Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Pipeline protestors need to be jailed

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

My lord you're daft.

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

No, you accidentally made a great point.  All of these things can only be funded with a thriving economy.  That largely includes the energy industry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shady said:

No, you accidentally made a great point.  All of these things can only be funded with a thriving economy.  That largely includes the energy industry. 

When you've actually said things like " of course he's rich look at all the things he owns" you're not really well placed to comment on the economy.

In fact i would think you would support things like old age pension. Based on how your average comment on here is void of comprehension, valid/sound reasoning, or wit, I'd bet money you'll need to avail yourself of that very program to not starve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So really, who is actually protesting,  and pn what planet do the words peaceful protest and AK-47 appear in the same sentence?


 

Ottawa intends to infringe upon or usurp the Aboriginal rights of all those Indigenous people who want the pipeline, then the Trudeau government should come right out and say so. Either way, Ottawa should uphold the honour of the Crown, discharge its fiduciary duty to those Indigenous communities, and uphold the damn law.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-uphold-the-rights-of-all-indigenous-canadians-not-just-anti-pipeliners   

 we‘re leaving, we’re leaving on a strong note, not in defeat,'" said Trish Mills, a well-known Hamilton anarchist." Please remind me: Is Trish a hereditary leader of the Hamilton anarchists, or was Trish elected?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-go-trains-cancelled-as-protesters-set-up-new-blockades-near-toronto/

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

When you've actually said things like " of course he's rich look at all the things he owns" you're not really well placed to comment on the economy.

In fact i would think you would support things like old age pension. Based on how your average comment on here is void of comprehension, valid/sound reasoning, or wit, I'd bet money you'll need to avail yourself of that very program to not starve.

I think I’m more than qualified to comment on the economy.  I definitely support things like old age security, but I also support the energy industry that helps fund them.  Regardless I have a pension through my employer separate from old age security or CPP.  So no worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shady said:

I think I’m more than qualified to comment on the economy.

Well, since you seem to not understand the difference between assets and liabilities, im afraid you're not

 

17 minutes ago, Shady said:

I also support the energy industry

Did I say i didn't?

All i did was ask a couple people to give me their definition of a specific term they were using

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

I have a pension through my employer

Honestly, that's great. Too many hard working people don't have that opportunity. I for example have never worked somewhere(at least long enough) that provided one, and have spent most of my professional life running my own business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Well, since you seem to not understand the difference between assets and liabilities, im afraid you're not

 

Did I say i didn't?

All i did was ask a couple people to give me their definition of a specific term they were using

Honestly, that's great. Too many hard working people don't have that opportunity. I for example have never worked somewhere(at least long enough) that provided one, and have spent most of my professional life running my own business.

Running a business is definitely hard work that you should be proud of (I’m not saying you’re not).  I hope things go well or are going well.  I wish more people, especially left of centre has some experience running a business.  It might give them more of an appreciation for it, and it might cause them to be more careful with the taxes and regulations they seek to impose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shady said:

Running a business is definitely hard work that you should be proud of (I’m not saying you’re not).  I hope things go well or are going well.  I wish more people, especially left of centre has some experience running a business.  It might give them more of an appreciation for it, and it might cause them to be more careful with the taxes and regulations they seek to impose.

You should try running a resource business when your share of that resource is subject to being lobbied out from under your feet. You might have more appreciation for why out-lawing in-camera lobbying is a good idea.

In lieu of that you might appreciate why some people would be just as happy to burn the government to the ground.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you're a lobbyist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shady said:

Running a business is definitely hard work that you should be proud of (I’m not saying you’re not).  I hope things go well or are going well.  I wish more people, especially left of centre has some experience running a business.  It might give them more of an appreciation for it, and it might cause them to be more careful with the taxes and regulations they seek to impose.

Thank you, it is hard, but like the old adage says " if you love what you do you'll never work a day in your life" even if they're 18 hour days. It went very well,I sold the business a couple years ago, and consult now waiting for inspiration for my next adventure, unfortunately a little bit of money isn't great for the motivation.

Why people left of center? Does everything need to be viewed from a left right axis, do you not see how interpreting every situation through a partisan bubble makes you blind to all possibilities?

I do agree that if the average person had a better idea of how difficult it is to balance all the things involved in running a business, less would complain about problems they don't understand, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Here are a few of the many things ive learned.

Government programs work; between the BDC and the three levels of government, i received through grants and loans hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and expand my business at very low interest rates, not only helping me personally, but( if you understand the concept of money multiplying) literally added millions to the economy.

A happy(well treated) employee is a productive employee; by doing things like profit sharing and having amazing insurance( both taking money directly from my pocket initially) I actually made more money, because when my guys worked harder, we all got paid more not just the boss, in fact most of my permanent staff made the same hourly wage as me

PPP; this is a relatively new concept in economics, not necessarily taught formally in schools but gaining momentum, it means People, Planet, Profit, essentially the idea is that your impact on the community and the environment should be factored into your bottom line. I tried to follow this principle and what happened in the long run was my community involvement allowed me to develop a good reputation which in turn brought me more business, and my concern for the environment gave me a) a better understanding of how we impact the world around us and b) more gov't money by way of tax credits etc... So again government programs(can) work

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

1. How do you define social welfare program?

What possible interest would my "feelings" be in this discussion?

17 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Agreement over at least a working definition of a possibly politically contentious or subjective word is always the first step to any discussion when both parties want good faith, ernest dialogue

How about all government programs whose purpose is to increase the economic well-being of lower income individuals? This would include individual transfers of money, tax deferrals or advantages, public housing and subsidized housing but exclude programs designed to sustain or improve the economy in general, such as education and public health care. But honestly, this is a question similar to art and porn. Describing them in broad terms is difficult. But you know them when you see them.

17 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

2. Are you against such things as EI and pensions? This one you at least answered, and with an affirmation of support, in contradiction to your original statement "end all the social programs our economy pays for".

These are, as I said, paid for by individual contributions, not the taxpayer, so no, it's not a contradiction of my original statement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Argus said:

What possible interest would my "feelings" be in this discussion?

How about all government programs whose purpose is to increase the economic well-being of lower income individuals? This would include individual transfers of money, tax deferrals or advantages, public housing and subsidized housing but exclude programs designed to sustain or improve the economy in general, such as education and public health care. But honestly, this is a question similar to art and porn. Describing them in broad terms is difficult. But you know them when you see them.

These are, as I said, paid for by individual contributions, not the taxpayer, so no, it's not a contradiction of my original statement.

 

Nevertheless, when fewer people are working there's less money to pay for everyone's Canada Pension Plan, health care, education, and all services, especially if many of the jobs are low-paying.  The factors that create wealth for a society to pay for services are high worker productivity, low unemployment, and high value-add (great, innovative products and services).  Low unemployment means a tight labour market, which drives up wages and provides more tax revenue to pay for services.  Great products and services will be cash cows and rising stars, as the demand for such products will be high, driving up company profits, allowing employers to pay workers higher wages.  High worker productivity means doing more with less, producing more per worker, through a combination of high skills, state of the art technology, and strong work ethic.  There is no money for nothing. 

Some posters on here think that expanding public spending on the unemployed whilst reducing employment opportunities (by shutting down resource development on Indigenous territories/rural areas) is a recipe for success.  It's a recipe for economic disaster, but they won't realize it until a vicious cycle economic downturn takes place, resulting in their own job losses.  Losing the lattes is one thing, not being able to pay for basic meals is another.  Canada hasn't experienced that kind of recession/depression in decades.  The spoon-fed Millennials are oblivious and won't know what hit them. 

We need to stop entertaining all forms of ridiculous demand and unlawful protest.  The thugs setting fires under trains must be declared terrorists and added to the country's watchlist.  If it's allowed to get much worse, the backlash will be fierce. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Thank you, it is hard, but like the old adage says " if you love what you do you'll never work a day in your life" even if they're 18 hour days. It went very well,I sold the business a couple years ago, and consult now waiting for inspiration for my next adventure, unfortunately a little bit of money isn't great for the motivation.

Why people left of center? Does everything need to be viewed from a left right axis, do you not see how interpreting every situation through a partisan bubble makes you blind to all possibilities?

I do agree that if the average person had a better idea of how difficult it is to balance all the things involved in running a business, less would complain about problems they don't understand, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Here are a few of the many things ive learned.

Government programs work; between the BDC and the three levels of government, i received through grants and loans hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and expand my business at very low interest rates, not only helping me personally, but( if you understand the concept of money multiplying) literally added millions to the economy.

A happy(well treated) employee is a productive employee; by doing things like profit sharing and having amazing insurance( both taking money directly from my pocket initially) I actually made more money, because when my guys worked harder, we all got paid more not just the boss, in fact most of my permanent staff made the same hourly wage as me

PPP; this is a relatively new concept in economics, not necessarily taught formally in schools but gaining momentum, it means People, Planet, Profit, essentially the idea is that your impact on the community and the environment should be factored into your bottom line. I tried to follow this principle and what happened in the long run was my community involvement allowed me to develop a good reputation which in turn brought me more business, and my concern for the environment gave me a) a better understanding of how we impact the world around us and b) more gov't money by way of tax credits etc... So again government programs(can) work

 

 Impact on environment  is being taught now in business planning. Its changing. The travesty of plastics alone has convinced business they have to think twice about certain disposable concepts as being cost effective let alone counter productive to health and the environment. Its a slow revolution but its happening. 

As for the  tar sands extraction, its dirty, messy, and causes severe damage and none seems to address the severity of damage its causing Boreal forests or addressing the mercury or other pollutants its leaking from its left over pits.

Trudeau wants to be able to suck and blow at the same time being a UN climate darling but at the same time push pipelines of tar sands oil.  He sucks and blows.

I say slowly switch off from tar sands to other sources of economic activity. Easier said then done unfortunately.  I never was a fan of tar sands extraction. Can't be. But I am in favour of safe crude oil extraction. The problem is our politicians allowed Canada and Alberta to become addicted to tar sands oil like heroin. Now we have to deal with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

I say slowly switch off from tar sands to other sources of economic activity. Easier said then done unfortunately.  I never was a fan of tar sands extraction. Can't be. But I am in favour of safe crude oil extraction. The problem is our politicians allowed Canada and Alberta to become addicted to tar sands oil like heroin. Now we have to deal with it.

The "messey" part of oil sands is the "mineable area" around (mostly North of) Fort McMurray.   It is open pit mined because it is very close to the surface.  It is also a relatively small part of the massive Athabasca deposit the dips deeper to the East.   Depending on how you measure it, it is either one of the three largest reserves (based on proven and probable definitions) or knowing what is there, larger than ALL other reserves of petroleum hydrocarbons - possibly combined.   It is not something we can afford to ignore, since HCs will be used for a very long time in the future, like it or not.   What we CAN do, is concentrate on the deeper reserves that can be extracted now by steam assisted gravity drainage, but that and the much more energy efficient methods on the shelf require a much higher oil price to support.   We can (and will) extract heavy reserves far more efficiently and sustainably, but it will depend on the $$$$ as these are very expensive ways of recovering oil.

Once it is out of the ground, my own bias is towards NOT allowing heavy oil in the form of diluted bitumen to be shipped at all.   By far the best thing to do is upgrade it on the spot (as both Syncrude and Suncor have done for decades) and ship synthetic crude with value added within Canada.  Far safer, and far better basic economics.

The mere presence of a LPC that is governing from the far left fringe and on top of that the end of rule-of-law in this country has scared off a LOT of investment in resources that will not be back our way for a very long time.  At least the oil will still be there and by then with any luck the price will be sufficient to do it better (in political, environmental and economic terms).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rue said:

Impact on environment  is being taught now in business planning. Its changing.

I hope so, I was in microeconomics 101 in the JMSB, when a postgraduate student came in a wrote PPP on the board before class, she briefly explained the concept (it was a great break from learning things like "super normal profits" and i sought her out after to learn more, it wasn't being formerly taught back then (about 10 years)

 

17 hours ago, Rue said:

I say slowly switch off from tar sands to other sources of economic activity. Easier said then done

Of course, always with the caveat "easier said then done"

Even putting aside things like how much water (another natural resource we should be doing a better job of protecting)  is being used to extract the bitumen, or the impact on the ecosystem, it's important to remember the way we extract it now is not very efficient and wastes something like 35% (don't quote me on that exact number it was something i read a while ago) of the possible raw materials that could be extracted. 

The idea that in the foreseeable future the world will have no dependance on fossil fuels, im sure you'd agree is a pipe dream (pun intended), but if we we're to put a moratorium on tar sands extraction, until we can do it more efficiently and with less environmental impact.

 Big petrol already have huge infrastructures in place on how to provide their services, RnD etc..., why not continue to funnel the same monies we already do to these companies with the condition is must be used to create or improve renewable resources.

We have one of the biggest reserves of oil in the world, if managed properly (included but not limited to environmental impact), could create an economic windfall for rhe entire country that we could also be proud of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Argus said:

What possible interest would my "feelings" be in this discussion?

Feelings??? What do feelings have to do with definitions?

One of the most basic tenants of rational conversation is establishing that both parties need to agree on a working definition of the concept being discussed to avoid taking past each other. That you think feelings are involved just further indicates you have no understanding of logic and offer nothing but emotional drivel.

No one cares about your feelings, son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 11:11 PM, jacee said:

They did. Delgamuukw 1997.

BC and federal governments have ignored it. 

Therefore, civil disobedience is in progress. 

Wrong - again.

Delgamuukw did not settle the question of Wet’suwet’en title


As protests in support of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline continue to rage across the country, a number of Wet’suwet’en and their supporters have pointed to the landmark Delgamuukw decision to support their position.

That position is that the hereditary chiefs are the rightful title-holders of traditional land, and that only they can make decisions about what happens on that land. They cite the landmark Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision as affirming Wet’suwet’en title.


Except it didn’t.

“There are people who are saying that the Delgamuukw decision affirms Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en title, and that is not correct,” said Geoff Plant, former B.C. attorney general, treaty minister and lawyer for the Crown in the original Delgamuukw trial. “It affirmed that title exists in law but said that the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan would essentially need to start all over with a new trial.”

“We’re not talking about proven Aboriginal title,” said Thomas Isaac, author of Aboriginal Law and former chief treaty negotiator for the B.C. government. “We’re talking about asserted title, and we’re talking about the rule of law. And the same courts that recognize Section 35 [Canadian Constitution] rights are the same courts that put limits on those rights. It scoped out what title meant, should it be proven. That decision didn’t prove title. It was sent back to trial.”

The Delgamuukw decision was an important legal precedent in Aboriginal rights and title law. The case was brought by members of the Wet’suwet’en and neighbouring Gitxsan First Nation.

It became one of the cornerstones for other rulings, notably the William decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Tsilhqot’in Nation had established title to a portion of claimed territory through continuous and exclusive occupation.

Aboriginal title is a higher form of Aboriginal rights. First Nations may hold Aboriginal rights to use land and waters for activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping, but that does not mean they own it. It may be shared territory used by other First Nations.

Title is a form of ownership of specific land, although that ownership is communal.

In William, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed Tsilhqot’in title based on the definitions established in the Delgamuukw case. It ruled that 1,750 square kilometres of Crown land southwest of Williams Lake now belongs to the Tsilhqot’in, not the Crown. That’s 2% of the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory originally claimed.

Unlike in the William case, the Supreme Court in Delgamuukw stopped short of declaring that the Wet’suwet’en or Gitxsan had proven title to any specific lands.

It affirmed that Aboriginal rights and title exist and were never extinguished. But to establish title, a second trial would be needed. As the William case demonstrated, proving title would require establishing continuous and exclusive occupation to certain lands. It would also need to address overlap issues with other First Nations in shared territory.

It’s not clear why the Wet’su-wet’en never pressed forward with a second trial. As of press time, a representative for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en could not be reached to comment.

Even when Aboriginal title to specific land is proven, it is “not absolute” and can be infringed, if there is a reasonable justification for that infringement, the Supreme Court ruled.

“The aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), including aboriginal title, are not absolute,” the Supreme Court notes in the Delgamuukw decision. “Those rights may be infringed, both by the federal … and provincial … governments. However, [Section 35] requires that those infringements satisfy the test of justification.”

The court provides examples where Aboriginal title might justifiably be infringed: “agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.”

The imbroglio over the Coastal GasLink pipeline speaks to the failure of the treaty process, which was supposed to resolve the Wet’suwet’en rights and title issue out of court. The Wet’suwet’en reached the agreement-in-principle stage but then abandoned the treaty table about two years ago.

It is worth noting that the BC Treaty Commission recognizes the hereditary chiefs, through the Office of the Wet’suwet’en – not elected band council chiefs – as having the authority to negotiate treaty with the provincial and federal governments.

In other words, the courts and governments recognize the authority of the hereditary chiefs as legitimate representatives of the Wet’suwet’en.

In the Wet’suwet’en’s case, however, there is division over the Coastal GasLink project. Some hereditary chiefs oppose it, while others support it, as do all the elected band councils.

Even where title is not proven – only asserted – provincial and federal governments have a duty to consult with and accommodate First Nations when approving projects that may infringe on their rights.

But the duty to consult and accommodate is not a duty to achieve unanimous consent. That would effectively give First Nations a veto, and courts have repeatedly stated that no such veto power exists.

“There is almost no case where Aboriginal title confers an absolute right,” Plant said. “Canadian law is always about balance. There are always cases where the greater social good will prevail over a private right, no matter how important or passionately held.”


www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/delgamuukw-did-not-settle-the-question-of-wet-suwet-en-title-1.24085622

__________________________

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 5:07 AM, jacee said:

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

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

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

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

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

BC NDP  Premier John Horgan, December 2019:
""Let's sit down *with the title holders* whose land we want to conduct economic activity on and create partnerships as a way forward. That works," "
-------
BC NDP  Premier John Horgan,
January 2020:
 "Wet'suwet'en territory ... telling CBC he wasn't going to "drop everything I'm doing to come running when someone is saying they need to speak with me."
...
"the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C." to ensure work continues on the 670-km pipeline, "
 

The imbroglio over the Coastal GasLink pipeline speaks to the failure of the treaty process, which was supposed to resolve the Wet’suwet’en rights and title issue out of court. The Wet’suwet’en reached the agreement-in-principle stage but then abandoned the treaty table about two years ago.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 6:42 AM, Zeitgeist said:

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

She's just very very misinformed, Zeitgeist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 2:05 PM, cougar said:

You want to present it like it is a couple of rogue hereditary chiefs that are messing with the whole country.

If that were the case, you wouldn't be seeing the level of support demonstrated across the country.

Most people do not get easily brainwashed with promises of jobs and prosperity.

 

The level of support?  Get real.  A majority of those protesting are anything but supporting the obstructionist chiefs - they have agendas that have nothing to do with pipelines or land claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 9:42 AM, Zeitgeist said:

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

Of interest:

In matriarchal systems, Clan Mothers choose Chiefs from among eligible relatives. (Not direct heredity.) Clan Mothers hold the power, the titles and the will of the Clan, through consensus decision-making. Chiefs are the spokespeople.

Beyond that interest, it is not our business.

Are you a white supremacist? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mowich said:

She's just very very misinformed, Zeitgeist. 

I think the biggest problem we have in business and the overall running of the country right now are too many misinformed people with militant opinions.  Many of these people, especially at the extremes, feel that they should have a veto, no matter how widespread the support of what they oppose.  I chalk this up to a failure of leaders to explain decision making processes, which are almost always based on science and research data, as well as public opinion or representatives of opinion, including minority groups.  Another failure of leadership is asserting the authority of the decision-making body by enforcing the rule of law once a decision is made.  You don't get to destroy other people's stuff because you don't like the outcome of a well-considered legal system.  That authority has been lacking, so people have been given the signal that breaking laws and infringing on rights is fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jacee said:

Of interest:

In matriarchal systems, Clan Mothers choose Chiefs from among eligible relatives. (Not direct heredity.) Clan Mothers hold the power, the titles and the will of the Clan, through consensus decision-making. Chiefs are the spokespeople.

Beyond that interest, it is not our business.

Are you a white supremacist? 

What makes you think I'm white?  Why do you bring race into this?  I'm offended. 

News Flash: A matriarchal system is hereditary. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Of interest:

In matriarchal systems, Clan Mothers choose Chiefs from among eligible relatives. (Not direct heredity.) Clan Mothers hold the power, the titles and the will of the Clan, through consensus decision-making. Chiefs are the spokespeople.

Beyond that interest, it is not our business.

Are you a white supremacist? 

Well that's nice and good to know.  Now could you please explain why it is 5 old men who are in the headlines? 

Are you a fascist? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 9:46 PM, eyeball said:

You should try running a resource business when your share of that resource is subject to being lobbied out from under your feet. You might have more appreciation for why out-lawing in-camera lobbying is a good idea.

In lieu of that you might appreciate why some people would be just as happy to burn the government to the ground.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you're a lobbyist. 

A lobbyist? What are you on about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think the biggest problem we have in business and the overall running of the country right now are too many misinformed people with militant opinions.  Many of these people, especially at the extremes, feel that they should have a veto, no matter how widespread the support of what they oppose.  I chalk this up to a failure of leaders to explain decision making processes, which are almost always based on science and research data, as well as public opinion or representatives of opinion, including minority groups.  Another failure of leadership is asserting the authority of the decision-making body by enforcing the rule of law once a decision is made.  You don't get to destroy other people's stuff because you don't like the outcome of a well-considered legal system.  That authority has been lacking, so people have been given the signal that breaking laws and infringing on rights is fine. 

Ah, but 'feeling they should have veto' is a far cry from legally having one now isn't, Zeitgeist and that has been clearly stated by Delgamuukw they don't.  It is interesting that the very same hereditary chiefs making all the noise about the Coastal Gaslink line are also the ones who chose not to go forward with a trial to prove their land claims.  How they could possibly think they have a leg to stand on after abandoning the process is beyond puzzling. 

Edited by mowich
missing a preposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mowich said:

The level of support?  Get real.  A majority of those protesting are anything but supporting the obstructionist chiefs - they have agendas that have nothing to do with pipelines or land claims. 

What bothers me about it is that everyone of these protesters must somehow make a living.   Who is paying them?   Certainly not the kind of thing the Looney Left Media is about to investigate.  You want to understand the agenda, it's the Golden Rule (i.e., follow the gold).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...