Pipeline protestors need to be jailed

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

There is an actual difference. Aboriginals do not ethnically cleanse people who do not look like them.

Various bands have been known to expel people who aren't of their tribe, even when married to people who are, esp white people.

We're not giving the country back. Nor are we going to give them independence while fully funding them. They need to choose whether they want to become Canadians or live in splendid isolation in hovels in the deep woods far from jobs. If the latter they should stop blaming us. The whole country is open to them. People come from thousands of miles away at a chance to live here, and the natives won't take a bus ride for a better life.

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

Governments can't legislate away the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada on Aboriginal rights. 

Governments can change the constitution. Get a conservative one in place, and I bet with all the provincial conservative governments they could get a constitutional amendment passed which said anything they wanted it to say about aboriginal rights. And if you don't think this is gonna happen some day you're kidding yourself. A growing percentage of the population is made up of immigrants and they have ZERO respect for natives and their problems. These are people who came halfway around the world to try and get here and have a better life. You think they have any sympathy for people who insist on living in the boonies and holding their hands out for more welfare? You think they want to continue to pay them because of some ancient treaty with the King of England?

[jacee]

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1 I’m not taking issue with court decisions.   

2 Any political organization that ties territorial propriety to a race and incentivizes this apartheid is problematic, but

3 if that’s the will of indigenous,

4 we’ll go along to get along.  

There are assumptions and biases implicit in your post that must first be debunked before a response is even possible:  

2 Again you try to raise the "race" flag of white supremacism. That may fly among the minuscule mob of white supremacists, but it's quite distasteful to decent people just trying to live in peace. Such obsessive racial extremism reveals an agenda that derails and defeats any arguments you make.

Race is an irrelevant distraction in these issues: Different peoples with different cultures, laws, customs and origins can make agreements to share land as equals, respecting each others ways, regardless of same or different skin colour. In fact, Canada has three founding peoples - Indigenous, French and English - and three corresponding legal systems - Indigenous Law, French Civil Code, and English Common Law.  

1,3,4  Yes you are taking issue with Canadian Court decisions, erroneously attempting to disparage and dismiss Canadian law as "the will of Indigenous".

But Canadian court decisions only reflect the original laws of Canada/BNA - treaties, Royal Proclamations - that were made by European leaders at and following 'Contact', through negotiation with the original Indigenous inhabitants, to allow the starving and disenfranchised hordes of European refugees (purged from their common lands by predatory aristocrats) to settle in some areas in Canada/BNA, to live in peace. 

The earliest and overarching law in Canada/BNA is the Two Row Wampum treaty, agreement that the two parties will share the land in Peace, Friendship and Respect, will not interfere with each other's lives, lands, laws and customs.

The peace treaties and Royal laws were not broken by Indigenous peoples, but by colonial governments (the second sons of English aristocrats) and their predatory business/industry interests, who behaved as if the treaties and Proclamations didn't mean anything. Some Canadians (including you and, strangely, 'Lord' Conrad Black) still talk and act as if Aboriginal rights recognized by Crown treaties and Proclamations can be ignored or extinguished unilaterally by Canadian governments. But when petitioned by Indigenous leaders in Canada, the Crown in Britain, via British Parliament, upheld the 'honour of the Crown' and thus the Crown's treaties and Proclamations, resulting in the necessary inclusion of Section 35 & 25 in the Constitution Act of Canada, before it could be 'repatriated' in 1982. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that the honour of the Crown must be upheld, notably in R v Sparrow (1990):

... the second part of the justification issue:  the honour of the Crown in dealings with aboriginal peoples.  The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginal people must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified. 

So ... you "go along [with the law] to get along", all the while evading, disparaging and dismissing the law every time it is relevant.  Lol 

[Zeitgeist]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I didn't do that, I put forward the reality that science says our economy is unsustainable.

Yes the Church of Economic Alarmism has been screaming about the end of our world for decades too. I know full well what you're saying I'm not denying that reality or the reality that the economy will be also be lost if we continue with business as usual.  I also fully realize that impoverished people make lousy stewards of the environment because they simply can't afford to be responsible  It's a vicious double spiral.  

The alarmism all points in the same direction but at the end of the day the fundamental reality is that natural ecosystems can exist all on their own just fine without a human economy anywhere in sight.  You can't have it both ways though.  Human economies simply cannot exist without a functioning productive ecosystem around it.  Not unless you move to some fictional Soylent Green sort of socioeconomic model.

There are two very clear realities here and I'm not denying either one at all.  Are you?

The environment will persist whether or not it’s habitable for homo sapiens.  We should care about an environment that humans can inhabit and accept that a certain amount of climate change is inevitable.  We do what we can to mitigate and adapt.  

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, jacee said:

There are assumptions and biases implicit in your post that must first be debunked before a response is even possible:  

2 Again you try to raise the "race" flag of white supremacism. That may fly among the minuscule mob of white supremacists, but it's quite distasteful to decent people just trying to live in peace. Such obsessive racial extremism reveals an agenda that derails and defeats any arguments you make.

Race is an irrelevant distraction in these issues: Different peoples with different cultures, laws, customs and origins can make agreements to share land as equals, respecting each others ways, regardless of same or different skin colour. In fact, Canada has three founding peoples - Indigenous, French and English - and three corresponding legal systems - Indigenous Law, French Civil Code, and English Common Law.  

1,3,4  Yes you are taking issue with Canadian Court decisions, erroneously attempting to disparage and dismiss Canadian law as "the will of Indigenous".

But Canadian court decisions only reflect the original laws of Canada/BNA - treaties, Royal Proclamations - that were made by European leaders at and following 'Contact', through negotiation with the original Indigenous inhabitants, to allow the starving and disenfranchised hordes of European refugees (purged from their common lands by predatory aristocrats) to settle in some areas in Canada/BNA, to live in peace. 

The earliest and overarching law in Canada/BNA is the Two Row Wampum treaty, agreement that the two parties will share the land in Peace, Friendship and Respect, will not interfere with each other's lives, lands, laws and customs.

The peace treaties and Royal laws were not broken by Indigenous peoples, but by colonial governments (the second sons of English aristocrats) and their predatory business/industry interests, who behaved as if the treaties and Proclamations didn't mean anything. Some Canadians (including you and, strangely, 'Lord' Conrad Black) still talk and act as if Aboriginal rights recognized by Crown treaties and Proclamations can be ignored or extinguished unilaterally by Canadian governments. But when petitioned by Indigenous leaders in Canada, the Crown in Britain, via British Parliament, upheld the 'honour of the Crown' and thus the Crown's treaties and Proclamations, resulting in the necessary inclusion of Section 35 & 25 in the Constitution Act of Canada, before it could be 'repatriated' in 1982. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that the honour of the Crown must be upheld, notably in R v Sparrow (1990):

... the second part of the justification issue:  the honour of the Crown in dealings with aboriginal peoples.  The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginal people must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified. 

So ... you "go along [with the law] to get along", all the while evading, disparaging and dismissing the law every time it is relevant.  Lol 

You continue to ignore what I say.  I’ve said multiple times that Indigenous need to decide for themselves how to conduct their affairs and spend their funding from the Canadian government. They should decide what to do with the Indian Act because decisions made on their behalf can always be called colonial interference.  So far Indigenous are choosing to retain the Indian Act, including its ethnic status cards and territories.  I realize this is their adopted reality and that reform/change is a process.  

Edited March 12, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[jacee]

20 hours ago, Shady said:

You really gotta decide when you think the law is important and when you don’t .  Because in some instances you don’t care about the law.  You can’t pick and choose.

Name one such "instance".

Keep in mind that a low court ruling can be appealed to a higher court - a Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. 

[eyeball]

56 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The environment will persist whether or not it’s habitable for homo sapiens.  

Yes I'm sure tardigrades will do just fine. 

Quote

We should care about an environment that humans can inhabit and accept that a certain amount of climate change is inevitable.  We do what we can to mitigate and adapt.

Yeah... but I'm pretty sure that'll mean 20 - 30 years of talking about mitigating first...one day...some day...down the road...over the rainbow.  We've all seen this playbook before meaning the appropriate course of action is to relentlessly push as hard against fossil fuel development on all possible fronts as hard as or harder than the forces pushing the other way.  Seems to balance well with saying we can increase our use of oil as much as possible while reducing our use of oil as much as possible.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Various bands have been known to expel people who aren't of their tribe, even when married to people who are, esp white people.

We're not giving the country back. Nor are we going to give them independence while fully funding them. They need to choose whether they want to become Canadians or live in splendid isolation in hovels in the deep woods far from jobs. If the latter they should stop blaming us. The whole country is open to them. People come from thousands of miles away at a chance to live here, and the natives won't take a bus ride for a better life.

 

Yes but  not because of their skin colour but because of their not being part of their ancestry or  traditions. I do  not mean so get into a semantic argument with you at all. The poiint I am trying to make is is the same one we Jews do when we explain Zionism. We do not define our collective as a race any more than gays do with their collective or aboriginals do with their collective. Its not something I meant to argue in the sense that the above does not happen. It does. Also the point is no we can not go backwards and uninvent Canada . I agree with your point dwelling on the past not to make changes is pointless. Some aboriginal leaders are in denial, others are realistic and pragmatic, some are trying to find a balance between their traditions and our current Western technological ways. You all know that. I just think we sometimes misstate their collective identity as one based on race. It never was. That's a European concept invented by aEuropean to subjectively describe what people looked like based on secondary genetic characteristics such as lip size, nose shape, hair texture, amount of melanin in the skin.  Its been proven scientifically absurd by what we know today about genetics and native peoples in Canada did not use it. Why would they?  Also I can not speak for native peoples but someone for the sake of debate as I have, has raised the response. You'd have to ask native peoples how they define themselves. I don't myself define them by nose size or skin colour. I define them by their traditions/customs as they have asked me to.  Lol you would no doubt call it being politically correct. No just I hate being referred to as a race-I know how that feels. I do not define you by your race. I define you by our individual opinions. You are Argus to me not someone white guy even if you are an albino.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Rue

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes I'm sure tardigrades will do just fine. 

Yeah... but I'm pretty sure that'll mean 20 - 30 years of talking about mitigating first...one day...some day...down the road...over the rainbow.  We've all seen this playbook before meaning the appropriate course of action is to relentlessly push as hard against fossil fuel development on all possible fronts as hard as or harder than the forces pushing the other way.  Seems to balance well with saying we can increase our use of oil as much as possible while reducing our use of oil as much as possible.

You’ve never seen anything like the hardship that may be coming our way very soon.  Let those with the technical know-how and the budgets determine what is feasible.  The more desperate people become the more they worry about immediate needs instead of future targets.  It’s just human nature.  If the jobs go, so will discussion of initiatives.  You could have a low emission economy with few people in it.  

[taxme]

22 hours ago, Rue said:

Aboriginals within their own laws  do not define themselves as a race. They define themselves a collective of collectives based on common ancestry, i.e., origins and those origins are based on traditions that are followed. They also do not define themselves as owning property. Their concepts deal with collective rights associated with accessing land not owning it.

It is Canadian non aboriginal laws that have used the concept of race or title to property and still might directly or indirectly.

In fact I doubt you will find any aboriginal community leader use the term race as we have  to define themselves or use the world title as we do in Canadian laws when it comes to property.  I would love to see the terms used that way by them. I have never seen it yet.

By the way the need to  accessuse of land was not predicated by aboriginals-it only became an issue because of the French and British initiating it first causing initial limitation to access on aboriginals based on defining them as a race. The aboriginals realized that while French and English were both albino like compared to them, they were not of the same cultures. They defined them by their behaviour amd language and customs more than they did their albino features. Aboriginals did have albinos you know. All life with spinal cords tend to have them.

 

Everyone on earth belongs to some race be it Mongoloid, Negroid or Caucasoid. If one takes a close look at the facial features of native Indians, they will see a face that appears to have an Asian like looking face. Native Indians may be a race of people who's ancestors were from Asia. I would like to have a DNA test done on all native Indians to see if this is so. Hopefully that would prove and show us all that native Indians are part of some race, notably the Asian race. Hey, you never know, eh opponent? 

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’ve never seen anything like the hardship that may be coming our way very soon.  Let those with the technical know-how and the budgets determine what is feasible.  The more desperate people become the more they worry about immediate needs instead of future targets.  It’s just human nature.  If the jobs go, so will discussion of initiatives.  You could have a low emission economy with few people in it.  

Science was clearly telling you it was time to act on this sort of thinking 30 years ago. Let me guess, you rolled on the floor laughing your ass off instead.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Name one such "instance".

Keep in mind that a low court ruling can be appealed to a higher court - a Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. 

The illegal pipeline protests.

[jacee]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Don’t put fiction about how green we can make our economy ahead of jobs and lives.  The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse.  

The "economy and society we have" will be "much worse" if we continue on our path of depleting the earth's ability to sustain itself ... and us. 

We are taking too much, and giving back too little of any value, and a whole lot of trash and contamination.

Some industry elements of the 'economy' will be disrupted, the ones we need to get rid of: fossil fuel burning and single use plastics, 'fast fashion' synthetics, unrepairable appliances, unrepairable and unrecyclable electronics disposed along with their 'rare earth' minerals ... among many examples.

Oh well. 

At the same time, alternative industries will arise, some already here, to take their place. 

I have great faith in the entrepreneurial and inventive spirits that constantly provide new products and services (thus new industries) to meet society's needs and wants. 

Now we need to direct and regulate them to profuce only  sustainable products, services, industries and business. 

The economy will continue being the economy, but sustainable, and as eyeball said, not dependent on growth, live within its means, distribute wealth more usefully so money circulates within our economy rather than being hoarded by corporations and super wealthy people offshore, hidden from taxes.

And of course, we have to end corporate welfare: Support workers through education and training for necessary transitions, with common health/sickness benefits, living wages, etc. ... but NEVER AGAIN put public money in the hands of greedy and predatory corporations. 

In other words, we have to regulate and shame predatory capitalism  out of existence, in favour of regulated and sustainable economy and industries.

Catastrophizing that

"The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse."

is retrogressive and without reason, not useful ... unless your purpose is terrorizing gullible people ... and that isn't useful to the economy or society. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by jacee

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

The "economy and society we have" will be "much worse" if we continue on our path of depleting the earth's ability to sustain itself ... and us. 

We are taking too much, and giving back too little of any value, and a whole lot of trash and contamination.

Some industry elements of the 'economy' will be disrupted, the ones we need to get rid of: fossil fuel burning and single use plastics, 'fast fashion' synthetics, unrepairable appliances, unrepairable and unrecyclable electronics disposed along with their 'rare earth' minerals ... among many examples.

Oh well. 

At the same time, alternative industries will arise, some already here, to take their place. 

I have great faith in the entrepreneurial and inventive spirits that constantly provide new products and services (thus new industries) to meet society's needs and wants. 

Now we need to direct and regulate them to profuce only  sustainable products, services, industries and business. 

The economy will continue being the economy, but sustainable, and as eyeball said, not dependent on growth, live within its means, distribute wealth more usefully so money circulates within our economy rather than being hoarded by corporations and super wealthy people offshore, hidden from taxes.

And of course, we have to end corporate welfare: Support workers through education and training for necessary transitions, with common health/sickness benefits, living wages, etc. ... but NEVER AGAIN put public money in the hands of greedy and predatory corporations. 

In other words, we have to regulate and shame predatory capitalism  out of existence, in favour of regulated and sustainable economy and industries.

Catastrophizing that

"The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse."

is retrogressive and without reason, not useful ... unless your purpose is terrorizing gullible people ... and that isn't useful to the economy or society. 

I fear naivety and ignorance more than climate change because, while I think with improvements in energy production and waste reduction we could reduce emissions, I think the kinds of reductions needed to reduce climate change in the significant ways necessary to prevent adaptation aren’t scalable or possible in the next several decades, even if we got to zero emissions within 50 years, because even if all emissions stopped today, global annual average temperatures will rise.  We need to act, but not at the cost of widespread poverty or subsistence living. We do have to adapt and recognize that, even if on aggregate there may be more losers than winners due to some inevitable climate change, there will be some winners.  Canada will get more arable land and crop production.  Ports will open in the far north.   People will have to migrate, sometimes on a mass scale, and in this more crowded world, more people will be impacted by natural disasters and communicable diseases.  We will have to be adaptable and resilient.  

Thankfully, as Stephen Pinker and many other scientific influencers have noted, the world is actually a much better place than it was even a couple of decades ago.  People are living longer, are more educated, and enjoying more employment than ever before, even if incomes haven’t kept pace with other metrics.  

We do need to curtail wasteful behaviour and share the wealth better without disincentivizing work and appreciation.   The only path forward, I think, is balanced, greener socio-economic policy supported by smarter tech.  It’s about ethical, merit-based policies supported by data and technology.  Ethics though can be complex, as sometimes automation clashes with employment and environmental considerations clash with the economic opportunity of resource development.    Something tells me the world could be quite different with the right leadership.  

Edited March 13, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Science was clearly telling you it was time to act on this sort of thinking 30 years ago. Let me guess, you rolled on the floor laughing your ass off instead.

No, I changed my behaviour and got into green energy.  What did you do?  Talk is cheap.  

[jacee]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

A growing percentage of the population is made up of immigrants and they have ZERO respect for natives and their problems. These are people who came halfway around the world to try and get here and have a better life. You think they have any sympathy for people who insist on living in the boonies and holding their hands out for more welfare? You think they want to continue to pay them because of some ancient treaty with the King of England?

Says the great defender of immigrants.

/facepalm 

[jacee]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The environment will persist whether or not it’s habitable for homo sapiens.  We should care about an environment that humans can inhabit and accept that a certain amount of climate change is inevitable.  We do what we can to mitigate and adapt.  

Ya. 

Shut down fossil fuels asap would "mitigate". 

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Ya. 

Shut down fossil fuels asap would "mitigate". 

No, it would just kill the economy. The juice is nowhere near worth the squeeze, any good it does is far outweighed by the negative.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, jacee said:

Ya. 

Shut down fossil fuels asap would "mitigate". 

That would cause the worst depression in history, throw most people out of work, slash the supply of essential goods and services, including home heating and power for many/most people.  Oh, and no more lattes for you.  

Edited March 13, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

Says the great defender of immigrants.

/facepalm 

My two points about immigrants are that 1) we are not properly assessing them for their economic benefit, but more importantly 2) the numbers we are bringing in will change our culture and traditions and values, on who we are and how we see ourselves. I've been entirely consistent on these points for many years.

This many immigrants, especially from non-white third world countries, are going to hugely diminish the sense of white liberal guilt so many of you feel about natives. How can it not? Given the efforts these people put into getting to Canada, learning the language, developing skills, working two or three jobs, trying to get ahead... how do you think they'd feel about a group of people unwilling to do any of that, but constantly holding out their hands for more billions by saying "You owe us"? The response I've seen from immigrants is "I don't owe you a damn thing. Get a job."

[Shady]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

Ya. 

Shut down fossil fuels asap would "mitigate". 

You can’t shut down activities that aren’t illegal.  I thought you believed in the rule of law?  You picking n choosing again?

[mowich]

On 3/11/2020 at 9:56 AM, jacee said:

The relevant law is the duty of the Crown (BC) to consult with Aboriginal rights holders BEFORE approving projects.

The relevant law is the Federal government must 'reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title', BEFORE the shyte blows up in their faces.

The province and the feds could have prevented the nation-wide uprising if they had done their jobs properly. 

They CHOSE to evade their responsibilities and pass the buck to the company and the RCMP, and that has clearly backfired on them.

Lessons learned? 

"Which band" ? 

This is nonsense.

Educate yourself.

I don't involve myself in internal Wet'suet'en issues. Not our business. 

It is our business to make sure governments do their duty BEFORE Indigenous rights are violated, to avoid such conflicts. 

Take your pick. 

[mowich]

On 3/12/2020 at 12:27 PM, jacee said:

There are assumptions and biases implicit in your post that must first be debunked before a response is even possible:  

2 Again you try to raise the "race" flag of white supremacism. That may fly among the minuscule mob of white supremacists, but it's quite distasteful to decent people just trying to live in peace. Such obsessive racial extremism reveals an agenda that derails and defeats any arguments you make.

Race is an irrelevant distraction in these issues: Different peoples with different cultures, laws, customs and origins can make agreements to share land as equals, respecting each others ways, regardless of same or different skin colour. In fact, Canada has three founding peoples - Indigenous, French and English - and three corresponding legal systems - Indigenous Law, French Civil Code, and English Common Law.  

1,3,4  Yes you are taking issue with Canadian Court decisions, erroneously attempting to disparage and dismiss Canadian law as "the will of Indigenous".

But Canadian court decisions only reflect the original laws of Canada/BNA - treaties, Royal Proclamations - that were made by European leaders at and following 'Contact', through negotiation with the original Indigenous inhabitants, to allow the starving and disenfranchised hordes of European refugees (purged from their common lands by predatory aristocrats) to settle in some areas in Canada/BNA, to live in peace. 

The earliest and overarching law in Canada/BNA is the Two Row Wampum treaty, agreement that the two parties will share the land in Peace, Friendship and Respect, will not interfere with each other's lives, lands, laws and customs.

The peace treaties and Royal laws were not broken by Indigenous peoples, but by colonial governments (the second sons of English aristocrats) and their predatory business/industry interests, who behaved as if the treaties and Proclamations didn't mean anything. Some Canadians (including you and, strangely, 'Lord' Conrad Black) still talk and act as if Aboriginal rights recognized by Crown treaties and Proclamations can be ignored or extinguished unilaterally by Canadian governments. But when petitioned by Indigenous leaders in Canada, the Crown in Britain, via British Parliament, upheld the 'honour of the Crown' and thus the Crown's treaties and Proclamations, resulting in the necessary inclusion of Section 35 & 25 in the Constitution Act of Canada, before it could be 'repatriated' in 1982. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that the honour of the Crown must be upheld, notably in R v Sparrow (1990):

... the second part of the justification issue:  the honour of the Crown in dealings with aboriginal peoples.  The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginal people must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified. 

So ... you "go along [with the law] to get along", all the while evading, disparaging and dismissing the law every time it is relevant.  Lol 

"......must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified."

True...............but not the last.

[mowich]

On 3/11/2020 at 10:24 AM, jacee said:

Arising from Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) but not clarified until Supreme Court rulings after 2000, governments were forced to consult with Indigenous communities about developments on their traditional/treaty territories ... only in the last 20 years.

For 130+ years before that, Indigenous territories were a free-for-all for corporations that mined, logged, built/operated railways, hydro lines, roads and pipelines etc with no consultation, no consent, and no revenues to Indigenous communities. Land and water were contaminated and made unfit to sustain their lives through traditional hunting, fishing, trapping, with no compensation paid, no remedial efforts (eg, clean water systems, industrial cleanup of mercury and other contaminants, etc). 

And still governments dilly-dally, paper shuffle, pass the buck, encourage corporate bribery to buy support and divide Indigenous communities, doing everything they can to avoid doing their jobs, avoid sharing revenues avoid settling land, treaty and title claims requiring compensation for 130+ years of rights violations ... violations of Canadian law ... that still continue.

The list of Indigenous groups that have officially endorsed the Frontier project has grown to 14:

• Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

• Mikisew Cree First Nation

• Fort McKay First Nation

• Fort Chipewyan Métis

• Fort McKay Métis

• Fort McMurray Métis 1935

• Fort McMurray First Nation #468

• Métis Nation of Alberta - Region 1 and its member locals:

• Athabasca Landing Local # 2010

• Buffalo Lake Local # 2002

• Conklin Local # 193

• Lac La Biche Local # 1909

• Owl River Local # 1949

• Willow Lake Local # 780

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tmx-irc-indigenous-1.4975243

 

Currently 189 bands are members of the Indian Resource Council

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-first-nations-group-offers-to-buy-225-per-cent-stake-in-transcanadas/

[mowich]

21 hours ago, jacee said:

The "economy and society we have" will be "much worse" if we continue on our path of depleting the earth's ability to sustain itself ... and us. 

We are taking too much, and giving back too little of any value, and a whole lot of trash and contamination.

Some industry elements of the 'economy' will be disrupted, the ones we need to get rid of: fossil fuel burning and single use plastics, 'fast fashion' synthetics, unrepairable appliances, unrepairable and unrecyclable electronics disposed along with their 'rare earth' minerals ... among many examples.

Oh well. 

At the same time, alternative industries will arise, some already here, to take their place. 

I have great faith in the entrepreneurial and inventive spirits that constantly provide new products and services (thus new industries) to meet society's needs and wants. 

Now we need to direct and regulate them to profuce only  sustainable products, services, industries and business. 

The economy will continue being the economy, but sustainable, and as eyeball said, not dependent on growth, live within its means, distribute wealth more usefully so money circulates within our economy rather than being hoarded by corporations and super wealthy people offshore, hidden from taxes.

And of course, we have to end corporate welfare: Support workers through education and training for necessary transitions, with common health/sickness benefits, living wages, etc. ... but NEVER AGAIN put public money in the hands of greedy and predatory corporations. 

In other words, we have to regulate and shame predatory capitalism  out of existence, in favour of regulated and sustainable economy and industries.

Catastrophizing that

"The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse."

is retrogressive and without reason, not useful ... unless your purpose is terrorizing gullible people ... and that isn't useful to the economy or society. 

"The economy will continue being the economy,...."

A total nonsense statement much like 'the budget will balance itself'.

"......but sustainable, and as eyeball said, not dependent on growth, "

Sustainable upon what?  You do realize that economies depend on growth..............course not.

''....live within its means, "

L O L

".......distribute wealth more usefully so money circulates within our economy rather than being hoarded by corporations and super wealthy people offshore, hidden from taxes."

What 'wealth'?  The wealth of our country lies in her people. 

".....so money circulates within our economy ...."

It does.

".......being hoarded by corporations and super wealthy people offshore, hidden from taxes.""

And now we get to the real thrust of your screed - your complete and utter hatred of corporations and anyone with wealth.  Cry me a river.