Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Wet'suwet'en Protests and Blockades in BC


DonLever

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

The RCMP are an occupying force now.  The genocide of CDN indigenous people continues with the support of CDN politicians and our courts. 

Our indigenous women are targeted for violence / disappear.    Our prisons are 25 % first nations but only 4 % of CDN population is aboriginal.

First nations children make up the vast majority of children apprenhended and put into foster care.....

We have elected band chiefs making up to 1 million per year while their own band ciitzens have no housing available on reserve.....

 

Now we have first nations unceded territories being invaded by  armed RCMP with shoot to kill orders.....  with peaceful  indigenous citizens being arrested off of their own lands....

 

Conciliation is just a lie  to get first nations people off their lands / territories without proper compensation. 

 

Meanwhile in Canada we still have first nations communities that do NOT have acccess to CLEAN drinking water.

 

 

 

I grew up in Houston.  My parents and sister still live there. I have driven the roads where this is happening.  

The highway of tears is a horrid reality.  Many of your stats and statements are true.

 

the RCMP invading with Shoot to Kill orders?  Factually wrong. If the RCMP were trying to kill people people would be dead. 

My point still stands, this is about the courts and the way our government interacts with elected/hereditary chiefs as well as whether an individual nation has veto power over something the majority (including majority of First Nations) want.  The RCMP are the way the courts enforce their decisions. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dm_ranger said:

 

 

the RCMP invading with Shoot to Kill orders?  Factually wrong. If the RCMP were trying to kill people people would be dead. 

 

Incorrect.

 

And people wonder why young canadians want nothing to do with a career in the RCMP nowdays......

 

 

 

 

A report that the RCMP were prepared to use lethal force and employed snipers during their enforcement of an injunction at an Indigenous anti-pipeline camp in northern B.C. this year is sparking widespread criticism from the camp and on social media

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6326799/northern-bc-pipeline-rcmp-lethal-force/

Edited by kingofsurrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

That is not only NOT a shoot to kill order that is effectively the RCMP saying you have all rights and measures to defend yourself

 

Man stop the hyperbolic fear mongering and stick to facts

 

I am a First Nations member, I understand full well what is going on in this area, I know how and I know why things are occurring including having friends working on the coastal link project AND friends in the camps protesting.

 

Do not spread this misinformation and absolute garbage.  You're a person sitting in a chair claiming to know more than those on the ground or with a history of knowledge of such subjects.

 

Just stop

For some reason you continue to spread lies....

Not sure why...

 

 

 

The RCMP were prepared to use snipers with shoot-to-kill orders when they launched a raid to remove Indigenous protesters slowing pipeline construction in Wet’suwet’en territory, the Guardian reported today.

 
 

The Guardian reports RCMP commanders instructed officers to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want” as they planned the Jan. 7 action to remove a gated checkpoint and camp about 120 kilometres southwest of Smithers.

 

https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/12/20/RCMP-Planned-Snipers-Wetsuweten-Pipeline-Protest/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

For some reason you continue to spread lies....

Not sure why...

 

 

 

The RCMP were prepared to use snipers with shoot-to-kill orders when they launched a raid to remove Indigenous protesters slowing pipeline construction in Wet’suwet’en territory, the Guardian reported today.

 
 

The Guardian reports RCMP commanders instructed officers to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want” as they planned the Jan. 7 action to remove a gated checkpoint and camp about 120 kilometres southwest of Smithers.

 

https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/12/20/RCMP-Planned-Snipers-Wetsuweten-Pipeline-Protest/

I STRONGLY suggest you understand what a shoot to kill order is before you claim the RCMP had one.  The RCMP had the exact same orders during the OKA crisis and during the Penticton Indian band blockades of the Green Mt Rd in the 90s.  They were not shoot to kill orders.  They were defense if fired upon orders

 

Edit**. you can keep copying and pasting the same statement all you want, it doesn't change the fact that at no point in time we're the RCMP given orders to shoot to kill.  Until you understand exactly what that statement means you ned to slow down

 

STRONGLY SUGGEST IT

Edited by Warhippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I STRONGLY suggest you understand what a shoot to kill order is before you claim the RCMP had one.  The RCMP had the exact same orders during the OKA crisis and during the Penticton Indian band blockades of the Green Mt Rd in the 90s.  They were not shoot to kill orders.  They were defense if fired upon orders

 

 

STRONGLY SUGGEST IT

Strong suggest you gain  a better understanding...

 

Shoot to kill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Shoot to kill may refer to:

 

  • Deadly force – a general concept in the theory of self-defence (where "shooting to kill" is aiming one's shots with the specific intention of causing fatal injury
    )
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

That's about accurate yes, depending on which band in which nation you're speaking to or of.  it's also infuriating that this information is out there but people like..."that guy" above seem to think money being thrown at First Nations people, maybe some fire water will solve everything

its pretty interesting from a legal pov, its all about early and often discussions and no one is going to give you a quick answer at the beginning - which is very much not what you'd expect in a US-style business deal, e.g. 

 

Yeah, for some reason first nations stories bring out the nonsense. I guess you could do what CBC did and censor discussion but no one learns anything that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Strong suggest you gain  a better understanding...

 

Shoot to kill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Shoot to kill may refer to:

 

  • Deadly force – a general concept in the theory of self-defence (where "shooting to kill" is aiming one's shots with the specific intention of causing fatal injury
    )

The term is suicide by cop.

 

Self defence.

 

Fire if fired upon.

 

Not shoot to kill which implies going in guns blazing.

 

There is no order to fire upon innocent people or protestors.  there is no order to murder people.  You're creating some horrific narrative that the RCMP were ready to go in and murder people for the sole reason they were in one of these camps which in turn further enflames people on both sides of the issue.  That serves literally NO purpose.

 

During the standing rock confrontation the sheriffs and law enforcement had the exact same orders as their Canadian counter parts.  Use of lethal force in the event of armed attack is justified.  Claiming a shoot to kill order was laid down by RCMP brass is not only erroneous it is entirely untrue.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

 

There is no order to fire upon innocent people or protestors.  there is no order to murder people.  You're creating some horrific narrative that the RCMP were ready to go in and murder people for the sole reason they were in one of these camps which in turn further enflames people on both sides of the issue.  That serves literally NO purpose.

 

During the standing rock confrontation the sheriffs and law enforcement had the exact same orders as their Canadian counter parts.  Use of lethal force in the event of armed attack is justified.  Claiming a shoot to kill order was laid down by RCMP brass is not only erroneous it is entirely untrue.

You make zero sense.  No one posted what you are talking about.. Maybe you are having a flashback.....from some movie you saw in the the 1970's....

The RCMP had a shoot to kill policey in place with Snipers ready to go....     This is true and proven.

 

I don't have a clue what you are going on about.....

Edited by kingofsurrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

eople for the sole reason they were in one of these camps which in turn further enflames people on both sides of the issue.  That serves literally NO purpose.

 

During the standing rock confrontation the sheriffs and law enforcement had the exact same orders as their Canadian counter parts.  Use of lethal force in the event of armed attack is justified.  Claiming a shoot to kill order was laid down by RCMP brass is not only erroneous it is entirely untrue.

Here is my original post

 

Now we have first nations unceded territories being invaded by  armed RCMP with shoot to kill orders.....  with peaceful  indigenous citizens being arrested off of their own lands....

 

 

Why do you have tell untruths and make up things.. What i posted is 100% truth and fact based.  Why do you have to try to deflect people away from what is happening... ?

First nations territory is being invaded by RCMP helicopters and dogs...   A tactical team with snipers is in place with shoot to kill orders....   This is all fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

For some reason you continue to spread lies....

Not sure why...

 

 

 
 

The Guardian reports RCMP commanders instructed officers to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want” as they planned the Jan. 7 action to remove a gated checkpoint and camp about 120 kilometres southwest of Smithers.

 

https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/12/20/RCMP-Planned-Snipers-Wetsuweten-Pipeline-Protest/

Highlighting your quotes. -

 

Question -- Since the Jan 7 action has already happened -- how much violence did these "Shoot to Kill" ordered RCMP display?

-- I think it important to balance British Tabloids with what actually happened.  They they were ordered to use as much violence as they wanted as you hold to-- I have to say arrests followed by release without charge and no injuries speaks highly of the RCMP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dm_ranger said:

Highlighting your quotes. -

 

Question -- Since the Jan 7 action has already happened -- how much violence did these "Shoot to Kill" ordered RCMP display?

-- I think it important to balance British Tabloids with what actually happened.  They they were ordered to use as much violence as they wanted as you hold to-- I have to say arrests followed by release without charge and no injuries speaks highly of the RCMP.

It is very imporant that the media gets information out to  the general public.  This information in fact will make all parties act more responsibly and hopefully we can see everyone stay safe.  The way forward is through peacefull communication and negotiation.  Respect by both parties is criticial. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its pretty interesting from a legal pov, its all about early and often discussions and no one is going to give you a quick answer at the beginning - which is very much not what you'd expect in a US-style business deal, e.g. 

 

Yeah, for some reason first nations stories bring out the nonsense. I guess you could do what CBC did and censor discussion but no one learns anything that way. 

The issue lies in the land ownership.

 

hereditary chiefs hold land and oversight of band lands and unneeded territories 

Band councils hold title over development and title held territories

Title holders hold and own final say over what happens on their lands period.

 

But

 

Band councils can approve projects, title holders can approve or reject those projects, chiefs can override both in a show of power but hold little legal ownership as is because they are little more than titular figureheads but are STILL recognized by Canadian laws but title holders and councils don't answer to them per say.

 

it's a mess and confusing and it needs to be addressed at some point but that's a whole other fight that I want no part of and most bands certainly feel the same from my understanding.  For what it's worth, the hereditary titles are being phased out and passing away over time as more and more kids just kind of don't want that hassle or issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

You make zero sense.  No one posted what you are talking about.. Maybe you are having a flashback.....from some movie you saw in the the 1970's....

The RCMP had a shoot to kill policey in place with Snipers ready to go....     This is true and proven.

 

I don't have a clue what you are going on about.....

 

3 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Here is my original post

 

Now we have first nations unceded territories being invaded by  armed RCMP with shoot to kill orders.....  with peaceful  indigenous citizens being arrested off of their own lands....

 

 

Why do you have tell untruths and make up things.. What i posted is 100% truth and fact based.  Why do you have to try to deflect people away from what is happening... ?

First nations territory is being invaded by RCMP helicopters and dogs...   A tactical team with snipers is in place with shoot to kill orders....   This is all fact.

You know full well what I am on about.  you are supporting the narrative that the RCMP were ready o go in and murder peaceful protestors via a shoot to kill order.  Which did not exist.  What did exist was the order to defend themselves in the event they were attacked, as has been done before numerous times in the past in Canadian/First Nations history.

 

I grew up to red for the town and to white for the tribe.  This is my heritage and my history and I know damned well the back and forth between First Nations members and the RCMP/government.  These EXACT orders have been handed down numerous times.  To literally zero or no violence.

 

Suggesting shoot to kill over defensive measures is the grandest form of dramatic histrionics.  I dare say you giver Strome and his "yer a socialist" statements a run for their money

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

You know full well what I am on about.  you are supporting the narrative that the RCMP were ready o go in and murder peaceful protestors via a shoot to kill order.  Which

 

 

You have a very active imagination.  You should take up drawing and painting and ditch the photography.

Or maybe take up creative writing as you seem to enjoy making things up.....  

 

I think having sniper teams  in place ( with shoot to kill orders )  when taking down a peaceful protest is perhaps over the top behaviour and i think could result in accidental death or harm...

 

I guess you seem to think it is acceptable. 

Edited by kingofsurrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

You have a very active imagination.  You should take up drawing and painting and ditch the photography.

Or maybe take up creative writing as you seem to enjoy making things up.....  

 

I think having sniper teams  in place ( with shoot to kill orders )  when taking down a peaceful protest is perhaps over the top behaviour and i think could result in accidental death or harm...

 

I guess you seem to think it is acceptable. 

To support your claim. please post the names and numbers of peaceful native protester that have been shot and killed by the RCMP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dm_ranger said:

I grew up in Houston.  My parents and sister still live there. I have driven the roads where this is happening.  

The highway of tears is a horrid reality.  Many of your stats and statements are true.

 

the RCMP invading with Shoot to Kill orders?  Factually wrong. If the RCMP were trying to kill people people would be dead. 

My point still stands, this is about the courts and the way our government interacts with elected/hereditary chiefs as well as whether an individual nation has veto power over something the majority (including majority of First Nations) want.  The RCMP are the way the courts enforce their decisions. 

ya the shoot to kill comment was way over the top king 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The issue lies in the land ownership.

 

hereditary chiefs hold land and oversight of band lands and unneeded territories 

Band councils hold title over development and title held territories

Title holders hold and own final say over what happens on their lands period.

 

But

 

Band councils can approve projects, title holders can approve or reject those projects, chiefs can override both in a show of power but hold little legal ownership as is because they are little more than titular figureheads but are STILL recognized by Canadian laws but title holders and councils don't answer to them per say.

 

it's a mess and confusing and it needs to be addressed at some point but that's a whole other fight that I want no part of and most bands certainly feel the same from my understanding.  For what it's worth, the hereditary titles are being phased out and passing away over time as more and more kids just kind of don't want that hassle or issue

 

interesting, thanks. I think the advice from the consulting firm I posted above is probably the best approach for new ventures, get every stakeholder to the table early, get the benefits out fairly and you'll probably have something good for everyone. Kind of what C69 is supposed to help do in part. 

 

I'd like to really find out the details of the Wet'suwet'en specifically, and what the actual band members want. I don't really care what some eco-adjacent pipeline protestor wants, really one darn bit. I see these projects as a "way out" for lack of a better term for many people to actual self-determination or just getting out of the poverty cycle. The hereditary chiefs must know their approach is blocking that.... I wonder what they offer instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

but u drive a car right   so whos the hipocrite 

You’re so 100% right on this topic.  Oil is the lifeblood of our current comfortable lives.  Oil is in almost everything we use.  If people want to be good little tree huggers, then they need to give up all products with oil in them, staring with their phones.  Then give up all transportation that uses oil.  That means walking, and not in comfy shoes.  Oh, and only eat locally produced foods.  Ships and trucks, that bring us things like coffee) burn a lot of diesel.  

Yup.  Tree huggers are bigger hypocrites than the biggest trees they hug..  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...