Pipeline protestors need to be jailed

[Yzermandius19]

Bribing the Indians into dependence is not the way to let the Indians up, that's how you hold them down.

[jacee]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

1) That's sputtering drivel. All native reserves are a part of Canada, and all natives are Canadian and subject to Canadian laws.

2) The Wet'suwet'en have no more right to tell the RCMP to get lost than the Toronto city council.

3) And btw, the Wet'suwet'en councils have NOT asked for the RCMP to leave.

4) Your continued insistence that hereditary nobility takes precedence over elected representatives is astonishing for someone on the far left, but in accordance with the way the left can twist beliefs entirely around to suit any particular argument.

"Power to the people hereditary nobility!"

1) This isn't about "reserve" land. It's about the entire 22,000 sq km of traditional territory of the Wet'suet'en Nation, recognized in our law as unceded land with Aboriginal rights and title intact. (Delgamuukw 1997)

2) RCMP have no jurisdiction in Toronto, except for certain Federal offenses, but Toronto City Council could tell RCMP to take a hike, otherwise. 

3) RCMP are not harassing people on reserves where elected Band Councils have a say. 

4) It's a matter of Canadian law, and governments' failure to abide by the law. The Crown has a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title holders. Premier Horgan paid lip service to that for one tiny minute, but then refused to do so: 

(Wearing a ceremonial Indigenous 'blanket', congratulating himself on making UNDRIP law in BC ...)

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan, December 2019:

""Let's sit down *with the title holders* whose land we want to conduct economic activity on and create partnerships as a way forward. That works," "

-------

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan,

January 2020:

 "Wet'suwet'en territory ... telling CBC he wasn't going to "drop everything I'm doing to come running when someone is saying they need to speak with me."

...

"the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C." to ensure work continues on the 670-km pipeline, "

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by jacee

[Zeitgeist]

41 minutes ago, jacee said:

1) This isn't about "reserve" land. It's about the entire 22,000 sq km of traditional territory of the Wet'suet'en Nation, recognized in our law as unceded land with Aboriginal rights and title intact. (Delgamuukw 1997)

2) RCMP have no jurisdiction in Toronto, except for certain Federal offenses, but Toronto City Council could tell RCMP to take a hike, otherwise. 

3) RCMP are not harassing people on reserves where elected Band Councils have a say. 

4) It's a matter of Canadian law, and governments' failure to abide by the law. The Crown has a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title holders. Premier Horgan paid lip service to that for one tiny minute, but then refused to do so: 

(Wearing a ceremonial Indigenous 'blanket', congratulating himself on making UNDRIP law in BC ...)

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan, December 2019:

""Let's sit down *with the title holders* whose land we want to conduct economic activity on and create partnerships as a way forward. That works," "

-------

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan,

January 2020:

 "Wet'suwet'en territory ... telling CBC he wasn't going to "drop everything I'm doing to come running when someone is saying they need to speak with me."

...

"the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C." to ensure work continues on the 670-km pipeline, "

 

Okay so you believe in Inherited authority.  How wonderful.  Yet the majority of hereditary chiefs support the pipeline.  So, if someone opposes something that the vast majority support, and approvals have been granted because regulations are being followed, that dissenter has a right to sabotage private and/or government businesses?  Are you an anarchist?

[Rue]

16 hours ago, cougar said:

What you are missing in your line of thinking is that nobody can flourish in a sick planet and environment.    People have been able to live off the land / jobless for thousands of years.  You will not be able to live without clean water, food and air for a single hour! (think about the air first)

I just think the way t go about achieving that can't  be done blocking railway tacks. I also question people who are not indigenous now copy catting Mohawks. They wouldn't know a Mohawk from one of my tribe. They think we both have big noses.  The issues about the environment can be dealt with.

Next the way to deal with legal issues that remain resolved is through dialogue not tantrums and ultimatums by either side.

 

 

[Rue]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Okay so you believe in Inherited authority.  How wonderful.  Yet the majority of hereditary chiefs support the pipeline.  So, if someone opposes something that the vast majority support, and approvals have been granted because regulations are being followed, that dissenter has a right to sabotage private and/or government businesses?  Are you an anarchist?

I agree with Jacee's interpretation of the law  but don't agree with the methods being used by the railroad blockers.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

I agree with Jacee's interpretation of the law  but don't agree with the methods being used by the railroad blockers.

Sorry? You agree with her idiotic interpretation of the law that the RCMP have no authority in Toronto and the Toronto city council can order them to leave? Or that the RCMP have no authority and no right to go on 'unceded land'?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

1) This isn't about "reserve" land. It's about the entire 22,000 sq km of traditional territory of the Wet'suet'en Nation, recognized in our law as unceded land with Aboriginal rights and title intact. (Delgamuukw 1997)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Regardless of what 'rights and titles' the courts eventually decide on various spots of land all of it, including the reserves, is under the sovereignty of the Canadian government, and it's police can go anywhere they damned well want.

4 hours ago, jacee said:

2) RCMP have no jurisdiction in Toronto, except for certain Federal offenses, but Toronto City Council could tell RCMP to take a hike, otherwise. 

They could tell them to fly unicorns around the sun and it would have as much authority. The RCMP have police powers across Canada and in every jurisdiction. They might not bother investigating crime in Toronto except for certain offenses, but they can, and they can also arrest any criminal they come across. PS. This is not the US. We don't HAVE 'federal offenses'. We have the criminal code of Canada.

4 hours ago, jacee said:

4) It's a matter of Canadian law, and governments' failure to abide by the law. The Crown has a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title holders. Premier Horgan paid lip service to that for one tiny minute, but then refused to do so: 

Another one of those far left socialist types screaming "Power to the aristocrats! Screw the people and their votes and referendums! Only the hereditary rulers matter!'

Interesting position there, comrade.

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I agree with Jacee's interpretation of the law  but don't agree with the methods being used by the railroad blockers.

Again though, ceded or unseeded doesn’t change the numbers on this: Most of the unelected, hereditary chiefs support the pipeline.

[cougar]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

 The issues about the environment can be dealt with.

Yes, Harper "dealt" with it and Kenney is just waiting to do the same.

Since they do not give a rat's ass about protecting the land, the environmentally minded people get behind the First Nations as the only option left to stop the next monstrosity. 

That's all in a nutshell.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Yes, Harper "dealt" with it and Kenney is just waiting to do the same.

Since they do not give a rat's ass about protecting the land, the environmentally minded people get behind the First Nations as the only option left to stop the next monstrosity. 

That's all in a nutshell.

I'm perfectly willing to stop all resource development to save the environment as long as we also end all the social welfare programs our economy pays for. You ready to do that?

[cougar]

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm perfectly willing to stop all resource development to save the environment as long as we also end all the social welfare programs our economy pays for. You ready to do that?

I do not currently avail of any social welfare program in any shape or form.  However, the way we (politely put , as I have nothing to do with it) have built the economy in this country, the moment resource extraction stops, many of us will end up unemployed.    I just do not want to see more people pumped into this country as fuel for the resource sector.  If we end up with 50% unemployment those idiots in the government will have to curb immigration.

[SkyHigh]

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm perfectly willing to stop all resource development to save the environment as long as we also end all the social welfare programs our economy pays for. You ready to do that?

 

9 minutes ago, cougar said:

I do not currently avail of any social welfare program in any shape or form. 

Im curious to how you would both define "social welfare program"

Are you against, public education, old age security, EI etc.. ?

[Shady]

9 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 

Im curious to how you would both define "social welfare program"

Are you against, public education, old age security, EI etc.. ?

Good point.  Throw in health care as well.

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

Good point.  Throw in health care as well.

My lord you're daft.

I asked a question, no "point" was even attempted

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, cougar said:

I do not currently avail of any social welfare program in any shape or form.  However, the way we (politely put , as I have nothing to do with it) have built the economy in this country, the moment resource extraction stops, many of us will end up unemployed.    I just do not want to see more people pumped into this country as fuel for the resource sector.  If we end up with 50% unemployment those idiots in the government will have to curb immigration.

You clearly have not been listening to the narrative. Those idiots in government will tell you with perfect sincerity that immigrants are good for our economy, and the more the better.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 

Im curious to how you would both define "social welfare program"

Are you against, public education, old age security, EI etc.. ?

EI is funded by payroll deductions.. Public education is a necessary expense, not a social welfare program, as business and the economy require an educated workforce. OAS, on the other hand, would have to be eliminated as we could no longer afford it.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Argus

[SkyHigh]

Just now, Argus said:

EI is funded by payroll deductions. OAS of course, is funded purely through taxation, and that would have to stop since we could no longer afford it.

Again, please define "social welfare programs" as you understand it

Again, are you against things like EI and old age pensions?

[Argus]

Just now, SkyHigh said:

Again, please define "social welfare programs" as you understand it

Again, are you against things like EI and old age pensions?

I'm against the country going bankrupt. No, I'm not against EI or OAS. But we can afford what we can afford. With an economy in tatters some expensive things are gonna have to go.

[cougar]

10 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

 

Im curious to how you would both define "social welfare program"

Are you against, public education, old age security, EI etc.. ?

E.I. is not a social program. You first pay into it to get money back. 

Education is paid.  Not like in the good old days in the Socialist block countries or even many western countries like Germany.

Old age, again, you would have paid a s*t load of income tax before you get to that.

Social welfare is the welfare cheque, the Food Bank, the sponsored educational programs (retraining etc.), subsidized housing.  When I think about it, not many welfare programs exist.  This is why

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I'm against the country going bankrupt. No, I'm not against EI or OAS. But we can afford what we can afford. With an economy in tatters some expensive things are gonna have to go.

I did not inquire about the long term financial feasibility of these programs, but if they had merit.

I did though inquire about your statement that we should "end ALL the social welfare programs our economy pays for"". So are you willing to walk that back, or is this just a partisan hyperbolic rant?

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

Social welfare is the welfare cheque,

If that's your definition i would tend to agree

Unfortunately that's not the widely accepted definition which most certainly includes such things as EI and pensions

[Argus]

48 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I did not inquire about the long term financial feasibility of these programs, but if they had merit.

I did though inquire about your statement that we should "end ALL the social welfare programs our economy pays for"". So are you willing to walk that back, or is this just a partisan hyperbolic rant?

EI is, as I pointed out, paid for out of payroll deductions. As is CPP. Those programs that are paid for out of the common fisc which are unnecessary will have to end as we won't have the money for them any more. And that includes OAS.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Argus

[cougar]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I'm against the country going bankrupt. 

Don't we have a national debt already? Don't US have a national debt?  Just about every country seems to be bankrupt and by who?  Money is owed to whom?

Our world is a big scam; a pyramid of sorts.  We at the bottom only try to manage things at our micro level and still most of us are again in debt.

Edited February 26, 2020 by cougar

[SkyHigh]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

EI is, as I pointed out, paid for out of payroll deductions. As is CPP. Those programs that are paid for out of the common fisc which are unnecessary will have to end as we won't have the money for them any more.

Again you speak to solvency, which I not only didn't mention, I in fact share your concerns that handled as they are now will  not continue to be  sustainable, regardless of if you're for or against.

What i did do, is ask two very direct and simple questions

1. How do you define social welfare program? Agreement over at least a working definition of a possibly politically contentious or subjective word is always the first step to any discussion when both parties want good faith, ernest dialogue

2. Are you against such things as EI and pensions? This one you at least answered, and with an affirmation of support, in contradiction to your original statement "end all the social programs our economy pays for". The third law of logic, "excluded middle" states something is either true or not true, so which is it you do agree with social welfare or you don't? How the "program" is run is irrelevant to does it have merit

 

[Dougie93]

Quote

Fires lit, pallets thrown during Ontario rail protests, as Legault warns of AK-47s in Kahnawake

On the Kahnawake Mohawk territory south of Montreal, protesters warned that any police efforts to remove the site would be seen as a provocation

Tires burn on the CN Rail line running through Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory on Wednesday.Real Peoples Media / Facebook

The Canadian Press

February 26, 2020
4:01 AM EST

Last Updated
February 26, 2020
5:07 PM EST

Protesters behind rail blockades in Quebec and Ontario ramped up their actions and rhetoric Wednesday as government officials accused them of compromising public safety.

Demonstrators in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory near Belleville, Ont., were seen on video standing on rail tracks as a CN Rail train approached, then jumping out of the way at the last second.

Provincial police said a handful of protesters also lit fires near and on railway tracks at a secondary camp that remained in place after a raid on another, larger blockade earlier this week.

Ontario Provincial Police say that after a train moved through Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory this morning, a second train was forced to come to a stop.

The second train eventually travelled through the area though it slowed down briefly after protesters tossed a lit pallet. In videos posted to social media, activists could be seen advancing dangerously close to the tracks and hurling pallets as a train passed.

Having worked for a railroad, the level of danger here for the activists, the train crew, and any nearby community or homes is extreme. This is totally beyond the pale and needs to be denounced by other protest groups.

The latest disruptions were denounced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, who called the protesters’ actions unsafe.

“It is extremely concerning to see people endangering their own lives and the lives of others by trying to interfere with the trains,” Trudeau told reporters.

Police spokesman Bill Dickson said Canadian National Railway Co. was inspecting the tracks after police and firefighters extinguished the blaze.

Kahnawake

In Quebec, meanwhile, Premier Francois Legault is warning of a delicate situation at an ongoing protest — one that has been made more complex by what he claims is the presence of armed locals.

On the Kahnawake Mohawk territory south of Montreal, protesters reinforced a rail blockade Wednesday as the First Nation warned that any police efforts to forcibly remove the site would be seen as an act of aggression and provocation.

The blockade is being reinforced with concrete barriers and loads of rock.

The secretary of the Mohawk Nation at Kahnawake, Kenneth Deer, said in a statement that any move to enforce an injunction granted to Canadian Pacific Railway would “exacerbate an already volatile situation.”

The rail company obtained an injunction on Tuesday to end the blockade that began Feb. 8, one of several such protests in support of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who oppose a natural gas pipeline cutting across their traditional territory.

Premier Legault says the presence of dangerous assault rifles in Kahnawake is a reason for caution in enforcing the injunction. Legault told reporters in Quebec City on Wednesday that the government has information from what he called “good sources” that there are AK-47s in Kahnawake.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/rail-disruptions-expected-to-continue-after-new-protest-sites-emerg

Speech banning, gun grabbing nanny police state be freaking out up in here.   Lulz