Dear Friends:
Here's a couple of different views on the pipeline protests:
And that's all we have to say about that!
Here's a couple of different views on the pipeline protests:
I am very interested in hearing from the people and communities that supported the pipeline. I see so much media focusing on the protests, and I get that, but there were people who voted in support. What is their side of the story? What does the Wet'su'weten governance structure look like that there is such a split between the band council/reserve and the hereditary chiefs/their supporters?
And I'm curious: at what stage can a band/First Nation/tribe of people decide that they want a democratic form of government rather than a traditional form of government? Have there been cases of indigenous groups abandoning (on their own terms and by their own choice) pre-contact forms of government in favour of a democratically elected council (if one did not already exist)? We have this debate at some level in Canadian federal politics: can we ditch the British monarchy? Several other countries have done so. If rule comes from the will of the people, can the people not change the rule through democratic action?
I feel like this whole media circus is part of a misinformation campaign, but then again, this may just be the way the media has always been, we as the public just have more access to information now, so can backcheck ourselves. What a mess.
I've done quite a bit of research into this whole issue myself, and it's confusing as fuck. The media turns out articles in a rush, and there are a lot of issues to consider which don't get reported. For example, the BC government has a method for giving first nations land title called the treaty process. The Wet'suwet'en are currently participating in that. And they have sued in the past to get their title, but got screwed up in the supreme court and told they need to do a trial again. If the Wet'suwet'en had the title to their land, this process would be much simpler.
I heard a local radio media outlet talking about one of the local protests as "massive" with "dozens of people", and nowhere in the conversation did anyone mention anything about the fact that the band in question had already approved the pipeline. It's like what happened with #Occupy, it became protests for the sake of hanging out and protesting in general.
And everyone protesting thinks the conflict is based on protesting environmental destruction when a) they are not; the conflict is purely based on land rights sought by the hereditary chiefs, and b) pipelines are the safest way to transport petroleum/natural gas. The hereditary chiefs managed to create a facade that spiralled totally out of control and is fucking up the rest of Canada (which is what they want) when really this entire matter is between the hereditary chiefs, the elected chiefs, the members of the respective communities and the BC court of law. All these occupational protests on the rail lines and elsewhere are not only illegal and economically destructive to the rest of Canada, but they are also unnecessary and as surveys show, draw negative support from a majority of Canadians. The community wants the pipeline because of real reasons. The hereditary chiefs don't want it and for radical and vague reasons regarding "unceded territory". Reconciliation requires cooperation; they don't want reconciliation. They want to go back to the 1700s when things were settled with violence and they want all natives to have a divisive us-vs-them mentality. Really though, it's us (natives) vs us (natives). I'm sure they would be perfectly happy if their community members were to have violent clashes with RCMP just so people sympathize with them. The government has been far too lenient and I commend them for it but it's seriously time for this to be handled realistically and have it settled because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.
I think things would be different if this was an oil pipeline. Especially when you consider recent issues with oil pipelines and NA indigenous reservations. One of my biggest gripes is that this is LNG which is incredibly safe for transport and even if there was an accident, likely nothing would happen besides the loss of LNG. By its very nature, it would evaporate quickly and can not contaminate water sources. Basically, you're getting a pipeline for a few decades, 50 million dollars and in the end they're going to disassemble it. A paved road would have a bigger environmental impact than this thing.
The hereditary chiefs don't want it and for radical and vague reasons regarding "unceded territory".
That issue is neither radical or vague. They never ceded their land. They've sued for it, and it went to the supreme court where the end result was they were told to do the whole process over again.
Here is the Wikipedia page for the Aboriginal title in regards to Canada.
The Wet'suwet'en's case which went through the supreme court resulted in this test for proving title.
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) laid down the essentials of the current test to prove Aboriginal title: "in order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title must satisfy the following criteria: (i) the land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty, (ii) if present occupation is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, there must be a continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation, and (iii) at sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive."
Then at best we could say that we don't know what they want. When it comes to First Nations issues, I think a point of frustration is that demands are often vague, such as "respect our rights" or "fix our poverty." We need more concrete demands. "Build schools", "Get us functioning aqueducts" or "We need doctors."
The Hereditary Chiefs were essentially ceremonial up to this point. One big issue though is they're the patriarchs of some families (clans). Families that have reportedly been out in the communities intimidating people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment