Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Pipeline protestors need to be jailed

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m a moderate and have no interest in right or left politics. 

:lol:

I want to see Indigenous thrive.  It can only happen with economic prosperity.

Yes but this all hinges on better environmental stewardship and that is best based on local values not the values of distant interests. Local values based on Indigenous sovereignty that is negotiated thru reconciliation will ensure local values are given that precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, cougar said:

Supporting oil and gas is supporting these guys:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/greta-thunberg-xsite-energy-sexual-image-1.5478561

Rapists of the environment and rapists of children.  They do not even hide it but present it in "art" and are proud of it.

 

 

I'll hold off condemning anyone for this until the RCMP have finished investigating.  Both the company and the printer stated they had no hand in the decals.  Until further notice, I take them at their word because in the current anti-oil/pipeline climate, I would not put it above someone on that side of the debate to be responsible in order to stir up yet more controversy.  Just sayin'.

Edited by mowich
to add a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cannuck said:

2.  They have been under the Indian Act that was administered by Indian Affairs.   That makes the term I have used for the last 70 years and will continue to use: "Indian".  If it offends your politicly correct virtue signalling, so be it.  If some Indians want to be treated respectfully, they will need to earn that right be conducting themselves respectfully, and that is NOT what the Indians involved are doing.

3.  As has been clearly pointed out to you, they stopped trying two years ago.  There is no right or privilege afforded to Indians, Whites, Greens, Browns or WTF other to do what they have done for ANY reason whatsoever.   What I can credit them with is pointing out clearly to Canadians that there is no rule of law in this country for those who are privileged by the PCVS crowd to be allowed to endlessly live outside of said rule of law.

4.  It "worked"????   It worked to show Canadians who bother to take notice that the whole situation is completely out of hand and MUST be rectified - and not by giving any special allowance to some very small minority who don't like the ruling of the courts nor have any respect at all for the laws of this land (that includes these few "hereditary chiefs" and the compete frigging morons who currently occupy cabinet seats.

 

Two thumbs up for that, cannuck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

:lol:

 

 

Yes but this all hinges on better environmental stewardship and that is best based on local values not the values of distant interests. Local values based on Indigenous sovereignty that is negotiated thru reconciliation will ensure local values are given that precedent.

Local interest instead of UNDRIP?  Agreed.  
 

Define reconciliation.  It can mean very different things to members of the same Indigenous group.  Ask the Wet’suwet’en.  
 

Define environmental stewardship.  Transporting oil by truck and rail, as well as shipping oil from overseas, has big environmental costs.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No it isn’t stupid to want energy independence and cleaner distribution.  It’s stupid to be beholden to dictators when it can be prevented.  

That also includes selling them stuff especially stuff that makes them even more powerful or have you forgotten all the effort that was expended trying to keep oil out of communist dictatorships in the not so distant past?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Local interest instead of UNDRIP?  Agreed.  

No, because of UNDRIP.

Quote

Define reconciliation.  It can mean very different things to members of the same Indigenous group.  Ask the Wet’suwet’en.

Sovereignty, nation to nation as per Brian Mulroney - so autonomous its damn near country to country.  Partners in Confederation equal to the Crown and a tier above provinces. 

Quote

Define environmental stewardship.  Transporting oil by truck and rail, as well as shipping oil from overseas, has big environmental costs.

Damn right it does.  It would be far less environmentally threatening to refine Alberta's oil in Alberta and ship a whole lot less volume domestically instead of vast volumes of unrefined bitumen abroad.  If it's smart for us to want energy independence and cleaner distribution for ourselves it stands to reason it's smarter for other countries to do the same.  It would be environmentally stupid for us to encourage them to be dependent on us as.  It would of course also make us moral degenerates in the case of fuelling the growth of dictators especially the biggest most dangerous one's.  

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, because of UNDRIP.

Sovereignty, nation to nation as per Stephen Harper - so autonomous its damn near country to country.  Partners in Confederation equal to the Crown and a tier above provinces. 

Damn right it does.  It would be far less environmentally threatening to refine Alberta's oil in Alberta and ship a whole lot less volume domestically instead of vast volumes of unrefined bitumen abroad.  If it's smart for us to want energy independence and cleaner distribution for ourselves it stands to reason it's smarter for other countries to do the same.  It would be environmentally stupid for us to encourage them to be dependent on us as.  It would of course also make us moral degenerates in the case of fuelling the growth of dictators especially the biggest most dangerous one's.  

That would be the fakest form of sovereignty in history, nations sustained in large part because of taxpayer funding from another nation.  There can be no true independence without financial self-sustainability.  Sure, we can pretend otherwise to help people save face, which is what we do with the broken system.  I wish it was on equal terms.  I enjoy different cultures and traditions.  I like languages, pow wows, hunting expeditions, dance, drums, intricate clothing, native storytelling, and traditional healing. So do many people, which is why Indigenous cultures will remain strong.  That’s different from national independence, which can’t simply be conferred in name only.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

That would be the fakest form of sovereignty in history, nations sustained in large part because of taxpayer funding from another nation.

Not compared to a nation that's sustained itself with lands and resources it's stolen from another.

Quote

There can be no true independence without financial self-sustainability.

There can be no independence without lands and resources.  

Quote

....national independence....can’t simply be conferred in name only.

That's why it has to be the real deal obtained thru war, surrender or negotiation.  Even the first explorer's knew you couldn't just steal the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the aboriginal populaion of Canada pre-contact was about the same as Chicoutimi.  The mere notion that somehow this tiny collection of people with no national government, no science, no written language, etc. somehow had "title" to the land from coast to coast to coast is ludicrous. Take me to their land titles office and show me the deeds.   The 1.6 miilion or so today claiming some sort of ancestral rights are simply some fragment of what was nothing more than municipal levels of settlement, not "sovereign nations".   That is almost as goofy as thinking you can have a sovereign Quebec - never mind 200 other "countries" within Canada.

If the Indians today want something to call their own, give them Chicoutimi and let's see if they can ALL ON THEIR OWN make a go of it.   The "settlers" seem to be able to do so.

Edited by cannuck
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

the aboriginal populaion of Canada pre-contact was about the same as Chicoutimi.  The mere notion that somehow this tiny collection of people with no national government, no science, no written language, etc. somehow had "title" to the land from coast to coast to coast is ludicrous. Take me to their land titles office and show me the deeds.   The 1.6 miilion or so today claiming some sort of ancestral rights are simply some fragment of what was nothing more than municipal levels of settlement, not "sovereign nations".   That is almost as goofy as thinking you can have a sovereign Quebec - never mind 200 other "countries" within Canada.

If the Indians today want something to call their own, give them Chicoutimi and let's see if they can ALL ON THEIR OWN make a go of it.   The "settlers" seem to be able to do so.

Well yes and no. Native laws never defined owning land-the earth is defined as a living organism which no one owns or has title to but can share. The approach of native laws was to share land not own it. Owning land, having title is not and has never been a native legal concept.

As well native people had governments. That's a silly thing to say. They had elders of each community pass on the laws orally. They also did have written languages but they had no need to record as they would pass their rules and customs down through song and story telling.

The ancestral rights you talk of do not and never claimed by natives to "own" the land. The use of the word "title" is not what they use or say. They don't claim title. They claim the collective right to use and have access to land based on treaties entered into with the British. its only non natives who claim "title" in the sense of owning the land exclusively for individuals.

Native laws do not define individual rights to land only collective rights to access land.

One of the problems when discussing the complex issues in conflict is we need to start by understanding what the actual conflict is, not assuming what it is.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


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

Well yes and no. Native laws never defined owning land-the earth is defined as a living organism which no one owns or has title to but can share. The approach of native laws was to share land not own it. Owning land, having title is not and has never been a native legal concept.

As well native people had governments. That's a silly thing to say. They had elders of each community pass on the laws orally. They also did have written languages but they had no need to record as they would pass their rules and customs down through song and story telling.

The ancestral rights you talk of do not and never claimed by natives to "own" the land. The use of the word "title" is not what they use or say. They don't claim title. They claim the collective right to use and have access to land based on treaties entered into with the British. its only non natives who claim "title" in the sense of owning the land exclusively for individuals.

Native laws do not define individual rights to land only collective rights to access land.

One of the problems when discussing the complex issues in conflict is we need to start by understanding what the actual conflict is, not assuming what it is.

It’s more complex than that though, because some groups had permanent settlements, such as on the west coast.  Others moved when the land became depleted every several years, such as the Six Nations.  Other areas never saw much European settlement and were essentially left alone, such as Nunavut.  For the first 200 years of European settlement, there wasn’t a lot of conflict because there weren’t a lot of people.  Indigenous groups warred and displaced each other throughout the prairies and Central Canada.  Treaties were formed and title established in the areas where it was deemed necessary.  People continued to move and settle.  Now it’s all about claiming continuous exclusive occupation to gain title or some kind of back pay.  The contexts today have changed and so have the people.  The courts can work out the claims.  The Indian Act and its associated policies are dated and need to change, but those rights are funded by taxpayers, who can turn the funding up or down.   It comes down to funding and legislation.  Feel free to change the legislation, but even if changes, where does the funding come from?   All government requires funding.  You can’t draft your own rules and expect others to pay for the setup.  That’s the situation.  It’s the child who wishes to come and go and live and spend as he or she pleases with the parents’ money and blessings.  It’s not true independence for many Indigenous, even after the title and claims are established, which is why this is a losing proposition for taxpayers.  For some people there will never be enough money or land because of past injustices and a well established culture of dependence.  It’s a broken system that many Indigenous don’t really want to change, so I’d be careful about getting too drawn into the radical rhetoric.  Let the courts do the work, maintain the funding, and move on.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It’s more complex than that though, because some groups had permanent settlements, such as on the west coast.  Others moved when the land became depleted every several years, such as the Six Nations.  Other areas never saw much European settlement and were essentially left alone, such as Nunavut.  For the first 200 years of European settlement, there wasn’t a lot of conflict because there weren’t a lot of people.  Indigenous groups warred and displaced each other throughout the prairies and Central Canada.  Treaties were formed and title established in the areas where it was deemed necessary.  People continued to move and settle.  Now it’s all about claiming continuous exclusive occupation to gain title or some kind of back pay.  The contexts today have changed and so have the people.  The courts can work out the claims.  The Indian Act and its associated policies are dated and need to change, but those rights are funded by taxpayers, who can turn the funding up or down.   It comes down to funding and legislation.  Feel free to change the legislation, but even if changes, where does the funding come from?   All government requires funding.  You can’t draft your own rules and expect others to pay for the setup.  That’s the situation.  It’s the child who wishes to come and go and live and spend as he or she pleases with the parents’ money and blessings.  It’s not true independence for many Indigenous, even after the title and claims are established, which is why this is a losing proposition for taxpayers.  For some people there will never be enough money or land because of past injustices and a well established culture of dependence.  It’s a broken system that many Indigenous don’t really want to change, so I’d be careful about getting too drawn into the radical rhetoric.  Let the courts do the work, maintain the funding, and move on.  

Absolutely, much more complex...but the point is indigenous peoples really do conceive of land rights as a collective concept not an individual ownership right and that causes basic and fundamental conflicts with a legal system that has no collective concept of land rights. We have two completely different methods of land use and access and one which sees exploitation of natural resources that are not natural (i.e., that pollute) as a non option in most instances. It is what it is. Its clashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Absolutely, much more complex...but the point is indigenous peoples really do conceive of land rights as a collective concept not an individual ownership right and that causes basic and fundamental conflicts with a legal system that has no collective concept of land rights. We have two completely different methods of land use and access and one which sees exploitation of natural resources that are not natural (i.e., that pollute) as a non option in most instances. It is what it is. Its clashing.

You (and by that I mean you and the legal systems of Canada) are inferring a lot of things from a culture that no longer even exists.

Further, by similarly crediting some kind of environmental higher ground to Indians tells me you have no experience at all in actually dealing with and on reserves.   All of this posturing is a Gretta Thunberg version of learned stage behaviour.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You (and by that I mean you and the legal systems of Canada) are inferring a lot of things from a culture that no longer even exists.

Further, by similarly crediting some kind of environmental higher ground to Indians tells me you have no experience at all in actually dealing with and on reserves.   All of this posturing is a Gretta Thunberg version of learned stage behaviour.

 

Yeah...the whole stewards of nature thing is BS. They pollute just like OTHER humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That would be the fakest form of sovereignty in history, nations sustained in large part because of taxpayer funding from another nation.  There can be no true independence without financial self-sustainability.  Sure, we can pretend otherwise to help people save face, which is what we do with the broken system.  I wish it was on equal terms.  I enjoy different cultures and traditions.  I like languages, pow wows, hunting expeditions, dance, drums, intricate clothing, native storytelling, and traditional healing. So do many people, which is why Indigenous cultures will remain strong.  That’s different from national independence, which can’t simply be conferred in name only.  

Agreed, Zeitgeist.  True Nations are independent.  Bands that are completely dependent upon government largess are anything but. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Well yes and no. Native laws never defined owning land-the earth is defined as a living organism which no one owns or has title to but can share. The approach of native laws was to share land not own it. Owning land, having title is not and has never been a native legal concept.

As well native people had governments. That's a silly thing to say. They had elders of each community pass on the laws orally. They also did have written languages but they had no need to record as they would pass their rules and customs down through song and story telling.

The ancestral rights you talk of do not and never claimed by natives to "own" the land. The use of the word "title" is not what they use or say. They don't claim title. They claim the collective right to use and have access to land based on treaties entered into with the British. its only non natives who claim "title" in the sense of owning the land exclusively for individuals.

Native laws do not define individual rights to land only collective rights to access land.

One of the problems when discussing the complex issues in conflict is we need to start by understanding what the actual conflict is, not assuming what it is.

One of the problems is that land title must be settled whether the bands want to cling to their ancient rights or not.  Another problem is for all this 'sharing of the land' bands are still fighting between themselves over who actually has the right to title.  No matter what the bands think should happen, the Supreme Court of Canada has been clear and certain that title must be established. Nothing is going to change that for all the whinging and complaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rue said:

Absolutely, much more complex...but the point is indigenous peoples really do conceive of land rights as a collective concept not an individual ownership right and that causes basic and fundamental conflicts with a legal system that has no collective concept of land rights. We have two completely different methods of land use and access and one which sees exploitation of natural resources that are not natural (i.e., that pollute) as a non option in most instances. It is what it is. Its clashing.

Perceiving land rights as a collective concept may be what some Indigenous cling to but many have understood that securing land title for their communities through the Supreme Court is the only way forward.  The Wet'suwet'en had the chance but decided to abandon the process. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not compared to a nation that's sustained itself with lands and resources it's stolen from another.

There can be no independence without lands and resources.  

That's why it has to be the real deal obtained thru war, surrender or negotiation.  Even the first explorer's knew you couldn't just steal the place.

It’s not stolen land it was conquered land.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It’s not stolen land it was conquered land.

 

Just like the various native tribes did to each other. 

As for the BC Coastal native general attitude towards British Europeans and Americans, the voyages of the sailing ships SS Tonquin and SS Boston provide some insight...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonquin_(1807)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Jewitt

As for European/American designs on the region...had Britain not claimed it, some other nation with a less that stellar record of the treatment of native populations would have...Spain, Russia or...gulp...the evil USA. (See: Nootka Conventions)

All over sea otters, you see...

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


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

It’s not stolen land it was conquered land.

You have the original documents that made the Indigenous surrender of their lands official?  Canada is going to be so relieved they've been found.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You have the original documents that made the Indigenous surrender of their lands official?  Canada is going to be so relieved they've been found.

 

Much better than being wiped-out by the Spanish, Americans or Russians, I'd say.

But you, no doubt, have a different opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/29/2020 at 11:25 AM, eyeball said:

 

No doubt most Canadians would like the blockades to end but I think the above also suggests more Canadians want to see this issue go away as a result of more reconciliation not less.  Canadians seem to be signalling their unhappiness with the slow pace of Liberals to move in this direction, the unwillingness of Conservatives to move at all and that the NDP present the quickest route to reconciliation and ending blockades.  

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement.

BC NDP Premier John Horgan caused this whole uprising across Canada by adamantly and rudely  refusing to fulfill the "duty of the Crown" to consult with Wet'suet'en Nation Council and to accommodate their Aboriginal rights BEFORE construction began. 

In fact, consultation should have occurred BEFORE the province approved the project - legally speaking 'when the Crown contemplates actions that may infringe on Aboriginal rights'.

The Green Party indicated better understanding of that issue, but their petition on the issues was still way off base, lacking awareness of other legalities.

The Conservatives are absolutely deplorable on Indigenous issues, and uselessly still hoping for another oil boom. 

The Liberals had to be forced to the table by nation-wide blockades. 

All parties have displayed incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DogOnPorch said:

But you, no doubt, have a different opinion.

Facts are better though. especially when they're relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Facts are better though. especially when they're relevant.

 

Yeah, they just randomly strung letters together to make the Straights of Juan de Fuca.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately, I can't agree with your last statement.

BC NDP Premier John Horgan caused this whole uprising across Canada by adamantly and rudely  refusing to fulfill the "duty of the Crown" to consult with Wet'suet'en Nation Council and to accommodate their Aboriginal rights BEFORE construction began. 

In fact, consultation should have occurred BEFORE the province approved the project - legally speaking 'when the Crown contemplates actions that may infringe on Aboriginal rights'.

The Green Party indicated better understanding of that issue, but their petition on the issues was still way off base, lacking awareness of other legalities.

The Conservatives are absolutely deplorable on Indigenous issues, and uselessly still hoping for another oil boom. 

The Liberals had to be forced to the table by nation-wide blockades. 

All parties have displayed incompetence.

Misunderstanding abounds alright.  I guess I was alluding to what I've seen of the federal NDP's performance.  Provinces are certainly involved in talks but ultimately it will be federal government that's responsible for final settlements and treaties over Indigenous lands.  BC's screw up in the face of having just enshrined UNDRIP does seem a little weird.

  • 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...