Pipeline protestors need to be jailed

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

It seems to me that almost all the problems we're now experiencing are due to the Left...

They've told them they're nations with all the rights and respect due to nations 

Actually it was Brian Mulroney who started it.

Everything else you said sound like Fox News talking points.

[eyeball]

56 minutes ago, Shady said:

Regardless, lawlessness is lawlessness.  There is no difference.  When you give people permission to break the law, you get more of it.  It’s a terrible precedent in a civil society.

Yeah well go tell it to past human rights activists and others who are responsible for the sense that civil disobedience is the correct way to change the course of intransigent governments who refuse to change with the times.

Let me guess you don't have the slightest clue what I meant by that do you?

Anyways I'm pretty certain the lawmakers who sent troops storming thru Tiananmen Square felt exactly as you do.  So whose side were you on when that happened anyway and more to the point why?  

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yeah well go tell it to past human rights activists and others who are responsible for the sense that civil disobedience is the correct way to change the course of intransigent governments who refuse to change with the times.

Let me guess you don't have the slightest clue what I meant by that do you?

Anyways I'm pretty certain the lawmakers who sent troops storming thru Tiananmen Square felt exactly as you do.  So whose side were you on when that happened anyway and more to the point why?  

Anyone who participates in acts of civil disobedience must be prepared to face the consequences.  Some are braver than others.  Some causes are less stupid than others. 

The Chinese are barbaric bastards.  We all know that.  If you think that the arrest of someone trying to deny FN bands some economic independence is equivalent feel free to call the Canadians barbaric bastards too.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Anyone who participates in acts of civil disobedience must be prepared to face the consequences.  Some are braver than others.  Some causes are less stupid than others. 

The Chinese are barbaric bastards.  We all know that.  If you think that the arrest of someone trying to deny FN bands some economic independence is equivalent feel free to call the Canadians barbaric bastards too.

The lawmakers in China probably did what you just did too - pretend you're reacting to something else. Native sovereign independence is the issue here not economic.

You people just cannot get your heads around that at all can you? 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The lawmakers in China probably did what you just did too - pretend you're reacting to something else. Native sovereign independence is the issue here not economic.

You people just cannot get your heads around that at all can you? 

Basic disagreement here.  The FN in BC want the pipeline.   You don't want them to have the pipeline.  We both have ulterior motives for wanting or not wanting the pipeline, along with our views of the FN side of the issue, but elected natives representing their bands want the pipeline, and they have reached many agreements in order to reap the benefits.  You obviously can get your head around that.  I wonder why you disagree with them.  Unless you think birthright trumps democracy?  If you do, then we'll never agree on the issue.

The Chinese probably didn't bother to do anything to justify their actions.  Like I said, they are barbaric bastards.  At least we can agree on that, eh?  (not all of them, of course)

Edited February 24, 2020 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Basic disagreement here.  The FN in BC want the pipeline.  

Basic misunderstanding here not to mention priorities. The FN in BC want their sovereignty.

I wonder how much FN consent for the pipeline would dry up if they were asked to trade away their sovereignty for it?

Quote

Unless you think birthright trumps democracy?  If you do, then we'll never agree on the issue.

UNDRIP trumps Canada's sovereignty, especially on unceded territory and especially in BC. Unless you appreciate the issue we'll never be able to communicate let alone agree on anything.

Edited February 24, 2020 by eyeball

[Guest]

Just now, eyeball said:

Basic misunderstanding here not to mention priorities. The FN in BC want their sovereignty.

I wonder how much FN consent for the pipeline would dry up if they were asked to trade away their sovereignty for it?   

I have no idea.  They seem to want their sovereignty from hereditary rule.  I certainly agree with that. 

They seem to have had the sovereignty to make agreements with the builders of the pipeline.  I actually  know someone who is quite involved in FN issues, and he says that at one point, all the FN bands along the route had agreements.  Then the feds stepped in and sent it all to hell.  Apparently they don't want the FN to have that kind of sovereignty.  Heaven forbid!

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Then the feds stepped in and sent it all to hell.  Apparently they don't want the FN to have that kind of sovereignty.

 Well you seem to get that much at least..seem being the operative word here.

And it was actually the BC government that tried to step in, under the feds and over the hereditary chiefs. That's why it went to hell.  BC no more talks for Canada than the elected chiefs do for Wet'suwet'en.

I highly doubt your friend knows any more than you do.

Edited February 24, 2020 by eyeball

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 Well you seem to get that much at least..seem being the operative word here.

And it was actually the BC government that tried to step in, under the feds and over the hereditary chiefs. That's why it went to hell.  BC no more talks for Canada than the elected chiefs do for Wet'suwet'en.

I highly doubt your friend knows any more than you do.

He's not my friend.  I just know him.

I think he knows more than you though.  If I have to choose, you know how it is.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

  BC no more talks for Canada than the elected chiefs do for Wet'suwet'en.

Why did they elect them?  Are you actually in favour of hereditary rulers for people who have elected leaders to speak for them?

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah well go tell it to past human rights activists and others who are responsible for the sense that civil disobedience is the correct way to change the course of intransigent governments who refuse to change with the times.

Let me guess you don't have the slightest clue what I meant by that do you?

Anyways I'm pretty certain the lawmakers who sent troops storming thru Tiananmen Square felt exactly as you do.  So whose side were you on when that happened anyway and more to the point why?  

The protesting chiefs should be going through the courts and appealing the court decisions, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.  They have a case.

Civil disobedience is for when all else fails.  You don't get to put people out of jobs just because you're upset.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

He's not my friend.  I just know him.

I think he knows more than you though.  If I have to choose, you know how it is.

If he's the one telling you the elected band councils trump the hereditary chiefs then he doesn't know what he's talking about.  He may well be in good company but that doesn't change anything.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Why did they elect them? 

The same reason we elect municipal representatives and leaders.

Quote

Are you actually in favour of hereditary rulers for people who have elected leaders to speak for them?

No. I'm in favour of hereditary leaders who bring a tradition of looking at issues thru a lens that takes a longer view than the shorter scope a municipal politician might bring to bear on issues.  

Edited February 24, 2020 by eyeball

[jacee]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Green Fascists certainly are a threat to democracy in Canada.  

How so?

Feet in the street is democracy in action.

Shutting it down is fascism.

[DogOnPorch]

Hereditary chiefs?

Just another way of saying "kings". 

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The protesting chiefs should be going through the courts and appealing the court decisions, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.  They have a case.

I think as far as they're concerned they made it years ago but Canada's governments don't want to get with the program - that's why they say reconciliation is dead and to start the process again they want the government, the police in other words, off their lands.

Simply bleating 'but the elected chiefs...' over and over and over again like its going to change anything is hopeless dreaming. 

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

How so?

Feet in the street is democracy in action.

Shutting it down is fascism.

 

So Democracy is elections...but if you don't like the results...reject them and protest until the results are changed?

[jacee]

25 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The protesting chiefs should be going through the courts and appealing the court decisions, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.  They have a case.

 

They did. Delgamuukw 1997.

BC and federal governments have ignored it. 

Therefore, civil disobedience is in progress. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Hereditary chiefs?

Just another way of saying "kings". 

Or queen, head of state, there are all sorts of monikers that leaders of nations address each other by.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Or queen, head of state, there are all sorts of monikers that leaders of nations address each other by.

 

You're free to submit to your new king.

[jacee]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Hereditary chiefs?

Just another way of saying "kings". 

It's a misleading term. 

Traditional Chiefs is more accurate.

It's a matrilineal system. Chiefs are chosen by Clan Mothers, who actually hold the rights, titles and the power. The Chiefs are spokespeople. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, jacee said:

It's a misleading term. 

Traditional Chiefs is more accurate.

It's a matrilineal system. Chiefs are chosen by Clan Mothers, who actually hold the rights, titles and the power. The Chiefs are spokespeople. 

 

So? I'm not going to submit to their 'authority'. Nor should anybody else. 

[jacee]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

So Democracy is elections...but if you don't like the results...reject them and protest until the results are changed?

Democracy is also freedom of thought, expression, association, assembly. 

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, jacee said:

Democracy is also freedom of thought, expression, association, assembly. 

You can play BS games if you must. You want to submit to the will of an unelected king who claims he's somehow special for reasons yet to be determined. Meanwhile, I'm born in BC, too...but I can't go claim thousands of acres in the woods because I feel it's mine. Nor can I go strutting back to Europe to start making claims on various properties lost to history that my ancestors might or might not have had title to.

Edited February 24, 2020 by DogOnPorch

[jacee]

11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Democracy is a fine idea, as long as everyone agrees with the environmentalists, when they don't then f**k democracy, lets all go totally fascist. Jacee ladies and gentlemen.

Nonsense.

Influencing  government and public opinion is democracy in action.

Jean Charest's fascism lost him an election and his career when he tried to squash democratic dissent.

That's how democracy works. It squashes fascism ... with pots and pans. 

Of course conservatives don't want to get their shiny shoes dirty, so they just throw money around and buy governments.

That's fascism. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by jacee