Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Pipeline protestors need to be jailed


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jacee said:

I'm sure that reparations were paid in both of those situations. Back up your claim that they were not.

A lot of evidence was presented to the Supreme Court and it ruled that Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title existed 'at contact',  was never ceded or extinguished, and thus still exists. Read the Delgamuukw 1997 ruling if you want to know what evidence was examined.

It's not up to someone else to break it down into into bite-sized chunks for you. 

All that remains to be done is to determine the boundaries of Wet'suet'en title territory, likely from government maps, and then the government can declare title.

Obviously they shouldn't.

Problem solved.  

They 'contribute' the land we call Canada.

What would Canada's GDP look like without the billions in resource revenues from traditional  Indigenous territories?

To what extent are those revenues shared with the Indigenous peoples who voluntarily or involuntarily 'contributed' their territories to Canada? 

Did Canada obey it's own 'rule of law' ... obey the treaties? ... obey the Royal Proclamations? 

Or did Canada just steal the land and its resource revenues? 

Does Canada just maintain Indigenous people in poverty to force their submission to resource projects that destroy the land's ability to sustain them? 

Get back to me on that. 

I’m not asking for a breakdown.  I’m saying that if title lands weren’t clarified, it wasn’t because of government holding up the process.  It’s because of a failure of some Wet’suwet’en to provide evidence establishing those boundaries in court.  

How can you claim that groups whose ancestors moved to different parts of the country without a sense of private property, who often warred with one another, and only occupied small sections of the country, are entitled to the proceeds of development they didn’t do themselves when it’s off “their” land.

Who invested in the machinery?  Who built the schools, hospitals, and roads?  Who paid for it all?  Are non-Wet’suwet’en occupying this Wet’suwet’en land and taking resources without providing revenue?

It doesn’t matter at this point.  Investment will be minimal until the residents signal that they can make decisions that will be accepted by the dissenting minority.  In a functional democracy, the minority doesn’t hold the majority hostage, backstopped by blockades and sabotage of private and government property.  

It looks like a ploy to get money for nothing.  Again, it’s here nor there now because industry and business investment won’t come to high risk areas like that.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The ongoing protests in BC, Ontario and elsewhere show the depths of ignorance, stupidity and vapid self-indulgence we've come to expect from much of the activist and progressive populations, along wi

It has nothing to do with democracy.  If somebody is breaking the law, the law has to be enforced.  Like I've already stated, I'm sure if protesters were shutting down abortion clinics, you'd have a m

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 r

Posted Images

35 minutes ago, Shady said:

You have anything to support your claims?

What is it you are unsure about? 

This is pretty common knowledge among Canadians. 

If you wish to dispute anything, go ahead. 

Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jacee said:

What is it you are unsure about? 

This is pretty common knowledge among Canadians. 

No, that’s a narrative told by a segment of the population.  People listen politely and make their own judgements about what happened and entitlements.  Most people are just working and paying their taxes.  The idea of a race-based form of special status tied to a piece of land is simply outside of most people’s experience, especially when its very existence is so reliant on outside support, the support of people who are working and paying taxes.  Stories about colonial injustice will only garner so much attention because most countries and peoples have experienced forms of colonialism and moved on.  Think of our high immigrant population.  Are they stealing Canadians’ land? Do you blame them for 300 year-old injustices?  

Canada does have lots of opportunity, but sometimes people have to move to get a piece of it.  Why is it not okay for some Indigenous to do that?  Is it because intermarriage with non-Indigenous might take remove status benefits?  Is it because leaving the reserve means giving up the tax breaks?  It’s another form of injustice when people cannot sell their land to seek opportunity elsewhere because the reserve land is held in “common.”   The problems are structural within the Indian Act.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m not asking for a breakdown.  I’m saying that if title lands weren’t clarified, it wasn’t because of government holding up the process.  It’s because of a failure of some Wet’suwet’en to provide evidence establishing those boundaries in court.  

And yet the government maintains detailed maps of Indigenous territories. Lol 

There was another issue regarding detailed description, but it was resolved by the Tsilhqot'in ruling (2014).

It's now up to the government to declare title, now beginning with the current agreement on process, now under discussion in Wet'suet'en territory. 

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

How can you claim that groups whose ancestors moved to different parts of the country without a sense of private property, who often warred with one another, and only occupied small sections of the country, are entitled to the proceeds of development they didn’t do themselves when it’s off “their” land.

Review the relevant Supreme Court cases. Educate yourself to find your own answers. 

Or alternatively ... accept that the law is the law. 

Off "their" land? 

All of Canada is someone's traditional Indigenous territory. Lol 

Edited by jacee
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The idea of a race-based form of special status tied to a piece of land is simply outside of most people’s experience,

Canadians understand it. Most respect it, and would like governments to be more proactive in resolving issues BEFORE conflicts arise.

But you seem uninterested in the legalities of Canada. Only white supremacists use that "race-based" ranting, a very small minority though big on trolling discussion boards with such nonsense.  Lol 

Edited by jacee
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jacee said:

Canadians understand it.

Only white supremacist use that language, a very small minority, though big on trolling discussion boards with such nonsense.

What nonsense are you spewing?  You think most Canadians want to keep race-based status and lands?  It’s creepy and anachronistic.

I’m quite educated on the subject and I’ve read the recommendations of the inquiries, some of which were so clearly politicized that they undermined the inquiry, such as providing a universal basic income.  Talk about off topic. 

So at what point in a person’s occupation of a territory does it become theirs?  Under the law it has to be exclusive and continuous for a long period.  How many people can make those claims?   What about all other displaced peoples over the centuries?   

Again, I respect Indigenous making decisions for themselves about what to do with that they have, and the courts recognize treaties and help establish title.  Those facts don’t change the fact that no group has a veto in Canada over projects in the public interest.  Establishing title doesn’t change the fact.  In this case, most Wet’suwet’en support the gas pipeline anyway, so you’re chasing a red herring to support a false cause, but the effects of such tactics, including the blockades, send a chill over investment that will hurt these communities for decades to come.  So much for self-sustainability and self-determination.  
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So at what point in a person’s occupation of a territory does it become theirs?  Under the law it has to be exclusive and continuous for a long period.  How many people can make those claims?   What about all other displaced peoples over the centuries?   

Since you seem to be second guessing Court judgements, perhaps reading some of the relevant Supreme Court rulings, or associated lawyerly summaries,  would help your understanding of those matters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2020 at 3:05 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I respect environmentalists who put their money where their mouth is instead of asking others to pay for their green experiments.  Kudos.

Indeed. Like Al Gore, David Suzuki, Leo Decrapio and so many other wealthy people who never really practice what they preach. They own several homes between them. They own and drive big gas guzzling vehicles, and own private boats, and fly everywhere in their private jets. They know that this climate change bull chit is just that. All bull chit. But millions of fools will listen to them, and will want to do their fair share of trying to fight this so called global warming or climate change. 

Yet these same people are led to believe that it is only their western country that is causing all this global warming, but yet they are too stupid to realize or even ask questions about countries like China, India and Africa who are the ones who are the biggest contributors to global warming and they are doing nothing about it. The globalists can get the many stupid Joe and Mary six pack people out there to believe anything. They get their controlled media started up, and create some disaster that is going to kill us all in 12 years, and they will all go into panic mode. 

Those so called I care about the planet environmentalists that are causing all those blockades are mostly being paid by the many globalist environmental groups out there to cause havoc and chaos and to try and slow down the growth of our Canadian economy by blockading rail lines and roadways. I heard that many of them are being paid $300 to demonstrate or can make more by putting a feather on their head where they will get $500 to demonstrate. These terrorists could careless about anything that has to do with the environment. Mostly it is all about the money that these terrorist morons can make. These terrorists need to be jailed, but good luck on that one. This has more to do with politics rather than with the environment. Hundreds of millions of tax revenues for the government lost and thousands of good paying jobs lost because of these pipeline terrorist demonstrators. But ask your politician if they really care? :unsure:

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

It's also the law in Canada. 

Love it or leave it! 

I’m not taking issue with court decisions.   Any political organization that ties territorial propriety to a race and incentivizes this apartheid is problematic, but if that’s the will of indigenous, we’ll go along to get along.  That’s not what’s at issue though in the matter of a people’s dissenting minority creating problems for that people and the wider society.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I Any political organization that ties territorial propriety to a race 

Aboriginals within their own laws  do not define themselves as a race. They define themselves a collective of collectives based on common ancestry, i.e., origins and those origins are based on traditions that are followed. They also do not define themselves as owning property. Their concepts deal with collective rights associated with accessing land not owning it.

It is Canadian non aboriginal laws that have used the concept of race or title to property and still might directly or indirectly.

In fact I doubt you will find any aboriginal community leader use the term race as we have  to define themselves or use the world title as we do in Canadian laws when it comes to property.  I would love to see the terms used that way by them. I have never seen it yet.

By the way the need to  accessuse of land was not predicated by aboriginals-it only became an issue because of the French and British initiating it first causing initial limitation to access on aboriginals based on defining them as a race. The aboriginals realized that while French and English were both albino like compared to them, they were not of the same cultures. They defined them by their behaviour amd language and customs more than they did their albino features. Aboriginals did have albinos you know. All life with spinal cords tend to have them.

 

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

Aboriginals within their own laws  do not define themselves as a race. They define themselves a collective of collectives based on common ancestry, i.e., origins and those origins are based on traditions that are followed.

Defining yourself by common ancestry has little practical difference from defining yourself by race. You can still ethnically cleanse someone from your territory who doesn't look like you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jacee said:

It's also the law in Canada. 

Love it or leave it! 

You really gotta decide when you think the law is important and when you don’t .  Because in some instances you don’t care about the law.  You can’t pick and choose.

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

You really gotta decide when you think the law is important and when you don’t .  Because in some instances you don’t care about the law.  You can’t pick and choose.

Not unless your native or a tree hugger then you can break laws when ever you want.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2020 at 11:16 AM, mowich said:

A dirty secret about wind turbines.

"Wind turbines may be carbon-free, but they’re not recyclable.

A photograph of dozens of giant turbine blades dumped into a Wyoming landfill touched off a debate Wednesday on Twitter about wind power’s environmental drawbacks. The argument may be only beginning.

From your article...

 

Quote

“It’s much cleaner than the contaminated soil and demolition projects from the oil and gas industry,” Langston said in an interview. “These are about as non-toxic as you can get.”

Wind turbine blades represent a “vanishingly small fraction” of overall waste in the U.S., according to the American Wind Energy Association.

 

Meh...get a grip. I know righty denier types enjoy their titillation over the merest whiffs of hypocrisy coming from the environmental movement but like I said...get a grip.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

From your article...

 

Meh...get a grip. I know righty denier types enjoy their titillation over the merest whiffs of hypocrisy coming from the environmental movement but like I said...get a grip.

I’m all about the science and facts.  The bottom line is that many green energy options simply don’t produce the quantity of power needed to supply current loads, and they provide power intermittently, which requires supplementation by other non-renewable energy sources.  You can’t scale up and down hydro or nuclear (the best power sources in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) to provide power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, so that’s where fossil fuels come in, the cleanest being natural gas.  So, a secure green energy sector will lean primarily on nuclear and/or hydro (where possible) with wind in areas where the wind flows are highest and solar as a local, small supplement, though these so called green sources also produce waste and environmental footprints.  

The other critical factor is reducing the load through energy conservation and efficiencies (e.g. better insulation, weather stripping, double glazed windows, LED lighting, and where it’s economical to do so, geothermal heating and deep water cooling).  Building complete communities that reduce commute times with short trips between work, home, shopping, and recreation, with widespread rapid transit, is key.  So building better communities, having greener building codes, and creating sensible environmental regulations for waste management in homes and workplaces, will help tremendously to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air and water quality.

I can eventually see most homes having simple solar roof systems to feed our power grid and electric vehicles, but we haven’t been able to get the costs down, the waste down, and the energy production from green sources up high enough to be viable choices for most people.  We subsidized, hoping mass production would reduce costs per unit and change the market. Carbon taxes are another way governments try to curtail fossil fuel use, but such measures haven’t transformed the economy and many changes will take time to develop: better technology, regulations, urban planning. and building codes. They can’t happen overnight or come at a cost that’s unaffordable.  

Canada has tremendous potential wealth in the ground, so giving up resource development that could bring decent living standards to remote and vulnerable communities, is foolish.  We just have to be careful how we do it.  Environmental assessments are quite rigorous in Canada.

There is far too much ignorance and confusion about what is viable and sensible resource development and energy production in Canada.  We can be technological and green leaders in these sectors, but shutting down such development is bad for everyone.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m all about the science and facts.  The bottom line is that many green energy options simply don’t produce the quantity of power needed to supply current loads,

Yes I know that and what it means is that we have to dial back the economy stop growing it and learn to live on less because the un-green energy options are completely unsustainable.

The science says we need 3 or 4 more Earth's so everyone can live the way we do. That is still the goal right?

Quote

There is far too much ignorance and confusion about what is viable and sensible resource development and energy production in Canada.

No kidding, science has been ringing alarm bells for decades and when the world isn't oblivious it's rolling it's eyes and laughing out loud.

Quote

We can be technological and green leaders in these sectors, but shutting down such development is bad for everyone.

Not when we're trying to eat our cake too.  Carrying on business as usual will be worse for everyone.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes I know that and what it means is that we have to dial back the economy stop growing it and learn to live on less because the un-green energy options are completely unsustainable.

The science says we need 3 or 4 more Earth's so everyone can live the way we do. That is still the goal right?

No kidding, science has been ringing alarm bells for decades and when the world isn't oblivious it's rolling it's eyes and laughing out loud.

Not when we're trying to eat our cake too.  Carrying on business as usual will be worse for everyone.

Don’t put fiction about how green we can make our economy ahead of jobs and lives.  The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Argus said:

Defining yourself by common ancestry has little practical difference from defining yourself by race. You can still ethnically cleanse someone from your territory who doesn't look like you.

There is an actual difference. Aboriginals do not ethnically cleanse people who do not look like them. Not that you noticed by aboriginals do not "look like each other". They are a mix of many mixes. If they wanted to define access to land by looks they would have had far more many wars than we people who came after them  before we got here.

You also need to see why and when aboriginals pushed back to demand access to land. It wasn't until their access was restricted in the first place. Then they pushed back. No we can not go backwards and undo history but we need to stop misstating history as if they started the displacement process. They did not. They only reacted to being displaced. They did not institute any displacement of non aboriginals until we pushed them off land.  You push something it pushes back.

The misstating of history does not resolve it..it only further complicates it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rue said:

The above idea was not and is not an aboriginal concept. It comes from people like you projecting it on aboriginals.

What?  Don’t pin the Indian Act on me or “people like me”.   What do you mean by that? I think the Indian Act is terrible.  

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

Don’t put fiction about how green we can make our economy ahead of jobs and lives.    

I didn't do that, I put forward the reality that science says our economy is unsustainable.

Quote

The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse.

Yes the Church of Economic Alarmism has been screaming about the end of our world for decades too. I know full well what you're saying I'm not denying that reality or the reality that the economy will be also be lost if we continue with business as usual.  I also fully realize that impoverished people make lousy stewards of the environment because they simply can't afford to be responsible  It's a vicious double spiral.  

The alarmism all points in the same direction but at the end of the day the fundamental reality is that natural ecosystems can exist all on their own just fine without a human economy anywhere in sight.  You can't have it both ways though.  Human economies simply cannot exist without a functioning productive ecosystem around it.  Not unless you move to some fictional Soylent Green sort of socioeconomic model.

There are two very clear realities here and I'm not denying either one at all.  Are you?

  • Like 1
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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...