonial powers" you are talking about come from similar traditions though and that's not an answer to the question.

    What are you talking about? The band council system was imposed on them, by Canada. Some have integrated, some haven't.

    I cannot believe you are really this thick. Telling someone you know better, they should live your way because their way is bad, and you will fucking make them do it your way is not freedom.

    The Cow KingCanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Nova_C wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Those same "colonial powers" you are talking about come from similar traditions though and that's not an answer to the question.

    What are you talking about? The band council system was imposed on them, by Canada. Some have integrated, some haven't.

    I cannot believe you are really this thick. Telling someone you know better, they should live your way because their way is bad, and you will fucking make them do it your way is not freedom.

    Tenek asked you, quite nicely, what the recourse was for a hereditary chief making decisions the rest of the people don't agree with.

    You are replying, extremely rudely I might ad, without answering the question.

    shryke on
    ApogeeBionicPenguin
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Those same "colonial powers" you are talking about come from similar traditions though and that's not an answer to the question.

    What are you talking about? The band council system was imposed on them, by Canada. Some have integrated, some haven't.

    I cannot believe you are really this thick. Telling someone you know better, they should live your way because their way is bad, and you will fucking make them do it your way is not freedom.

    Tenek asked you, quite nicely, what the recourse was for a hereditary chief making decisions the rest of the people don't agree with.

    You are replying, extremely rudely I might ad, without answering the question.

    The question is moot because the evidence in question is that the elected reps are the ones fucking up in that regard. And may not even have the authority in the first place.

    CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Those same "colonial powers" you are talking about come from similar traditions though and that's not an answer to the question.

    What are you talking about? The band council system was imposed on them, by Canada. Some have integrated, some haven't.

    I cannot believe you are really this thick. Telling someone you know better, they should live your way because their way is bad, and you will fucking make them do it your way is not freedom.

    Tenek asked you, quite nicely, what the recourse was for a hereditary chief making decisions the rest of the people don't agree with.

    You are replying, extremely rudely I might ad, without answering the question.

    The question is moot because the evidence in question is that the elected reps are the ones fucking up in that regard. And may not even have the authority in the first place.

    What's the evidence that the elected reps are "fucking up" and in what way?

    And that's still not an answer to the question anyway. Elected governments fuck up all the time.

    Apogee
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2019/02/the-complicated-history-of-hereditary-chiefs-and-elected-councils/

    Like I said, the law is intentionally ambiguous.

    The band council system was imposed on the First Nations, and in most cases has authority over reserve land. The Wetsuwet'en don't live on a reserve - it's unceded, and the BC government has no treaty with them (They do with many First Nations, but have been dragging their ass on several. They were taken to court over their delays in '97, lost and still don't have a treaty. According the BC treaty website, the treaty negotiation is with the hereditary chiefs). Traditionally, the hereditary chiefs have authority over a territory, like the one in question. Also, the 5 clans represented by those elders are majority opposed to the pipeline being built on their territory.

    Seems the band council isn't representing the people here.

    The people can replace the band council if they don't like what the council is doing in their name. How do you fire a hereditary chief?

    How do you remove the patronizing contempt of a colonial power for your thousand year old traditions?

    Those same "colonial powers" you are talking about come from similar traditions though and that's not an answer to the question.

    What are you talking about? The band council system was imposed on them, by Canada. Some have integrated, some haven't.

    I cannot believe you are really this thick. Telling someone you know better, they should live your way because their way is bad, and you will fucking make them do it your way is not freedom.

    Tenek asked you, quite nicely, what the recourse was for a hereditary chief making decisions the rest of the people don't agree with.

    You are replying, extremely rudely I might ad, without answering the question.

    The question is moot because the evidence in question is that the elected reps are the ones fucking up in that regard. And may not even have the authority in the first place.

    What's the evidence that the elected reps are "fucking up" and in what way?

    And that's still not an answer to the question anyway. Elected governments fuck up all the time.

    The bitch was "but what if they aren't representing the people". The only data shown upthread has support in favor of the chief's position, not the council. More to the point "waa I don't like this structure" is not a valid response to the complaints made. It's a distraction at best.

    CanadianWolverine
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    And Rona Ambrose announces she won't run for the CPC leadership. This is big, first of all because preliminary polls put her well in the lead. With her out it's anybody's race. And second, because she was the only western candidate. With her out, all interested contenders are from Ontario, Quebec, or the Atlantic Provinces.

    Given the state of the party for the last while, especially after the last election, I was taking it more or less as a given that the party leadership was going to go to some frothing crazy rather than any vaguely establishment conservatives. I dunno how much of a chance she'd have when the "what we need to do is purge the outsiders/arrest the Liberals/outlaw questioning the oil industry!" candidates started shouting, given the last leadership race resulted in a fascist losing by a hair after a zillion rounds.

    (That said, Ambrose being gone doesn't exactly bug me, given she spent her entire tenure as interim leader fighting to maintain the not-really-a-real-citizen status Harper gave me.)

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    What are you talking about? The band council system was imposed on them, by Canada. Some have integrated, some haven't.

    I cannot believe you are really this thick. Telling someone you know better, they should live your way because their way is bad, and you will fucking make them do it your way is not freedom.

    I agree. The hereditary chiefs should really stop trying to impose their will on the rest of the tribe. Or they could win an election and validate their claim to authority, that's also fine.

    Apogee
Sign In or Register to comment.