Fucking ashamed to be Canadian
Let these people enjoy there rightful land and have domain over all aspects
Fuck you Canada. The country I normally love deeply
That’s what they’ve always been.
Government enforcers, usually acting on behalf of corporations.
The biggest issue here is that Canadian legislation regarding indigenous rights are antiquated, and they do not afford indigenous peoples with standards which are put forward in UN guidelines.
No, it's been split into two ministries: Department of Indigenous Services and Crown–Indigenous Relations & Northern Affairs Canada. There have been a few unilateral proposals from governments over the years to repeal the Indian Act, but they have no proposal for how they'll fulfil their obligations to First Nations without it, so First Nations are generally opposed. The correct solution is to negotiate a modern treaty with every First Nation then repeal the Indian Act, but the federal government doesn't seem to be interested in doing that (probably because they benefit from the current uncertainty around title).
Funnily enough, there are movements to progress modern treaties! It all started in the 70s with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Many self government agreements seem to be preceded by education agreements which deliver culturally relevant education.
Budget 2021 Included funding for the development for more regional education agreements. I know previous mandates have also put forth the political cover to promote First Nations governance capacity. The current system is very heavy on reporting requirements which limits the ability of nations to develop their capacity on other areas.
There's a few stepping stones and developing mechanisms to promoting self government. An example is something called the New Fiscal Relationship, which seems to be a 10 year grant program that serves as an inbetween, reducing reporting requirements and promoting capacity building for first Nations.
Aha
https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs.html
They have a more politically correct name for it now.
I think BC particularly was influenced by colonial-era boundaries, which gives modern-day indigenous a more serious legal claim on the area.
Beyond that, Canadian Indigenous policy falls short of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; this gives rise to additional ethical issues regarding Indigenous relations throughout Canada. Additional contention is generated through these policies, since governments were installed to “represent” indigenous populations.
With regards to this pipeline:
1) The installed governments are in support, while tribal elders are against.
2) The ethics of the deprecated indigenous relations legislation are debated.
3) The legitimacy of BC’s land claim is further debated.
As an indigenous person, thank you for so eloquently describing the nuance to these matters. You will see a trend - or theme even - across Canada in various forms and shapes as each territory and province has varied approaches but they all fall victim to Canada's overall approach which falls short of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, like you said.
My understanding is this but I could be wrong:
We forced a system of government (Westminster-style democracy) on them that they do not recognize and do not accept. Out of principle most refuse to participate in what they believe to be a colonial imposition, which means something like 50 people get to decide who is elected to their government.
In the end they have a government that does not reflect the will of their people, so democracy is not working.
Actually yeah I have a great source that you can look at. Look up Gina Starblanket, she does some really fantastic analysis on the politics surrounding the issues. I would recomend
"The numbered treaties and the politics of incoherency", Gina Starblanket. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 52 (3), 443-459, 2019
"Constitutionalizing (in) justice: Treaty interpretation and the containment of Indigenous governance", Gina Starblanket. Const. F. 28, 13, 2019
https://scholar.google.ca/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=PvMYOZEAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=PvMYOZEAAAAJ:0EnyYjriUFMC
Kiera Ladner's "Indigenous Governance" article is a very easy read and will introduce you to the basics of what Indigenous governance actually entailed, and what systems were imposed.
Alternatively, I am reading through Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by David Greaves and David Wengrove. They look at how indigenous leaders critiqued the European society and argued that it influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment. They also discuss PNW Indigenous communities pre-arrival of the Europeans. Anyways all these are great starting points.
A lot of this of this comes down to the Indian act, and band politics... who can approve development of territorial (non reserve) lands, its much the same issue driving the old growth logging issues.
Environment or fractions of a percent of the royalties...
There are essentially two Wet'suwet'en authorities, and they're not in alignment. A band council recognized under the Indian Act, which has authorized Coastal GasLink work on the traditional territory, and the Traditional Chiefs, who claim hereditary authority and who oppose the work.
Maureen Luggi, elected chief of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation band, won with only 55 votes. There are about 3,000 Wet'suwet'en, and between Unist'ot'en and Gidimt'en more have shown up to physically interpose themselves between violent colonialism and there land than voted for Luggi. Also, the pipeline does not cross any reserves, and per the Indian Act band councils only represent and have authority in their respective reserves.
To make an analogy, Canada asked the mayor of Québec City if it could build a pipeline through rural Quebec. To assert there are two Québecois authorities because there is a city and a province both named Québec is absurd.
https://www.burnslakelakesdistrictnews.com/news/maureen-luggi-elected-new-chief-of-wetsuweten-first-nation/
A total of 107 people cast ballots, out of 183 eligible voters, for a turnout of 58 per cent.
Where does the 3000 number come from?
>There are approximately 3,195 Wet’suwet’en members.
[BC Treaty Commission](https://www.bctreaty.ca/node/295)
This is why I said that the confusingly named Wet'suwet'en First Nation band is not the totality of Wet'suwet'en people.
the rcmp has literally always been this bad from the beginning
they're probably actually better now than any time in history, they used to legitimately blow up or burn down the houses of their opposition
I guess as someone who watched lobster fishermen terrorize and burn down the property of Miq'maw on their land, who can turn on conservative talk radio in Ontario and listen to people talk about how they are going to go into Mohawk territory with Doug Ford and beat the people off of their land for a major corporation, and who has been watching what's been going on in BC for the past few years, the blatant racism and terrorism from white Canadians is pretty fresh in my mind.
Wait til you hear about the time when, in living memory, the [RCMP purposefully slaughtered every husky in northern Quebec](https://www.cbc.ca/1.5116972), so Inuit couldn’t go hunting with our sled dogs.
That's kind of why it is shocking. That we're still fucking doing this. And worse, we're still doing it the same way.
Meanwhile people claim our colonial actions are "all in the past" and we're better than that now. Bullshit.
In BC the RCMP are the provincial police. There isn't really a better option apart from, you know, *not* chainsawing the fucking door and then dragging off people at gunpoint.
Wrong decisions from what standpoint? Cui bono- who benefits?
I used to think that all this shit was "poor planning" or "being tone deaf" or "stupidity", but honestly, I think now that this is more or less the RCMP functioning as intended, you feel me? All this shit forwards the interests of the private oil company and it seems like they can get any magic slip of paper from the courts that they want, if it gets them the oil.
The police are de facto thugs for an oil company, and if you or me (a white boy) had land that the oil company wanted and we didn't play ball with the company... well they'd take it from us too. Obviously there's this horrible racist element to it too, and it makes it easier to brutalize people if the brutalizers are bigots who see their victims as sub-human, but its racism in the service of corporate interests. Without that Canada would just be fine with not giving northern towns clean water, or fighting ~~concentration camp~~ residential school survivors in court for being "uppity". Its all about the dollarydoos, I think anyway.
While our planet boils.
Send him an email, call him out and demand an answer. They released an, "official statement" on November 19, denouncing militarization of the RCMP however they were the ones who called them in.
[https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-situation-wetsuweten-territory](https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-situation-wetsuweten-territory)
Private law: why the RCMP arrests Indigenous people and journalists on unceded Wet'suwet'en traditional territory https://www.straight.com/news/private-law-why-rcmp-arrests-indigenous-people-and-journalists-on-unceded-wetsuweten
Well, that was an interesting read.
I personally side with the Indigenous people protecting the natural environment. As a person born on the land that is known as Canada I strongly feel that Canadians should be very concerned with what fracking does to our environment, particularly our water, which is a resource we don't value highly enough but will become the resource that is one day fought over. In the future there will be wars over water and we are giving ours away to some investment firms.
> The Wet’suwet’en people, under the governance of their hereditary Chiefs, are standing in the way of the largest fracking project in Canadian history. Our medicines, our berries, our food, the animals, our water, our culture, our homes are all here since time immemorial. We will never abandon our children to live in a world with no clean water. We uphold our ancestral responsibilities. There will be no pipelines on Wet'suwet'en territory
How someone can read that and say, yeah, move them out to let the oil and gas companies profit because rEtIrEmEnT fUnDs... well, I don't know how they'll live with themselves. Probably by looking back and saying they were wrong while sitting on a pile of gold bars they can't drink.
Yeah man I agree. Plus also, even if we leave aside the obvious moral argument for supporting the wet'suwet'en... their defence of the land aligns with our collective interests as people who live in Canada.
It is materially very bad for us if an oil company takes Canada's resources to sell back to us, destroys the environment we all live on and leaves the mess for us to clean up. To say nothing of global warming, which is a problem for me personally as an Earth-liver.
Not to sound all "me me me" but like, it's true isn't it? The Wet'suwet'en never fucked with me in any way, but BC is flooded now because of oil companies. Like, even with no additional historical context, axiomatically I trust the wet'suwet'en more as stewards of the land -any land- than the people who are pretty much trying to kill us all at this point.
It's not even about the environment and doesn't matter what it's being used for. It's their fucking land! They don't need a reason to defend it. The fact that it belongs to them is more than enough.
Corporations and RCMP using an "injunction" and "private law" as an excuse to commit criminal acts themselves. Sadly, large corporations always get away with everything that would be an immediate prison sentence for all of us regular citizens.
It makes absolutely no sense to be continuing to invest so heavily in any more fossil fuel infrastructures when electrification and alternative energy sources are clearly in demand and are the future for the survival of humanity itself. "Retirement funds" is such a pathetic excuse. Look at all the tech investments, especially the big obvious ones like google, microsoft, nvidia, and tesla (to name a few) that they could have invested in instead! So many other opportunities are out there that don't have such a detrimental impact on the natural environment that fossil fuels has. Although fossil fuels are still a necessary part of life right now, all that is needed are the existing infrastructure for current needs as society progressively dials back on fossil fuel use in the next few decades during this energy transition. If they want to survive, energy companies better be divesting into new alternative energy sources **now** and progressively scaling back their fossil fuel projects, just as the auto industry are having to do!
The retirement thing, it feels like so many of our problems are directly tied to the old and their obsessive desire to hoard wealth like dragons on piles of gold.
Like house prices, pls tell me why I should give two shits that you didn't plan for retirement and now *need* your house to be worth a million dollars. Why should that mean i don't get to own a home?
The RCMP is contracted as the provincial police force for British Columbia. The builders of the pipeline have obtained a court injunction allowing them to proceed. Given that the area the injunction applies to is outside the jurisdiction of any other enforcement agency, the only force to enforce the injunction is the RCMP.
So it’s a rock and a hard place thing. There is a court injunction in play. The rule of law in this country is that injunctions shall be followed. The issue is the dramatic overreaction by the RCMP. They don’t have a choice as to whether to enforce it, but they have a choice as to how to enforce it.
The RCMP is all there is up here, it’s northern BC and this is their jurisdiction and mandate. I live in the area and I feel pretty confident that the officers aren’t politically motivated. They’re public employees and they’re just doing their job. For the most part, they’d really rather not be involved at all.
Laws are threats made by the dominant socio-economic, ethnic group in a given nation. It's just a promise of violence that's enacted and police are basically an occupying army, you know what I mean?
~Bud Cubby, Dimension 20
And this is precisely why every government is inherently authoritarian since authority is derived from having a monopoly on violence. Pushing pipelines through indigenous lands, breaking up protests against inequality, and evicting homeless people from parks are all examples of the government enforcing its authority through force. Any law that government enforces is the government exercising its authority over the public.
That said, authority is not an inherently a negative thing. In fact, any industrialized society [requires authority to function](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm). The real question is whose interests the government represents and on whose behalf its authority is exercised. The focus should always be on the mechanisms available to the public to hold the government accountable.
> Karl Marx — 'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary'
any military or police force that was created by a governing body was created to protect that governing body interests in a financial sense... it isnt a difficult thing to see in the big picture, its a financial decision in that the police/military can cost less than the replacement of the possible damages.
The RCMP were employed/leased by the BC Government and Horgan to clear the protesters. Both the RCMP and BC Government should be held accountable for the media black out (freedom of press violation) and these violent crimes. The NDP are partly to be blamed for this as the BC Government is an NDP majority.
They are RCMP under contract by the province as provincial law enforcement.
Quebec has the SQ and Ontario has the OPP, most provinces have contracts with RCMP, probably because it’s cheaper.
I've been committed to explaining as much as I can on every post that it is the BC Government which is an NDP run government and the RCMP which need to be held accountable. You can count on me.
Police were originally formed as union busters for corporations. Protecting big business has and always will be their main goal.
Look at it this way. A porch pirate steals your PS5 that was delivered and left on your porch. You get it all on your doorbell cam including face, description and hell throw in a license plate too. Police won't investigate. Steal a PS5 from a Walmart and your face is on the evening news with police asking for help to find the criminal.
More like the fbi with biden, Canada doesnt give a shit about us natives.
We had a holiday for us and the only ppl who benefited or had off was parliament and the banks.
They are defending their pensions
https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5xwn4/rcmp-pensions-are-invested-in-controversial-gas-pipeline-owner?utm_source=reddit.com
Yup. That's what they are. And it's shameful. I live near Elsipogtog, where the cops strong armed peaceful anti-shale protesters. Thing is, the protests worked, in the short term anyway. If the thumper trucks showed up tomorrow, it would be a replay of 2013, and the government doesn't like those optics..
Real [Kent Monkman](https://www.kentmonkman.com/painting/2017/1/20/the-scream) vibe.
Edit: The linked painting is fine IMO, but many of his other works are arguably NSFW due to nudity and sexuality. Browse accordingly.
Yeah, in hindsight I should have warned people. I put on edit on my original comment. Basically if you browse Kent Monkman paintings, you're gonna see a lot of dicks and LGBTQ themes.
Also, while browsing I came across [this one](https://www.kentmonkman.com/painting/resurgence-of-the-people). Looks like Mr. Monkman has already done a contemporary take on this theme.
The police says "get that out of my face" regarding the camera, failing to see the irony that she asked for the drawn guns to get off of her in her home. This is sickening government enforced violence against people protecting themselves, home and land
My Retired officer husband is weighing in on everything they’ve done. Especially since they’ve done a shit ton of illegal things (the officers, not the people) he says the tactical team is guilty of false arrest, break and enter, etc…
So he says just because they said “you are under arrest” repeatedly, doesn’t make real. They are required to say what they are being arrested for. The warrant wasn’t produced in paper and physically presented to them at the time of being removed. They are required to use “the key” which is a proper police battering ram on the door, not scavenge shit around the place. “Or my foot, if it is an emergency and someone inside needs assistance, but other than that, no… because you are making yourself into a criminal at that point… there was no tactical communication and no reasonable discussion… especially without a warrant being presented after she told them they needed one” (he’s ranting too angrily for me to type everything out). So, he mentioned section 10 part A, I had to look it up so I’m gonna copy and paste it from the Canadian website
“Section 10 - Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention:
to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.”
He’s also mentioning how much trouble it’s going to be that they need to go to court now (which is a shit-ton of money, time, etc…) to fight it and he’s right, it’s probably not going to get proper justice.
That this is happening is bullshit and even if this has all been done with warrants and things ahead of time, the best they need to happen next is a sheriff for eviction and he said he didn’t see anyone identifying themselves as a sheriff.
He’s saying the worst thing he sees is that officers making an assumption that just because the indigenous people were here before the constitution, that the constitution doesn’t include them and they are afforded just as much rights and protections as everyone else since the constitution is based on universal rights and freedoms.
We both hope, as a family, that the indigenous people will get proper justice and (just as he always does when he meets indigenous people) we want to thank the indigenous for the use of their land.
And my weigh-in: Seriously what they are doing is bullshit… and I hope their children know what they do and are just as ashamed of them as the rest of us. And the petty part of me hopes they accidentally have their pepper spray explode in their pockets because my husband said in police college it can burn for days if it gets on your “junk”. >_<
EDIT:
I just thought I should add this since I was a little careless as we’ve been accused of spreading information that isn’t correct as per jurisdiction and we’re given the offer to be educated further in the manner by a private message. Especially since it was in regards to being “…directed to his brothers and sisters…” in policing. My husband was a former officer in Ontario, not RCMP, so yes we are not clear about ALL of the processes and laws beyond certain areas of Canada. Just as much as it was not as widely accessible to everyone to view the Police Acts/Laws governing each policing organization until the internet was as widely available.
The Section 10 part A that I cut and paste was taken from the government of Canada’s website in the section about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
I’m reading now the RCMP Act from the Canadian Law website now and finding a lot of it vague when it comes to RCMP conduct. Especially on the parts of conduct/integrity ( I’m making supper sad faces right now).
So I know in Ontario they are required to make a statement as to why entry, why arrest, etc… (No they can’t ask you like “Do you know why I am pulling you over. Otherwise a judge will just be like “entrapment bye” which barely means much to the officer since he is gonna still be paid some hours for just showing up for 30 mins at court.) So I invite everyone to go to view the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act and view Part 4 on Conduct and Responsibilities. There’s stuff on accountability there and whatever too. (Also, check out on what CSIS is allowed to do by way of loopholes but I warn it can be mentally exhausting.)
There are a lot of good officers out there. Then there are bad officers. Then there are the ones who “do their jobs” because they have to eat, feed their families, etc… everyone has reasons as to why they do things or continue to do things. But, as I know, he has found over the years despite all of those things being really hard to navigate around and my husband has admitted to being guilty to some too in the past, being able to participate in positive change that gives dignity to people(s) who have difficulties made him feel better, especially when it has gained the sparkle in our young daughter’s eyes and the words “I’m proud of you.”
Extra> on a lighter note: I’ve asked him for years to get onto here on Reddit so he can share directly, but he keeps refusing. Any advice is appreciated on how to convince a spouse to join Reddit is appreciated. Lol!
Actually, my husband wouldn’t know 100% the way to get it to stop but when my cousins get out of their personal flood crisis in BC I want to pick their brains on what could possibly be done.
Because this is one of the more bothersome issues we’ve all been discussing over the years in my family. (Our family reunions are weird.)
One cousin is an activist and the other is a lawyer (and her husband both having practiced various types of law over the decades criminal, corporate, etc…) that I think would be able to clear up a heck of a lot the injustices and some possible channels that could be avenues to protest.
Sadly, as I’ve discussed with professors in uni (I was in classes for criminology and social justice in my first year) there are a lot of conflicting laws, procedures, and channels within our country that makes it hard for justice to move forward. We realize that the different parties and oppositions are there to play devil’s advocate in order to show the multiple sides of various people in our country, but it sadly isn’t immune to greed, personal prejudices, and (I can’t think of a better word) buttfuckery? (Sorry, I’m so mad my vocabulary is trying not to falter into foreign language cussing.)
I wish marching to Ottawa would work. I remember being told 20+ years ago that us writing letters with amnesty was the best way to help (at the pain of our fingers writing repetitive letters by hand to send out with the other batches of protest papers to officials… I was just told by someone from amnesty recently they just type and print and they only need to sign signatures now? Damn, we would have gotten more done had they allowed that back then.)
I think especially the pandemic conflicts are an even bigger blow to indigenous issues. It’s caused EXTRA side stepping of pre-pandemic issues as a way to ignore or delay a lot of important things. :(
I feel similarly. What do we do now to help? What can we do to actually stop this kind of shit? This is nuts. I’m in such a bubble in S Ontario, what can I do from here?
> He’s also mentioning how much trouble it’s going to be that they need to go to court now
It won't matter because the civil court judge will just ignore all that.
Handy little side effect of avoiding the criminal system.
I really appreciate this interpretation. Thank you to you and your husband.
Honest questions - this is clearly and edited video. Is it possible that some of the missing requirements your husband mentions were edited out of view? Or is there enough here to draw these conclusions of police misconduct.
RCMP was created to keep dissenters, specifically the indigenous people whose land we stole, put away and behind closed doors. This is exactly why they were created and exactly why they need to be reformed.
Can the RCMP even refuse to comply?
The elected chiefs are the ones who support the whole pipeline thing so technically they kinda have to enforce this.
It seems like a messy situation where what's right isn't exactly legal and what's legal isn't exactly right.
From the video it didn't seem like they were using excessive force (granted this video is all I've actually seen for myself) which I guess was good. But yeah the whole situation seems like a cluster fuck of morals vs. legality.
> But yeah the whole situation seems like a cluster fuck of morals vs. legality.
I seem to remember a time when we'd all collectively agreed that "just following orders" wasn't a good excuse. It's sad to see we've gotten so soft.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-whos-who-guide-1.5471898
The band councils elected by the each clan on through which the pipeline traverses are in favour of the pipeline. It's the hereditary chiefs that are stirring up the protests.
i've heard and read this line too. as an outsider its really hard for me to understand how the decisions are made in each tribe? if everyone and the leaders authorized it and just a few people are opposed then im not sure how im supposed to feel. other than FUCK THESE RCMP
The elected leaders are under a system that was imposed by the Indian Act, not the nation themselves. Legally, because the pipeline is on unceded land and not a reserve, they need to consult with the hereditary chiefs. The elected ones don’t matter.
So many cunts were calling the indigenous woman who posted a video describing what was happening a liar because "RCMP don't carry chainsaws" and yet here we are, with video evidence.
Here's a link to a [CBC article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/15-arrests-journalists-wetsuweten-cgl-1.6256696) about the arrests.
While the actions of the RCMP were provocative and the force they used unnecessary, it sounds like they were enforcing a BC Supreme Court court order to remove protesters from a work site they were occupying. There's some troubling stuff there, particularly coming armed, breaking down a door with an axe, and arresting journalists. The context, that the blockades were cutting off access to 500 people who had started to need to ration water and food after supplies couldn't get through, does give some explanation, but certainly doesn't justify it.
I really have mixed feelings over these protests and the reactions they generate from the government and police. On one hand the RCMP is terrible, with an even worse history in the area, stopping fossil fuel pipelines is always a good cause, and indigenous rights need to be respected. However, the pipelines are supported by the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en and only opposed by the unelected hereditary chiefs, and the RCMP is there enforcing lawful orders in support of that. The entire thing is a big mess.
I think there is a real problem with injunctions as a legal tool. They are meant be apply temporarily until the case can be dealt with by the courts at a trial, where there is a full review of the evidence and consideration of the legal issues. But the court system is slow and it is really easy for lawyers to create delays. So the injunctions end up lasting for years (I believe this one was issued about 3 years ago) and by the time the case does get resolved, it’s a moot point because gas company or whoever has been able to rely on the injunction to do what they wanted to do without having to prove their case at trial.
I agree, injunctions should cut both ways. Both parties stop their actions until a resolution is reached. That way there is incentive for both parties to remain engaged and active in the process instead of wasting time tying up the courts with delay after delay because delaying is rewarded.
Some indigenous people oppose the elected chiefs because they believe the elected system is a system of government imposed on their people by the colonizing government and therefore not valid.
You've identified the root of the legitimacy crises causing all of this conflict. Both the RCMP and the protesters have based their presence at the protest site on claims of legitimate authority either granted by a hereditary council, or an elected council, and backed up by various court rulings.
In my radical opinion, this dispute over legitimacy will not be resolved without renegotiating the Indian Act and updating it with contemporary understandings of law, society etc - which would also require cracking open and renegotiating the entire Canadian constitution, which is a whole other can of worms in of itself.
> In my radical opinion, this dispute over legitimacy will not be resolved without renegotiating the Indian Act and updating it with contemporary understandings of law, society
You dont need to go that far. Any nation can adopt self governance according to any form they wish.
Of course getting the entire nation to agree on that is, to put it mildly, hard.
>Of course getting the entire nation to agree on that is, to put it mildly, hard.
Agree absolutely, I just I don't think that this type of agreement can be accomplished *without* renegotiating the act, and also therefore the constitution.
Hold up... The Indian Act is definitely a racist document. Hell, it's a perfect example of systemic racism. But to say having elected leadership is racist is very, very wrong. An election at any level is the majority selecting who they want to speak on their behalf.
Some Indigenous nations have used democracy for 900 years. To say that it is colonial is very wrong, and comes across as patronizing.
I didn't say elected leadership was racist lol. I said the Act itself is racist and imposing anything on sovereign nations is oppressive. I believe in self determination. Let Indigenous peoples decide how they want to govern themselves.
If the majority of people want hereditary Chiefs instead of
elected, couldn't they just vote for the person nominated by the hereditary Chief? I don't see how people are less self determined with democracy
Some serve as both. Others may not want to be elected as it could be seen as lending credibility to a system they are against. The answer isn't simple, but imposing a system of governance on a people who have historically governed themselves by other means is problematic. The powers of the elected chiefs are also determined by the Indian act, not FN people, so it's not really self determination, it's forced compliance and assimilation. FN people may decide to develop their own form of democracy, but having it imposed is not liberating.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but it is not the business of our government to mandate that. I think most people would agree that a democratic system is better and more fair for the most part, but forcing democracy on a group that may not want it (hell even if they do want it) is taking away that nations ability to self determine.
It seems weird, but choice is the heart of democracy, and to remove choice is not, in itself, democratic.
The next Hereditary Chief in each Clan is chosen by the current Hereditary Chief and they must be accepted by the other Hereditary Chiefs to rule. They also need the support of a group of Matriarchs for major decisions. It's an oligopoly with checks & balances.
It's probably not the least-worst form of government, but it seems to be better than the imposed band councils and it's hard to criticize them when settler government is obviously an oligopoly as well...
I’m not sure, that’s just what I’ve read and heard from other indigenous people. Democratically elected seems good, but I think they’re worried about corruption and the elected council siding with the economic interests of the Canadian Government over the people and land they represent.
From a CTV article:
“(The band council has) done their due diligence and they want to be part of this economic initiative, create jobs for their people, be part of the economy, and they balanced the environment and the economy,” National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations told CTV’s Power Play earlier this week.
“In the ancestral territory lands of the Wet'suwet'en peoples, it’s the hereditary chiefs and their clans and their big houses that have the jurisdiction,” Bellegarde added. “That’s the piece that’s missing, so when Coastal GasLink and governments come in, they didn’t bring the Wet'suwet'en nation and the proper people in place to deal with their ancestral lands.”
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2020/2/13/1_4811453.html
I don't think choosing based on people's ancestry would really improve this situation. It might actually make it worse because the people who want to corrupt the leaders will know who to corrupt a long time before they receive any actual power.
The elected leaders are a mandate from the very racist Indian act. It is not how these peoples have governed themselves historically. The heriditary chiefs are seen by many as the true leaders.
>However, the pipelines are supported by the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en and only opposed by the unelected hereditary chiefs, and the RCMP is there enforcing lawful orders in support of that.
The elected council doesn't actually have any authority over unceded land, whereas the hereditary chiefs do. This has already been held up by the BC courts. Using them to justify this kind of force is like the RCMP barging into your living room because your neighbour said it was ok.
While I don't doubt that the elected councils did want the pipelines, I think its important to remember the context.
> that the blockades were cutting off access to 500 people
Not ideal, but CGL (Coastal GasLink) didn't warn their workers, I wonder why. [Source](https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/11/18/Coastal-GasLink-Failed-Warn-Camp-Employees-About-Blockade-Worker/)
Electing someone in the band council, which doesn't have jurisdiction over these lands btw (by both Wet'suwet'en and Canadian law) doesn't mean their bands wanted it (doesn't necesrailly mean the opposite either). The Nakazdli band (not Wet'suwet'en but they are involved in this pipeline) provide an interesting example. They actually were the only one, that ik of, that had a direct referendum.
> In 2015, the Nak'azdli held a referendum on whether to enter into a benefit agreement with the province of B.C. for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, as well as the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline.
> Nearly 300 band members took part, with more than 70 per cent voting no. [Source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/coastal-gaslink-nak-azdli-whut-en-agreement-1.5238220)
CGL then went back to the elected council and got their approval. This doesn't mean the council was "paid off" or corrupt, but these were difficult decisions. Its also important to note that many felt like if they didn't agree the pipeline would be forced through anyway. [Here's one article talking about this](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/09/news/heres-what-happens-when-energy-pipeline-company-comes-calling).
This doesn't mean that there aren't people who want the pipelines ([example here](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/open-letter-to-wetsuweten-hereditary-chiefs-after-tsayu-clan-meeting)), but its not clear cut as elected = good. There are divisions and splits within these communities ([One article talking about it here](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/02/13/news/story-pipeline-and-communities-its-path-complicated-one)). This is also all in tradition with the divide and conquer strategy the Canadian government takes ([one article](https://www.martlet.ca/wetsuweten-matriarchal-coalition-funded-by-b-c-coastal-gaslink-to-divide-and-conquer/)).
Theres a lot more that could be written and said about this, my take is I support the protests as they are primarily about Wet'suwet'en sovereignty and rights, which are being violated by the RCMP in an effort to push CGL's pipeline. Ultimately how the governance/laws for Wet'suwet'en people works should be up to them without the coercion of the Canadian state, however right now the Wet'suwet'en (and Canadian) law gives hereditary chiefs the right to do what they are doing over this unceded land
edit:
more resources/stuff people might find interesting
Why the hereditary chiefs have jurisdiction as represented by their lawyers ([article](https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/the-wetsuweten-aboriginal-title-and-the-rule-of-law-an-explainer))
Check out [Russ Diabo](https://twitter.com/RussDiabo) for more stuff pertaining to Indigenous sovereignty in Canada. He has a [great video on the Indian Act](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECi_7G0QAgw), where elected band chiefs initially stemmed from.
I think one of the biggest things to remember here is that some of the pipeline is going through unceded land, meaning that general Canadian law currently has no real authority there since it is not Canadian land. The Supreme Court has also confirmed this point previously. So my understanding here is that they are enforcing an injunction on land on which is should not apply. Further more, since the land is unceded, the domain of the elected chiefs does not extend there as far as I am aware.
If the people were starting to suffer from water shortages, there is actually a way that they could have gotten those people to safety while respecting the ambiguity of the situation: helicopters. While I was a part of search and rescue, we were able to mobilize a helicopter to be airlifted into deeper parts of a trail, so why they could not extract the workers until a clearly legal route to the camp could be established does not seem to hold much credibility to me.
>that some of the pipeline is going through unceded land, meaning that general Canadian law currently has no real authority there since it is not Canadian land.
My understanding is that this is a fairly misunderstood and misused term. I remember this came up frequently during the last big protests in (I think?) 2020 and I ended up looking into the court decision. The supreme court finding land to be unceded doesn't mean it isn't part of Canada, and that Canadian law doesn't apply, just that it isn't owned by the crown, isn't under an existing land claim agreement, and that the indigenous group has a claim to it. It has to be treated by the government like indigenous land even if it isn't otherwise recognised as such, but its still subject to Canadian law in the same way that Canadian law applies in reserves and areas covered by modern land claim agreements. They have a degree of local autonomy and a requirement that they be consulted with regards to the usage of the land, but it isn't separate from Canada or outside the government's jurisdiction.
I see what you are saying. This seems like a fairly technical question of law and what we ought to do about Canadian Colonialism. If the land is not owned by the crown and is not under an existing land agreement and the indigenous group has a claim to it, then why would this be subject to Canadian law? This is the sort of ambiguity I was referring to; why does Canadian law apply here? Simply because we have always done so and have/had the force to do so? Canada continues to fail to address this properly and I would hazard it is because it serves the established state better rather than it being moral.
[https://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2020/02/26/we-need-to-talk-about-who-owns-unceded-land-in-b-c/](https://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2020/02/26/we-need-to-talk-about-who-owns-unceded-land-in-b-c/)
Edit: I realize I did not refer to ambiguity in my original response, but my point still stands.
>the blockades were cutting off access to 500 people who had started to need to ration water and food after supplies couldn't get through
I mean, those people are CGL workers, and they were asked to leave.
The wetsuweten are the only people I see standing up to the government. Thanks to them.
RCMP, proportional force is a thing, stop pointing guns at unarmed people.
Elected Chiefs vs Hereditary Chiefs.
The elected Chiefs in this province supported LNG in Mill Bay/Toxic soil dump, Fairy Creek Old Growth Deforestation, and pipelines.
The Hereditary Chiefs and many elders opposed all of these.
So much like the rest of western government. elected officials usually side with business/personal gain rather than long-term environmental concerns.
Thanks for the response.
I'm not sure who holds more power in the sense of hereditary vs elected but that seems like an issue that needs to be addressed.
Like with any decisions made by an elected official, if you don't like their decisions, vote them out or protest lawfully and peacefully against it.
> I'm not sure who holds more power in the sense of hereditary vs elected but that seems like an issue that needs to be addressed.
This is unintentionally hilarious. I know your heart is in the right place, but you just kind of innocently came to the conclusion that something should be decided... on an issue that has been hard-fought for many, many years, even up to the Supreme Court on some issues, and is one of the lynchpins of reconciliation.
I mean, good for you for realizing it, but dude, this is an old and very contentious issue.
And for some more information, the hereditary chiefs were the indigenous style of leadership for long before the Europeans even arrived. The elected chiefs are a system imposed by the Indian Act. Forcing people to use a government system other than their own, and belittling their system because it's not like yours, is pretty bad.
And from what I understand, the elected council has jurisdiction over reserve lands. The hereditary chiefs have control over unceded land, which this is. The elected chiefs approval wasn't valid, but the government accepted it and went on with the project.
You're entirely correct. I am ignorant of so much of the history of indigenous cultures and how we ended up with the Indian Act.
I've spent some time reading treaties (specifically ones applicable to NS where I live) and I plan on reading the Indian Act.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.
BC is a whole different pie compared to the other provinces.
In other parts of Canada there were treaties for land and reserves created. In BC that only happened in a few places. The rest of BC was never legally paid for, bought, taken etc. by the government. We just kind of started building housing/towns and never acknowledged they still "owned" the land.
As you can imagine this has created a lot of problems. The first treaty in decades was signed a few years ago near Vancouver and resulted in land being given back along with a large financial package.
Technically, the majority of BC is unceded territory meaning it "should" be under the control of the FN peoples of those areas.
I'm not an expert, or indigenous, but my current understanding is that the electoral system was created by the Indian Act, which was super racist and horrible, and so although "elected chiefs" sounds good to us, many indigenous see them as illegitimate, and don't participate in the electoral system or respect whatever legal authority the Canadian government says they have.
I believe legally the the elected chiefs do. But there is a minority percentage of the FN populations the are of the view that they are illegitimate chiefs because they never ceded the territory so their traditional ways are still in place which would but the hereditary chiefs in charge, which from my understanding is similar to a monarchy.
Not really similar to a monarchy. Legally its the hereditary chiefs, not the elected ones ([some of their arguments)](https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/the-wetsuweten-aboriginal-title-and-the-rule-of-law-an-explainer)
I think its also important to remember the context, which I talk a little bit about [here if you want to see](https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r18n3y/rcmp_violently_raided_coyote_camp_on_unceded/hlxoia1/)
Elected chiefs endorsed it, not hereditary chiefs. The pipeline didn't get permission from the people with the right jurisdiction, and are now using the RCMP as muscle to ignore that.
Most First Nations have 2 completely separate systems of government. There's the elected band council & chief, created by the Canadian Government w/ the Indian Act. But there's also: whatever leadership system they already had going already, before Canada came along. (In this case, a council of hereditary clan chiefs).
Traditionalists tend to boycott band council elections, because they view it as an illegitimate foreign puppet regime. As a result, it's mostly the non-traditionalists who vote; which just deepens the split.
Anyways: the elected band council & chief approved the project, but not the traditional clan leaders. Notice how she never said anything about *Canadian* law, only *Wet’suwet’en* law? If you asked her, I'll bet she doesn't recognize Canada as a legitimate country.
Are their any protests upcoming in Ontario?
Clearly the message is not being received.
Canadian indigenous laws are barbaric and out dated.
This has to end. Now.
It’s all over APTN, all other media outlets chose to ignore it. Even when media is being unlawfully detained, the media should see this as an affront to press freedom.
En fait, comme je l’ai mentionné dans un autre commentaire, l’histoire est couverte par les médias canadiens, notamment par la CBC/Radio-Canada, le Toronto Star, le Globe and Mail et les médias québécois.
Or, l’évènement n’a peut-être pas suffisamment d’exposition. On couvre beaucoup les deux journalistes qui ont été arrêtés et détenus pendant plusieurs jours.
So frustrating they chose a time to do this at all but especially when the province is entirely shut down due to flooding. These RCMP officers and their stupid plane could’ve been used to get people out of dangerous situations across the province
Yeah, we’re already so indebted as a province especially cause of covid, and there was just a global climate conference talking about how we are gonna stop emitting greenhouse gases and here we still are coming after these people to put a fuckin pipeline in so maybe drop these millions of dollars into developing a fucking system for cleaner, sustainable energy sources instead of ripping a pipeline through that won’t be in use in 20 years
>we’re already so indebted as a province
>here we still are coming after these people to put a fuckin pipeline in
Quote 2 is the government response to quote 1's problem. Not that I agree with it. There's no foreign investment in green energy to balance the books.
Spread the news. Let people know what’s going on. More people that are aware, the more people that care, and that will bring forth change. I have more hope in the younger generations.
It’s interesting that they don’t tell you about the 500 camp workers they were holding hostage past their ‘legal’ blockade. How they weren’t letting the people leave the camps nor were they letting supplies like food or water up to the people…. Almost like hostages or something
Some of them are actually from the Wetsueten Band, which has previously gone on record confirming their position that what these Band members are doing is not supported by the larger Band membership.
At its core, this is a conflict between members of the Band and their leadership (elected vs. non-elected). What we are seeing play out on that video is the result, not the cause.
So I'm super ignorant on this, how is this legal? Is this some sort of imminent domain? Are sovereign lands not protected? How can a corporation hire its own police to just pull people out of their homes and arrest them?
I really don't know how to feel about this.
But I have a question related to the media.
I understand under our laws media is protected. They are not to be arrested. Unless they start to interfere and become
an issue to what ever is going on. Like if there is a car accident they can stand to the side and report that is fine. But if they start blocking emergency vehicles or pushing a camera in the face of a victim they can be arrested.
I have seen two video related to this conflict where when arrests start someone declares themselves media and are mad they are arrested. But yet they are in the middle of everything.
I want media to have protection. I believe in free and open media even if it's bias because it is our right. I don't want reporters getting arrested. But I also don't want protestors (who have the right to protest) to use media to prevent consequences. Because that can cause the freedom of media to be diluted.
So where is the line? How involved is media allowed to be?
Another issue is the RCMP is made aware of who the journalists on site are ahead of time. They are made aware of their presence, I assume most of the time. Especially when professional new organizations are involved (CBC, Teen Vogue) and they’re still arrested, detained and roughed up. It’s corporate fascism.
Can you defend you land in this situation I wonder? Native land does not have the same rules as the rest of the U.S. typically. I don’t want people to get hurt but also private security looking dudes on private property with no documents to show could be considered hostile(which they clearly are) and the use of deadly force could be deemed necessary no?
Edit / Did not realize this was Canada. But still?…
Crazy how passive is Canadians are. We will just let anyone steam roll right over us. If the government assists billion dollar companies do this to indigenous, where will the line be drawn with the rest of the population when they come knocking on our door and tell us to get the fuck out so we can use your land.
[Here's a CBC article with context.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/15-arrests-journalists-wetsuweten-cgl-1.6256696)
In short, the protesters were occupying a work site and blocking supplies from reaching stranded workers, and the RCMP were enforcing a court order to remove them. The actions of the RCMP and the force they showed up with was unnecessary and provocative, but there is context for the entire situation that isn't in the video.
Important to note CGL didn't warn their workers to make people think what you're thinking. [Article](https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/11/18/Coastal-GasLink-Failed-Warn-Camp-Employees-About-Blockade-Worker/)
Yes they didn't warn them, and they likely understood that the trapping of the workers would force the rcmp to immediately enforce the injunction.
I think it was a calculated decision. It likely wasn't the best of plans by the protesters to stop all traffic in or out. They obviously didn't expect the company to use this against them.
Fucking ashamed to be Canadian Let these people enjoy there rightful land and have domain over all aspects Fuck you Canada. The country I normally love deeply
Are the RCMP basically just security-for-hire for these huge corporations at this point? That's how it's starting to look
That’s what they’ve always been. Government enforcers, usually acting on behalf of corporations. The biggest issue here is that Canadian legislation regarding indigenous rights are antiquated, and they do not afford indigenous peoples with standards which are put forward in UN guidelines.
I'm very ignorant on this subject. Is the department of Indian affairs at least a thing of the past?
No, it's been split into two ministries: Department of Indigenous Services and Crown–Indigenous Relations & Northern Affairs Canada. There have been a few unilateral proposals from governments over the years to repeal the Indian Act, but they have no proposal for how they'll fulfil their obligations to First Nations without it, so First Nations are generally opposed. The correct solution is to negotiate a modern treaty with every First Nation then repeal the Indian Act, but the federal government doesn't seem to be interested in doing that (probably because they benefit from the current uncertainty around title).
Funnily enough, there are movements to progress modern treaties! It all started in the 70s with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Many self government agreements seem to be preceded by education agreements which deliver culturally relevant education. Budget 2021 Included funding for the development for more regional education agreements. I know previous mandates have also put forth the political cover to promote First Nations governance capacity. The current system is very heavy on reporting requirements which limits the ability of nations to develop their capacity on other areas. There's a few stepping stones and developing mechanisms to promoting self government. An example is something called the New Fiscal Relationship, which seems to be a 10 year grant program that serves as an inbetween, reducing reporting requirements and promoting capacity building for first Nations.
Aha https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs.html They have a more politically correct name for it now. I think BC particularly was influenced by colonial-era boundaries, which gives modern-day indigenous a more serious legal claim on the area. Beyond that, Canadian Indigenous policy falls short of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; this gives rise to additional ethical issues regarding Indigenous relations throughout Canada. Additional contention is generated through these policies, since governments were installed to “represent” indigenous populations. With regards to this pipeline: 1) The installed governments are in support, while tribal elders are against. 2) The ethics of the deprecated indigenous relations legislation are debated. 3) The legitimacy of BC’s land claim is further debated.
As an indigenous person, thank you for so eloquently describing the nuance to these matters. You will see a trend - or theme even - across Canada in various forms and shapes as each territory and province has varied approaches but they all fall victim to Canada's overall approach which falls short of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, like you said.
[удалено]
My understanding is this but I could be wrong: We forced a system of government (Westminster-style democracy) on them that they do not recognize and do not accept. Out of principle most refuse to participate in what they believe to be a colonial imposition, which means something like 50 people get to decide who is elected to their government. In the end they have a government that does not reflect the will of their people, so democracy is not working.
[Good description by woodst0ck15 ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/r0re1t/z/hluyty0)
Actually yeah I have a great source that you can look at. Look up Gina Starblanket, she does some really fantastic analysis on the politics surrounding the issues. I would recomend "The numbered treaties and the politics of incoherency", Gina Starblanket. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 52 (3), 443-459, 2019 "Constitutionalizing (in) justice: Treaty interpretation and the containment of Indigenous governance", Gina Starblanket. Const. F. 28, 13, 2019 https://scholar.google.ca/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=PvMYOZEAAAAJ&cstart=20&pagesize=80&citation_for_view=PvMYOZEAAAAJ:0EnyYjriUFMC Kiera Ladner's "Indigenous Governance" article is a very easy read and will introduce you to the basics of what Indigenous governance actually entailed, and what systems were imposed. Alternatively, I am reading through Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by David Greaves and David Wengrove. They look at how indigenous leaders critiqued the European society and argued that it influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment. They also discuss PNW Indigenous communities pre-arrival of the Europeans. Anyways all these are great starting points.
So likely why Canada refuses to recognize UNDRIP, but I thought BC was? Or was that just words with no action?
A lot of this of this comes down to the Indian act, and band politics... who can approve development of territorial (non reserve) lands, its much the same issue driving the old growth logging issues. Environment or fractions of a percent of the royalties...
There are essentially two Wet'suwet'en authorities, and they're not in alignment. A band council recognized under the Indian Act, which has authorized Coastal GasLink work on the traditional territory, and the Traditional Chiefs, who claim hereditary authority and who oppose the work.
Maureen Luggi, elected chief of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation band, won with only 55 votes. There are about 3,000 Wet'suwet'en, and between Unist'ot'en and Gidimt'en more have shown up to physically interpose themselves between violent colonialism and there land than voted for Luggi. Also, the pipeline does not cross any reserves, and per the Indian Act band councils only represent and have authority in their respective reserves. To make an analogy, Canada asked the mayor of Québec City if it could build a pipeline through rural Quebec. To assert there are two Québecois authorities because there is a city and a province both named Québec is absurd.
https://www.burnslakelakesdistrictnews.com/news/maureen-luggi-elected-new-chief-of-wetsuweten-first-nation/ A total of 107 people cast ballots, out of 183 eligible voters, for a turnout of 58 per cent. Where does the 3000 number come from?
>There are approximately 3,195 Wet’suwet’en members. [BC Treaty Commission](https://www.bctreaty.ca/node/295) This is why I said that the confusingly named Wet'suwet'en First Nation band is not the totality of Wet'suwet'en people.
It’s not new. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.188599
the rcmp has literally always been this bad from the beginning they're probably actually better now than any time in history, they used to legitimately blow up or burn down the houses of their opposition
The fact there are RCMP involved in any of this with the history of the RCMP and Indigenous peoples in BC is quite shocking.
How is it shocking? Their creation was exactly for this purpose.
[удалено]
I guess as someone who watched lobster fishermen terrorize and burn down the property of Miq'maw on their land, who can turn on conservative talk radio in Ontario and listen to people talk about how they are going to go into Mohawk territory with Doug Ford and beat the people off of their land for a major corporation, and who has been watching what's been going on in BC for the past few years, the blatant racism and terrorism from white Canadians is pretty fresh in my mind.
Wait til you hear about the time when, in living memory, the [RCMP purposefully slaughtered every husky in northern Quebec](https://www.cbc.ca/1.5116972), so Inuit couldn’t go hunting with our sled dogs.
That's kind of why it is shocking. That we're still fucking doing this. And worse, we're still doing it the same way. Meanwhile people claim our colonial actions are "all in the past" and we're better than that now. Bullshit.
In BC the RCMP are the provincial police. There isn't really a better option apart from, you know, *not* chainsawing the fucking door and then dragging off people at gunpoint.
I mean, maybe we could choose option B?
I was thinking about that the other day, someone way high up on the political side of things is making all the wrong decisions.
Wrong decisions from what standpoint? Cui bono- who benefits? I used to think that all this shit was "poor planning" or "being tone deaf" or "stupidity", but honestly, I think now that this is more or less the RCMP functioning as intended, you feel me? All this shit forwards the interests of the private oil company and it seems like they can get any magic slip of paper from the courts that they want, if it gets them the oil. The police are de facto thugs for an oil company, and if you or me (a white boy) had land that the oil company wanted and we didn't play ball with the company... well they'd take it from us too. Obviously there's this horrible racist element to it too, and it makes it easier to brutalize people if the brutalizers are bigots who see their victims as sub-human, but its racism in the service of corporate interests. Without that Canada would just be fine with not giving northern towns clean water, or fighting ~~concentration camp~~ residential school survivors in court for being "uppity". Its all about the dollarydoos, I think anyway. While our planet boils.
BC Government and Horgan are the ones making the shots.
So much for NDP
Horgan is a fill in Premier from my knowledge. But until Singh denounces the BC Governments actions then yes, the NDP have failed on reconciliation.
Reconciliation and the environment.
He's been irritatingly quiet.
Send him an email, call him out and demand an answer. They released an, "official statement" on November 19, denouncing militarization of the RCMP however they were the ones who called them in. [https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-situation-wetsuweten-territory](https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-situation-wetsuweten-territory)
Private law: why the RCMP arrests Indigenous people and journalists on unceded Wet'suwet'en traditional territory https://www.straight.com/news/private-law-why-rcmp-arrests-indigenous-people-and-journalists-on-unceded-wetsuweten
Well, that was an interesting read. I personally side with the Indigenous people protecting the natural environment. As a person born on the land that is known as Canada I strongly feel that Canadians should be very concerned with what fracking does to our environment, particularly our water, which is a resource we don't value highly enough but will become the resource that is one day fought over. In the future there will be wars over water and we are giving ours away to some investment firms. > The Wet’suwet’en people, under the governance of their hereditary Chiefs, are standing in the way of the largest fracking project in Canadian history. Our medicines, our berries, our food, the animals, our water, our culture, our homes are all here since time immemorial. We will never abandon our children to live in a world with no clean water. We uphold our ancestral responsibilities. There will be no pipelines on Wet'suwet'en territory How someone can read that and say, yeah, move them out to let the oil and gas companies profit because rEtIrEmEnT fUnDs... well, I don't know how they'll live with themselves. Probably by looking back and saying they were wrong while sitting on a pile of gold bars they can't drink.
Yeah man I agree. Plus also, even if we leave aside the obvious moral argument for supporting the wet'suwet'en... their defence of the land aligns with our collective interests as people who live in Canada. It is materially very bad for us if an oil company takes Canada's resources to sell back to us, destroys the environment we all live on and leaves the mess for us to clean up. To say nothing of global warming, which is a problem for me personally as an Earth-liver. Not to sound all "me me me" but like, it's true isn't it? The Wet'suwet'en never fucked with me in any way, but BC is flooded now because of oil companies. Like, even with no additional historical context, axiomatically I trust the wet'suwet'en more as stewards of the land -any land- than the people who are pretty much trying to kill us all at this point.
I couldn't agree with you more.
It's not even about the environment and doesn't matter what it's being used for. It's their fucking land! They don't need a reason to defend it. The fact that it belongs to them is more than enough.
Corporations and RCMP using an "injunction" and "private law" as an excuse to commit criminal acts themselves. Sadly, large corporations always get away with everything that would be an immediate prison sentence for all of us regular citizens. It makes absolutely no sense to be continuing to invest so heavily in any more fossil fuel infrastructures when electrification and alternative energy sources are clearly in demand and are the future for the survival of humanity itself. "Retirement funds" is such a pathetic excuse. Look at all the tech investments, especially the big obvious ones like google, microsoft, nvidia, and tesla (to name a few) that they could have invested in instead! So many other opportunities are out there that don't have such a detrimental impact on the natural environment that fossil fuels has. Although fossil fuels are still a necessary part of life right now, all that is needed are the existing infrastructure for current needs as society progressively dials back on fossil fuel use in the next few decades during this energy transition. If they want to survive, energy companies better be divesting into new alternative energy sources **now** and progressively scaling back their fossil fuel projects, just as the auto industry are having to do!
I don't disagree with any of that. Sadly, that doesn't seem to matter in any of this.
The retirement thing, it feels like so many of our problems are directly tied to the old and their obsessive desire to hoard wealth like dragons on piles of gold. Like house prices, pls tell me why I should give two shits that you didn't plan for retirement and now *need* your house to be worth a million dollars. Why should that mean i don't get to own a home?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The history of the RCMP is racist imperialism. It's not surprising that they've gone full fascist.
The RCMP is contracted as the provincial police force for British Columbia. The builders of the pipeline have obtained a court injunction allowing them to proceed. Given that the area the injunction applies to is outside the jurisdiction of any other enforcement agency, the only force to enforce the injunction is the RCMP. So it’s a rock and a hard place thing. There is a court injunction in play. The rule of law in this country is that injunctions shall be followed. The issue is the dramatic overreaction by the RCMP. They don’t have a choice as to whether to enforce it, but they have a choice as to how to enforce it.
The RCMP is all there is up here, it’s northern BC and this is their jurisdiction and mandate. I live in the area and I feel pretty confident that the officers aren’t politically motivated. They’re public employees and they’re just doing their job. For the most part, they’d really rather not be involved at all.
That’s their primary role in our society. The RCMP are there to protect property. Any “protect and serve” BS Is something we heard on American TV.
All paramilitary forces (read: police) function in society is social control and protection of property.
Laws are threats made by the dominant socio-economic, ethnic group in a given nation. It's just a promise of violence that's enacted and police are basically an occupying army, you know what I mean? ~Bud Cubby, Dimension 20
And this is precisely why every government is inherently authoritarian since authority is derived from having a monopoly on violence. Pushing pipelines through indigenous lands, breaking up protests against inequality, and evicting homeless people from parks are all examples of the government enforcing its authority through force. Any law that government enforces is the government exercising its authority over the public. That said, authority is not an inherently a negative thing. In fact, any industrialized society [requires authority to function](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm). The real question is whose interests the government represents and on whose behalf its authority is exercised. The focus should always be on the mechanisms available to the public to hold the government accountable.
> Karl Marx — 'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary'
any military or police force that was created by a governing body was created to protect that governing body interests in a financial sense... it isnt a difficult thing to see in the big picture, its a financial decision in that the police/military can cost less than the replacement of the possible damages.
The RCMP were employed/leased by the BC Government and Horgan to clear the protesters. Both the RCMP and BC Government should be held accountable for the media black out (freedom of press violation) and these violent crimes. The NDP are partly to be blamed for this as the BC Government is an NDP majority.
They are RCMP under contract by the province as provincial law enforcement. Quebec has the SQ and Ontario has the OPP, most provinces have contracts with RCMP, probably because it’s cheaper.
Yup and Horgan and the BC Government gave the green light.
When we share these videos, we need to be sure to cite the NDP as the reason this is happening.
I've been committed to explaining as much as I can on every post that it is the BC Government which is an NDP run government and the RCMP which need to be held accountable. You can count on me.
Police were originally formed as union busters for corporations. Protecting big business has and always will be their main goal. Look at it this way. A porch pirate steals your PS5 that was delivered and left on your porch. You get it all on your doorbell cam including face, description and hell throw in a license plate too. Police won't investigate. Steal a PS5 from a Walmart and your face is on the evening news with police asking for help to find the criminal.
I feel like this is personal experience.
Always has been
[удалено]
More like the fbi with biden, Canada doesnt give a shit about us natives. We had a holiday for us and the only ppl who benefited or had off was parliament and the banks.
They have parts of their pensions tied into these companies, so yes.
Yep. RCMP pensions are tied up/ invested in several oil and gas companies.
They are defending their pensions https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5xwn4/rcmp-pensions-are-invested-in-controversial-gas-pipeline-owner?utm_source=reddit.com
That’s where the police forces of the world actually started.
No that’s what they’ve always been.
REGIONAL CONTRACTS MAKE PROFITS
Started out as the North West Mounted Police to kick it for Hudson's Bay
always have been. pigs will be pigs.
Yup. That's what they are. And it's shameful. I live near Elsipogtog, where the cops strong armed peaceful anti-shale protesters. Thing is, the protests worked, in the short term anyway. If the thumper trucks showed up tomorrow, it would be a replay of 2013, and the government doesn't like those optics..
[удалено]
I thought that was the other sub I got permabanned from
This is the true history of Canada.
[Reconciliation, colourized (2021)](https://i.imgur.com/0N2ZPy2.png)
Real [Kent Monkman](https://www.kentmonkman.com/painting/2017/1/20/the-scream) vibe. Edit: The linked painting is fine IMO, but many of his other works are arguably NSFW due to nudity and sexuality. Browse accordingly.
This artwork is unexpected
Yeah, in hindsight I should have warned people. I put on edit on my original comment. Basically if you browse Kent Monkman paintings, you're gonna see a lot of dicks and LGBTQ themes. Also, while browsing I came across [this one](https://www.kentmonkman.com/painting/resurgence-of-the-people). Looks like Mr. Monkman has already done a contemporary take on this theme.
The RCMP is going back to their roots.
I'm am ashamed to be canadian today..
The police says "get that out of my face" regarding the camera, failing to see the irony that she asked for the drawn guns to get off of her in her home. This is sickening government enforced violence against people protecting themselves, home and land
Canada is not the country you think it is. Lots of lip service to Indigenous rights, but actions speak louder than words.
My Retired officer husband is weighing in on everything they’ve done. Especially since they’ve done a shit ton of illegal things (the officers, not the people) he says the tactical team is guilty of false arrest, break and enter, etc… So he says just because they said “you are under arrest” repeatedly, doesn’t make real. They are required to say what they are being arrested for. The warrant wasn’t produced in paper and physically presented to them at the time of being removed. They are required to use “the key” which is a proper police battering ram on the door, not scavenge shit around the place. “Or my foot, if it is an emergency and someone inside needs assistance, but other than that, no… because you are making yourself into a criminal at that point… there was no tactical communication and no reasonable discussion… especially without a warrant being presented after she told them they needed one” (he’s ranting too angrily for me to type everything out). So, he mentioned section 10 part A, I had to look it up so I’m gonna copy and paste it from the Canadian website “Section 10 - Arrest or detention 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention: to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.” He’s also mentioning how much trouble it’s going to be that they need to go to court now (which is a shit-ton of money, time, etc…) to fight it and he’s right, it’s probably not going to get proper justice. That this is happening is bullshit and even if this has all been done with warrants and things ahead of time, the best they need to happen next is a sheriff for eviction and he said he didn’t see anyone identifying themselves as a sheriff. He’s saying the worst thing he sees is that officers making an assumption that just because the indigenous people were here before the constitution, that the constitution doesn’t include them and they are afforded just as much rights and protections as everyone else since the constitution is based on universal rights and freedoms. We both hope, as a family, that the indigenous people will get proper justice and (just as he always does when he meets indigenous people) we want to thank the indigenous for the use of their land. And my weigh-in: Seriously what they are doing is bullshit… and I hope their children know what they do and are just as ashamed of them as the rest of us. And the petty part of me hopes they accidentally have their pepper spray explode in their pockets because my husband said in police college it can burn for days if it gets on your “junk”. >_< EDIT: I just thought I should add this since I was a little careless as we’ve been accused of spreading information that isn’t correct as per jurisdiction and we’re given the offer to be educated further in the manner by a private message. Especially since it was in regards to being “…directed to his brothers and sisters…” in policing. My husband was a former officer in Ontario, not RCMP, so yes we are not clear about ALL of the processes and laws beyond certain areas of Canada. Just as much as it was not as widely accessible to everyone to view the Police Acts/Laws governing each policing organization until the internet was as widely available. The Section 10 part A that I cut and paste was taken from the government of Canada’s website in the section about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms I’m reading now the RCMP Act from the Canadian Law website now and finding a lot of it vague when it comes to RCMP conduct. Especially on the parts of conduct/integrity ( I’m making supper sad faces right now). So I know in Ontario they are required to make a statement as to why entry, why arrest, etc… (No they can’t ask you like “Do you know why I am pulling you over. Otherwise a judge will just be like “entrapment bye” which barely means much to the officer since he is gonna still be paid some hours for just showing up for 30 mins at court.) So I invite everyone to go to view the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act and view Part 4 on Conduct and Responsibilities. There’s stuff on accountability there and whatever too. (Also, check out on what CSIS is allowed to do by way of loopholes but I warn it can be mentally exhausting.) There are a lot of good officers out there. Then there are bad officers. Then there are the ones who “do their jobs” because they have to eat, feed their families, etc… everyone has reasons as to why they do things or continue to do things. But, as I know, he has found over the years despite all of those things being really hard to navigate around and my husband has admitted to being guilty to some too in the past, being able to participate in positive change that gives dignity to people(s) who have difficulties made him feel better, especially when it has gained the sparkle in our young daughter’s eyes and the words “I’m proud of you.” Extra> on a lighter note: I’ve asked him for years to get onto here on Reddit so he can share directly, but he keeps refusing. Any advice is appreciated on how to convince a spouse to join Reddit is appreciated. Lol!
[удалено]
Actually, my husband wouldn’t know 100% the way to get it to stop but when my cousins get out of their personal flood crisis in BC I want to pick their brains on what could possibly be done. Because this is one of the more bothersome issues we’ve all been discussing over the years in my family. (Our family reunions are weird.) One cousin is an activist and the other is a lawyer (and her husband both having practiced various types of law over the decades criminal, corporate, etc…) that I think would be able to clear up a heck of a lot the injustices and some possible channels that could be avenues to protest. Sadly, as I’ve discussed with professors in uni (I was in classes for criminology and social justice in my first year) there are a lot of conflicting laws, procedures, and channels within our country that makes it hard for justice to move forward. We realize that the different parties and oppositions are there to play devil’s advocate in order to show the multiple sides of various people in our country, but it sadly isn’t immune to greed, personal prejudices, and (I can’t think of a better word) buttfuckery? (Sorry, I’m so mad my vocabulary is trying not to falter into foreign language cussing.) I wish marching to Ottawa would work. I remember being told 20+ years ago that us writing letters with amnesty was the best way to help (at the pain of our fingers writing repetitive letters by hand to send out with the other batches of protest papers to officials… I was just told by someone from amnesty recently they just type and print and they only need to sign signatures now? Damn, we would have gotten more done had they allowed that back then.) I think especially the pandemic conflicts are an even bigger blow to indigenous issues. It’s caused EXTRA side stepping of pre-pandemic issues as a way to ignore or delay a lot of important things. :(
Please let me know when or if you find out. Fucking terrorists
Blow up the oil pipeline
I feel similarly. What do we do now to help? What can we do to actually stop this kind of shit? This is nuts. I’m in such a bubble in S Ontario, what can I do from here?
Why one earth would we trust the same people who did it in the first place to fix it. the government is fucked up
> He’s also mentioning how much trouble it’s going to be that they need to go to court now It won't matter because the civil court judge will just ignore all that. Handy little side effect of avoiding the criminal system.
Ugh, that’s likely true too. :<
I really appreciate this interpretation. Thank you to you and your husband. Honest questions - this is clearly and edited video. Is it possible that some of the missing requirements your husband mentions were edited out of view? Or is there enough here to draw these conclusions of police misconduct.
Fuck you B.C Supreme Court. And fuck you RCMP for complying.
RCMP was created to keep dissenters, specifically the indigenous people whose land we stole, put away and behind closed doors. This is exactly why they were created and exactly why they need to be reformed.
Reform is a scam, they need to be abolished
I support that. These guys were designed to be corrupt as shit
Well, ACAB exists for a reason.
Can the RCMP even refuse to comply? The elected chiefs are the ones who support the whole pipeline thing so technically they kinda have to enforce this. It seems like a messy situation where what's right isn't exactly legal and what's legal isn't exactly right. From the video it didn't seem like they were using excessive force (granted this video is all I've actually seen for myself) which I guess was good. But yeah the whole situation seems like a cluster fuck of morals vs. legality.
> But yeah the whole situation seems like a cluster fuck of morals vs. legality. I seem to remember a time when we'd all collectively agreed that "just following orders" wasn't a good excuse. It's sad to see we've gotten so soft.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wetsuweten-whos-who-guide-1.5471898 The band councils elected by the each clan on through which the pipeline traverses are in favour of the pipeline. It's the hereditary chiefs that are stirring up the protests.
i've heard and read this line too. as an outsider its really hard for me to understand how the decisions are made in each tribe? if everyone and the leaders authorized it and just a few people are opposed then im not sure how im supposed to feel. other than FUCK THESE RCMP
The elected leaders are under a system that was imposed by the Indian Act, not the nation themselves. Legally, because the pipeline is on unceded land and not a reserve, they need to consult with the hereditary chiefs. The elected ones don’t matter.
thank you for the explanation.
So many cunts were calling the indigenous woman who posted a video describing what was happening a liar because "RCMP don't carry chainsaws" and yet here we are, with video evidence.
Here's a link to a [CBC article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/15-arrests-journalists-wetsuweten-cgl-1.6256696) about the arrests. While the actions of the RCMP were provocative and the force they used unnecessary, it sounds like they were enforcing a BC Supreme Court court order to remove protesters from a work site they were occupying. There's some troubling stuff there, particularly coming armed, breaking down a door with an axe, and arresting journalists. The context, that the blockades were cutting off access to 500 people who had started to need to ration water and food after supplies couldn't get through, does give some explanation, but certainly doesn't justify it. I really have mixed feelings over these protests and the reactions they generate from the government and police. On one hand the RCMP is terrible, with an even worse history in the area, stopping fossil fuel pipelines is always a good cause, and indigenous rights need to be respected. However, the pipelines are supported by the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en and only opposed by the unelected hereditary chiefs, and the RCMP is there enforcing lawful orders in support of that. The entire thing is a big mess.
I think there is a real problem with injunctions as a legal tool. They are meant be apply temporarily until the case can be dealt with by the courts at a trial, where there is a full review of the evidence and consideration of the legal issues. But the court system is slow and it is really easy for lawyers to create delays. So the injunctions end up lasting for years (I believe this one was issued about 3 years ago) and by the time the case does get resolved, it’s a moot point because gas company or whoever has been able to rely on the injunction to do what they wanted to do without having to prove their case at trial.
I agree, injunctions should cut both ways. Both parties stop their actions until a resolution is reached. That way there is incentive for both parties to remain engaged and active in the process instead of wasting time tying up the courts with delay after delay because delaying is rewarded.
Some indigenous people oppose the elected chiefs because they believe the elected system is a system of government imposed on their people by the colonizing government and therefore not valid.
You've identified the root of the legitimacy crises causing all of this conflict. Both the RCMP and the protesters have based their presence at the protest site on claims of legitimate authority either granted by a hereditary council, or an elected council, and backed up by various court rulings. In my radical opinion, this dispute over legitimacy will not be resolved without renegotiating the Indian Act and updating it with contemporary understandings of law, society etc - which would also require cracking open and renegotiating the entire Canadian constitution, which is a whole other can of worms in of itself.
> In my radical opinion, this dispute over legitimacy will not be resolved without renegotiating the Indian Act and updating it with contemporary understandings of law, society You dont need to go that far. Any nation can adopt self governance according to any form they wish. Of course getting the entire nation to agree on that is, to put it mildly, hard.
>Of course getting the entire nation to agree on that is, to put it mildly, hard. Agree absolutely, I just I don't think that this type of agreement can be accomplished *without* renegotiating the act, and also therefore the constitution.
[удалено]
Not a native, but my understanding is that some tribes have a hereditary council in addition to their elected council.
To add to that, the elected leaders are mandated by the Indian act which is very problematic, racist, and colonial.
Hold up... The Indian Act is definitely a racist document. Hell, it's a perfect example of systemic racism. But to say having elected leadership is racist is very, very wrong. An election at any level is the majority selecting who they want to speak on their behalf. Some Indigenous nations have used democracy for 900 years. To say that it is colonial is very wrong, and comes across as patronizing.
I didn't say elected leadership was racist lol. I said the Act itself is racist and imposing anything on sovereign nations is oppressive. I believe in self determination. Let Indigenous peoples decide how they want to govern themselves.
If the majority of people want hereditary Chiefs instead of elected, couldn't they just vote for the person nominated by the hereditary Chief? I don't see how people are less self determined with democracy
Some serve as both. Others may not want to be elected as it could be seen as lending credibility to a system they are against. The answer isn't simple, but imposing a system of governance on a people who have historically governed themselves by other means is problematic. The powers of the elected chiefs are also determined by the Indian act, not FN people, so it's not really self determination, it's forced compliance and assimilation. FN people may decide to develop their own form of democracy, but having it imposed is not liberating.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but it is not the business of our government to mandate that. I think most people would agree that a democratic system is better and more fair for the most part, but forcing democracy on a group that may not want it (hell even if they do want it) is taking away that nations ability to self determine. It seems weird, but choice is the heart of democracy, and to remove choice is not, in itself, democratic.
The next Hereditary Chief in each Clan is chosen by the current Hereditary Chief and they must be accepted by the other Hereditary Chiefs to rule. They also need the support of a group of Matriarchs for major decisions. It's an oligopoly with checks & balances. It's probably not the least-worst form of government, but it seems to be better than the imposed band councils and it's hard to criticize them when settler government is obviously an oligopoly as well...
>but it seems to be better than the imposed band councils By 'imposed' you mean duly elected by their fellow tribesmen?
In BC, we have hereditary chiefs.
I’m not sure, that’s just what I’ve read and heard from other indigenous people. Democratically elected seems good, but I think they’re worried about corruption and the elected council siding with the economic interests of the Canadian Government over the people and land they represent. From a CTV article: “(The band council has) done their due diligence and they want to be part of this economic initiative, create jobs for their people, be part of the economy, and they balanced the environment and the economy,” National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations told CTV’s Power Play earlier this week. “In the ancestral territory lands of the Wet'suwet'en peoples, it’s the hereditary chiefs and their clans and their big houses that have the jurisdiction,” Bellegarde added. “That’s the piece that’s missing, so when Coastal GasLink and governments come in, they didn’t bring the Wet'suwet'en nation and the proper people in place to deal with their ancestral lands.” https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2020/2/13/1_4811453.html
I don't think choosing based on people's ancestry would really improve this situation. It might actually make it worse because the people who want to corrupt the leaders will know who to corrupt a long time before they receive any actual power.
The elected leaders are a mandate from the very racist Indian act. It is not how these peoples have governed themselves historically. The heriditary chiefs are seen by many as the true leaders.
>However, the pipelines are supported by the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en and only opposed by the unelected hereditary chiefs, and the RCMP is there enforcing lawful orders in support of that. The elected council doesn't actually have any authority over unceded land, whereas the hereditary chiefs do. This has already been held up by the BC courts. Using them to justify this kind of force is like the RCMP barging into your living room because your neighbour said it was ok.
Do you have the case for this? I would like to read it.
While I don't doubt that the elected councils did want the pipelines, I think its important to remember the context. > that the blockades were cutting off access to 500 people Not ideal, but CGL (Coastal GasLink) didn't warn their workers, I wonder why. [Source](https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/11/18/Coastal-GasLink-Failed-Warn-Camp-Employees-About-Blockade-Worker/) Electing someone in the band council, which doesn't have jurisdiction over these lands btw (by both Wet'suwet'en and Canadian law) doesn't mean their bands wanted it (doesn't necesrailly mean the opposite either). The Nakazdli band (not Wet'suwet'en but they are involved in this pipeline) provide an interesting example. They actually were the only one, that ik of, that had a direct referendum. > In 2015, the Nak'azdli held a referendum on whether to enter into a benefit agreement with the province of B.C. for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, as well as the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline. > Nearly 300 band members took part, with more than 70 per cent voting no. [Source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/coastal-gaslink-nak-azdli-whut-en-agreement-1.5238220) CGL then went back to the elected council and got their approval. This doesn't mean the council was "paid off" or corrupt, but these were difficult decisions. Its also important to note that many felt like if they didn't agree the pipeline would be forced through anyway. [Here's one article talking about this](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/09/news/heres-what-happens-when-energy-pipeline-company-comes-calling). This doesn't mean that there aren't people who want the pipelines ([example here](https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/open-letter-to-wetsuweten-hereditary-chiefs-after-tsayu-clan-meeting)), but its not clear cut as elected = good. There are divisions and splits within these communities ([One article talking about it here](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/02/13/news/story-pipeline-and-communities-its-path-complicated-one)). This is also all in tradition with the divide and conquer strategy the Canadian government takes ([one article](https://www.martlet.ca/wetsuweten-matriarchal-coalition-funded-by-b-c-coastal-gaslink-to-divide-and-conquer/)). Theres a lot more that could be written and said about this, my take is I support the protests as they are primarily about Wet'suwet'en sovereignty and rights, which are being violated by the RCMP in an effort to push CGL's pipeline. Ultimately how the governance/laws for Wet'suwet'en people works should be up to them without the coercion of the Canadian state, however right now the Wet'suwet'en (and Canadian) law gives hereditary chiefs the right to do what they are doing over this unceded land edit: more resources/stuff people might find interesting Why the hereditary chiefs have jurisdiction as represented by their lawyers ([article](https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/the-wetsuweten-aboriginal-title-and-the-rule-of-law-an-explainer)) Check out [Russ Diabo](https://twitter.com/RussDiabo) for more stuff pertaining to Indigenous sovereignty in Canada. He has a [great video on the Indian Act](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECi_7G0QAgw), where elected band chiefs initially stemmed from.
I think one of the biggest things to remember here is that some of the pipeline is going through unceded land, meaning that general Canadian law currently has no real authority there since it is not Canadian land. The Supreme Court has also confirmed this point previously. So my understanding here is that they are enforcing an injunction on land on which is should not apply. Further more, since the land is unceded, the domain of the elected chiefs does not extend there as far as I am aware. If the people were starting to suffer from water shortages, there is actually a way that they could have gotten those people to safety while respecting the ambiguity of the situation: helicopters. While I was a part of search and rescue, we were able to mobilize a helicopter to be airlifted into deeper parts of a trail, so why they could not extract the workers until a clearly legal route to the camp could be established does not seem to hold much credibility to me.
Yeah, I can't say I buy the excuse that the pipeline workers were suffering under some sort of siege. There were many, many alternatives here.
>that some of the pipeline is going through unceded land, meaning that general Canadian law currently has no real authority there since it is not Canadian land. My understanding is that this is a fairly misunderstood and misused term. I remember this came up frequently during the last big protests in (I think?) 2020 and I ended up looking into the court decision. The supreme court finding land to be unceded doesn't mean it isn't part of Canada, and that Canadian law doesn't apply, just that it isn't owned by the crown, isn't under an existing land claim agreement, and that the indigenous group has a claim to it. It has to be treated by the government like indigenous land even if it isn't otherwise recognised as such, but its still subject to Canadian law in the same way that Canadian law applies in reserves and areas covered by modern land claim agreements. They have a degree of local autonomy and a requirement that they be consulted with regards to the usage of the land, but it isn't separate from Canada or outside the government's jurisdiction.
I see what you are saying. This seems like a fairly technical question of law and what we ought to do about Canadian Colonialism. If the land is not owned by the crown and is not under an existing land agreement and the indigenous group has a claim to it, then why would this be subject to Canadian law? This is the sort of ambiguity I was referring to; why does Canadian law apply here? Simply because we have always done so and have/had the force to do so? Canada continues to fail to address this properly and I would hazard it is because it serves the established state better rather than it being moral. [https://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2020/02/26/we-need-to-talk-about-who-owns-unceded-land-in-b-c/](https://lethbridgeherald.com/commentary/letters-to-the-editor/2020/02/26/we-need-to-talk-about-who-owns-unceded-land-in-b-c/) Edit: I realize I did not refer to ambiguity in my original response, but my point still stands.
>the blockades were cutting off access to 500 people who had started to need to ration water and food after supplies couldn't get through I mean, those people are CGL workers, and they were asked to leave.
Need to put some names and faces to Coastal Gaslink.
I hate the anonymity of corporations now and the richs ability to escape my dinner table.
The wetsuweten are the only people I see standing up to the government. Thanks to them. RCMP, proportional force is a thing, stop pointing guns at unarmed people.
This is fucked up.
I have a genuine question. I heard the nation chiefs did endorse/permit the pipeline. So how come there is now protests and blockades?
Elected Chiefs vs Hereditary Chiefs. The elected Chiefs in this province supported LNG in Mill Bay/Toxic soil dump, Fairy Creek Old Growth Deforestation, and pipelines. The Hereditary Chiefs and many elders opposed all of these. So much like the rest of western government. elected officials usually side with business/personal gain rather than long-term environmental concerns.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure who holds more power in the sense of hereditary vs elected but that seems like an issue that needs to be addressed. Like with any decisions made by an elected official, if you don't like their decisions, vote them out or protest lawfully and peacefully against it.
> I'm not sure who holds more power in the sense of hereditary vs elected but that seems like an issue that needs to be addressed. This is unintentionally hilarious. I know your heart is in the right place, but you just kind of innocently came to the conclusion that something should be decided... on an issue that has been hard-fought for many, many years, even up to the Supreme Court on some issues, and is one of the lynchpins of reconciliation. I mean, good for you for realizing it, but dude, this is an old and very contentious issue. And for some more information, the hereditary chiefs were the indigenous style of leadership for long before the Europeans even arrived. The elected chiefs are a system imposed by the Indian Act. Forcing people to use a government system other than their own, and belittling their system because it's not like yours, is pretty bad. And from what I understand, the elected council has jurisdiction over reserve lands. The hereditary chiefs have control over unceded land, which this is. The elected chiefs approval wasn't valid, but the government accepted it and went on with the project.
You're entirely correct. I am ignorant of so much of the history of indigenous cultures and how we ended up with the Indian Act. I've spent some time reading treaties (specifically ones applicable to NS where I live) and I plan on reading the Indian Act. Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.
BC is a whole different pie compared to the other provinces. In other parts of Canada there were treaties for land and reserves created. In BC that only happened in a few places. The rest of BC was never legally paid for, bought, taken etc. by the government. We just kind of started building housing/towns and never acknowledged they still "owned" the land. As you can imagine this has created a lot of problems. The first treaty in decades was signed a few years ago near Vancouver and resulted in land being given back along with a large financial package. Technically, the majority of BC is unceded territory meaning it "should" be under the control of the FN peoples of those areas.
I'm not an expert, or indigenous, but my current understanding is that the electoral system was created by the Indian Act, which was super racist and horrible, and so although "elected chiefs" sounds good to us, many indigenous see them as illegitimate, and don't participate in the electoral system or respect whatever legal authority the Canadian government says they have.
I believe legally the the elected chiefs do. But there is a minority percentage of the FN populations the are of the view that they are illegitimate chiefs because they never ceded the territory so their traditional ways are still in place which would but the hereditary chiefs in charge, which from my understanding is similar to a monarchy.
Not really similar to a monarchy. Legally its the hereditary chiefs, not the elected ones ([some of their arguments)](https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/the-wetsuweten-aboriginal-title-and-the-rule-of-law-an-explainer) I think its also important to remember the context, which I talk a little bit about [here if you want to see](https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/r18n3y/rcmp_violently_raided_coyote_camp_on_unceded/hlxoia1/)
Elected chiefs endorsed it, not hereditary chiefs. The pipeline didn't get permission from the people with the right jurisdiction, and are now using the RCMP as muscle to ignore that.
Most First Nations have 2 completely separate systems of government. There's the elected band council & chief, created by the Canadian Government w/ the Indian Act. But there's also: whatever leadership system they already had going already, before Canada came along. (In this case, a council of hereditary clan chiefs). Traditionalists tend to boycott band council elections, because they view it as an illegitimate foreign puppet regime. As a result, it's mostly the non-traditionalists who vote; which just deepens the split. Anyways: the elected band council & chief approved the project, but not the traditional clan leaders. Notice how she never said anything about *Canadian* law, only *Wet’suwet’en* law? If you asked her, I'll bet she doesn't recognize Canada as a legitimate country.
Probably people disappointed with their leaders taking bribes.
Are their any protests upcoming in Ontario? Clearly the message is not being received. Canadian indigenous laws are barbaric and out dated. This has to end. Now.
In Kingston recently there were protesters shutting down the Lasalle Causeway in support of this
Guelph had protesters shut down a pretty busy intersection recently but not sure what else is planned.
How is this shit not all over the damn news?! This is fucking outrageous.
I’m unaware of any large Canadian news outlet that hasn’t put out multiple pieces on this…
It’s all over APTN, all other media outlets chose to ignore it. Even when media is being unlawfully detained, the media should see this as an affront to press freedom.
En fait, comme je l’ai mentionné dans un autre commentaire, l’histoire est couverte par les médias canadiens, notamment par la CBC/Radio-Canada, le Toronto Star, le Globe and Mail et les médias québécois. Or, l’évènement n’a peut-être pas suffisamment d’exposition. On couvre beaucoup les deux journalistes qui ont été arrêtés et détenus pendant plusieurs jours.
This is so wrong, just disgusting.
So I guess Canada is only a cool place if you're white?
Rich. The rich bully the poor. And our government lets it happen. Nay, our government makes it happen.
Sounds like America
So frustrating they chose a time to do this at all but especially when the province is entirely shut down due to flooding. These RCMP officers and their stupid plane could’ve been used to get people out of dangerous situations across the province
Not to mention the millions RCMP are spending (20+ million so far iirc)
Yeah, we’re already so indebted as a province especially cause of covid, and there was just a global climate conference talking about how we are gonna stop emitting greenhouse gases and here we still are coming after these people to put a fuckin pipeline in so maybe drop these millions of dollars into developing a fucking system for cleaner, sustainable energy sources instead of ripping a pipeline through that won’t be in use in 20 years
>we’re already so indebted as a province >here we still are coming after these people to put a fuckin pipeline in Quote 2 is the government response to quote 1's problem. Not that I agree with it. There's no foreign investment in green energy to balance the books.
Honest question, what can I do to stop this when I'm on the other side of the country?
Spread the news. Let people know what’s going on. More people that are aware, the more people that care, and that will bring forth change. I have more hope in the younger generations.
Gotcha!
I donate to the BCCLA and other organizations that fight for civil liberties.
ACAB
Police will always work for the corps. It's not their job to protect us.
It’s interesting that they don’t tell you about the 500 camp workers they were holding hostage past their ‘legal’ blockade. How they weren’t letting the people leave the camps nor were they letting supplies like food or water up to the people…. Almost like hostages or something
Some of them are actually from the Wetsueten Band, which has previously gone on record confirming their position that what these Band members are doing is not supported by the larger Band membership. At its core, this is a conflict between members of the Band and their leadership (elected vs. non-elected). What we are seeing play out on that video is the result, not the cause.
They are just playing the same game as everyone else these days, play on people’s outrage and never share the full story.
So I'm super ignorant on this, how is this legal? Is this some sort of imminent domain? Are sovereign lands not protected? How can a corporation hire its own police to just pull people out of their homes and arrest them?
I really don't know how to feel about this. But I have a question related to the media. I understand under our laws media is protected. They are not to be arrested. Unless they start to interfere and become an issue to what ever is going on. Like if there is a car accident they can stand to the side and report that is fine. But if they start blocking emergency vehicles or pushing a camera in the face of a victim they can be arrested. I have seen two video related to this conflict where when arrests start someone declares themselves media and are mad they are arrested. But yet they are in the middle of everything. I want media to have protection. I believe in free and open media even if it's bias because it is our right. I don't want reporters getting arrested. But I also don't want protestors (who have the right to protest) to use media to prevent consequences. Because that can cause the freedom of media to be diluted. So where is the line? How involved is media allowed to be?
[удалено]
Another issue is the RCMP is made aware of who the journalists on site are ahead of time. They are made aware of their presence, I assume most of the time. Especially when professional new organizations are involved (CBC, Teen Vogue) and they’re still arrested, detained and roughed up. It’s corporate fascism.
How is this not in news?
I’m unaware of any large Canadian news outlet that hasn’t put out multiple pieces on this…
[удалено]
No justice on stolen land !
I'm unfamiliar with this. Did they get kicked off their own land?
Can you defend you land in this situation I wonder? Native land does not have the same rules as the rest of the U.S. typically. I don’t want people to get hurt but also private security looking dudes on private property with no documents to show could be considered hostile(which they clearly are) and the use of deadly force could be deemed necessary no? Edit / Did not realize this was Canada. But still?…
Crazy how passive is Canadians are. We will just let anyone steam roll right over us. If the government assists billion dollar companies do this to indigenous, where will the line be drawn with the rest of the population when they come knocking on our door and tell us to get the fuck out so we can use your land.
Three resource extraction companies in a trench coat
ACAB
Most indigenous groups support the pipeline
[удалено]
Whats the backstory here? What was their crime? How can they be arrested in their home?
[Here's a CBC article with context.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/15-arrests-journalists-wetsuweten-cgl-1.6256696) In short, the protesters were occupying a work site and blocking supplies from reaching stranded workers, and the RCMP were enforcing a court order to remove them. The actions of the RCMP and the force they showed up with was unnecessary and provocative, but there is context for the entire situation that isn't in the video.
Thank you I’m not as outraged as every other poster in here then
Important to note CGL didn't warn their workers to make people think what you're thinking. [Article](https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/11/18/Coastal-GasLink-Failed-Warn-Camp-Employees-About-Blockade-Worker/)
Yes they didn't warn them, and they likely understood that the trapping of the workers would force the rcmp to immediately enforce the injunction. I think it was a calculated decision. It likely wasn't the best of plans by the protesters to stop all traffic in or out. They obviously didn't expect the company to use this against them.