Wet'suwet'en Nation and the Pipeline - A Solution to the Protest/Conflict

The protests that are occurring in scattered parts of the country cannot, within themselves solve the problem. I think the protesters are demanding that the Canadian Government do something - but the government cannot. Even if the government withdrew its permission to build the pipeline - I suspect that the Coastal GasLink would sue the government for billions of dollars and win. I would really prefer it if my tax dollars did not go directly into a private company's coffers. I am not sure if all of those who are protesting would be prepared to pay any additional taxes to make up for the shortfall in the federal budget.

It may be somewhat paradoxical, but if we agree that the courts have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of Indigenous claims, then we must accept that that same court system has the right to impose limitations on those claims.

However, I wondered if there could be some way for the federal government to "encourage" Coastal GasLink (including giving them some money) to take a three-month hiatus from building its pipeline. This break would hopefully reduce tensions and allow time for the Wet'suwet'en Nation to resolve their internal conflicts as to who gets to make which decisions. Then, after the three months - regardless of the collective decision that is made -we all accept it and move on. If the pipeline does not get built - then the company and the nation that has rejected them can work something out.

It is none of my business - not is it any business of any protesters in central Canada - regardless of their ethnic roots, or the BC Teacher's Federation, or any other white-dominated group as to what happens within that territory. We do not get a say. In fact, outsiders trying to be supportive may, in the long run, only make harder for that community to find a consensus.

So rather than protesting for some nebulous outcome - perhaps we should be demanding that our government create the space needed for a community to address its concerns - without us sticking our noses into that process.

Wet’suwet’en - the Right to Protest

I believe it is a given in Canada that anyone has the right to protest a government action that is wrong. In fact, it could be argued that it is our obligation to stand up to defend what is important to us. I think, however, that there are some basic principles of protesting that are not always understood by those who decide to block traffic or engage in other forms of protest.

The first rule is that the right to express yourself in public by breaking the law i.e. blocking access to a port or standing on railroad tracks does not exempt that person from being arrested and charged with a crime. Protesting would be far less effective if there were no real consequences to the act. People know they are breaking the law - they should not complain when they are arrested. To suggest that they do not recognize the right of the police to lay charges is absurd. If one decides to break the law to attract attention to a specific issue, one needs to realize that the people whose attention is attracted - i.e. commuters - are going to be bloody pissed off.

Secondly, I think it is important that the issue that is being protested is clear. In the case of protesters in various centres in Canada declaring their support for the Wet’suwet’en elders - I am not sure anyone is clear as to what is being demanded.  On the face of it, it appears as if the hereditary chiefs are just saying no to any pipeline - or do they have other demands? If the elder's main agenda is to hold the land sacred, preventing any development - I can understand that. 

It would also be useful to know whether or not, within the Wet’suwet’en territory if others agreed with them. Protesters need to know they are supporting the right side of the debate. While there is relatively little information coming from the elders or anyone else, there have been reports that those who support the pipeline are being publically shamed and accused of being a colonializer (https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/ coastal-gaslink-pipeline-lng-canada-1.5436837). A more open dialogue would be more productive.

And finally, as a corollary to the above - protesters should know what the expected outcome is. I do not know what is being demanded. If I am going to stand on railroad tracks in Ontario, in the middle of February blocking trains - I would want to know what needs to happen before I can get off of those tracks. Is there ever going to be an end to this protest?

There is only so much energy to become engaged in someone else's issues- our attention spans are, unfortunately, far too short. Protesters, rather than being swept up in the emotion of the times and the feel-good nature of supporting a righteous cause, need to be sure that the battle they have picked is one that they understand.

Shopping and the Plague

Shopping for me is not a social experience.  It is not that I dislike shopping ( although spending money is not something that I do easily) - generally, it is just something that I need to get it over with as quickly as possible. I neither seek nor expect social interactions while shopping. In fact, I generally find conversations while buying food or clothing irritating and disruptive. My singular goal while shopping is to get in and out as fast as possible. A good food shopping trip for me is at least partially defined by being back home by 9:00 AM without having said a word except for the obligatory pleasantries at the check-out counter.

I was therefore surprised when on my last shopping excursion while standing in the soup aisle of my local Superstore, a man beside me said " stocking up for the plague?"

I said " had not thought about it"

He said " they can't stop it in China - they won't be able to stop it here either"

I said " well I guess what will be- will be"

He said "they say you should buy stuff that you would eat anyways"

I said "I guess"

He walked off in one direction - I in another.

It was a disturbing experience, not just because my thoughts were interrupted by a stranger talking to me, but also because someone was actually stocking up extra food - getting ready for the time when he would have to hide in his house from random victims of the newest Coronavirus. It was also a little bit scary when I realized that for a brief moment, I too wondered if I should be buying extra brown rice.

I wonder how many of those types of conversations are happening in my community and across Canada. I wonder if people are actually buying food to put in their basements, their garages or under their beds for the time when our health care system is overwhelmed by the number of people who have been infected by this virus. I wonder how many people are actually truly concerned and worried.

I think those folks need to take a deep breath and relax just a little bit. There are, of course, reasons for concern. The virus is contagious and it can be deadly. Clearly, anyone who has been in contact with a person who has visited that particular region of China should be concerned. I would be even more concerned if I was on a cruise boat having to breathe the recycled air of people who are developing symptoms but I think most Canadians are reasonably safe.

As of yesterday - .000533% of people in China have died from this disease. We have no way of knowing how many of those individuals were receiving any kind of medical care. That percentage is approximately the same percentage as the number of Canadians who were killed in automobile accidents in 2017 (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehiclesafety/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2017.html).

Do we need to be cautious - of course? Should we monitor the situations - yes. Do we need to practice safe health practices - always? Do we need to panic - not yet?

Gun Control

This morning, as I was reading the news while eating breakfast, I came across a startling fact - or at least it was startling to me. According to the article, firearms are used in 80% of all suicides in Canada. I knew the percentage was high, but I did not realize that a firearm was used in eight out of every ten successful suicides. That seemed to me to be an absurdly high percentage. So I checked. I was reasonably sure that either I had read the number wrong or that the author had misquoted/misused a statistic. I checked - and all of the articles that I read including those from government sources, professional journals and the public press all say the same thing. What is even more alarming is that this is old news from three years ago. Why is it even being debated?

Every time someone, whether it be a politician or someone at the local Tim Horton's argues that laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and therefore Canada does not need gun control misses the point. Because guns are available - ordinary citizens - our relatives, our neighbours, our fellow workers who cannot see a way out of their situation may, if they have access to a firearm, use it to kill themselves. There is clear proof that when access to firearms is restricted, people are less likely to do so (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332684).

Restricting access to firearms will not prevent criminals from bringing guns across a border, it will not stop people from shooting at each other to prove their manliness nor will it reduce the amount of other gun-related criminal acts - but it may make it more difficult for desperate people to commit suicide -especially on impulse.  Should we not take some preventative action to make it harder for someone to hurt themselves?

We "make" people wear seatbelts because it may save their lives. Most of us comply with this law in spite of the fact that we have never been in an accident where seat belts have been needed. Can we not do the same for gun control?

To those who argue that it is their right to have a gun (which is not true in Canada) and that the government needs to stop interfering in their lives, need to stop being so self-centred and think about how to make the world a little bit safer for everyone.

Consequences for Speaking "a Truth"

Senator Lynn Beyak has made the news again. She is the senator from Ontario who allowed statements to be posted on her social media pages about Indigenous Canadians that were hurtful and racist. She has defended those statements. The Senate last year suspended her without pay until she apologized, took the statements off of her pages and participated in a course to help her better understand the consequences of the Residential School System. It appears as if that while she has taken down the offensive statement from her social media pages, her apology was insufficient and she was kicked out of the course due to her unwillingness to listen or learn. She may be suspended again.

There is no doubt that Ms. Beyak holds opinions that are historically inaccurate, offensive and racist. But on the assumption that she actually believes the absurdities that come out of her mouth, part of me almost wants to admire someone who is prepared to risk public shaming for stating her beliefs. I would agree that people should not be paid out of the public purse when they clearly hold views that are just plain wrong. However, if that was the standard to which all elected and non-elected members of Parliament were held - I suspect that there are a number of folks in Ottawa who should be suspended until they apologized for their comments and took a course or two to understand how hurtful their comments have been.

For example - all of those politicians who think that abortion is wrong but that we don't need to adequately support single-parent families need to be suspended. Similarly, politicians who suggest that sexual orientation is a choice and that it can be "corrected" need to have their pay stopped until they agree to and demonstrate the capacity to be more accepting of other people. And all of those members of the Quebec Legislature who voted in favour of the ban on any civil servant wearing a head covering need to have their pay stopped immediately.  In fact, the list of people who disagree with me (and numerous other people) may be almost endless. If I am not the right person to decide who gets to speak their version of the truth - who is?

Ms. Beyak is wrong. She needs to be held accountable for her opinions and her willingness to state them in public. But should she be censured and deprived of her income because she holds different views that what is acceptable? We do not fire other people who say harmful things - perhaps we should but we don't. I accept that making racist comments about Indigenous peoples is particularly inappropriate, but there needs to be a consistent approach. To only consequence some people for their public opinions and not others is wrong and dangerous.

There is a risk that it will appear as if Ms. Beyak is being consequenced not because of her opinions but because she refused to back down. That could make her a hero - which she is most certainly not.