Wet'suwet'en First Nation:
Democracy vs. Bloodlines vs.
Colonialism
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: May 9, 2020
Copyright of image belongs to Pixabay
The term "Wet'suwet'en" has received more domestic and international coverage than any other aboriginal issue in Canada. So who are the good guys and the bad guys? That depends on who you're asking. If you're conservative, you're with the larger Wet'suwet'en band council's democratic decision to support the Coastal GasLink pipeline developed by TC Energy. If you're liberal, you stand with the small Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who claim that their bloodline gives them "special rights/power" to decide the fate of the Wet'suwet'en people.
And separating it as a conservative vs. liberal policy is how the liberal climate change movement views it.
Climate change is an existential problem facing humanity. That means no new oil or natural gas pipelines. Hence, we support any group that is against coal, oil, and natural gas development.
And this is an argument in itself. Many in the climate change movement want an end to all oil and natural gas developments. But mid-center liberals (Democratic Party/Joe Biden in the US) along with Trudeau's Liberal Party in Canada, argue that natural gas has a special place in their environmental policies and should be separated from "dirty" crude oil/oil sands. It's a fascinating piece of conditioning.
It's unknown which camp will win the day, but it's doubtful that the progressives/hard leftwing party (Bernie Sanders in the US and the NDP in Canada) will be victorious. Both parties have failed to sway the majority of "liberal" voters to their side. Aside from the ideological progressive bubble, the reality is that Sanders' socialist platform lost against Biden's mid-center platform to challenge President Trump in the 2020 elections. The fact that Sanders now endorses Biden, [1] may be the death kneel for progressives.
If Biden wins the election, as the equivalent of Trudeau, he would likely push through the pipeline because the previous conservative administration already did the hard work. An easy way to justify one's position for a contentious debate. A strategy he used for the US embassy in Jerusalem in order to placate the Israeli government. [2]
At the moment, Joe Biden's foreign policies plays no role in the Wet'suwet'en debate. But oddly enough, liberals are using something that Biden has also touted.
Race.
Just as Biden shows off his support from visible minorities, highly educated white liberals in the US and Canada play the race card and claim to "speak" for visible minorities.
Big Oil is taking advantage of small visible minority communities.
Yes, I can see that point. But I can also see that white liberals are simply taking advantage of us and using this cause (as they normally do) to push their liberal policies on the public. If you haven't already guessed, I lean conservative for most of my views (see Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction).
But as a philosopher and human being, I don't define myself in terms of ideological labels. People lean to one side or another, but rational people understand that it doesn't have to define their way of life. Rational people understand that almost every debate is nuanced and more complex than media sound bites and tweets.
Of course, conservatives against environmental protestors are very much aware that climate change protestors are taking advantage of the Wet'suwet'en situation. They know that environmental liberals around the world are simply using the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to take advantage of the situation in order for the result to lean in their favor and cancel the pipeline. Something that's highly unlikely to happen, especially since the pipeline construction moved forward during the COVID-19 lockdown. [3]
Regardless of ideologies, I'll admit that it was a smart play for the Trudeau government. On the one hand he gave the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs power through a Memorandum of Understanding. [4] On the other hand, he allowed the construction of the pipeline to continue. Well played sir. It’s much easier to build a pipeline when protestors can't go out and...protest.
I use the word gave instead of recognized intentionally. The rights of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997, [5] but were never applied in a practical sense until 2020.
But I argue that the 1997 ruling was incorrect. Yes, the court was kind enough to recognize Aboriginal title, but they erred in recognizing the form of governance, where the hereditary chiefs have final say (as opposed to elected band chiefs and council).
Bloodlines vs. democracy.
Of course, I'm using the term democracy quite liberally. Personally, what most people call a democracy I label it as a false democracy. The idea that electing a person to create policies in your name is democratic, is and always has been false. A true democracy is when the people make policy decisions and the government merely exists to implement them (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
But I understand why the Supreme Court of Canada made such a decision. Because Canada is merely a satellite of the British Empire (see Constitutional Oaths in Whistleblowers: True Patriots of Humanity).
While many people believe that Canada is an independent country, the Canadian constitution paints a different picture. In order for any legislation to pass, it has to be approved by the Queen of Canada. The Queen of Canada is the Queen of England. Anything that doesn't get royal assent doesn't become law, period. The Governor General of Canada is the Queen's representative. While every bill gets royal assent, in theory the Queen can refuse it and a bill would never become law in Canada, at least not legally.
While the influence of the British Crown on the Canadian public is minimal, that's only by design. In reality, all members of the Canadian Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada and her successors. I would know because I'm a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Private Alli. In our swearing in ceremony, instead of swearing allegiance to the people of Canada, I swore it to the Queen while facing a picture of her.
That should have been a red flag...but I was in high school. Not exactly my best years.
But getting back to the issue, the influence of the British Crown is definitely in our political system. All members of the Canadian parliament (including the prime minister) swear allegiance to the Queen, as opposed to the Canadian people. That's not accidental. That's intentional. In theory, any policy that doesn't serve the interests of the British Crown wouldn't get royal assent. That should tell you that Canada isn't a sovereign country.
Do you think that a member of the Canadian parliament can refuse to take the oath of allegiance and still serve (even if they were democratically elected by the people of Canada)? Think again. While public opinion can go against the Queen of Canada, that's as far as it can go. You wonder why your member of parliament doesn't act in your interests? It's because they don't serve you. They serve the Queen of Canada. The Queen of England.
And the Queen's influence, specifically the monarchy, applies to Canada's judicial system (don't worry, it'll tie into the Wet'suwet'en issue). Our judicial system is the Canadian version of the UK judicial system. And that includes the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. The Justices recognized the rights of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs because bloodlines play a significant role in the British monarchy. You need to marry into the Crown in order to have the "privilege" of being part of the monarchy. An ideology that the Supreme Court of Justices imposed on the Wet'suwet'en people. Instead of giving the land titles to the elected chief and band council, they gave it to the hereditary chiefs.
That's not accidental. That's intentional.
Elected representatives come and go, but bloodlines stay the same. Just as it is within the UK monarchy, it's true for Canada. A truly undemocratic ideology. The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada believes in it shows their antipathy towards democracy vs. servitude to the British Crown and colonial/junk science ideologies.
Democracy on the surface, but the power of bloodlines underneath.
To conspiratorial?
The Chief Justice of Canada, Richard Wagner and Justin Trudeau both come from wealthy political lineages. Of the nine Justices and the Prime Minister, are there any visible minorities on this list? Nope. Not a single one. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. The Canadian Courts and the Prime Minister's Office are nothing more than racist institutions (see The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities).
It's just white people in charge of visible minorities, and visible minorities accepting that ideology. On the surface, Canadian politicians and Justices serve the people of Canada. In reality, they serve their own self-interests and the interests of royal/wealthy bloodlines.
But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the conditioning of the hereditary bloodline ideology. The idea that only bloodlines have the right to rule is an old ideology that predates European empires and goes all the way back to the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, and the Sumerians. The fact that it's alive and well in the 21st century isn't accidental. It's intentional.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian government, and the BC government are intentionally conditioning visible minorities (the people of Wet'suwet'en) to believe that the bloodlines of hereditary chiefs are special, and have a divine power to rule.
Of course, without the 1997 court ruling, we would laugh and ignore such claims. But courts under the rule of the British Crown will forever seek to influence the global public in ways that benefit the Crown. A disgusting system of racism and privilege. Visible minorities are now imitating their racist colonial masters.
And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
Of course, the elected band councilors and chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en don't want to appear to be on the wrong side, even though their process is correct (relatively speaking of course). Five out of six elected Wet'suwet'en band councils agreeing to the pipeline is majority rule. The idea that the bloodlines of the hereditary chiefs have the "power" to overrule them is nonsensical.
But mindful of the direction of the wind, in March 2020 one of the elected Wet'suwet'en band chiefs who agreed to the pipeline earlier said that he may back out of the agreement. [5]
Uh...that doesn't work in a business capitalistic sense. The Coastal GasLink is a $6.6 billion dollar (CAD) pipeline. Agreements are legally binding. Breaking them usually has moderate to severe financial consequences. While it would be another blow to future oil and gas companies looking to develop Canadian resources, it would be a larger blow to Aboriginals in general. It would reinforce the notion that Aboriginals are "difficult to deal with."
Another Aboriginal group changed their mind? Forget Canadian resource development.
Which is exactly what the liberal climate change movement wants. They want an end to all investments in the cola, oil, and gas sector. And since they believe in the coming "climate apocalypse," they'll do anything to achieve that goal. If it means blocking railroads, they'll do it. If it means using Aboriginals to achieve their goals, they'll do it. Liberal media outlets have spread the word of the protests and the RCMP crackdown to people across the world in order to win more support for climate change. [6] [7] [8] [9]
But is it ethical to condition people to believe what you believe? Ethics is relative to one's perception and ideologies. And for the global warming movement, the ends justify the means.
The Wet'suwet'en people are definitely being pressured by white climate change environmentalists to change their mind about supporting the pipeline. Is that ethical? For a person or group to condition others in order to get what they want? While it's definitely legal since we have lobbyists, legal is not the same as ethical. It's legal for YouTube to censor videos on their platform, but is it ethical? It's legal to have an abortion, but is it ethical? It's legal to kill animals to eat, but is it ethical? It's legal for oil companies to take oil out of the ground, but is it ethical taking into account the supposed "existential crisis of climate change?"
Of course, this is how reality works. People and groups pressure/condition others to make decisions that benefit themselves. By writing articles on my site, I'm hoping to condition people to buy my books...ha ha ha.
So who's correct? Unfortunately, for most issues, there's no objective right or wrong answer. But who gets to have a say? Is their opinion neutral or biased? If a person holds an investment/stake in oil and natural gas companies, does that mean that their opinion is worth less than those who don't have a stake? But if that's true, the same applies to people who hold investments/stake in renewable energy.
Just so we're clear, I don't have any financial stake in the argument. As of May 9, 2020 I don't own (nor have I ever owned) any stocks in the oil and gas industry or the renewable energy sector. But with a dividend yield of 7.26%, it’s hard to ignore Enbridge's stock. I make no guarantees for the future.
But even if I did buy oil and gas stocks, should I disclose it? What about the thousands and millions of people speaking on the issue? Are they going to disclose their financial conflicts of interest as well? Oddly enough, it was my arch-nemesis environmental columnist George Monbiot (who I've never met before) that sparked the idea of disclosing one's ideological and financial conflicts.
Of course, I argue against his ideologies vehemently. See:
The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
The Ideological Bubble of George Monbiot Part 1 of 6: Health & The Environment 2016 Articles
But the question remains. Is everyone tainted/influenced/colored by their financial or ideological position? And the obvious answer is yes.
What about journalists and liberal media outlets? Should they have to disclose their financial interests when they create/approve a story about climate change/environment? Won't their financial interests color their ethics and perception on the issue? I believe that it does. Others believe that it doesn't. Who's right? Nobody. The world doesn't exist in a power dynamic between people who are right vs. people who are wrong. It exists in a flow of self/communal interests. X is in my interest so I'll advocate it to others. Y is in my interest along with the interest of others so I'll advocate it for various reasons.
Personally, I believe that everyone speaking about an issue should at least disclose their financial interests/conflicts of interest. Of course, it's not a practical solution. Is a reporter going to ask a climate change activist if they have any investments in renewable energy? Will the reporter ask pro-pipeline Aboriginals if they have stake in the oil and gas industry? Not if they want to continue reporting. The ethics of forcing members of the public to disclose their financial conflicts of interest would be a thorny issue. But it's still possible for journalists. Scientists who write papers in credible peer-reviewed journals are required to disclose a financial conflict of interest.
I would recommend that major media outlets give it some thought. Maybe a small disclosure notice before the article begins. I think it's worth looking into for the dying print media desperate to win back their audience.
Just get rid of your damn paywalls. I'm not paying for the news, regardless of how many times you beg. I refuse to pay for news. If you want the ability to condition the masses, you gotta make the articles free. Yes, New York Times, I can see your six million subscribers. But that won't be enough to pay full wages and operational costs in the future. To be fair, your lack of debt is quite impressive. Bastards.
Gotta be fair...even to your enemies.
But we all know that there's no going back to print newspapers. When today's millennials become seniors, they won't be reading newspapers in COVID infected senior homes. They'll be reading on their holographic tablets in their adult children's homes where they live comfortably with respect.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
But sticking with the media, many liberal media outlets/journalists feel a collective guilt/shame for their past actions in supporting colonial rule on Aboriginals and turning a blind eye to the murder of Aboriginal women. And just in case you're wondering, most perpetrators are Aboriginal men, as opposed to evil white colonizers taking advantage of Aboriginal women. [10]
While the latter definitely happens, like the Black Lives Matter movement, liberal media outlets tend to overinflate the issue, as opposed to Black on Black crime or Aboriginal on Aboriginal crime. A community issue vs. a race issue. The race issue plays better for the cameras and the sound bites. It's much easier for all parties (viewers and victims) to stomach that instead of facing the claim that it's a dysfunctional community.
The community doesn't have its house in order.
A disingenuous claim. No one person or group controls ones culture, customs, or lifestyle. We're all individuals with individual needs and desires who live and mix with other people and their needs and desires. Sometimes those needs and desires aren't rational. Sometimes they're racist, sexist, unequal, and downright negative.
While some Aboriginals choose to play the race card with the "evil white colonizers," most know better. But the odds of them saying that to liberal media outlets are rare. And to be fair, that's understandable. No one likes to air their dirty laundry in public. Most Aboriginal people know that there's a lot of blame to go around. But it's easier to just blame white people and the racist Canadian government. And there's lots of dirty laundry. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
So what's the answer?
More money.
Yah...no.
Suffice it to say, despite what you may have heard, money is not the real problem in Aboriginal communities. It never has been and everyone knows it. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into Aboriginals communities over decades, [15] and the results are...less than satisfactory.
(Disclosure: I worked in isolated Aboriginal communities in the Northwest Territories for almost three years in total).
What's the solution?
It depends on who you ask. Some Aboriginals will say that they need to get back to their roots. Others believe that instituting new rules will change negative behavior. But we all know that you can't legislate culture with the stroke of a pen. Actions and customs that have existed for decades and hundreds of years won't go away because someone says so.
My solution is individual courage. Individuals need to have the courage to deal with their pain and negative feelings. It doesn't matter if a traumatic situation wasn't in your control. It doesn't matter if the abuser is dead or alive. It doesn't matter if the abuser/abusers never apologized. All that matters is the courage to deal with their past traumas.
The intention to do so.
After the intention is made with a strong "why," a strong reason, people can move forward through whatever healing path they want. Some use traditional/alternative healing. Others use introspective healing. Some use a therapist/psychologist. Others can only trust themselves. Whatever works for one person may not work for another. And while collective healing is possible, it would only be successful after individual healing. As much as we can share our pain with others, when we go to sleep, it's just us and our pain. Dealing with pain at the individual level will enable a person to have confidence in themselves and their ability to help others.
Aboriginals don't need to wait for more funding, government programs, social workers, or mental health workers. As long as the intention to better oneself exists and there's a strong "why," the soul will find a way to heal itself (see Philosophy of Mind in Part I: Purpose).
Of course, conservatives will claim that Aboriginal people are "broken dolls." While that may be true, it's true for everyone. We're all broken dolls. There are people in Hollywood that have enough money for life and are depressed. That's a broken doll. There are people who live in a mansion but aren't happy. That's a broken doll. There are people in loveless marriages for convenience and tax purposes. That's a broken doll.
That's too harsh. Can we use a more positive term than a broken doll?
We could, but political correctness won't solve the pain that a broken soul experiences. I believe that it's more genuine to call it like it is to create a starting point of awareness. Once you realize how bad the situation is, the bottom, it can only get better from there.
From working in Aboriginal communities, I know there's a lot of love in such communities. A lot of Aboriginal politics and headaches, but a lot of love nonetheless. Some of the best years of my life.
Cultivating that love is never easy, but in the end...it's worth it.
*11 pages in Microsoft Word? A bit longer than expected, but...it is what it is.
References:
[1] Gambino, Lauren. Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president. Guardian. April 13, 2020.
[2] Biden says he'd leave US embassy in Jerusalem if elected. Al Jazeera. April 29, 2020.
[3] Snyder, Jesse. Construction on Trans Mountain pipeline goes on, company says, as First Nations concerned over COVID-19 risks. National Post. March 30, 2020.
[4] MacDonald, Nancy and Jang, Brent. B.C., Ottawa agree on process that would give power to Wet'suwet'en hereditary leaders. Globe and Mail. May 6, 2020.
[5] Stefanovich, Olivia. Wet'suwet'en chief says he'll withdraw support for pipeline if his people turn against it. CBC News. March 2, 2020.
[6] Bracken, Amber and Cecco, Leyland. Canada: protests go mainstream as support for Wet'suwet'en pipeline fight widens. Guardian. February 14, 2020.
[7] Austen, Ian. Canadian Police Move Against Pipeline Blockades, Arresting Dozens. New York Times. February 10, 2020.
[8] The Wet'suwet'en conflict disrupting Canada's rail system. BBC News. February 20, 2020.
[9] Kestler-D'Amours, Jillian. Understanding the Wet'suwet'en struggle in Canada. Al Jazeera. March 1, 2020.
[10] Galloway, Gloria. 70 per cent of murdered aboriginal women killed by indigenous men: RCMP. Globe and Mail. April 9, 2015.
[11] First Nation chief, council accused of spending band's social assistance money on personal items, face audit. Canadian Press. December 17, 2013.
[12] Lintz, Larry. Spending transparency should accompany new money for First Nations, say critics. Vancouver Sun. March 29, 2016.
[13] Geddes, John. What the transparency act reveals about the pay of Aboriginal politicians. Maclean's. September 25, 2014.
[14] Cecco, Leyland. Canada: First Nations group's 'marry out, get out' rule deemed unconstitutional. Guardian. May 2, 2018.
[15] Gunter, Lorne. Money isn't the problem for First Nations. Toronto Sun. March 12, 2016.