TRUDEAU - Some people think......... How do you feel?

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

Ritafee said:

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

Click to expand...

Why do you single me out as placing my trust in The State? Of all the mainstream status quo State supporters here, why me? I do not support the current "state of circumstances", I support a better state of circumstances - any group of humans will have human representatives representing the group's purpose and goals. What you fail to recognize is that any organized group of humans acting in what they believe is the common good (or even if they don't believe it's in the interest of common good) becomes "the State". Restructured, rebuilt, repurposed - or authoritarian and tyrannical - those seem to be the choices we face - but there will never be "no government" of any kind. For better or worse, organized groups are political.

Carlee Kawinehta Loft, a Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk) said the decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court to extend Coastal GasLink’s injunction order is a violation of Wet’suwet’en law and their constitutionally protected right to occupy their own unceded land.

To show solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people there have been disruptions of business as usual to raise awareness of the conflict.

“If they are angry about the inconvenience,” Loft said, speaking of the demonstration’s traffic disruption, “I remind them of the inconvenience of being colonized for the last hundred years.”

And the Mohawks blocking the railroad have a very simple demand. They will leave when Wet'suwet'en land is vacated by the RCMP with the intent that talks be resumed with both sets of chiefs - ancestral and Indian Act - and a MUTUAL agreement has been reached.

This is really different than treaty territory. It is historically unceded. It is NOT Crown Land like much of the rest of Canada. It was unceded when BC joined Canada.

I've actually enjoyed listening to Trudeau on this issue compared to Scheer. He is categorically refusing the option of violence. If I were an indigenous person listening to both of them, I'd sure be feeling a lot more respect from Trudeau than from Scheer.

GeoFee said:

Not quite. Jesus was arrested by priests from Jerusalem and soldiers from Rome.

Click to expand...

I thought Jesus was arrested for insurrection ... as in 'disrupting the temple economy' ... overturning tables and such. Jesus’ attack on the money changers and bird sellers was not much different than blocking trains. It was not meant to attack simple tradesman. I was not as much about defiling the Temple with needed and commonly accepted money transactions but more about attacking the power structure of Jewish society at the time. So his radical 'political' resistance is what got him crucified by my interpretation of the story.

Ritafee said:

but more about attacking the power structure of Jewish society at the time.

Click to expand...

More subtly, the power structure of a Jewish nation under the thumb of the Roman Empire. You've got collaborators, you've got resistance, you've got attitude and Hellenization, you've got a hundred "Messiahs" and they're not always clear cut individual groups.

Ritafee said:

I thought Jesus was arrested for insurrection ... as in 'disrupting the temple economy' ... overturning tables and such. Jesus’ attack on the money changers and bird sellers was not much different than blocking trains. It was not meant to attack simple tradesman. I was not as much about defiling the Temple with needed and commonly accepted money transactions but more about attacking the power structure of Jewish society at the time. So his radical 'political' resistance is what got him crucified by my interpretation of the story.

Click to expand...

Stopping essential goods from getting to "simple"/ common people is an attack on those people (and/ or they become collateral damage against their will), not the forces that they are trying to confront. It's a lot like when governments place economic sanctions on countries where it hits the already struggling common folks the hardest.

BetteTheRed said:

I've actually enjoyed listening to Trudeau on this issue compared to Scheer. He is categorically refusing the option of violence. If I were an indigenous person listening to both of them, I'd sure be feeling a lot more respect from Trudeau than from Scheer.

Click to expand...

What choice does Trudeau have ... this is now on the world stage ...

This is not just about the indigenous people ...

This is where Trudeau’s “most important relationship” gets complicated...

It is not just about historic reconciliation.

It’s about economic circumstances, resource development versus the environment.

And more than anything it is about economic inequality ... and once again the poor people will turn against themselves and the environment in favor of jobs and consumerism. That is what the fat cat's are banking on.

Ritafee said:

What choice does Trudeau have ... this is now on the world stage ...

This is not just about the indigenous people ...

This is where Trudeau’s “most important relationship” gets complicated...

It is not just about historic reconciliation.

It’s about economic circumstances, resource development versus the environment.

And more than anything it is about economic inequality ... and once again the poor people will turn against themselves and the environment in favor of jobs and consumerism. That is what the fat cat's are banking on.

Click to expand...

If they were stopping loads of tablets and phones I might agree - but stopping food is another matter. I don't agree with indiscriminate stoppage of all goods. If anyone is turning the poor on themselves - stopping food and baby formula will do it. People who most need those goods aren't going to be happy if shortages lead to price hikes or those essential things simply not being available - how is that particular action the government's fault?

This is a passenger transportation line...the only way to get to work and home for many who don't drive gas fuelled vehicles! It only runs a couple of times a day in each direction. Indiscriminate blockades like this are misplaced.

Oligarchy, anarchy, and hard monarchist need to relate less violently or one of the stones might crack forming an archetypical flaw in the stone ... a crevice for a Muse to recess to ...

Isn’t the biggest issue that difference between elected band councils, who have all signed in to the proposal and the jobs and wealth that will be created, and the hereditary chiefs? And that term doesn’t mean they are direct ancestors of the original chiefs, as Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant. It is a much more ambiguous claim, and a claim that anyone can make. At least elected band councils are somewhat responsible to their groups

there was an article about a woman whose aunt is a direct descendant of an original chief but a man has claimed the role over her. And so he is the hereditary chief

complicating all of it is Canada tries to negotiate with spokespeople and elected officials. but if the negotiating doesn’t suit a small group it all back fires. No one speaks for any aboriginal group as a whole

and we have a rule of law. Just try to blockade a rail line to protest something. And see how long you stay the without being arrested.

Ritafee said:

I thought Jesus was arrested for insurrection ... as in 'disrupting the temple economy' ... overturning tables and such. Jesus’ attack on the money changers and bird sellers was not much different than blocking trains. It was not meant to attack simple tradesman. I was not as much about defiling the Temple with needed and commonly accepted money transactions but more about attacking the power structure of Jewish society at the time. So his radical 'political' resistance is what got him crucified by my interpretation of the story.

Click to expand...

This is certainly part of the story. In the temptation narrative Jesus three times refuses the offer of power by the ‘ruler’ of this world. He then begins his intervention in behalf of the broken persons of the land. This brings forward curiosity and increasing resistance from the powers in Jerusalem. At no time does Jesus incite the people of the land to insurrection. At least not as I read the diverse narratives. Rather, Jesus encourages withdrawal from the structures of power. He encourages love of God and love of neighbour. This generates solidarity among the people, which the powers in Jerusalem fear and seek to overcome.

This generates solidarity among the people, which the powers in Jerusalem fear and seek to overcome. ... GeoFee!

Why large oligarchs hate the common folks to be educated in social terms ... antisocialism? Sparks erupt under considerable heat and pressure in naive conditions ... thus the need to teach the children of everything on adequate domestication! There are sage comments on hard situations in relations ...

It'll ignite anyway if the pyres get out of hand ... look at politix in California in Trump perspective ... they Eire evil!

Lastpointe said:

complicating all of it is Canada tries to negotiate with spokespeople and elected officials. but if the negotiating doesn’t suit a small group it all back fires. No one speaks for any aboriginal group as a whole

and we have a rule of law. Just try to blockade a rail line to protest something. And see how long you stay the without being arrested.

Click to expand...

Canada has consistently failed to follow the rule of law when it comes to Indigenous peoples, and the violent arrests of the Wet’suwet’en people at the Gidimt’en checkpoint, set up in support of the Unist’ot’en homestead, is a glaring example of Canada’s lawlessness.

The people of Wet’suwet’en Nation, as represented by their traditional government, have long asserted their sovereign jurisdiction over their Nation’s lands which span about 22,000 square kilometres in northwest British Columbia. These lands have never been ceded, nor have their rights to use, manage, protect or govern these lands been extinguished in any way. The Nation has never signed any treaty or constitutional agreement that has specifically surrendered their sovereignty as a Nation. While there have been many federal and provincial laws that have interfered with First Nation laws in general, there has never been an explicit extinguishment of Wet’suwet’en laws and jurisdiction over their Nation’s sovereign territory. Their land rights are not only recognized in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982, but they are also protected in numerous international treaties and declarations, like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In other words, there was no legal basis for Canada to invade their territory.

The Wet’suwet’en Nation is a governing Nation that has existed since time immemorial. They are made up of five clans: Gil_seyhu (Big Frog), Laksilyu (Small Frog), Gitdumden (Wolf/Bear), Laksamshu (Fireweed), and Tsayu (Beaver). The Wet’suwet’en are organized through a system of hereditary leaders and have a complex system of governance. While Canada did force the chief and council system on First Nations through the Indian Act, it was not successful in extinguishing or displacing the Nation’s traditional government. This is evidenced in the fact that when the Wet’suwet’en Nation decided to assert their land rights in Canada’s courts, they did so as a Nation, through their traditional government as represented by their hereditary leaders.

In Delgamuuwk v. British Columbia (1997), the Wet’suwet’en, together with the Gitksan, asserted title to their lands. While the issue was ordered back to trial, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) made significant findings about the nature of Aboriginal title being a right to the land itself. The SCC found that the land is held communally, by all members of the Aboriginal Nation for their “exclusive use and occupation,” and that this right to land was protected in “pre-existing systems of aboriginal law” and Canada’s common law, even before the protection of Aboriginal rights in section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act.

No laws have since extinguished Wet’suwet’en rights with regards to their territory. Also significant is the fact that according to SCC jurisprudence, Aboriginal title contains an inherent limitation, in that title lands can’t be used in a way that is “irreconcilable” with the nature of the Nation’s attachment to those lands. The SCC explained it this way: “Implicit in the protection of historic patterns of occupation is a recognition of the importance of continuity of the relationship of an aboriginal community to its land over time.”

Yet, we know that Canada has not only failed to abide by its own litigation directive, but it has blatantly violated Wet’suwet’en laws, Canadian laws, international laws and its own purported commitment to the rule of law.

When Canada sent the RCMP into sovereign Wet’suwet’en Nation territory to destroy their check points and violently arrest and remove Wet’suwet’en people from their own lands, it became lawless – an outlaw state. It also violated its own litigation directive when the RCMP issued a statement saying that since there has been no court case declaring Aboriginal title, the RCMP were justified in their actions. In denying the Wet’suwet’en their constitutionally protected legal right to enjoy their title lands, Canada has prioritized the private, economic interests of a corporation – Coastal GasLink Pipeline – over the rule of law. As explained by the Wet’suwet’en:

• The Unist’ot’en homestead is not a protest or demonstration. Our clan is occupying and using our traditional territory as it has for centuries…. Our homestead is a peaceful expression of our connection to our territory. It is also an example of the continuous use and occupation of our territory by our clan.

In this case, the laws of Canada were neither equally enforced, nor compliant with international human rights standards. Canada is not a country that follows the rule of law. Canada makes and breaks laws to suit its own economic and political interests, which run counter to those of Indigenous peoples. It is time to be honest about it, and call out Canada as an outlaw, and take action to support the Wet’suwet’en Nation, who have occupied their lands since time immemorial.

To echo the statement of solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people issued by more than 1,000 scholars from Canada and abroad, “Our best hope for justice and sustainability in Canada lies with communities like the Wet’suwet’en nation, who take their relationship and responsibilities to their lands and waters so seriously that they will risk all they have to defend it. Our hope also lies with the many Canadians respecting and actively supporting the rights of these Indigenous communities to take care of their territories.” We at Canadian Dimension condemn the injustice at Unist’ot’en and stand with land and water defenders across Turtle Island and around the world.

The Trudeau government, like the Harper regime, continues to defend the profits of a few wealthy owners of mining corporations who steal from Africans. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions continue to face the social and environmental impacts of resource extraction, without the supposed economic benefits mining and foreign investment are said to bring.