Sovereignty, Land Use and its Collision Course in Reconciliation
I have been viewing the recent events of Canada and the W'et'swe'wet'in people and Coastal Gas Link pipeline in BC, Canada. The protests started with the raid on the camp after CGL was granted a confirmation of an interim injunction, and sparked a lot of political action...demonstrations and blockades, across Canada and beyond.
The impact of these blockades is high. Disruption. And at the same time...a host of issues. Attention. And costs...lots of costs.
First issue is the Indigneous people on the pipeline route that have not consented. Their sovereignty of title was not respected. So far, the claims look very damaging. The route ...no archeological assessment. No willingness to re route in that territory to protect what they value. And using the RCMP as a tactical force to force squatter rights after the governments backed the project in principle.
What's interesting is the rhetoric implies that the Indigenous peoples are respected. The assumption both government and the court reiterated was that the people have been treated with dignity and respect. But the corporate evidence is lacking out of court in their actions.
Next, some groups did sign onto the project, so CGL tries to say ..hey we have consent by contract. But further evidence shows that the contract language is coercive...or explotive in the sense that in exchange for accepting money,training and jobs...they cannot object publically to the actions of the corporation.
Which sounds like using contract to create a united front for the press. But behind the closed door....it seems to be smacking of duress. The power imbalance is hard to say no to..but still they tried.
So when it comes to sovereignty...whose ?
The concept of land title and sovereignty is European...and founded on common law. Underlying sovereignty...is a deeply old concept. It is right relationship to the land.
A king was only a legitimate king if the land showed promise of good harvests sustaining the people. If that happened, that was evidence of the king maintaining a right relationship to the land. Thus, the land granted sovereignty to the king. If the land failed to produce, before we had science or climate understanding, it was believed to be a failing of the king.
The people gave up authority to the king because it was his responsibility to maintain that right relationship. This is a loose precis of the mythological ideas of the old mythology of the what we call Great Britian and Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But that is where the idea of sovereignty and kingdomship have come from.
Now, in the history there, in Great Britian, we have later the Scottish land clearances of the title holders, getting rid of tenant farmers for repurposing the land...and those dispossessed people who held no title emigrated at various times to Canada. Similar evictions happened in Europe as well, depending on the country. I speak of the Scottish one because it lead to my ancestors coming eventually to "New France."
This is a group, like many immigrant settler groups coming to Canada, that suffered a trauma coming from " not owning the land." At the moment, it's not to revisit the injustice that history, but more to point to an ancestral memory that is barely conscious.
For many Canadian settlers this is so...deeply held....is a sense of entitlement that land owners have about land use. Because that lack of title or ownership was the excuse that allowed landowners to evict them, breaking the sovereignty relationships, ...or hunger and famine helped push that point. Either way..inherent in any emigration story for most families is escaping some sort of unacceptable conditions. Hunger is a big reason to leave. Escaping a system where one will never have more or enough to survive. That the institutional structures of class and privilege that was suppressing freedom or opportunity for many who were common folks.
So....enter 2020....and another round in the conflict over CGL. And the Province of BC as much as others as respecting the UN...signs UN DRIP into law. All of a sudden....the past and the present disconnect of action catches up. And people witness the horror of what happened in Northern BC. And the people sharing it with the world? Scared at the level of force used against them. So we, as many, were called to witness. Either in person or via social media...we witnessed.
How could this happen in 2020? Why now?
Now...back to sovereignty, which pulls into it...right relationship. When Canada, BC, and multinational corporations do not have guidance on what is the "right relationship", we see what has always been done. We see in the vacuum of process and guidance...boorishness and dismissiveness. No dignity...no real peace. Lack of respect even for ...land title.
BC has known about the hollow claim of title without treaties since 1997. Even with treaties in other parts of Canada...in areas where fishing and land use rights date back to before Confederation in 1867, we still see infractions and violations. Why? Because while we have rights, in a country where we have courts, we must, if the matter is civil and interpretative, pursue enforcement of those rights, in courts, and that fight is expensive and long. So..."you have rights" comes back to those who can afford to fight for them. Many average common people can't, so unopposed, they get away with it.
Protest demonstrations and civil disobedience is deciding to refuse to comply with the status quo under law because it lacks justice...or better, right relationship.
At this point it is not just about the righteousness of a pipeline or if this will make climate change worse or better. Right relationship is about what is right to a people that have not settled with the pipeline company, and talking about it with the company is not consent. Even before that, they did take the court process steps. Both sides.
But....the UN DRIP guidance gives clear respectful language to a major vacuum. And opens up...a deeper examination about the contracts and resource extraction sharing, on how to do that with respect in balance with the differential of power on economic or privilege grounds to Indigenous peoples.
It is possible to do business well. We know of projects where respect to Indigenous people was built in. But without enforcement...or now using litigation to negotiate...we have more problems with right relationship.
Right relationship is a concept worth pursuing. It starts with restoring and reconciling relationships in your personal circle first, wherever possible or right. If the damage is too deep, live and let live may be in order. But one thing I have learned about subversion and disruption, and especially when someone or a group is opposed, is that failing to address the issues before it happens results in addressing the issues after it happens, and it costs more. But addressing those issues has to happen.
The attitude one can choose in addressing it is anger, or patience. But relationship requires parties to act in good faith, and with integrity. Yes, those are values...but if we are going to talk about respecting rights...it has to start with principles guiding standards. White settlers who refuse to acknowledge history as reviewed in light of the residential schools and other traumas, could at least admit they have no idea what it's like to be Indigneous in Canada or grow up that way. And that perhaps....they need to listen. And learn. What I can see though...is that the sovereignty is not in question.
While the people whose land this conflict started are patient, I am not as sure the rest of the people of Canada are for real actions of reconciliation, perhaps in part because of the imbalance of power and authority and a lack of right relationship. Still, it is a guiding principle that as a druid, a journey of many lifetimes may be needed. And this is source of new explorations moving forward.
A good legal history and explanation of the unique position BC is in within Canada, see this link.
The impact of these blockades is high. Disruption. And at the same time...a host of issues. Attention. And costs...lots of costs.
First issue is the Indigneous people on the pipeline route that have not consented. Their sovereignty of title was not respected. So far, the claims look very damaging. The route ...no archeological assessment. No willingness to re route in that territory to protect what they value. And using the RCMP as a tactical force to force squatter rights after the governments backed the project in principle.
What's interesting is the rhetoric implies that the Indigenous peoples are respected. The assumption both government and the court reiterated was that the people have been treated with dignity and respect. But the corporate evidence is lacking out of court in their actions.
Next, some groups did sign onto the project, so CGL tries to say ..hey we have consent by contract. But further evidence shows that the contract language is coercive...or explotive in the sense that in exchange for accepting money,training and jobs...they cannot object publically to the actions of the corporation.
Which sounds like using contract to create a united front for the press. But behind the closed door....it seems to be smacking of duress. The power imbalance is hard to say no to..but still they tried.
So when it comes to sovereignty...whose ?
The concept of land title and sovereignty is European...and founded on common law. Underlying sovereignty...is a deeply old concept. It is right relationship to the land.
A king was only a legitimate king if the land showed promise of good harvests sustaining the people. If that happened, that was evidence of the king maintaining a right relationship to the land. Thus, the land granted sovereignty to the king. If the land failed to produce, before we had science or climate understanding, it was believed to be a failing of the king.
The people gave up authority to the king because it was his responsibility to maintain that right relationship. This is a loose precis of the mythological ideas of the old mythology of the what we call Great Britian and Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But that is where the idea of sovereignty and kingdomship have come from.
Now, in the history there, in Great Britian, we have later the Scottish land clearances of the title holders, getting rid of tenant farmers for repurposing the land...and those dispossessed people who held no title emigrated at various times to Canada. Similar evictions happened in Europe as well, depending on the country. I speak of the Scottish one because it lead to my ancestors coming eventually to "New France."
This is a group, like many immigrant settler groups coming to Canada, that suffered a trauma coming from " not owning the land." At the moment, it's not to revisit the injustice that history, but more to point to an ancestral memory that is barely conscious.
For many Canadian settlers this is so...deeply held....is a sense of entitlement that land owners have about land use. Because that lack of title or ownership was the excuse that allowed landowners to evict them, breaking the sovereignty relationships, ...or hunger and famine helped push that point. Either way..inherent in any emigration story for most families is escaping some sort of unacceptable conditions. Hunger is a big reason to leave. Escaping a system where one will never have more or enough to survive. That the institutional structures of class and privilege that was suppressing freedom or opportunity for many who were common folks.
So....enter 2020....and another round in the conflict over CGL. And the Province of BC as much as others as respecting the UN...signs UN DRIP into law. All of a sudden....the past and the present disconnect of action catches up. And people witness the horror of what happened in Northern BC. And the people sharing it with the world? Scared at the level of force used against them. So we, as many, were called to witness. Either in person or via social media...we witnessed.
How could this happen in 2020? Why now?
Now...back to sovereignty, which pulls into it...right relationship. When Canada, BC, and multinational corporations do not have guidance on what is the "right relationship", we see what has always been done. We see in the vacuum of process and guidance...boorishness and dismissiveness. No dignity...no real peace. Lack of respect even for ...land title.
BC has known about the hollow claim of title without treaties since 1997. Even with treaties in other parts of Canada...in areas where fishing and land use rights date back to before Confederation in 1867, we still see infractions and violations. Why? Because while we have rights, in a country where we have courts, we must, if the matter is civil and interpretative, pursue enforcement of those rights, in courts, and that fight is expensive and long. So..."you have rights" comes back to those who can afford to fight for them. Many average common people can't, so unopposed, they get away with it.
Protest demonstrations and civil disobedience is deciding to refuse to comply with the status quo under law because it lacks justice...or better, right relationship.
At this point it is not just about the righteousness of a pipeline or if this will make climate change worse or better. Right relationship is about what is right to a people that have not settled with the pipeline company, and talking about it with the company is not consent. Even before that, they did take the court process steps. Both sides.
But....the UN DRIP guidance gives clear respectful language to a major vacuum. And opens up...a deeper examination about the contracts and resource extraction sharing, on how to do that with respect in balance with the differential of power on economic or privilege grounds to Indigenous peoples.
It is possible to do business well. We know of projects where respect to Indigenous people was built in. But without enforcement...or now using litigation to negotiate...we have more problems with right relationship.
Right relationship is a concept worth pursuing. It starts with restoring and reconciling relationships in your personal circle first, wherever possible or right. If the damage is too deep, live and let live may be in order. But one thing I have learned about subversion and disruption, and especially when someone or a group is opposed, is that failing to address the issues before it happens results in addressing the issues after it happens, and it costs more. But addressing those issues has to happen.
The attitude one can choose in addressing it is anger, or patience. But relationship requires parties to act in good faith, and with integrity. Yes, those are values...but if we are going to talk about respecting rights...it has to start with principles guiding standards. White settlers who refuse to acknowledge history as reviewed in light of the residential schools and other traumas, could at least admit they have no idea what it's like to be Indigneous in Canada or grow up that way. And that perhaps....they need to listen. And learn. What I can see though...is that the sovereignty is not in question.
While the people whose land this conflict started are patient, I am not as sure the rest of the people of Canada are for real actions of reconciliation, perhaps in part because of the imbalance of power and authority and a lack of right relationship. Still, it is a guiding principle that as a druid, a journey of many lifetimes may be needed. And this is source of new explorations moving forward.
A good legal history and explanation of the unique position BC is in within Canada, see this link.
https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/index/articles/438.php?fbclid=IwAR01bZJ0-XUPQxjI1lm6y8xhbwKqK1A7ITFM_5JlKMccTrcPt1DrfvftkUchttps://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/index/articles/438.php?fbclid=IwAR01bZJ0-XUPQxjI1lm6y8xhbwKqK1A7ITFM_5JlKMccTrcPt1DrfvftkUc
Comments
Post a Comment