|
Bless you
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
If anyone is interested in joining the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion to get Tio Bernie elected, Canadians can join the volunteer force. I signed up for some text-banking shifts and learned very quickly how to do it following this link: https://berniesanders.com/en/text/learn/ PS my reaction to Blatchford’s death was a quick smile. :-) One less troll out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Going against every single one of the 20 bands and the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en on the project's right of way in solidarity with a handful of people that stripped the titles of all of the hereditary chiefs who did support the project (including all of the women lol) feels a little colonialist also - while I think there's arguments to be made with respect to Transmountain; Coastal GasLink seems be very clearly A Good Thing. Its export targets are even replacing coal which has double the per capita GHG emmission so the environmental case is idiotic also I notice a segment of the progressive movement tends to automatically assume all first nations are categorically opposed to any sort of energy or infrastructure project when this absolutely is not the case (and is racist af). Many other large projects go through with little media fanfare that provide major financial benefits to FN communities who are in many cases major or majority stakeholders
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
ARACHTION posted:If anyone is interested in joining the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion to get Tio Bernie elected, Canadians can join the volunteer force. I signed up for some text-banking shifts and learned very quickly how to do it following this link: Is that a good idea? Seems to me foreigners aiding in a federal election campaign is something that is frowned on in certain quarters in the US! Fearless fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
it's illegal to donate money to a political campaign, it's not illegal to volunteer for a political campaign. there were people from ireland and elsewhere campaigning for Bernard in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Going against every single one of the 20 bands and the elected council of the Wet'suwet'en on the project's right of way in solidarity with a handful of people that stripped the titles of all of the hereditary chiefs who did support the project (including all of the women lol) feels a little colonialist also - while I think there's arguments to be made with respect to Transmountain; Coastal GasLink seems be very clearly A Good Thing. Its export targets are even replacing coal which has double the per capita GHG emmission so the environmental case is idiotic also Perhaps but there are better ways to respond to disagreements than sending in an armed battalion of the loving RCMP to harass natives. The country was pretty drat quick to resort to aggressive force in response to the Wet'suwet'en protest. If you come out the gate swinging with the threat of violence things can only escalate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Perhaps but there are better ways to respond to disagreements than sending in an armed battalion of the loving RCMP to harass natives. The country was pretty drat quick to resort to aggressive force in response to the Wet'suwet'en protest. If you come out the gate swinging with the threat of violence things can only escalate. What's the appropriate approach to an ongoing protest/camp like this though? Obviously the FN component makes it more contentious, but eventually the police have to forcibly clear people if they persist
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:but eventually the police have to forcibly clear people if they persist And why is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:And why is that? Well if they didn't, they might actually have to listen to First Nations people and not just pay lip service to reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:And why is that? Because as cynical as it sounds it is literally impossible to build any sort of infrastructure or energy project without stirring up some element of protest - even the construction of things like sustainable transit systems etc. will generally stir up a lot of opposition from local communities (traffic impacts, construction noises/detours etc). If an organization decides it wants to camp out in the right of way of a light rail project, is your position that it needs to be cancelled? Cat Wings posted:Well if they didn't, they might actually have to listen to First Nations people and not just pay lip service to reconciliation. So what does this look like then? In this case literally every single band council has signed onto the project and consultations have been ongoing for nearly a decade. A majority of Wet'suwet'en support the project. This is literally being held up solely by a fairly small group of hereditary chiefs who have treated their community like poo poo and have rejected all consultations & invitations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Because as cynical as it sounds it is literally impossible to build any sort of infrastructure or energy project without stirring up some element of protest - even the construction of things like sustainable transit systems etc. will generally stir up a lot of opposition from local communities (traffic impacts, construction noises/detours etc). yeah, that's your moral obligation, to cancel the project. e: hth
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:a handful of people that stripped the titles of all of the hereditary chiefs who did support the project (including all of the women lol) This is the second time this has been mentioned itt. Source?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:And why is that? edit: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-wetsuweten-chiefs-remove-hereditary-titles-of-three-women-who/ - paywalled but cache or googling works to bypass, this is a source regarding the women hereditary chiefs being removed. Trapick fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
My position is that you don't send a bunch of rapist fascist paramilitary assholes to antagonize minorities when they disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:This is literally being held up solely by a fairly small group of hereditary chiefs who have treated their community like poo poo and have rejected all consultations & invitations. Do you have evidence to support this claim? infernal machines fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Because as cynical as it sounds it is literally impossible to build any sort of infrastructure or energy project without stirring up some element of protest - even the construction of things like sustainable transit systems etc. will generally stir up a lot of opposition from local communities (traffic impacts, construction noises/detours etc). To be frank, the government and people doing projects do have a duty to consult and obtain informed consent to do projects like these over FN land. The government uses 'official' governments like the elected band counsels to manufacture consent among FN communities, and have been known to use clauses in place in the Indian Act to force elections to get governments more favourable to industry in. The obligation to consult and gain consent on the part of the government is legislated and present, they are not supposed to approve of these projects without consent. The issue of 'who' is consenting matters, and that's why it sounds fake and bad to say 'there will always be some factions that don't approve', when that's the point of the Indian Act, to enfranchise some FN as decision makers and target them for consent purposes and approve of extraction industry and development. Canada benefits from working to factionalize FN communities, and your attitude that you displayed is an indication of how effective they have been. The question is of property and sovereignty. The lands in question are unceded, Canada has no legal basis for their 'ownership' of the lands there, and they were never given up through treaties unlike the lands in Ontario or a vast majority of Canada, further complicating the issue. Toalpaz fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:The question is of property and sovereignty. The lands in question are unceded, Canada has no legal basis for their 'ownership' of the lands there, and they were never given up unlike the lands in Ontario or a vast majority of Canada, further complicating the issue. This also appears to complicate this, Trapick posted:Should the RCMP ignore all court injunctions? Or just some? Does the court issuing the injunction have any justifiable jurisdiction over the land? infernal machines fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:
I agree - but what does the mechanism look like for a First Nations band that wants to proceed with a project or agreement? The Indian Act is a racist POS I agree; but Canada & unceded territories really don't have an actual process for the development of projects in these areas (which can be a detriment to the FN band itself; there are numerous thriving FN populations in the north that have led the charge as stakeholders in the development of hydro/energy infrastructure).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Should the RCMP ignore all court injunctions? Or just some? And why does the court have to issue the injunction?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Do the courts issuing the injunction have any justifiable jurisdiction over the land?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:I agree - but what does the mechanism look like for a First Nations band that wants to proceed with a project or agreement? The Indian Act is a racist POS I agree; but Canada & unceded territories really don't have an actual process for the development of projects in these areas (which can be a detriment to the FN band itself; there are numerous thriving FN populations in the north that have led the charge as stakeholders in the development of hydro/energy infrastructure). Possibly that's something that needs to be worked out, on a band by band basis, and ideally not with the RCMP putting people in cuffs Trapick posted:That's really the central question, isn't it? I don't have an answer for that. The courts think they do, the Wet’suwet’en disagree. I suspect it'll go to the Supreme Court, who will agree that the injunction is enforcable...and then things will be the same, because the Wet’suwet’en will still disagree. Well, yeah, but it's just sorta taken as read here. So the RCMP are expected to follow lawful orders, but since we can't say if they are, I'd rather they err on the side of caution
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:I agree - but what does the mechanism look like for a First Nations band that wants to proceed with a project or agreement? The Indian Act is a racist POS I agree; but Canada & unceded territories really don't have an actual process for the development of projects in these areas (which can be a detriment to the FN band itself; there are numerous thriving FN populations in the north that have led the charge as stakeholders in the development of hydro/energy infrastructure). I think if there are groups that want to proceed they should be entitled and empowered to negotiate on a nation to nation/corporation level with Canada and the energy companies. However, given the nature of pipelines, one location to another across vast tracts of land, if one group doesn't want to proceed you're not going to be able to proceed with the project. That's what respecting people's rights means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Possibly that's something that needs to be worked out, on a band by band basis, and ideally not with the RCMP putting people in cuffs It's impossible to legislate formally since every project will be unique. Approving governance that isn't democratic is also a very very dangerous path to take morally I think. (Though I'm of the view that no culture or system of government can be ethically be based on anything short of elections or direct democracy). Toalpaz posted:
Would you apply this on a Municipal level also? What about on a subdivision or neighborhood scale? There's inherently going to be communities that get overridden - if dozens of bands all want a project and one is an outlier then it is still probably correct to overrule the stand-out. Capri Sunrise fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:It's impossible to legislate formally since every project will be unique. Approving governance that isn't democratic is also a very very dangerous path to take morally I think. (Though I'm of the view that no culture or system of government can be ethically be based on anything short of elections or direct democracy). How very colonial of you. No, but for real, all this playing fair by the folks we're trying to take resources from is mighty tedious. What if we just came up with a way that makes it far easier to do what we want?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
self-determination, within the confines of the mayonnaise jar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:It's impossible to legislate formally since every project will be unique. Approving governance that isn't democratic is also a very very dangerous path to take morally I think. (Though I'm of the view that no culture or system of government can be ethically be based on anything short of elections or direct democracy). Okay but if you believe that it's just to begin enforcing democracy at gunpoint or at threat of starvation, you've got a colonialist attitude you really have to unpack. Do your actions result in enfranchise people with the 'right to vote and direct control over their leadership' or are you facilitating energy industry coming onto people's backyard. Specifically people who are historically marginalized, with a long history of being the target of conquest by Canada, France, and Britain. I don't think a FN authoritarian state is a real realistic concern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Would you apply this on a Municipal level also? What about on a subdivision or neighborhood scale? There's inherently going to be communities that get overridden - if dozens of bands all want a project and one is an outlier then it is still probably correct to overrule the stand-out. The whole point is I'm not going to be applying anything, I'm going to try and help facilitate people governing themselves. I don't think you can say for certain how it will look at any one level because ultimately people and communities are going to have many different ideas about what they want, and coming to a consensus based solution for a capital project should be a long and arduous process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
I really hate that the BCNDP is letting the stupid LNG terminal pet project of Christy’s cause all this strife. Chevron is bailing out, other investors are bailing out, it’s just a dumb plan all around. It’s not like it would be good to cause these divisions over a project that was a good idea either but jfc guys. I think LNG prices have dropped by half in asia where the exports would be destined for or something? All so they can build a few pipelines to provide temporary jobs for a bunch of fuckin albertans. And of course the LNG terminal in kitimat. And then there is site C.. Personally I think this takes resources away from the most important project: building a wall on the alberta border.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:50
|
|
|
priznat posted:Personally I think this takes resources away from the most important project: building a wall on the alberta border. Were full! !!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Were full! !! Some, I assume, are nice people
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:I agree - but what does the mechanism look like for a First Nations band that wants to proceed with a project or agreement? The Indian Act is a racist POS I agree; but Canada & unceded territories really don't have an actual process for the development of projects in these areas (which can be a detriment to the FN band itself; there are numerous thriving FN populations in the north that have led the charge as stakeholders in the development of hydro/energy infrastructure). And they never will because the government of Canada just uses the courts and the RCMP to manhandle them out of the way, and never addresses the root cause of the problem. It is 100% on the shoulders of the Canadian government to meaningfully include the FN. The fact that this is holding up some stupid LNG pipeline is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Because as cynical as it sounds it is literally impossible to build any sort of infrastructure or energy project without stirring up some element of protest - even the construction of things like sustainable transit systems etc. will generally stir up a lot of opposition from local communities (traffic impacts, construction noises/detours etc). The government has legal mechanisms to seize land in order to serve the public good. "Public good" being the key phrase here. In the last 50 years there have been billion dollar project infrastructure projects that have failed, completely and utterly, at the cost of the homes, businesses, and livelihoods of people who happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time. Over time, partly in response to some of the more brutal ejection of people from their homes and towns, the Expropriation Act has been improved to give people a means to at least receive fair compensation for their property. And over time it has fueled NIMBY protests, sure, but the Expropriation Act increasingly has been used to take land and hand it over to private entities, although often on a small scale. It's the curse of the private-public partnerships. And what "public good" does that serve, exactly? Nowhere is this narrative more obvious in how this country and its provinces treat the land of First Nations people. The James Bay project is an engineering marvel, and provides cheap, clean energy to millions of people which is a great thing, especially these days. But let's not gloss over the fact that it displaced 3000 First Nations people and caused major ecological damage which was less of a priority when it was built. The regional politics and bands at play are different for this pipeline, I recognize. but while it has cleared all the bureaucratic consultations that have all been added since the early days of large-scale projects that sparked growing protest over infrastructure built over people's homes, I can't help but feel we're still not being honest with ourselves when it comes to the utility of building an oil pipeline. But I don't have any good answers, either. All I do know is that the RCMP should be sent in to clear people out, at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
"Why do we even let these people have land if they're going to try to tell us what to do with it? We should just evict them and do what we want. Spilling oil all over the ground for no benefit to anyone who isn't a millionaire is much more important than "aboriginal sovereignty", whatever that's supposed to mean lmao" Good take, dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 09:34
|
|
|
(edit: nevermind, I reposted a link that was posted approx. five posts up) This one's better than a repost: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-wetsuweten-hereditary-system-coastal-gaslink-pipeline-protests-bc/ James Baud fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 09:58
|
|
|
I've read some tweets about the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs offering CGL an alternative route that would have avoided the area in contention, but the only sources I can find for that are quotes from Elizabeth May and Paul Manly, so I don't know how true that is. EDIT: As an aside, an article on the history of the RCMP and their use as a cudgel against Indigenous people. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2020/02/11/putting-the-rcmp-raid-on-the-wetsuweten-in-historical-perspective.html HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Feb 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
Wilhelm posted:Would you apply this on a Municipal level also? What about on a subdivision or neighborhood scale? There's inherently going to be communities that get overridden - if dozens of bands all want a project and one is an outlier then it is still probably correct to overrule the stand-out. This is unceded land, it's more like Canada trying to build a pipeline through another country than Canada trying to build a pipeline through an uncooperative municipality. Put it this way: if you're trying to build a pipeline through South America, following a route through Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, and Chile, you need all of them to agree to it. If Paraguay decides they don't like the pipeline and refuse you permission, they actually do have veto power over the development through their territory and you don't have the right to invade Paraguay with armed soldiers to force them to let you build the pipeline. You either find a way to get them onside, or you find a route for the pipeline that doesn't cross Paraguay's borders, or you don't build the pipeline. When Canada uses armed RCMP officers to enforce decisions that First Nations disagree with, it just drives home again and again and again how Canada has no respect for First Nations rights or treaties or territories. We are a colonial state and we do what the white people want, and if First Nations get in the way we find the thinnest of excuses for why what we're doing is legally correct and then we enforce our will with armed force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
priznat posted:Some, I assume, are nice people Make them take a Canadian values test to gain entry
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:When Canada uses armed RCMP officers to enforce decisions that First Nations disagree with, it just drives home again and again and again how Canada has no respect for First Nations rights or treaties or territories. We are a colonial state and we do what the white people want, and if First Nations get in the way we find the thinnest of excuses for why what we're doing is legally correct and then we enforce our will with armed force. There's also the irony that two governments of two different political parties insisted that we keep faith with an arms trade deal with Saudi Arabia who in turn prosecuted a brutal war and famine in Yemen that has killed tens of thousands of people, but successive federal and provincial governments cannot seem to adhere to even the most generous interpretations of the treaties the Crown signed with First Nations people hundreds of years ago. If anyone is interested in the history of reserves and land claims in British Columbia, Cole Harris's Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia is a very readable academic book on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:There's also the irony that two governments of two different political parties insisted that we keep faith with an arms trade deal with Saudi Arabia who in turn prosecuted a brutal war and famine in Yemen that has killed tens of thousands of people, but successive federal and provincial governments cannot seem to adhere to even the most generous interpretations of the treaties the Crown signed with First Nations people hundreds of years ago. Really it all makes sense once you realize that every legal treaty or contract is interpreted solely through the lens of "what brings in the most money". If breaking a treaty brings in more money then hey, that treaty never counted anyway and it's all open to interpretation. If sticking to a treaty brings in more money than hey, we have to abide by these binding treaties signed by past governments, that's a fundamental part of the rule of law. Nothing else matters, not sovereignty, not human rights, not environmental concerns, nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:There's also the irony that two governments of two different political parties insisted that we keep faith with an arms trade deal with Saudi Arabia who in turn prosecuted a brutal war and famine in Yemen that has killed tens of thousands of people, but successive federal and provincial governments cannot seem to adhere to even the most generous interpretations of the treaties the Crown signed with First Nations people hundreds of years ago. It's worth underlining that the government's line for keeping the arms deal with Saudi Arabia is specifically that they must keep their legal obligations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2020 15:16
|
|
