419 replies to this topic

[AllseeingEye]

John Horgan is giving a press conference right now (live), and when asked what his thoughts were about Ben Isitt & his comments re: the demonstration/blockade yesterday, Horgan said "My thoughts on that individual are not printable."

 

Well I'm sure Ben's thoughts re: Ben look something like this....

Attached Images

• 

[rmpeers]

Here’s the statement:

UPDATE | Four Victims Identified - Additional Victims, Witnesses Sought In Legislature Protest Assault Investigations

Victoria, BC – Investigators are updating the public as they continue to reach out to witnesses and victims after receiving reports that people were assaulted and injured during the protests at the B.C. Legislature yesterday.

Four people have reported assaults during the protests yesterday. Three of these people received non-life-threatening injuries. The fourth was not physically injured, although equipment that person was carrying was reported to have been damaged.

Our investigation remains ongoing. Investigators are looking to speak with anyone with information about these incidents. To speak with investigators, please call our non-emergency line at (250) 995-7654

Will Ben accuse them of Smollettism?

[Nparker]

"Smollettism" seems much more like something protesters desperate for attention would do.

[A Girl is No one]

VicPD tweeted they were investigating reports of assault and injury, and while I'm not an academic like Ben and English is my second language, I understand that it isn't the same as VicPD saying people have been assaulted. Investigating reports is an inherent part of their job, and so is public safety. If I report a crime to the police, whether it be assault, theft, etc., should they not investigate it because there were no Ben Isitts around to see it?

In this day and age, it all depends on who assaulted you. If the perpetrator claims to be part of a « victim group » you will then automatically be considered evil, even if you were the one that got assaulted... even if the act was totally random.

[Rob Randall]

Protest geared to shutting down all BC government offices Friday:

 

https://www.facebook...05508676596101/

[Sparky]

^ They picked a flex Friday before a long weekend. 

 

meh

[Rob Randall]

^Brittney, Jessica and Chad won't have a lot to do while manning the barricades it seems.

[Nparker]

^ They picked a flex Friday before a long weekend. meh

That still means it has the potential to affect thousands of people trying to work tomorrow. Don't be so dismissive.

[Mike K.]

Being that it’s Valentine’s Day, and depending how things go, I can see some people’s long-ago made plans being affected.

Anyways, this just came in from UVic communications:

Canada needs Indigenous-led environmental assessments

The federal government is failing to meaningfully engage with Indigenous knowledge in environmental decision-making, setting the stage for more conflict over issues such as the Coastal GasLink and Trans Mountain pipelines, two University of Victoria researchers say.

In a paper published today in the journal FACETS, Lauren Eckert and Nick XEMŦOLTW̱ Claxton argue that a fundamental shift is needed in how government treats Indigenous rights and knowledge.

The researchers propose that Canada should move toward environmental assessment processes that are Indigenous-led and co-managed.

Eckert is a UVic PhD candidate, Raincoast Conservation Foundation fellow and Vanier Scholar. Claxton is an assistant professor from UVic’s Faculty of Human and Social Development and elected chief of Tsawout Nation.

Visit the Raincoast Conservation Foundation for more information.

Why does it matter that environmental assessments include Indigenous knowledge?

Environmental assessment processes have the potential to generate environmentally sound, socially equitable decisions across Canada. But without fundamental shifts in the way current policy relates to, engages with and recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge, outcomes may continue to generate conflict between federal and Indigenous governments.

Indigenous knowledge refers to the complex systems of knowledge, belief and practice that have informed Indigenous environmental stewardship and decision-making for millennia.

What can you tell us about your research?

A team of interdisciplinary colleagues analyzed 19 peer-reviewed papers (published over the last four decades) to understand what obstacles exist between harmonizing Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessment processes in Canada.

We identified six categories of obstacles, including historical, legal, political, procedural and resource limitations, that prevent the equitable and authentic engagement of Indigenous knowledge. For instance, there is an unsupported assumption that scientific knowledge is superior to Indigenous knowledges.

We then considered the federal government’s new 2019 Impact Assessment Act in this context to understand how—if any—of the identified obstacles have been overcome in the recently passed legislation.

What gaps did you find?

The new act mandates the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment at the federal level, and also mandates that applicants explain how Indigenous knowledge was collected and used in decision-making.

Our analysis found that the act is a step in the direction towards better relationships between Indigenous knowledge and environmental assessment processes. However, many deep-rooted obstacles still exist.

These include the on-going impacts of colonization and the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from decision-making processes, along with the reality that environmental decision-making power is ultimately in the hands of the government.

What are your key recommendations for improving how the government treats Indigenous knowledge?

Environmental assessment processes are an opportunity for Canada to fulfill their reconciliation agenda while likewise engaging in well-informed environmental decision-making.

We recommend co-creating research and monitoring programs with Indigenous Nations and providing appropriate funding for the sharing of Indigenous knowledge and adherence to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Ultimately, we recommend that Canada’s legislative and federal structures recognize Indigenous-led environmental assessments. A number of examples of these processes exist, and it is through these approaches—led by Indigenous Nations, for Indigenous Nations—that there can be opportunity for equitable knowledge and power-sharing.

For instance, the Squamish Nation partnered with project proponents in a Squamish-led assessment of the Wood Fibre LNG project in 2015. In the same year, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation completed an independently led environmental assessment of the Trans Mountain Expansion project (TMX) based on Tsleil-Waututh values and law.

[Nparker]

 

For instance, there is an unsupported assumption that scientific knowledge is superior to Indigenous knowledges.

Science should always trump myth, oral history and superstition. 

[RFS]

The left has deep, somber respect for religion and spirituality.  As long as its not whites.

 

Also, how is blocking energy projects that provide thousands of blue collar jobs "socially equitable"?  This is why the left is so lost in the woods at present.  They have totally forgotten about the working people they are supposed to represent

[mbjj]

My daughter's office received notice about tomorrow's possible protests. She feels quite uncomfortable and may stay home. She's not a big person and certainly would not be able to barge through a crowd. It's not worth getting injured over. I hope everyone stays home and has a relaxing day. She can work from home too.

[Nparker]

...I hope everyone stays home and has a relaxing day...

While I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt, physically or psychologically, if everyone stays home, it feels to me like the bad guys win. I have a right to get to my job unhindered and I intend to exercise that right.

[laconic]

I recently read this book:

 

https://www.amazon.c...,aps,349&sr=8-1

 

It is an interesting (not currently politically correct) review of indigenous rights in Canada. The author goes though the history of settlement and treaties from east to west, along with various court decisions and their impact.

 

It seems well researched though also found it somewhat strident and repetitive. There were times when I couldn't decide if I was should be reading such "out there" trash or if it was a really enlightened view.

 

Spoiler alert. He advocates that we shouldn't have race-based entitlements in Canada.

[Mike K.]

Change.org petition for the suspension of Isitt: https://www.change.o...e_bandit_var=v2

[Bernard]

I am not sure if I should try to come into work tomorrow, coming in and not being able to work would be a waste of a lot of my time.    I can just work from home (other than I do need to go the legislative library for some old data).   All in all, it is not big deal either way for me if the offices are blocked.

[Bernard]

I recently read this book:

 

https://www.amazon.c...,aps,349&sr=8-1

 

It is an interesting (not currently politically correct) review of indigenous rights in Canada. The author goes though the history of settlement and treaties from east to west, along with various court decisions and their impact.

 

It seems well researched though also found it somewhat strident and repetitive. There were times when I couldn't decide if I was should be reading such "out there" trash or if it was a really enlightened view.

 

Spoiler alert. He advocates that we shouldn't have race-based entitlements in Canada.

The constitution of Canada enshrines treaty rights and aboriginal title and rights, there is no legal mechanism to remove these constitutional rights without the consent of First Nations.   

 

The rights that are protected are a lot more limited than most people think.  The biggest difference is that First Nations have stronger property rights.  In most of Canada that means the lands that are Indian Reserves from treaty settlements.   In BC because the provincial and federal governments could not be bothered to negotiate treaties in the 19th century we are left in a situation where First Nations still have aboriginal title to a lot of land but which land that is has not been defined.  If it were not for the deliberate foot dragging of the federal government in the last 30 years there would be a lot more modern treaties in BC.  

[SamCB]

The Constitution Act is just a piece of legislation; it can be changed if there is political will to change it.

 

I would be in favour of dropping the treaty idea completely and just giving some aboriginal-titled crown lands back to FN and treating them like real sovereign Nations. With the caveat that they lose Canadian citizenship (and their Status cards, our military protection, the rule of law, democracy all sources of canadian funding, education, health, currency, etc.). I mean it would be total chaos... but isn't that what they're asking for?

 

The constitution of Canada enshrines treaty rights and aboriginal title and rights, there is no legal mechanism to remove these constitutional rights without the consent of First Nations.   

 

The rights that are protected are a lot more limited than most people think.  The biggest difference is that First Nations have stronger property rights.  In most of Canada that means the lands that are Indian Reserves from treaty settlements.   In BC because the provincial and federal governments could not be bothered to negotiate treaties in the 19th century we are left in a situation where First Nations still have aboriginal title to a lot of land but which land that is has not been defined.  If it were not for the deliberate foot dragging of the federal government in the last 30 years there would be a lot more modern treaties in BC.  

[laconic]

The book spends considerable time discussing the effect of the two constitutional clauses in the repatriated constitution.

As samcb said, the constitution can be changed, though the process is difficult and requires leadership and will that are unlikely.

[Bernard]

The Constitution Act is just a piece of legislation; it can be changed if there is political will to change it.

 

I would be in favour of dropping the treaty idea completely and just giving some aboriginal-titled crown lands back to FN and treating them like real sovereign Nations. With the caveat that they lose Canadian citizenship (and their Status cards, our military protection, the rule of law, democracy all sources of canadian funding, education, health, currency, etc.). I mean it would be total chaos... but isn't that what they're asking for?

First, the Federal constitution is not just a piece of legislation (as opposed to the BC constitution which is just a piece of legislation).  Amending the federal constitution is not easy and requires the consent of those that are effected.   Treaties with First Nations can not be unilaterally altered by the feds and even if one were to change the federal constitution the treaties would remain in full force.

 

Next, the constitutional and legal history of Canada starts in 1763 with the Royal Proclamation.   The Proclamation is clear that the Crown is required to settle with First Nations before any land can be used for other purposes.   On the prairies this was done through the various numbered treaties.  In BC it was not done but land was still settled.   We have a very messy situation in BC and is in no way the fault of the First Nations but sits 100% on the Crown being unwilling to fulfill their fundamental duties under the Royal Proclamation and then imposing the Indian Act without any consideration of the reality of First Nations on the ground.

 

The problem for the Crown is that they need to show the legal mechanism by which they control the land.   Canadian jurisprudence does not recognize 'conquest' as a legitimate way for the Crown to gain title.

 

In the north west of BC the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown was done before any British officials knew what existed.   There are First Nations that had no ongoing contact with government till after BC joined confederation.   The first step should have been a settlement with the First Nations but this did not happen.   In the early 20th century BC First Nations were pushing hard for settlements with the Crown.   The response from the federal government was to make it illegal for First Nations to work towards a settlement with the Crown.

 

The Wet'suwet'en have been in the treaty process for over 25 years.   The Feds could have settled all of this by 2005 if they had ever bothered to take the issue seriously.   In Quebec the Feds settled modern treaties much faster.   With a settled treaty this would not be an issue at all.

 

I know First Nations people in BC that do not consider themselves to be Canadian citizens because there has been no agreement with the Crown.  Many of them do not vote and do not claim benefits from the government.  

 

With the Wet'suwet'en there is also the ongoing problem of who should be allowed to speak for them.