In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
So Legault is in a panic because the CN Rail protests are keeping shipments of propane from getting to Québec and our stockpile is getting low.
This is the second time this happened. The last time there was a rail problem (a union strike IIRC) the same thing happened.
How did this happen? I mean, how did Québec end up apparently one week away from a propane shortage and on the verge of a national emergency every time a train is late? I don't remember this ever being a probelm before now...
In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
Is all of that correct?
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
Is all of that correct?
I can speak to #4 being wrong. Band councils have authority over reserve lands only. The Wet'suwet'en lands in question are not reserve lands.
So Legault is in a panic because the CN Rail protests are keeping shipments of propane from getting to Québec and our stockpile is getting low.
This is the second time this happened. The last time there was a rail problem (a union strike IIRC) the same thing happened.
How did this happen? I mean, how did Québec end up apparently one week away from a propane shortage and on the verge of a national emergency every time a train is late? I don't remember this ever being a probelm before now...
That's not a problem specific to Quebec. Modern societies in general are always a few days' to a week's worth of disruptions away from serious problems, because one crucial thing or another is always at risk of running out.
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So Legault is in a panic because the CN Rail protests are keeping shipments of propane from getting to Québec and our stockpile is getting low.
This is the second time this happened. The last time there was a rail problem (a union strike IIRC) the same thing happened.
How did this happen? I mean, how did Québec end up apparently one week away from a propane shortage and on the verge of a national emergency every time a train is late? I don't remember this ever being a probelm before now...
That's not a problem specific to Quebec. Modern societies in general are always a few days' to a week's worth of disruptions away from serious problems, because one crucial thing or another is always at risk of running out.
It's about cost. It costs money to store things. JIT delivery was made possible with electronic asset tracking systems and the internet. So no one wants to store things anymore.
So, yeah, our entire society is a few days of logistical failure away from utter catastrophe at any given time.
In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
Is all of that correct?
I can speak to #4 being wrong. Band councils have authority over reserve lands only. The Wet'suwet'en lands in question are not reserve lands.
So the band councils signed agreements allowing construction on land they don't actually control?
In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
In this lies what is emerging as one of my main criticism of their efforts, whoever is making this official site has a poorly designed site IMHO, its making it confusing to us to say, not read this like sections of a chapter in our Social Studies, but instead of being seen that way, its being absorbed only piece meal.
Let's see if I can put this in language we can understand, given recent events in the USA, maybe this will spark some notion of what they have devised here as tradition over thousands of years:
- In my layman understanding, their naming system is a rank system and is why the have so many layers of names, this would be like ... if we called ranks in bureaucracy chiefs ... and in some structures we still do, like station chief or chief steward or what have you. And similar to positions we can relate to like that, their positions would be awarded not by birth but by the merit through study locally by tutorship and abroad on the land in nature, which speaks to trying to train a specialists in leadership that met their aims as a people.
- This really looks like the feast hall is very similar to a caucus, where the family turns out for the first round of picking their delegates, then their delegates move up to the House level, where they get their sub-chief, wing chief, and head chief designations/rank/name for that house for the next feast hall level up, the top level of their federation, the clan level which has either 3 or 2 head house chiefs (possibly more if you count their alternates) that make up their highest rank, where the smallest clans are considered to be allowed to work together on votes in what we would probably consider our senate based on a few similarities.
- With that in mind, consider this map of the contested lands they are laying claim to again, the different coloured zones are the regions of these House Chiefs:
- Wouldn't that make the house level something akin to a district and family level would be something akin to a county?
- And if they have multi-seat regions being represented, its even kind of semi-proportional
So in conclusion given what I managed to piece together, it doesn't seem a fair assertion in #3 to say that what they do is a whole ton different that we do, where we vote in a particular riding and are not allowed to vote in others. So that would be incorrect, sorry.
As to #4, Nova_C already has you covered there. I will attempt to help that point by sharing what I found, which unfortunately does not show the exact boundaries for comparison with the above map, but it may prove a handy resource for others better at searching for the maps than I, which bums me out a bit because I think we could learn some interesting things from overlaying the map showing claimed traditional territories that would be asked for in a modern treaty and what they have currently with the reservation system that was forced upon them by Canada without a treaty: http://www.wetsuwetenfirstnation.com/maps.html
#2 as near as I can tell due to current events is unfortunately a true statement given the above. I think Canada can do better, as proven by the success of our modern treaties in recent decades like the Nisga’a Treaty and Mal'nuth Treaty that immediately come to mind.
Quebec running out of propane will be a major driver in getting eastern trains running again. Inconvenienced VIA commuters is one thing, people freezing in their homes is quite another.
Quebec running out of propane will be a major driver in getting eastern trains running again. Inconvenienced VIA commuters is one thing, people freezing in their homes is quite another.
Which is another thing I'm confused about. How is a protest in BC affecting trains all the way in Québec?
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Quebec running out of propane will be a major driver in getting eastern trains running again. Inconvenienced VIA commuters is one thing, people freezing in their homes is quite another.
Which is another thing I'm confused about. How is a protest in BC affecting trains all the way in Québec?
Other protests are blockading in support of the Wet'suwet'en protest.
In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
Is all of that correct?
I can speak to #4 being wrong. Band councils have authority over reserve lands only. The Wet'suwet'en lands in question are not reserve lands.
So the band councils signed agreements allowing construction on land they don't actually control?
Basically, yes. Because of the unresolved claim via the 1997 Delgamuukw case, and the vague wording of the Indian Act, the BC court has decided that the band council totally has the authority, and, as you say, they voted.
But in strict legal terms, the legal ability of the council to approve of this project is unresolved. That needs to happen before any construction. However, that means there is a chance the hereditary chiefs could actually have enshrined in Canadian law their authority over the traditional lands, which has implications across Canada, and Canadian industry does NOT want that to happen as it means they may need to actually reimburse people for use of the land instead of getting to develop it for free (Or almost free).
It is straight up a continuation of colonial policies.
Quebec running out of propane will be a major driver in getting eastern trains running again. Inconvenienced VIA commuters is one thing, people freezing in their homes is quite another.
Which is another thing I'm confused about. How is a protest in BC affecting trains all the way in Québec?
To put in the simplest TL;DR terms? Because of solidarity.
Other Nations and Canadian allies of those nations decided to be very disruptive, which many of them haven't done for a long time because they thought Canada was negotiating modern treaties in good faith ... that is until a bunch of RCMP broke up a camp in someone else's contested territory, so the rest of Canada's federation ends up looking on that situation with distrust as it hits the spot light and they wonder to themselves "Will they negotiate with us like this next?" because unfortunately, we're still coming off the continued damage covered in the Missing & Murdered Inquiry and the Truth & Reconciliation ... where we have gotten to the Truth part briefly (and as even this thread demonstrates, misinformation is still prevalent), we're still wondering when Reconciliation is going to effectively kick in with the appropriate framework of self governance and timely sufficient infrastructure investments.
To add insult to injury, the various protests in support of the original protesters in BC are having a narrative framed around them as being opportunistic and professional shit disturbers, which is a real disservice of making the people in this grass roots uprising invisible as they are dismissed.
The trains get blocked in afaik the same spot basically every time there's a major incident involving First Nations and the government (almost any level really). I know it's happened before, I think a few times, when the cops have shot a first nations person for god knows what reason.
To add insult to injury, the various protests in support of the original protesters in BC are having a narrative framed around them as being opportunistic and professional shit disturbers, which is a real disservice of making the people in this grass roots uprising invisible as they are dismissed.
That's a standard conservative/alt-right strategy, and not limited to First Nations protests. Environmental protest? Professional protestors paid by the big-environment lobby that manipulates Gretta. Student protests? Professional protestors paid by left-wing political parties. Anti-racism/fachism protests? Professional protestors organized by the famous professional protest organization Antifa. Hell, alt-right trolls routinely study pictures of children in the USA protesting at their schools after each school shooting to "identify" paid protestors (aka different students who look vaguely similar in pictures of large crowds in movement).
The only real protestors are pro-gun and (in the USA) second-amendment protestors, who are most definitely not being organized and paid by the NRA who is most definitely not in turn being funded and supported by Russia.
In this case? The government and industry respects their rights.
The government doesn't just get to take your land away with no due process. Industry doesn't just get to build whatever they want on your land without your permission. Even if every one of your neighbours says yes, and you say no, their votes doesn't overrule yours when it comes to your property.
The reason people do not support the Wetsu'wet'en is because people believe First Nations are all rich and lazy. Racism is at the heart of this. And that's a fight we should never just give up on.
And thus thousands of people would each be able to veto any project on... what, 22,000 square km of land? That just means nothing can happen there. Ever.
Just because people are racist doesn't mean you can write off all possible objections as racism. Losing a vote and attacking the concept of voting is pretty ridiculous on its face.
We have shown you how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled regarding their title claim. We have shown you how the hereditary chiefs have a valid legal claim over stewardship of that land according to Canadian law. You keep insisting that because there was a vote, the law doesn't matter, and we can just go in and remove whoever we want from their land, arrest whoever we want, take whatever we want. Because there was a vote, and that's all that matters to you.
But that's not the case. And your insistence that none of their legal rights matter, none of those cases matters because one time some people voted is absolutely ridiculous.
The vote isn't all that matters, but it does matter. That's how you get legitimacy. One side has it and the other isn't interested.
If the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the hereditary chiefs actually do have the legal right to block the pipeline it'll be a pretty ugly endorsement of feudalism.
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Per The Court: The errors of fact made by the trial judge, and the resultant need for a new trial, made it impossible for this Court to determine whether the claim to self‑government had been made out.
Extinguishment
Per Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.: Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the federal power to legislate in respect of Indians) carries with it the jurisdiction to legislate in relation to aboriginal title, and by implication, the jurisdiction to extinguish it. The ownership by the provincial Crown (under s. 109 ) of lands held pursuant to aboriginal title is separate from jurisdiction over those lands. Notwithstanding s. 91(24), provincial laws of general application apply proprio vigore to Indians and Indian lands.
A provincial law of general application cannot extinguish aboriginal rights. First, a law of general application cannot, by definition, meet the standard “of clear and plain intention” needed to extinguish aboriginal rights without being ultra vires the province. Second, s. 91(24) protects a core of federal jurisdiction even from provincial laws of general application through the operation of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. That core has been described as matters touching on “Indianness” or the “core of Indianness”.
Provincial laws which would otherwise not apply to Indians proprio vigore are allowed to do so by s. 88 of the Indian Act which incorporates by reference provincial laws of general application. This provision, however, does not “invigorate” provincial laws which are invalid because they are in relation to Indians and Indian lands.
Per La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.: The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights either under the Constitution Act, 1867 or by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act .
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
Is all of that correct?
Bolded is "signing a treaty would be inconvenient, so we're just go to ignore it and pretend the non-existant treaty gave us everything we wanted". That's not legit.
So the band councils signed agreements allowing construction on land they don't actually control?
If the thread doesn't mind, I would like to take a moment to commend Tenek for asking questions even though our answers can be a little frustrating, I want to be clear that for myself this frustration is not with this poster directly, I have noted the gradual changes in their questions. Thank you.
And thank you to this thread, a willingness to engage, a civil tone, to [conduct] research, and to have compassion for your fellow Canadians in hard times. It honestly brings me to tears the kindness shown here, its been very stressful getting piled on by racism that has no chill in other discussions found in other parts of the internet. You keep being you fellow Canadian PA commenters.
I really appreciate the research being done and questions being asked in this thread, regardless of people's positions — interrogating our stances helps us better understand the issue in general.
The legal facts of the land dispute, and the way unresolved legal questions are being used by industry, are hard to articulate but also very important when discussing these protests. I don't feel like I grasp them all that well, but bringing them up will be important when e.g. getting into arguments with family over dinner
With all the bad news on Canada-First Nations relations, it's nice to have some good news pop up in my newsfeed: Québec and Cree Nation signed an economic development deal this morning. The deal includes shared ownership of constructed infrastructure, job training for Cree people, and identifies areas for environmental protection. François Legault called the deal "a model of nation-to-nation governance", while the Cree Grand Chief signed the deal saying "We’re not forced to make a concession. We have the right to chose. The vision for this program came from us. It represents our vision of sustainable development.”
An example of hope, trust, and cooperation, the Nisga’a Final Agreement is being studied by governments and Aboriginal peoples the world over. Nisga'a Lisims Government is already seeing the benefits of being free from the confines of the Indian Act.
Note: The Nisga'a First Nation is practically next door regionally to the Wet'suwet'en First Nation, interestingly enough.
So the band councils signed agreements allowing construction on land they don't actually control?
If the thread doesn't mind, I would like to take a moment to commend Tenek for asking questions even though our answers can be a little frustrating, I want to be clear that for myself this frustration is not with this poster directly, I have noted the gradual changes in their questions. Thank you.
And thank you to this thread, a willingness to engage, a civil tone, to [conduct] research, and to have compassion for your fellow Canadians in hard times. It honestly brings me to tears the kindness shown here, its been very stressful getting piled on by racism that has no chill in other discussions found in other parts of the internet. You keep being you fellow Canadian PA commenters.
Well, thank you. I think I got a few grey hairs from trying to figure out how to phrase things, though. I'm trying to get a better sense of your position, which... well, I went 1 for 4 trying to phrase it myself so we're not quite there yet.
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty, and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
Bolded is "signing a treaty would be inconvenient, so we're just go to ignore it and pretend the non-existant treaty gave us everything we wanted". That's not legit.
I get that, but I'm also noting the aggravating factor of history here. The correct way to resolve this is to have signed a treaty before coloring the land in on the map, but we didn't care back then. Since we're not entertaining the option of a sovereign state, "no treaty" just means maintaining the status quo, and a treaty isn't really a treaty if it's forced (apologies if your head just exploded reading that line). I don't know what the actual obstacles right now are - "nobody's really pushing for it" is easier to fix than "incompatible red lines".
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
+12
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
Ah, but that method is bound to fail because court justice isn't equal opportunity. Particularly wealthy individuals, large companies and corporations routinely avoid what most of us would consider reasonable outcomes and punitive measures simply because they can afford to throw enough money at it (whether that's through collections of lawyers, being able to drag the proceedings or just pay a good old fine). Suggesting a group of repressed people with limited financial options takes a provincial government or big oil entity to court is very naive, even outside of the fact that shit would definitely still get built in the meantime.
[edit] Ninja'd by seconds. :P
So the band councils signed agreements allowing construction on land they don't actually control?
If the thread doesn't mind, I would like to take a moment to commend Tenek for asking questions even though our answers can be a little frustrating, I want to be clear that for myself this frustration is not with this poster directly, I have noted the gradual changes in their questions. Thank you.
And thank you to this thread, a willingness to engage, a civil tone, to [conduct] research, and to have compassion for your fellow Canadians in hard times. It honestly brings me to tears the kindness shown here, its been very stressful getting piled on by racism that has no chill in other discussions found in other parts of the internet. You keep being you fellow Canadian PA commenters.
Well, thank you. I think I got a few grey hairs from trying to figure out how to phrase things, though. I'm trying to get a better sense of your position, which... well, I went 1 for 4 trying to phrase it myself so we're not quite there yet.
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty, and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
Bolded is "signing a treaty would be inconvenient, so we're just go to ignore it and pretend the non-existant treaty gave us everything we wanted". That's not legit.
I get that, but I'm also noting the aggravating factor of history here. The correct way to resolve this is to have signed a treaty before coloring the land in on the map, but we didn't care back then. Since we're not entertaining the option of a sovereign state, "no treaty" just means maintaining the status quo, and a treaty isn't really a treaty if it's forced (apologies if your head just exploded reading that line). I don't know what the actual obstacles right now are - "nobody's really pushing for it" is easier to fix than "incompatible red lines".
The correct way would be to note that the status of the land in question is in dispute and go around.
I think legally we are in our right to break up the folks stopping trains across the country, that said its a fucking political landmine. Do you arrest protesters who most likely are First Nations (I dont know the breakdown of who is stopping what) and add yet another tally on the fuck First Nations scoreboard. Do you comply and order a halt on the pipeline construction until shit gets figured out which gives the Cons more ammo in their stupid campaign of mealy mouthed western separation fuck Ottawa rhetortic.
Personally, fuck the right wingers they will just find yet another thing to bitch about either way. Halt the pipeline, figure out the land rights, get everyone at the table together and negotiate knowing that the outcome may be no pipeline through here.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Going around seems like a no brainer, but they did do a pile of consulting with a number of bands who were alright with it and such before they went this route. Mexico just opted to go around in one case with a natural gas line, now people are wringing their hands because the people along the former 'go through' route won't see any benefit, be it leases for land, construction jobs.
Some train service has been restored and eventually so will the rest of it, it's a fine line between garnering support / attention and people losing patience. I'm sure the teachers in ontario are working the same issue, but hey, everyone hates Doug Ford so they have some real leeway there.
It's been pointed out (mostly by right leaning media) that you have a right to protest sure, but not to blocking trains. They did it a little in Caledonia, but it wound up not working out as the protestors assaulted some camera crew while the OPP just sort of stood there. That gave McGuinty the leverage to say, "We'll meet with you, but you need to yank those barricades and help use with the people who committed assault."
Scheer piped up and said something, but it doesn't matter really, because he doesn't matter.
Nosf on
+1
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
The Conservative Fund is refusing to explain a $700,000 over-expense (original budget was $200,000 and actual spent was $900,000) to the National Council. Which is to say the party is keeping from itself what a bunch of donor money was spent on during the campaign. But, you know, Conservatives are good with money, that's why we elect them to fix the economy, right?
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
School is literally cancelled on Friday across all of Ontario and no one is going to go to jail for that. Cancelling school is definitely at best a hardship for a lot of people
Posts
This is a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the facts:
Hereditary in this case is that it is familial, not that they gain a title just by being born.
Here is the Supreme Court ruling Delgamuukw v British Columbia https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do
And finally, I don't know why you are choosing to ignore that I already covered this, the Wet’suwet’en do not use a feudal system, they do hold votes with their representatives at their feasts. And they can be removed from their title by a vote.
Stubbornly holding on to negative stereotypes that are not backed up by the facts is unbecoming and proved to be actively harmful when applied by our larger confederation, the results of which are atrocities like the Residential Schools and banning of language and culture that was [and still is] a integral part of their self governance. We're too busy asking questions based on assumptions of inferiority, to ask "Wait, why hasn't the second trial or a treaty been hammered out more diligently by this point before striking any deals for development of any kind, let alone using a Supreme BC Court Judge Injunction to get rowdy on a remote forest road?"
This is the second time this happened. The last time there was a rail problem (a union strike IIRC) the same thing happened.
How did this happen? I mean, how did Québec end up apparently one week away from a propane shortage and on the verge of a national emergency every time a train is late? I don't remember this ever being a probelm before now...
I would guess it's because signing a treaty isn't a priority for the government, there aren't any mutually acceptable terms, there's no real consequence for not signing the treaty,
and people reasonably expect no treaty so waiting for one is no different from killing the project.
So if I'm gathering the supporting facts for your position correctly:
1) The Wet'suwet'en clans have... I will call them 'clan' chiefs to distinguish from the 'council' chiefs. These people are elected by the entire clan and can be removed by the clan.
2) The band council chief positions were created by the Indian Act using some clunky divide-up-the-map approach that worked real well in the Middle East. These people are elected by some list of local residents (?)
3) Every person in the Wet'suwet'en lands has a clan, and at least one clan chief. Some of them are also able to vote for a council chief and some aren't because they don't live in exactly the right area.
4) The band councils are given control over lands whose inhabitants can't vote for the band councils, so they have no remedy when the council makes a decision they don't like
Is all of that correct?
I can speak to #4 being wrong. Band councils have authority over reserve lands only. The Wet'suwet'en lands in question are not reserve lands.
That's not a problem specific to Quebec. Modern societies in general are always a few days' to a week's worth of disruptions away from serious problems, because one crucial thing or another is always at risk of running out.
It's about cost. It costs money to store things. JIT delivery was made possible with electronic asset tracking systems and the internet. So no one wants to store things anymore.
So, yeah, our entire society is a few days of logistical failure away from utter catastrophe at any given time.
So the band councils signed agreements allowing construction on land they don't actually control?
1) and 3) Can be answered as incorrect, though I want to note these statements are clearly not being maliciously misunderstood in their details, by this source http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/governance/ combined with these pages
http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/clan-system/
http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/house-groups/
http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/social-structure/
http://www.wetsuweten.com/territory/
In this lies what is emerging as one of my main criticism of their efforts, whoever is making this official site has a poorly designed site IMHO, its making it confusing to us to say, not read this like sections of a chapter in our Social Studies, but instead of being seen that way, its being absorbed only piece meal.
Let's see if I can put this in language we can understand, given recent events in the USA, maybe this will spark some notion of what they have devised here as tradition over thousands of years:
- In my layman understanding, their naming system is a rank system and is why the have so many layers of names, this would be like ... if we called ranks in bureaucracy chiefs ... and in some structures we still do, like station chief or chief steward or what have you. And similar to positions we can relate to like that, their positions would be awarded not by birth but by the merit through study locally by tutorship and abroad on the land in nature, which speaks to trying to train a specialists in leadership that met their aims as a people.
- This really looks like the feast hall is very similar to a caucus, where the family turns out for the first round of picking their delegates, then their delegates move up to the House level, where they get their sub-chief, wing chief, and head chief designations/rank/name for that house for the next feast hall level up, the top level of their federation, the clan level which has either 3 or 2 head house chiefs (possibly more if you count their alternates) that make up their highest rank, where the smallest clans are considered to be allowed to work together on votes in what we would probably consider our senate based on a few similarities.
- With that in mind, consider this map of the contested lands they are laying claim to again, the different coloured zones are the regions of these House Chiefs:
- Wouldn't that make the house level something akin to a district and family level would be something akin to a county?
- And if they have multi-seat regions being represented, its even kind of semi-proportional
So in conclusion given what I managed to piece together, it doesn't seem a fair assertion in #3 to say that what they do is a whole ton different that we do, where we vote in a particular riding and are not allowed to vote in others. So that would be incorrect, sorry.
As to #4, Nova_C already has you covered there. I will attempt to help that point by sharing what I found, which unfortunately does not show the exact boundaries for comparison with the above map, but it may prove a handy resource for others better at searching for the maps than I, which bums me out a bit because I think we could learn some interesting things from overlaying the map showing claimed traditional territories that would be asked for in a modern treaty and what they have currently with the reservation system that was forced upon them by Canada without a treaty:
http://www.wetsuwetenfirstnation.com/maps.html
#2 as near as I can tell due to current events is unfortunately a true statement given the above. I think Canada can do better, as proven by the success of our modern treaties in recent decades like the Nisga’a Treaty and Mal'nuth Treaty that immediately come to mind.
Edit: Oops, copy/pasted the wrong link, sorry.
Which is another thing I'm confused about. How is a protest in BC affecting trains all the way in Québec?
Other protests are blockading in support of the Wet'suwet'en protest.
Basically, yes. Because of the unresolved claim via the 1997 Delgamuukw case, and the vague wording of the Indian Act, the BC court has decided that the band council totally has the authority, and, as you say, they voted.
But in strict legal terms, the legal ability of the council to approve of this project is unresolved. That needs to happen before any construction. However, that means there is a chance the hereditary chiefs could actually have enshrined in Canadian law their authority over the traditional lands, which has implications across Canada, and Canadian industry does NOT want that to happen as it means they may need to actually reimburse people for use of the land instead of getting to develop it for free (Or almost free).
It is straight up a continuation of colonial policies.
To put in the simplest TL;DR terms? Because of solidarity.
Other Nations and Canadian allies of those nations decided to be very disruptive, which many of them haven't done for a long time because they thought Canada was negotiating modern treaties in good faith ... that is until a bunch of RCMP broke up a camp in someone else's contested territory, so the rest of Canada's federation ends up looking on that situation with distrust as it hits the spot light and they wonder to themselves "Will they negotiate with us like this next?" because unfortunately, we're still coming off the continued damage covered in the Missing & Murdered Inquiry and the Truth & Reconciliation ... where we have gotten to the Truth part briefly (and as even this thread demonstrates, misinformation is still prevalent), we're still wondering when Reconciliation is going to effectively kick in with the appropriate framework of self governance and timely sufficient infrastructure investments.
To add insult to injury, the various protests in support of the original protesters in BC are having a narrative framed around them as being opportunistic and professional shit disturbers, which is a real disservice of making the people in this grass roots uprising invisible as they are dismissed.
That's a standard conservative/alt-right strategy, and not limited to First Nations protests. Environmental protest? Professional protestors paid by the big-environment lobby that manipulates Gretta. Student protests? Professional protestors paid by left-wing political parties. Anti-racism/fachism protests? Professional protestors organized by the famous professional protest organization Antifa. Hell, alt-right trolls routinely study pictures of children in the USA protesting at their schools after each school shooting to "identify" paid protestors (aka different students who look vaguely similar in pictures of large crowds in movement).
The only real protestors are pro-gun and (in the USA) second-amendment protestors, who are most definitely not being organized and paid by the NRA who is most definitely not in turn being funded and supported by Russia.
Bolded is "signing a treaty would be inconvenient, so we're just go to ignore it and pretend the non-existant treaty gave us everything we wanted". That's not legit.
If the thread doesn't mind, I would like to take a moment to commend Tenek for asking questions even though our answers can be a little frustrating, I want to be clear that for myself this frustration is not with this poster directly, I have noted the gradual changes in their questions. Thank you.
And thank you to this thread, a willingness to engage, a civil tone, to [conduct] research, and to have compassion for your fellow Canadians in hard times. It honestly brings me to tears the kindness shown here, its been very stressful getting piled on by racism that has no chill in other discussions found in other parts of the internet. You keep being you fellow Canadian PA commenters.
The legal facts of the land dispute, and the way unresolved legal questions are being used by industry, are hard to articulate but also very important when discussing these protests. I don't feel like I grasp them all that well, but bringing them up will be important when e.g. getting into arguments with family over dinner
Québec and Cree Nation signed an economic development deal this morning. The deal includes shared ownership of constructed infrastructure, job training for Cree people, and identifies areas for environmental protection. François Legault called the deal "a model of nation-to-nation governance", while the Cree Grand Chief signed the deal saying "We’re not forced to make a concession. We have the right to chose. The vision for this program came from us. It represents our vision of sustainable development.”
Here's some other older good news too, this is good reading:
https://www.nisgaanation.ca/about-accomplishments-and-benefits-nisgaa-treaty
Here is an excerpt:
Note: The Nisga'a First Nation is practically next door regionally to the Wet'suwet'en First Nation, interestingly enough.
Well, thank you. I think I got a few grey hairs from trying to figure out how to phrase things, though. I'm trying to get a better sense of your position, which... well, I went 1 for 4 trying to phrase it myself so we're not quite there yet.
I get that, but I'm also noting the aggravating factor of history here. The correct way to resolve this is to have signed a treaty before coloring the land in on the map, but we didn't care back then. Since we're not entertaining the option of a sovereign state, "no treaty" just means maintaining the status quo, and a treaty isn't really a treaty if it's forced (apologies if your head just exploded reading that line). I don't know what the actual obstacles right now are - "nobody's really pushing for it" is easier to fix than "incompatible red lines".
(original story, or a summary)
Kinda feels like burying the lead on that particular tale of woe just going with that tweet, thanks for linking the original story.
Learned more in catching up a few pages than a week worth of news stories.
The chiefs have 100% the right to deny this pipeline. That being said we have 100% the right to arrest anyone trespassing....
I don't think legitimizing what is essentially a hostage situation is a great precedent.
Except it's not....
If Albertan's held the railway to protest the federal governments stance on let's say Tek there would be instant arrests.
We live in a country of laws. The chiefs have an issue? Let them sue.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. We're in an explicitly treaty-less situation, yes? Which means, since this is un-ceded land, this isn't really subject to those laws, no? Telling a small, financially underpowered group, whom we are colonizing, to petition *our* courts for relief doesn't seem appropriate.
[edit] Ninja'd by seconds. :P
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
The correct way would be to note that the status of the land in question is in dispute and go around.
Personally, fuck the right wingers they will just find yet another thing to bitch about either way. Halt the pipeline, figure out the land rights, get everyone at the table together and negotiate knowing that the outcome may be no pipeline through here.
That may be true but We don't settle disputes by paralyzing parts of the country either.
Some train service has been restored and eventually so will the rest of it, it's a fine line between garnering support / attention and people losing patience. I'm sure the teachers in ontario are working the same issue, but hey, everyone hates Doug Ford so they have some real leeway there.
It's been pointed out (mostly by right leaning media) that you have a right to protest sure, but not to blocking trains. They did it a little in Caledonia, but it wound up not working out as the protestors assaulted some camera crew while the OPP just sort of stood there. That gave McGuinty the leverage to say, "We'll meet with you, but you need to yank those barricades and help use with the people who committed assault."
Scheer piped up and said something, but it doesn't matter really, because he doesn't matter.
The Conservative Fund is refusing to explain a $700,000 over-expense (original budget was $200,000 and actual spent was $900,000) to the National Council. Which is to say the party is keeping from itself what a bunch of donor money was spent on during the campaign. But, you know, Conservatives are good with money, that's why we elect them to fix the economy, right?
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Sure we do. We do it all the time.
Paralyzing parts of nations is one of the traditional methods disadvantaged groups have used to coerce the powers that be into giving them a seat at the table.
Please show me one example of this in recent years that are done by a non native group.
Because I am 100% confident that any other group that would block our cross country train network would be arrested.
We really don't want another OKA crisis in any way but rewarding this behavior just makes it happen again.
I may be one of the odd ones out but I have zero sympathy for this.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS