Indigenous blockade in BC & related protests

[turningrite]

The blockade of the NG pipeline project in B.C. illustrates another case in which Trudeau's 'sunny ways' policy approach has resulted in stalemate and blowback. Personally, I think Trudeau's approach has generated unrealistic expectations on the part of indigenous activists. The blockade's supporters seem to be operating on the premise of supporting an inherent indigenous veto on development, a position the Supreme Court has already rejected. Are the activists now trying to obtain an effective veto by extralegal means?

Another issue raised here is that while some impacted indigenous communities (i.e. "nations") favor the NG pipeline project, a minority or even single community seems intent on impeding it. We have to wonder if this system is tenable or if an new system has to be devised whereby an umbrella organization represents various indigenous communities in such negotiations? Clearly, the current situation is neither productive nor tenable.

Finally, the counter-protests that are emerging on the pro-pipeline side includes elements supporting the "yellow vest" movement and opposing carbon taxation. This could all get very messy for Trudeau, especially in an election year. Sunny ways has given way to very cloudy skies.

Edited January 10, 2019 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

The pipeline is fully approved by all governments and impacted tribal councils.  The protests are not legally permitted to stop work.  The people opposed won’t, essentially, accept what their own elected leaders have decided.  The work will proceed. 

[Dougie93]

58 minutes ago, turningrite said:

 The blockade's supporters seem to be operating on the premise of supporting an inherent indigenous veto on development, a position the Supreme Court has already rejected.

False assertion.  The protestors are tangential.    The Supreme Court ruled that the indigenous do have an inherent veto on development on their hereditary lands, when the Supreme Court awarded full legal title and jurisdiction over those lands to them in 1997.

Then Canada and British Columbia never reacted to that judgement and instead have simply ignored the native since 1997, and now that is coming back to haunt them because the SCC ruling is still in force and has been in force the whole time, as the de jure law of the land, which the government must obey.

Thus, Canada is left with two essential options. 

Negotiate with the native monarchies as equals, our Queen negotiates with their kings.

Or

Use force and wage an illegal aggressive war against them therein, by invading their sovereign countries without legal mandate.

Which by the way,  is how the British Empire conducted itself, and how Canada also conducts itself as a zombie Confederation of the British Empire limping along in utter dysfunction as a de facto failed state which is simply being propped up by the Americans.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

40 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

False assertion.  The protestors are tangential.    The Supreme Court ruled that the indigenous do have an inherent veto on development on their hereditary lands, when the Supreme Court awarded full legal title and jurisdiction over those lands to them in 1997.

Then Canada and British Columbia never reacted to that judgement and instead have simply ignored the native since 1997, and now that is coming back to haunt them because the SCC ruling is still in force and has been in force the whole time, as the de jure law of the land, which the government must obey.

Thus, Canada is left with two essential options. 

Negotiate with the native monarchies as equals, our Queen negotiates with their kings.

Or

Use force and wage an illegal aggressive war against them therein, by invading their sovereign countries without legal mandate.

Which by the way,  is how the British Empire conducted itself, and how Canada also conducts itself as a zombie Confederation of the British Empire limping along in utter dysfunction as a de facto failed state which is simply being propped up by the Americans.

Just a question, what is going to happen to all those elected Chiefs who have signed those contracts or received funds from these companies....and if that is the case why in the flying fack would the feds even talk to any elected chief if they did not have any authority.....Perhaps it is time to pull the premier into an office and tell him, that 40 bil dollar LNG plant is gone..Tell the fisrt nations there that funding is going to be cut for all fist nations projects.....move that LNG plant east....give everyone the finger in BC, and tell them thanks for coming out....were going to pass on all that cost to BC via carbon tax, or better yet higher fuel costs....let the rest of the country see how long they last with out on that dirty old fossil fuel they keep complaining about...

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Use force and wage an illegal aggressive war against them therein, by invading their sovereign countries without legal mandate.

You're not sovereign if you can't feed, cloth or house your people without charity from another country.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Just a question, what is going to happen to all those elected Chiefs who have signed those contracts or received funds from these companies....

That depends on who the people there support next election, them or the hereditary chiefs. I suspect that if the hereditary guys had the popularity they'd be elected and raking in the cash themselves. Since they're not, they probably represent mostly themselves.

[turningrite]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

False assertion.  The protestors are tangential.    The Supreme Court ruled that the indigenous do have an inherent veto on development on their hereditary lands, when the Supreme Court awarded full legal title and jurisdiction over those lands to them in 1997.

 

Well, I think you're wrong about this. A more recent (2017) SCC decision, which specifically addressed the matter of resource and pipeline projects, explicitly determined that no indigenous veto right applies. The SCC can in fact issue decisions that alter, clarify or even overturn previous decisions and thus establish new precedents. (See link below.)

I won't address the remainder of your post because you're obviously expressing your opinions, to which you are entitled. In the meantime, I believe the 2017 precedent applies.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-briefing-supreme-court-rules-indigenous-people-have-no-veto-over-resource-projects-trump-to-ban-transgender-people-from-us-military/article35815361/

[Dougie93]

29 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Well, I think you're wrong about this. A more recent (2017) SCC decision, which specifically addressed the matter of resource and pipeline projects, explicitly determined that no indigenous veto right applies. The SCC can in fact issue decisions that alter, clarify or even overturn previous decisions and thus establish new precedents. (See link below.)

I won't address the remainder of your post because you're obviously expressing your opinions, to which you are entitled. In the meantime, I believe the 2017 precedent applies.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-briefing-supreme-court-rules-indigenous-people-have-no-veto-over-resource-projects-trump-to-ban-transgender-people-from-us-military/article35815361/

Your assertion was not that they had a de jure veto, you said "inherent" veto, which means de facto,  and they do have a de facto veto, because they are the title holders of the land and that makes it their property,  and people are very attached to their property, so if you try to roll over them, that will backfire into the governments face, because if any First Nation decides to resist as the Mohawks did at Oka, the same that happened at Oka is going to happen again, and at Oka, the Mohawks used force, and they won.

The issue here is that the government is not as afraid of the Pacific Northwest Coast indians, because as of right now they are comparatively docile bourgeois pampered indians, but the government  don't even dare step one foot on Mohawk land, because the Mohawks are not docile and are rather reasonably well trained paramilitaries and heavily armed.

Some first nations are docile and some are not, but any which chooses to flip to the not docile camp can veto the government by asymmetrical use of force, otherwise known as guerilla warfare, which is what the Oka Crisis was in the summer of 1990.

 

[turningrite]

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Your assertion was not that they had a de jure veto, you said "inherent" veto, which means de facto,  and they do have a de facto veto, because they are the title holders of the land and that makes it their property,  and people are very attached to their property, so if you try to roll over them, that will backfire into the governments face, because if any First Nation decides to resist as the Mohawks did at Oka, the same that happened at Oka is going to happen again, and at Oka, the Mohawks used force, and they won.

The issue here is that the government is not as afraid of the Pacific Northwest Coast indians, because as of right now they are comparatively docile bourgeois pampered indians, but the government  don't even dare step one foot on Mohawk land, because the Mohawks are not docile and are rather reasonably well trained paramilitaries and heavily armed.

Some first nations are docile and some are not, but any which chooses to flip to the not docile camp can veto the government by asymmetrical use of force, otherwise known as guerilla warfare, which is what the Oka Crisis was in the summer of 1990.

 

I disagree with you. I believe the prevailing legal position would be that no veto right (in any sense of that term) applies. A duty to consult does apply, but presumably that's been met because governments and courts have approved the LNG project. It's my understanding that the SCC's 2017 decision relating to veto rights likely in part contributed to the BC court decision concerning the blockade. Some indigenous activists have an an entirely different view of the situation and don't accept the validity of the current legal and jurisdictional regime. They don't refer to a veto right but instead invoke the primacy of indigenous "consent" and some cite Canada's signing of the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples as effectively overriding domestic legal precedent. But, for the time being, the laws of Canada and its province's prevail in our courts. Any change(s) will have to be negotiated. I'm not convinced that blockades or protests will achieve very much and might in fact be counterproductive.

Edited January 10, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I disagree with you. I believe the prevailing legal position would be that no veto right (in any sense of that term) applies. A duty to consult does apply, but presumably that's been met because governments and courts have approved the LNG project. It's my understanding that the SCC's 2017 decision relating to veto rights likely in part contributed to the BC court decision concerning the blockade. Some indigenous activists have an an entirely different view of the situation and don't accept the validity of the current legal and jurisdictional regime. They don't refer to a veto but instead invoke the primacy of indigenous "consent" and some site Canada's signing of the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples as effectively overriding domestic legal precedent. But, for the time being, the laws of Canada and its province's prevail in our courts. Any change(s) will have to be negotiated. I'm not convinced that blockades or protests will achieve very much and might in fact be counterproductive.

Do you not understand what "de facto" means?   Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure?

[turningrite]

11 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Do you not understand what "de facto" means?   Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure?

Of course I understand what 'de facto' means. (I worked for several years in a capacity where I dealt with legal issues and procedures.) I just think the distinction is irrelevant in this case. I believe many indigenous activists have simply given up on the notion of obtaining recognition for any kind of veto, 'de jure' or 'de facto', under existing Canadian law and are thus now arguing the primacy of what they instead call an obligation of "consent" - listen to the BC blockade activists on the TV coverage and you'll hear the word consent rather than veto raised more often than not - a concept included in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (It's no surprise, really, that PM Harper wouldn't sign the Declaration, right?) But the Declaration has no formal legal standing in our courts and thus the concept of "consent" does not replace or override the SCC's precedent-setting ruling that a veto right does not apply. 

By the way, the 1997 case you cited earlier does not address the veto rights issue but was instead a land claims matter that affirmed indigenous title for lands on which the Crown claimed a valid argument for historical or traditional title no longer existed. The Crown's contention was rejected. The 2017 precedent addresses specific aspects of the meaning of indigenous title relating to resource development and pipelines and thus amounts to a clarification of the relationship between land rights, duty to consult and the (until then argued) applicability of an indigenous veto, which in the latter instance established that neither a a 'de facto' nor 'de jure' veto right applies under Canadian law. That battle is now over in our courts. The activists have moved on to a different strategy, which is grounded in the UN Declaration. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

Of course I understand what 'de facto' means. (I worked for several years in a capacity where I dealt with legal issues and procedures.) I just think the distinction is irrelevant in this case. I believe many indigenous activists have simply given up on the notion of obtaining recognition for any kind of veto, 'de jure' or 'de facto', under existing Canadian law and are thus now arguing the primacy of what they instead call an obligation of "consent" - listen to the BC blockade activists on the TV coverage and you'll hear the word consent rather than veto raised much more often than not - a concept included in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (It's no surprise, really, that PM Harper wouldn't sign the Declaration, right?) But the Declaration has no formal legal standing in our courts and thus the concept of "consent" does not replace or override the SCC's precedent stipulating that a veto right does not apply. 

By the way, the 1997 case you cited earlier does not address the veto rights issue but was instead a land claims matter that affirmed indigenous title for lands on which the Crown claimed a valid argument for historical or traditional title no longer existed. The Crown's contention was rejected. The 2017 precedent addresses specific aspects of the meaning of indigenous title relating to resource development and pipelines and thus amounts to a clarification of the relationship between land rights, duty to consult and the (until then argued) applicability of an indigenous veto, which in the latter instance was rejected as existing as either a 'de facto' or 'de jure' right. That battle is now over in our courts. The activists have moved on to a different argument, grounded in the UN Declaration. 

But I'm not talking about just the indians in BC, those are squishy Indians, Hipster Indians, NDPindians.   They are bourgeois.

I'm talking about all disputes everywhere in the country, to include radical and iron hard Indians like the Iroquois Six Nations Confederacy, led by their Hegemon, the Mohawks.

Dysfunctional Confederation, Government Corruption and Incompetence, The Indian Grievance Farming Litigation Complex, and the RCMP, is a witches brew which makes me think a de facto veto is going to be initiated at gunpoint somewhere eventually.   The RCMP treat the Indians too roughly, because the RCMP is paramilitary, it's just a matter of time before the Mounties set off a powder keg.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind, the Liberals are doing what the Democrats did with Obama, raising expectations, which are then going to be dashed, inherently dysfunctional  government is structural, Gerry Butts doesn't govern, he just promises the moon to the lefties and steals the NDP platform, Dalton McGuinty, Kathleen Wynne, that who is actually running this government, so it's going to bust at some point.

In the wake, Ford Nation will rule.   Then there's gonna be some trouble.   Not that I don't loves some Dougie Ford, mostly because he amuses me, but also it's the same as Trump, just stick it to the Lefties, troll the shit out of them.   But Ford Nation is not going to mix well with the Indians at the federal level.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

In the wake, Ford Nation will rule.   Then there's gonna be some trouble.   Not that I don't loves some Dougie Ford, mostly because he amuses me, but also it's the same as Trump, just stick it to the Lefties, troll the shit out of them.   But Ford Nation is not going to mix well with the Indians at the federal level.

This is excellent if you feel that government's primary role is to entertain, even with violence if necessary.

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is excellent if you feel that government's primary role is to entertain, even with violence if necessary.

Violent entertainment is the best kind.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind, I respect the Mohawks, I've been toe to toe with them.   But I respect them as equals, unlike the Marxist socialists, I don't see them as victims. 

I respect them as warriors.  I respect them as monarchist soldiers of their crown.   I respect them because they are not bourgeois, they are prepared to kill and die for their cause. 

Some of them have served in the military, mostly in the US military, and then they train the others.  There's actually a network of native paramilitaries across North America.

It is not the Crown they are in conflict with, it's the Socialist Nanny Police State which wants to bring them to heel.   And that's not me, so I wash my hands of it.

[Dougie93]

I've even dated a Mohawk.  When I was young buck living the single soldiers party lifestyle, met this gorgeous redhead, didn't look native, I thought she was Irish and just had a real nice tan. 

Turns out she's a Mohawk.  So it was just a May September romance, because the Mohawks are ethno-nationalist, they don't want white guys dating their women. Party in Toronto is one thing, but you're not marrying into the clan, bet dat.

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, turningrite said:

The blockade of the NG pipeline project in B.C. illustrates another case in which Trudeau's 'sunny ways' policy approach has resulted in stalemate and blowback. Personally, I think Trudeau's approach has generated unrealistic expectations on the part of indigenous activists.

I really think it was Brian Mulroney who generated those expectations with his nation to nation speech.

In retrospect though the antipathetic feelings that has fanned amongst conservatives is proving an even harder obstacle to getting anything done.

Edited January 10, 2019 by eyeball

[PIK]

Foreign paid protesters.Send in the bulldozers. I am so sick of all these out of country assholes telling us what to do.

[eyeball]

The eight-ball everything is behind is a consequence of two things, the rushed urgency of economic pressure right now against the much slower even inter-generational pace of reconciliation.  Non-native attempts to dial back the latter in pursuit of the former will only make things worse.   That said the difficulties posed by expectations that nationhood have wrought is apparent in the conflict within First Nations themselves and they will have to work this out themselves.  Everyone else will just have to be patient.

That this confluence of affairs has occurred at a time when the political landscape is warming at a pace that makes climate change seem glacial is...simply what it is.   I mean compare this situation to the  legalization of pot - we tried to pull it off at just about the most morally panic-stricken time in our goofy country's history, is it really any wonder things are so FUBAR?

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, PIK said:

Foreign paid protesters.Send in the bulldozers. I am so sick of all these out of country assholes telling us what to do.

Its a global conflict PIK and there's no shortage of assholes on either side.  You'll probably have to send in tanks, I can see this conflict making the War of the Woods seem like a peace process.

[Dougie93]

So, just FYI, as soon as the RCMP got permission from the band council in BC to step on to native land, the Iroquois Six Nations Confederacy, led by their Hegemon,  the Mohawks, have invoked that band council has simply been leveraged by intimidation into doing this, and so it is an illegitimate transgression unto all First Nations by its nature, and they have launched an asymmetrical operation in retaliation in kind,  by transgressing on the Windsor to Quebec corridor, by rolling vehicular blockade, in progress right now, see; CBC News.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Dougie93

[turningrite]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

So, just FYI, as soon as the RCMP got permission from the band council in BC to step on to native land, the Iroquois Six Nations Confederacy, led by their Hegemon,  the Mohawks, have invoked that band council has simply been leveraged by intimidation into doing this, and so it is an illegitimate transgression unto all First Nations by its nature, and they have launched an asymmetrical operation in retaliation in kind,  by transgressing on the Windsor to Quebec corridor, by rolling vehicular blockade, in progress right now, see; CBC News.

As I've stated earlier under this topic, it appears that indigenous activists could be seeking a strategy to achieve an effective (i.e. 'de facto) veto by extralegal means and thereby overturn the fight that was lost at the SCC in 2017. The generally pro-Lib Toronto Star in its print edition today published a couple pieces on the B.C. situation, noting in its main editorial that it is quite problematic that an indigenous consensus on a resource project can be upended by even a single opposed community. The question that emerges is whether this system can in any way be made to be functional going forward. My guess is that many of the most radical elements in the indigenous movement hope it can't. The language of the activists, which focuses on an broad interpretation of "consent" rather than veto, is now heavily laden with verbiage from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Trudeau government signed after coming to power. Harper had steadfastly avoided doing so. It looks like the provisions of the Declaration have become 'Plan B' for activists who want to establish an effective veto, suggesting that the Trudeau government didn't understand what it was getting into. Plus ca change...

[Dougie93]

I would at this juncture merely take it as strategic warning by the Mohawk Paramilitary Hegemon, drawing attention to the asymmetric  paramilitary hegemonic nature of their role as Canada's primary indigenous adversary, in that, if Canada thinks it can pick on the docile non-paramilitary Indians with the RCMP, while the paramilitary hegemonic indians sit idle, that is not the case, and what you do in one area of the country, will always in the end come back to the vital Windsor to Quebec strategic line of communication, which they can for all intents and purposes grind to a halt if they need to.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Historical perspective; of all the First Nations of North America, two stand out as the most militant and fierce, to the South in the Black Hills, the Lakota, and along the banks of the Saint Lawrence, the Mohawks.

They were militarized Hegemons in their day, and they remain so to this day.

To wit, not all Indians are created equal, it is not a monolith, they have their leading military powers too.