Canada police begin clearing Wet’suwet’en land defender camps
Wet’suwet’en Nation leaders say they never consented to Coastal GasLink pipeline project in British Columbia.
www.aljazeera.com
In photos: Wet'suwet'en matriarchs arrested as RCMP enforce Coastal GasLink pipeline injunction | The Narwhal
Police made arrests Monday on the Morice River bridge, the sole entrance point to the Unist'ot'en land-based healing centrethenarwhal.ca
Excellent coverage featuring high-res photos to give readers a taste of what's going on in Northern BC, Canada.
Ive been following this here and there for the past few months, as well as other issues like Tsilhqot’in vs Taseko Mines near Williams Lake, or Squamish vs Kindermorgan, Mountain Cree-Smallboy Camp(near Jasper) vs Teck Resources.
I don't know what to make of the governments stance on this entire thing, or how they intend on saving face after Trudeau's public crocodile tear blubbering about reconciliation. It's obvious (to me) by this point, considering all the various protests across the country getting CBC coverage, that the cat is out of the bag and this has been gaining a lot of attention today. Protesters shutting down Cambie and Broadway this evening for example is a tough one to ignore.
Protesters shutting down Cambie and Broadway this evening for example is a tough one to ignore.
John Ivison:
Pipeline dispute raises important question — who speaks for First Nations?
The “territorial re-occupation” of land along the proposed Coastal GasLink pipeline in B.C. by hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en people has raised some thorny constitutional questions and some surprising interventions.
The $6.2 billion, 670 km pipeline route runs from Dawson Creek, near the Alberta border, to Kitimat in B.C.’s north coast region, crossing through traditional Wet’suwet’en territory.
The pipeline is supported by the five Wet’suwet’en bands, and their elected chiefs and councils. They point out the advantages for local communities – financial benefit agreements worth $338 million for the 20 bands along the route and contract work for indigenous businesses estimated at $620 million. Reginald Ogen, president of a company that has won a $75 million contract to provide camp facilities, has noted that the jobs may be short and medium term but the training “lasts a lifetime and provides future opportunities”.
The project is opposed by the hereditary chiefs who represent the 13 Wet’suwet’en houses (12 are represented by the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, while the Dark House operates independently). Small groups of “land defenders” have blocked a bridge crucial to future development.
The project hit the headlines earlier this month when the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called for an immediate stop to construction, only to be given pause for thought when it was pointed out to the committee chair that most communities along the route support the pipeline.
B.C. Supreme Court justice, Marguerite Church, extended an injunction late last year that found in favour of the pipeline proponent and against the hereditary chiefs blocking construction.
This has sparked a debate about who speaks for the Wet’suwet’en. Former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould weighed in with an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail last week that raised eyebrows.
The independent MP for Vancouver Granville argued that Indigenous reconciliation requires moving beyond the Indian Act to systems of Indigenous governance that are created on the ground and recognized by others.
So far, so good. But deconstructing the colonial reality, in Wilson-Raybould’s eyes, means blowing up the band councils.
“The legal reality is that band councils are a creature of the colonial Indian Act and have limited delegated authority tied to reserves,” she said. “They do not have inherent authority, nor are they self-governing or an expression of self-determination. They cannot simply represent the proper rights holder – the broader group that shares a common language, culture and tradition – and typically there is more than one band within a given territory of an Indigenous people.”
Nowhere in her article does it stress the imperative point – they are elected and those claiming to speak for the broader First Nation are not.
She doesn’t explicitly come out in favour of the hereditary chiefs over the elected band chiefs but she comes close – an extraordinary inclination from a democratically elected MP.
In the case in question, all the band chiefs in the given territory are in favour of the pipeline proceeding.
Most people would probably agree that it should be up to Indigenous people to decide on how they are governed. The government has suggested moving from 670 small bands to larger First Nations more capable of delivering services.
But one would hope that whatever structure evolves is based on universal suffrage and democratic principles, rather than on some form of feudal genealogy.
The hereditary chiefs contend that the Wet’suwet’en are represented by traditional governance structures and that, since the pipeline’s proponents were not given permission to enter unceded territory, they are in violation of Wet’suwet’en law.
The elected chiefs beg to differ, resulting in considerable tension between the two groups. Reginald Ogen, who is a member of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, contends his section 35 rights are being infringed by the blockade.
Further confusion has emanated from an internal debate about who qualifies as a hereditary house chief. The lead defendants in the B.C. Supreme Court case claim to represent the Unist’ot’en people, which is not a governing body of the Wet’suwet’en.
Madam Justice Church resolved that Indigenous customary laws are not an “effectual” part of Canadian law until they are somehow recognized in treaties or court declarations. As such, she said the idea that Indigenous laws supersede Canadian law and the B.C. government’s approval of the Coastal GasLink pipeline does not stand up to scrutiny. Her ruling gives RCMP the right to arrest people and remove camps designed to block pipeline construction.
However, she did acknowledge that the question is complex and raises “significant constitutional questions.” Wilson-Raybould covered some of this terrain in her article, which called for a “foundational legislative shift through the development of a recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights framework”.
What does foundational shift look like? In her last act as justice minister, Wilson-Raybould issued a directive on civil litigation involving Indigenous people that promoted negotiation and settlement, instead of drawn out court battles. Critics in the justice department felt the effect was to instruct government lawyers to litigate badly.
Dwight Newman, the Canadian research chair in Indigenous Rights at the University of Saskatchewan, said the task of reconciling how Indigenous law intersects with Canadian law will be problematic.
“There are no simple answers to these tough questions,” he said.
But reconciliation means making one system compatible with another. As the B.C. Supreme Court rightly concluded, it does not mean Indigenous law trumping Canadian law at the behest of some self-anointed Indigenous aristocrats.
Excellent coverage featuring high-res photos to give readers a taste of what's going on in Northern BC, Canada.
Canada is slowly turning from democracy to mobocracy, as the rule of law is tested from coast to coast.
From blocked intersections in downtown Toronto, to journalists and legislators being barred entry to the B.C. legislature; from an obstructed CN line affecting rail traffic out of the port of Prince Rupert, to the barricades impeding Via Rail’s service between Toronto and Montreal, Canada is slowly being choked into submission.
The protests are in solidarity with the opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northern B.C. by hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation. But a considerable number of “outsiders” are using the dispute as an excuse for mischief.
It’s impossible to know how many anarchists are at work. The U.S. website, It’s Going Down, has been actively calling for its followers to “shut down the ability of capitalist civilization to function” and has been promoting a campaign to #shutdowncanada.
Eco-warriors like Rising Tide Toronto are calling on its activists to fight actors in that city that “benefit from mega-extraction and colonialism”.
The mob is winning. CN has temporarily closed down part of its network and warned of threats to the transportation of food, grain, de-icing fluid for airports and propane for Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
In the face of this declaration of disorder, our politicians have been supine. Justin Trudeau is overseas, campaigning for a UN Security Council seat but encouraged all parties to use dialogue to resolve the problem.
The beleaguered Transport Minister Marc Garneau noted that it is illegal to blockade a rail line under the Railway Safety Act but said it is up to the provinces, not the federal government, to sort it out.
It’s true that Ottawa cannot direct provincial police forces. No one wants a repeat of the Oka Crisis. All sides need to show restraint to avoid a bloodbath.
But somebody in Ottawa, other than Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole, should be pointing out that along with the right to protest there are certain responsibilities to allow other people to go about their business.
The prime minister should be pointing out that the protestors’ case is built on judicial sand.
The RCMP on Wet’suwet’en territory are not “invading sovereign Indigenous territory” as protestors occupying the federal Justice building in Ottawa contend.
The Mounties are enforcing an injunction granted by the B.C. Supreme Court, which gives them the right to arrest people and remove camps designed to block pipeline construction.
The 670 km pipeline has support from the five Wet’suwet’en bands and their elected chiefs and councils, who have signed financial benefit agreements worth $338 million for the 20 bands along the route, plus contract work for Indigenous businesses estimated at $620 million.
But the project is opposed by hereditary chiefs, who argue that they represent Wet’suwet’en’s traditional governance structure.
The common sense view may be that the democratically-elected band governments should prevail. But there is no place for common sense when it comes to Crown-Indigenous relations.
The hereditary chiefs argue that, since the pipeline’s proponents were not given permission to enter unceded territory, they are in violation of Wet’suwet’en law.
The judge presiding over the injunction said that Indigenous customary laws are not viewed as an “effectual” part of Canadian law until they are recognized in treaties or court declarations. The landmark Tsilhquot’in case in 2014 said that once aboriginal title is established, there is a requirement to get consent from First Nation before development can take place.
But the Wet’suwet’en have not established title, or ownership, over their traditional lands in Canadian court or through negotiation. They would likely have a very strong case to take to the Supreme Court of Canada but, while there is a duty to consult, there is no veto. In time, the hereditary chiefs might stop the Coastal GasLink project but that will be up to the courts.
Such nuances are clearly lost on protestors such as the young activists blockading the Justice building, who insist that, since the land was unceded, it remains sovereign.
But that is not the law.
“Under Canadian law, whether land has established aboriginal title or not, Canadian courts don’t treat it as ‘sovereign’,” said Dwight Newman, the Canadian research chair in Indigenous Rights at the University of Saskatchewan.
Defrocked pastor Kevin Annett has done much to expose how the Residential School System in Canada, which was the model of South African apartheid, was desiggned in part to 'kill the Indian in the child' through rape, torture, verbal and physical abuse, starvation, and murder - all designed to program a caste of 'civilized Natives' who would be willing to play along with the destruction of their cultural traditions, and contaminate their land and water.
Here is an article by Annett (you can find many YouTube talks and other articles), which alleges that Native leaders are trafficking their own girls, experimentation of Native children with electrodes by German doktors in the 30s, and native kids who were killed in MK-Ultra experiments. I can confirm none of this, but it would be a valuable avenue of inquiry for anyone attempting to understand the 'hereditary vs band council' issue.
Truth and Native Abuse | The Tyee
How one man's wild claims threaten success of Truth and Reconciliation.thetyee.ca