B.C. first nations assert their right to veto Northern Gateway


dumpthemonarchy
#1
Who's the boss? Unelected tribal chiefs, or the elected leaders of democracy? Huge, isolated, remote Canada is going to have to make some tough political choices. What do all those expensive, time consuming, confusing court cases actually mean? What do words like "accomodation" and "consult" mean? Do they mean mean control and veto? Just teeny tiny little words here.

Time for some decisiveness here in Canadian politics. The govt has tried to spend its way out of this issue, but it doesn't seem to be working. Forget the UN. The last line talks of an army of lawyers mobilising, which would be okay if they weren't largely paid for by taxpayers.



Decrying Ottawa’s ‘bully tactics,’ B.C. natives vow to block pipeline - The Globe and Mail



B.C. first nations assert their right to veto Northern Gateway

shawn mccarthy

OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2012 12:03PM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2012 7:29PM EDT

comments British Columbia first nations are asserting their right to veto the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, despite Ottawa’s insistence that it does not need their consent to proceed.

The controversial pipeline proposal appears headed for the Supreme Court of Canada, assuming it is approved by a joint panel now holding hearings and by the federal government.

Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation, was part of a delegation in Ottawa Tuesday meeting with opposition members of Parliament to build support for their anti-pipeline stand.

Representing the Yinka Dene Alliance, Ms. Thomas said her group will pursue a legal challenge if Ottawa approves the $5.5-billion pipeline over their objections.

“We will defend our rights, no matter what bully tactics the federal government throws at us,” she said. “Our decision has been made: Enbridge will never be allowed in our lands.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that it is a top government priority to diversify crude oil exports beyond the traditional U.S. market to booming Asia, and that new pipelines to the West Coast are in the national interest.

Opponents say the pipeline is primarily in the interests of Alberta and the oil companies that are eager to expand production in the oil sands, and threatens ecosystems and the livelihood of communities in its path.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Ottawa will fulfill its constitutional duty to consult with first nations affected by the Northern Gateway pipeline, but the decision will be made in the national interest.

“We have both a moral and constitutional obligation to consult with aboriginal communities in respect to these projects and we will of course do so,” Mr. Oliver said in a teleconference from Kuwait, where he was attending an international energy forum. “The law is they don’t have a veto, but they are certainly entitled to be consulted and accommodated.”

Ms. Thomas echoed the stand of many native leaders who believe that treaty law and international law give them the right to free, prior and informed consent over any project that traverses their traditional lands. But that view has not been upheld by Canadian judges.

“The courts so far have said pretty clearly that the duty to consult doesn’t encompass a veto power by aboriginal communities,” said Dwight Newman, a University of Saskatchewan professor who recently published a book on the subject. “But there is a lot of political advocacy outside the courts and a desire by some aboriginal communities to put it into the courts to argue for a higher standard of free, prior and informed consent.”

Ms. Thomas argues Ottawa has failed to meet its duty to consult by handing the issue over to Enbridge and a joint review panel made up of members of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Prof. Newman said Ottawa may rely on federal agencies to do the consulting, but the process is subject to challenge in the courts.

Nor is Ottawa bound by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – which sets out the need for free, prior and informed consent – even though the government has indicated its support for the declaration, Prof. Newman said. He said the declaration does not have the force of international treaty law.

Regardless of the jurisprudence, Ottawa would face a storm of protest if it approves an oil-sands pipeline project that traverses areas of B.C. that remain in dispute amid a stalled land-claims settlement process.

Enbridge should expect acts of civil disobedience if it builds over the objections of local native communities, said Dwight Nelson, an Ottawa-based consultant and lecturer at Carleton University.

“We’re going to see a huge outcry about indigenous human rights” if the pipeline proceeds, Mr. Nelson said. “You’re going to see blockades and other militant action, and you’ll definitely see lawyers in massive mobilization.”
 
CDNBear
#2
Why are you still posting, and not out making me money?

My patience only goes so far.

I'm powdering the back of my pimp hand biatch.

I just found a nice new matching helmet for my 4wheeler.

Chop chop cock tart. Daddy needs some folding money.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#3
As we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot give people democracy, freedom and liberty. We can't break up tribal govts in Asia, but we can do it in Canada.
 
CDNBear
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

As we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot give people democracy, freedom and liberty. We can't break up tribal govts in Asia, but we can do it in Canada.

You already admitted to being a fascist, there's no need to keep reaffirming it by endorsing the removal of the fundamental human right of, self determination.

But I digress, why are you out making me money biatch!!!???
 
gerryh
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

As we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, you cannot give people democracy, freedom and liberty. We can't break up tribal govts in Asia, but we can do it in Canada.


What exactly are you suggesting?
 
Cliffy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post


Regardless of the jurisprudence, Ottawa would face a storm of protest if it approves an oil-sands pipeline project that traverses areas of B.C. that remain in dispute amid a stalled land-claims settlement process.

Enbridge should expect acts of civil disobedience if it builds over the objections of local native communities, said Dwight Nelson, an Ottawa-based consultant and lecturer at Carleton University.

“We’re going to see a huge outcry about indigenous human rights” if the pipeline proceeds, Mr. Nelson said. “You’re going to see blockades and other militant action, and you’ll definitely see lawyers in massive mobilization.”

Yup! All the power to them. BTW Dumpy, Aboriginal people had the election of chiefs forced upon them by guess who? Why? Because the government wanted to destroy their culture, took away the hereditary chief system and imposed their own.

The money spent on this dinosaur of a project would go a long way to develop real alternatives to puke belching automobiles and industry. We don't need oil or the ecological disaster of the tar sands. Only psychopaths think this pipeline is a good thing.
 
CDNBear
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

What exactly are you suggesting?

Forced assimilation.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Yup! All the power to them. BTW Dumpy, Aboriginal people had the election of chiefs forced upon them by guess who?

Not all Nations. The Haudenosaunee have the longest running participatory democracy in the history of the world.
 
dumpthemonarchy
+2
#8  Top Rated Post
A hereditary of leadership is like the monarchy, it is not based on merit or democratic. This is pre-modern and has to end in Canada.

The govt of Canada has used ham-fisted methods to make Indians assimilate, they were pushing the string, which doesnt work. They have to use simple methods, like letting Indians own private property on reserves so they can get money and challenge their band leadership. Hereditary band leadership is inherently undemocratic and we need not support undemocratic systems in Canada. Look how successful Africa is with tribal leadership.

Reserves need some evolution and change in the future. The public wants this as $10 billion per year is not looking like well spent money these days, see Attawaspiskat. Private property ownership rights on reserves means Indians can get money and an indepedent power source to challenge chiefs, lawyers, and Ottawa. The status quo is no longer acceptable.
 
CDNBear
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

A hereditary of leadership is like the monarchy, it is not based on merit or democratic. This is pre-modern and has to end in Canada.

Like I said to Cliffy, the Haudenosaunee, have the longest running participatory democracy on earth.

I know that fact interferes with your ideology, but unfortunately, it's still a fact.

Quote:

The govt of Canada has used ham-fisted methods to make Indians assimilate, they were pushing the string, which doesnt work. They have to use simple methods, like letting Indians own private property on reserves so they can get money and challenge their band leadership. Hereditary band leadership is inherently undemocratic and we need not support undemocratic systems in Canada. Look how successful Africa is with tribal leadership.

If you had a grade 10 education, you wouldn't make such broad sweeping generalizations.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#10
Then why are aboriginals so unhealthy and uneducated? Among democracies in the world this is very unusual. But then, many people like living in an idyllic past that never existed. Tribal lore, nice within the family, but no good any more in the big world because fails in the face of reality.
 
Bar Sinister
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Then why are aboriginals so unhealthy and uneducated? Among democracies in the world this is very unusual. But then, many people like living in an idyllic past that never existed. Tribal lore, nice within the family, but no good any more in the big world because fails in the face of reality.

Actually I wouldn't go so far as to say the the health and educational status of Canadian aboriginals is unique. Native people in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand all show similar traits. There is also a very good reason for this; and that is if you treat people like third class citizens for a hundred and fifty years it tends to make it difficult for them to fight their way back into society.

There really is no simple solution to this. It will take time and money to solve the problems of Aboriginal people. However, at the same time there must be a willingness to change. The exodus of aboriginal Canadians from reserves to urban centres shows that this is already happening.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Actually I wouldn't go so far as to say the the health and educational status of Canadian aboriginals is unique. Native people in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand all show similar traits. There is also a very good reason for this; and that is if you treat people like third class citizens for a hundred and fifty years it tends to make it difficult for them to fight their way back into society.

There really is no simple solution to this. It will take time and money to solve the problems of Aboriginal people. However, at the same time there must be a willingness to change. The exodus of aboriginal Canadians from reserves to urban centres shows that this is already happening.

When Indians were a British issue they weren't interested in keeping any stats on them to see how they were doing, they were out of mind living in the wilderness. Just another aboriginal people in the British empire that had to be made irrelevant. Now, in Canada they are our problem and solutions won't come immediately or consistenly for a while. Big govt solutions won't work any more.

It'll take money to improve their lives, plenty, but it will take mostly their own money as they gain better employment and education. Aboiginals leave their reserves because the Indian Act is failing them in the modern world as they gain neither employment or education skill there. Poor people are useless in this world as the rich and powerful can ignore them, which aboriginal leaders and lawyers already do, not to mention the govt.
 
damngrumpy
#13
The elected officials of the land still have to obey the law and the law says the
Natives have certain rights in most cases through treaties that were established
years ago. If you don't understand the constitution or the treaty system and its
legal implications its best not to discuss democracy
 
dumpthemonarchy
#14
The law is constantly changing, its not set in stone, ever. Same goes for treaties, especially the treaty system which is pretty rotten.
 
no new posts