The Wetsuweten people have said that they are not working on review of government offer now due to COVID-19. They are also calling for the pipeline work to be stopped due to the danger of the coronavirus.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qjdaex/theres-still-no-deal-in-wetsuweten-but-pipeline-construction-is-ongoing
From the article:
A natural gas company with a $6.6 billion plan to build a pipeline through northern British Columbia is continuing to clear forest and deliver pipe despite an Indigenous community’s calls to shut down in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The threat of COVID-19 spread has suspended all Wet’suwet’en meetings, including talks on a proposed deal between hereditary chiefs, B.C., and Canada.
“We are not doing any public meetings currently and do not have a date set when we will continue with our clan meetings,” Wet’suwet’en Chief Na’moks, who also goes by John Risdale, said in an email Monday. “We have to consider the safety of our people and all who reside on our territory.”
Maybe they abandoned the barricades because they were afraid of catching the corona virus???
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I did and you missed the substance OM's comment, of course, because you are always right.
.
Hardly. When an ongoing, recent issue is being examined, the timeline up to the present is essential.
An article over one month old?
Euclid Overmod Euclid So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute. And here we go again. You're so hyperfocused on gaming the semantics of excuse that will let you be 'right' in making your 'conclusions' that you completely miss important points. The First Nations groups nominally responsible for most of the barricades were not Wet'suwet'en, only acting in nominal solidarity with them. To ignore this point basically invalidates any 'conclusion' based on it that claims to be 'solidly based on what is known'. Overmod, I think you are exaggerating the effect of a minor quibble with my text. News article: Wet’suwet’en leaders reject Trudeau’s demand to remove the barricades, setting the stage for clashes https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/02/21/wetsuweten-barricades-must-now-come-down-justin-trudeau-says.html
Overmod Euclid So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute. And here we go again. You're so hyperfocused on gaming the semantics of excuse that will let you be 'right' in making your 'conclusions' that you completely miss important points. The First Nations groups nominally responsible for most of the barricades were not Wet'suwet'en, only acting in nominal solidarity with them. To ignore this point basically invalidates any 'conclusion' based on it that claims to be 'solidly based on what is known'.
Euclid So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute.
And here we go again. You're so hyperfocused on gaming the semantics of excuse that will let you be 'right' in making your 'conclusions' that you completely miss important points.
The First Nations groups nominally responsible for most of the barricades were not Wet'suwet'en, only acting in nominal solidarity with them. To ignore this point basically invalidates any 'conclusion' based on it that claims to be 'solidly based on what is known'.
Overmod,
I think you are exaggerating the effect of a minor quibble with my text.
News article:
Wet’suwet’en leaders reject Trudeau’s demand to remove the barricades, setting the stage for clashes
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/02/21/wetsuweten-barricades-must-now-come-down-justin-trudeau-says.html
Overmod : At last, long last you realize that Euclidean logic always is circular to "prove" that he is right, even when he only argues with his alter ego Bucky.
EuclidSo I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute.
Overmod Euclid One thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to ... it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer. It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that. Ah, how secrecy does impair coming to cozy conclusions! See how there is no answer on which you could base a conclusion on either point?
Euclid One thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to ... it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer. It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that.
Ah, how secrecy does impair coming to cozy conclusions!
See how there is no answer on which you could base a conclusion on either point?
No I don’t see that at all. My conclusions are solidly based on what is known. They are not intended to offer a full factual explanation in order to fulfill some sort of intellectual exercise. If the offer has not been accepted, it is possible that it will be rejected or that a counteroffer will be made. I said those two things are possible. That was my conclusion. Are you saying that they are not possible? All I am saying is that if B depends on A, and if A has not happened, then B has not happened.
All I said was that it appears that the deal has not yet been accepted by the party that the government is negotiating with. It appears that way because I have looked for articles announcing the settlement, and find none. Maybe there are some, but I have not found them. It is still true that I have looked and found none.
What makes this a little murky, however, is that it appears that the government earlier promoted the idea that the government offer to the Wet’suwet’en, and their willingness to consider it-- that combination was a deal in and of itself. And that “deal” was indeed accepted by the Wet’suwet’en people.
At the same time, the blockades were taken down, and this too was coupled with the announcement of the “deal” being accepted. So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute.
Yet this all occurred prior to any acceptance of the real deal, which has not yet been accepted. So it seems to me that there is no deal yet, but there was an attempt to spin the news to Non-indigenous Canadians that a deal had been made, the barricades have been taken down, and this was to convey the message that it is back to business as usual. All is settled. Nothing to see here.
Curiously, one detail that apparently has escaped the secrecy is the claim that the Hereditary Chiefs remain firmly opposed to the pipeline, and that its construction has resumed.
I'm not sure if it was said or not, but the approval of the "deal" negotiated by chiefs by the members of the tribe is roughly analogous to our process of ratifying treaties. The executive branch diplomats negotiate and that document is ratified by the President only after the consent by two thirds of the Senate is obtained.
EuclidOne thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to ... it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer. It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that.
See how there is no answer on which you could base a conclusion on either point? This leaves most of your actual conclusions on the range and nature of secret arrangements in general, which do (to an extent) speak for themselves, show bad faith toward 'the public' in general, and might, even as we speak, be resulting in rejection, counteroffers, opposition... or many other things we equally can't know, or not knowing, comment or conclude meaningfully on.
It also seems unlikely that an offer for a deal could have sidestepped that issue.
It is also possible that the Wet’suwet’en people have formally rejected the government offer, and the government is also keeping that point secret.
I also confess it would be fun to watch from south of the border at what happens if the Government tries to keep failure a secret and the whistle gets blown or the leaks get publicized. You can bet there are plenty of potential blowers and leakers, and it would only take one...
One thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to. I don’t recall any reports saying that it has been accepted, but only that it has been offered by the government and the Wet’suwet’en people are reviewing and considering the offer. If that is still the case, it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer.
It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that. So it seems that they are a long ways apart on that key issue. It also seems unlikely that an offer for a deal could have sidestepped that issue. It is also possible that the Wet’suwet’en people have formally rejected the government offer, and the government is also keeping that point secret.
BaltACD charlie hebdo There are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances. Europeans coming to the Americas, North, Central and South, have treated all the native inhabitants with disdain and oppression. This has been ongoing from the 16th Century to the present day 21st Century.
charlie hebdo There are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances.
Europeans coming to the Americas, North, Central and South, have treated all the native inhabitants with disdain and oppression. This has been ongoing from the 16th Century to the present day 21st Century.
We can add dishonesty, broken treaties and genocide to the list of shame.
charlie hebdoThere are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances.
Euclid... if public officials make decisions in secret from their constituency, people will jump to conclusions. That is their right.
In a fair society, it is their right, and I'd be among the last people to actually forbid them to do so ... along the general lines of Evelyn Hall evoking Voltaire.
But I'm talking about something a bit different: the self-discipline not to 'jump to conclusions' when there is inadequate evidence or rational analysis to justify conclusions rather than opinions. Making the conclusions 'rubber' only makes the methodology more dangerous -- not bacause people may razz you on forums like this one, but because it may lead to various forms of prejudice, some of which can be highly difficult to overcome later even if overwhelming evidence begins to accrue.
EuclidI suspect that at least half the people in Canada agree with my ideas on this. There have been news articles in Canada concluding exactly what I have said here, and they go much further. They even predict that the protests will soon return once the Wet’suwet’en have digested the offer from Trudeau and raised their demand.
That may well be no exaggeration; we certainly have at least two people 'with active standing' who wholeheartedly agree with the details as you laid them out. The principal thing I continue to wonder about, though, is precisely what in a 'secret action' convinced all the implacable blockade protesters to stand down nearly simultaneously, after having been vociferously mistrustful of anything the Government might do only hours before, seemingly in concert, when the Government supposedly holds all the evidence in secret. That appears to me to be 'irrational' by the blockading cohort's own standards (wack as I may consider them to be in absolute terms) of 'rationality'. So why did we observe them doing it?
Blockades are cheap. They can go up as easily as they come down.
I suspect that if they were tried again 'in this time of emergency' some much more expedient solution, possibly involving nominal emergency medical supplies and equipment, would be found to remove them. And any incitement-to-riot protesters, too. But Euclid is probably right in thinking that would not stop 'them' from using such a proven strategy again -- there are few things that aggravate a sense of arrogant privilege more than a fight against perceived 'someone-elses' arrogant privilege.
I say that if politicians don’t want people jumping to conclusions, they should level with their constituency rather than planning action in secret as though they have a superior intellect that their people will not grasp.
It would be hard to argue with this; as my own opinion on the subject is in complete accord I won't even consider doing so. It is possible, though, that there are reasons for the 'secrecy' other than neopaternalism or oligarchic arrogance, and we should probably wait for a little more independent confirmation before we brand them absolutely as such.
I wonder if there is a sustainable base for a new political party in Canada founded on just this principle of plain, fair dealing for all once some ancient abuses have been corrected for those going forward.
The continuing decrepid living conditions on many reserves are criminal in my mind. They are a great national shame that successive governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, have failed to fix. And they do not get anywhere near the amount of media attention they should.
You will probably remember Jean Chretien's white paper on abolishing the Indian Act and reserve system decades ago. Implementing that proposal would have created a huge amount of heartache and controversy at the time, but all these decades later I think we would be able to collectively look back and say it was worth it.
I hope you are able to figure something out and continue educating during the pandemic. It will end eventually, and everyone needs to stay engaged until then, or they likely won't return.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Well I sure hope it all works out. Yes, the problems in BC have never been resolved. It is a big big problem.
As for here up North in Saskatchewan many of my students live on Reserves in what would be totally unacceptable housing to us and overcrowding conditions. That is problematic in itself. A lot of welfare, a lot of drugs, a lot of crime. Those not on the Reserves are far better off, have all the toys and necessities needed to lead healthy lives.
We are scrambling to switch over to distance learning. Only one student out of all my students has a laptop. We dropped the requirement when we built our computer lab. We used to give them a laptop to keep as theirs but theft and breakage became rampant and one turned into 3 or 4, then we stopped and built the Lab. They also have a bank of computers in the student lounge. None of that does us any good if they cannot access it which is the current situation.
Also, many do not even have an internet connection. All have a cell phone, most with prepaid usage cards, good really only for texting.
So you see it isn't easy but we will figure it out. Field schools will have to booted to next year.
Still very much winter here, won't end until May.
Miningman Euclid writes -- " It is silly to think that such a technical protocol for conclusions, opinions, and settled science should prevail on this forum. I don’t hear anyone worry about that when it comes to the conspiracy theory that the capitalists have introduced PSR to loot the railroad industry. That goes on day and night here as though it were etched in granite. " Well stated! That and quite a few other items as well. Joe Oliver's column is really frightening at its true meaning. The overturning of the Magna and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that ended the divine right of Kings in the UK. The central tenet of our system of government will not apply to how Indegenous people's govern their affairs. The numerous Native bands in British Columbia lay claim to virtually the entire province. It is entirely possible that one day the people of BC wake up to find they do not own the land their homes and business's are on. Oh and by the way, owe half a million in back rent each, or ordered to vacant in x number of days. One thing we do know is that the Trudeau government has agreed to and is guided right from the start by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is a radical and scary document in itself. It destroys Western Democracy. It is a one sided deal that hereditary Chief Woos ( real name Frank Alec) trumpeted as a milestone. Still no info, no transparency, just Chief Woos elation. Americans should take note and watch closely because it could become a template for your own many Indigenous peoples with the full support of the usual bunch, students, radicals, Antifa, Hollywood, all that.
Euclid writes -- " It is silly to think that such a technical protocol for conclusions, opinions, and settled science should prevail on this forum. I don’t hear anyone worry about that when it comes to the conspiracy theory that the capitalists have introduced PSR to loot the railroad industry. That goes on day and night here as though it were etched in granite. "
Well stated! That and quite a few other items as well.
Joe Oliver's column is really frightening at its true meaning. The overturning of the Magna and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that ended the divine right of Kings in the UK.
The central tenet of our system of government will not apply to how Indegenous people's govern their affairs.
The numerous Native bands in British Columbia lay claim to virtually the entire province. It is entirely possible that one day the people of BC wake up to find they do not own the land their homes and business's are on. Oh and by the way, owe half a million in back rent each, or ordered to vacant in x number of days.
One thing we do know is that the Trudeau government has agreed to and is guided right from the start by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is a radical and scary document in itself. It destroys Western Democracy.
It is a one sided deal that hereditary Chief Woos ( real name Frank Alec) trumpeted as a milestone. Still no info, no transparency, just Chief Woos elation.
Americans should take note and watch closely because it could become a template for your own many Indigenous peoples with the full support of the usual bunch, students, radicals, Antifa, Hollywood, all that.
Ok Boomer.
(sorry Vince, I couldn't resist)
I'm going to wait until the actual details of the agreement become public before judging it.
I try not to believe conspiracy theories, or comment much on their merits/demerits.
If we wanted to avoid the current debacle that Crown-Native relations have become, perhaps we should have treated the Natives as actual people over the past 150 years. And negotiated Treaties with those in what is now British Columbia, which, ironically, seems to be what is happening right now.
As for the theory that Hunter Harrison's version of PSR looted railroads, his management theories resulted in the destruction and disposal of company assets like track and locomotives and increased long-term corporate debt while shareholders and executives were enriched. All while employees and customers paid the price in higher freight rates, poor service, and drastically worsened working conditions.
Sounds like looting to me.
P.S: IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION HAS RESUMED ON COASTAL GASLINK AND IS CONTINUING ON THE TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION, AND PIPELINES/BLOCKADES HAVE FINALLY FALLEN FROM NATIONAL HEADLINES.
Well, the GOOD NEWS is, with the blockades gone, we have successfully concluded this matter as it pertains to railroading. What more have we any right to expect?
Your extreme, politically-motivated hunches devoid of citations may or may not be correct, but you seem to want to use fear to continue to withhold from the native people the fair treatment that has been due them for many years.
You stated as a fact that the deal is one-sided, yet the deal is still a secret. So how can you say that? Pure speculation.
EuclidI say that if politicians don’t want people jumping to conclusions, they should level with their constituency rather than planning action in secret as though they have a superior intellect that their people will not grasp.
It's really not all that rare for the terms of a settlement to be kept confidential. It could be as simple as wishing to not motivate copy-cat actions.
Overmod Euclid Overmod ... and remember, if the agreement is 'secret' you lack evidence on which to speculate ... on the actual nature of what is secret. Not if the people making the agreement are predictable. This is an interesting point, because if I understand you correctly you think that by 'predictably modeling' their thought and decision process you can approximate -- perhaps in some detail and with some precision -- what the 'secret' areas of discussion and agreement are. The problem is that it's still conjecture until externally confirmed, or until independently affirmed in other ways. I have no doubts that the 'truth' will eventually be winkled out, but until then it is intellectually dangerous to proceed from your own model or perception of Canadian-political behavior to hard 'conclusions' in the usual sense of that word. Let alone defend such conclusions as if fully reasoned or self-evidently valid -- that is more the method of a crank than a scientist.
Euclid Overmod ... and remember, if the agreement is 'secret' you lack evidence on which to speculate ... on the actual nature of what is secret. Not if the people making the agreement are predictable.
Overmod ... and remember, if the agreement is 'secret' you lack evidence on which to speculate ... on the actual nature of what is secret.
Not if the people making the agreement are predictable.
This is an interesting point, because if I understand you correctly you think that by 'predictably modeling' their thought and decision process you can approximate -- perhaps in some detail and with some precision -- what the 'secret' areas of discussion and agreement are.
The problem is that it's still conjecture until externally confirmed, or until independently affirmed in other ways. I have no doubts that the 'truth' will eventually be winkled out, but until then it is intellectually dangerous to proceed from your own model or perception of Canadian-political behavior to hard 'conclusions' in the usual sense of that word. Let alone defend such conclusions as if fully reasoned or self-evidently valid -- that is more the method of a crank than a scientist.
Great analysis! But as before, Mr. Euclid will never admit to the error of his ways, as seen again above.
What you refer to as my hard conclusions are easily changed, so I don’t regard them as being “hard conclusions.” But if public officials make decisions in secret from their constituency, people will jump to conclusions. That is their right.
It is silly to think that such a technical protocol for conclusions, opinions, and settled science should prevail on this forum. I don’t hear anyone worry about that when it comes to the conspiracy theory that the capitalists have introduced PSR to loot the railroad industry. That goes on day and night here as though it were etched in granite.
I suspect that at least half the people in Canada agree with my ideas on this. There have been news articles in Canada concluding exactly what I have said here, and they go much further. They even predict that the protests will soon return once the Wet’suwet’en have digested the offer from Trudeau and raised their demand. Blockades are cheap. They can go up as easily as they come down.
WATCH THIS VIDEO:
Dwight Newman, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights at the University of Saskatchewan, talks to the Financial Post’s Larysa Harapyn about the ongoing Coastal GasLink protests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=248&v=mGp0vMbexOg&feature=emb_logo
READ THIS ARTICLE:
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-trudeaus-panicky-give-away-to-hereditary-chiefs-creates-more-chaos-and-confusion
Be glad that there has been a settlement.
Johnny
As usual, you write sound advice.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.