Bruce Clark: About The Pipeline

14 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2018-12-28 19:21

NDPP

About the Pipeline - by Bruce Clark

"What one needs to know if one is interested in the pipeline controversy is the significance of the title of the book Ongoing Genocide Caused by Judicial Suppression of the 'Existing' Aboriginal Rights. The adjective 'existing' acquired prominence on April 17, 1982, when Queen Elizabeth II signed Canada's new constitution into law. That constitution concerns aboriginal rights because of its section 35(1) which enacts, 'The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.'

'Existing' signifies the paramountcy of the Indian law in force as at the day the Queen signed. What the book establishes is two things. First that the courts have behaved fraudulently toward Indians since the mid-19th century. Secondly, the case law that came into force after April 17, 1982, tried to change the law as it existed on that watershed day. This newer law [like 'Delgamuukw'] is inferior to the older law because of the paramountcy given to the old law by section 35(1).

This brings us to the critical point from the pipeline's perspective. The newer law says that all the Indians have is a 'right to be consulted' before development can occur on their land. The older law says that no development can occur until the Indians have signed a treaty. No treaty has been signed. But the Indians were consulted. Under the older law the Indians enjoy the power of veto. Under the newer law the Indians enjoy nothing.

Which is why they have an injunction against them, because the assumption is that the newer law rules. The assumption is in error. That is why it is fair to say Ongoing Genocide [is] Caused by Judicial Suppression of the 'Existing' Aboriginal Rights. But you have to read the book really to understand first that fraud is normal for the courts in Indian affairs, and secondly that another fraud is happening in the pipeline situation..."

Sat, 2019-01-12 18:24

NDPP

A Thought

"It is encouraging to find the world watching. Until now the ongoing genocide occurred without great public concern. The crucial, hopeful, brilliant, courageous, deeply sad and simply right book by Dr Roland Chrisjohn and Shaunessy McKay entitled Dying To Please You: Indigenous Suicide in Contemporary Canada explains the WHY: it is the growing awareness of the global masses to the ravages of late stage capitalism.

The hereditary Indian leadership, unlike the collaborating Indian Act leadership, still think and feel differently and it is the presence of capitalism's excess that oppresses them onto genocide and ecocide. My own book Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the 'Existing' Aboriginal Rights explains the HOW:

The judiciary is capitalism's bourgeois agent in spite of the law, not because of the law. The constitution enacts the Indians 'should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession' of such parts of Canada as 'have not been ceded to, or purchased by Us.' Regardless, the judges in lockstep issue injunctions paving capitalism's unconstitutional final way."

Bruce Clark - January 12, 2019

Wed, 2019-01-16 13:35

NDPP

The 'Lynch Mob' Nature of Canadian Colonialism

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/jul01int.html

"On the Queen, Gustafsen Lake, Delgamuukw and the BC lawyers' 'mafia'."

Fri, 2019-05-24 14:47

NDPP

The Sovereign Indigneous Power of Veto in Canada

https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/05/the-sovereign-indigenous-power-of-vet...

"...The sovereign Indigenous power of veto in Canada over land development, then, consists in the right to say 'no' to the making of a treaty surrendering their beneficial interest (actual possession and exclusive use) in all land 'not ceded to or purchased by Us' within the meaning of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

The Indigeous peoples are entitled to veto developments by vetoing the applications for their consent to the use of the land without which development can not take place. Development is settlement and the proclamation orders settlers off land not proven by the Crown or its third party grantees to be ceded."

No Treaty = NO Jurisdiction

Fri, 2019-05-24 17:40

Pondering

Since 2006, the Aboriginal population has grown by 42.5%—more than four times the growth rate of the non-Aboriginal population over the same period. According to population projections, the number of Aboriginal people will continue to grow quickly. In the next two decades, the Aboriginal population is likely to exceed 2.5 million persons.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

Not genocide. The opposite is happening. (Criminal yes, genocidal no)

Fri, 2019-05-24 21:20

(Reply to #5) #6

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Since 2006, the Aboriginal population has grown by 42.5%—more than four times the growth rate of the non-Aboriginal population over the same period. According to population projections, the number of Aboriginal people will continue to grow quickly. In the next two decades, the Aboriginal population is likely to exceed 2.5 million persons.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

Not genocide. The opposite is happening. (Criminal yes, genocidal no)

Are there any victims of abuse anywhere that you can have any feelings for? You are basically saying that given the resilience of the indigenous people of this land in resisting our genocidal actions we should not really call it genocide after all it is not working as well as it could.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group", including the systematic harm or killing of its members, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group.[4][5]

Sat, 2019-05-25 01:05

NDPP

And all of the above are enabled by usurpation-as-genocide, which continues today.

Sat, 2019-05-25 01:24

(Reply to #7) #8

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Since 2006, the Aboriginal population has grown by 42.5%—more than four times the growth rate of the non-Aboriginal population over the same period. According to population projections, the number of Aboriginal people will continue to grow quickly. In the next two decades, the Aboriginal population is likely to exceed 2.5 million persons.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

Not genocide. The opposite is happening. (Criminal yes, genocidal no)

Are there any victims of abuse anywhere that you can have any feelings for? You are basically saying that given the resilience of the indigenous people of this land in resisting our genocidal actions we should not really call it genocide after all it is not working as well as it could.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group", including the systematic harm or killing of its members, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group.[4][5]

I agree that our actions in the past were genocidal but not that they are now. I agree indigenous people remain abused but there is a ton of room between being abused, even to a criminal extent, and actual genocide.

Sat, 2019-05-25 18:26

kropotkin1951

Pondering you are entitled to your opinions. I post after you merely to ensure that other people reading this site don't think your opinions are based on actual legal precedence. That is why I post definitions. You can define words anyway you want but I prefer to stick to the proper definitions when dealing with legal matters because they are what are called terms of art, i.e. a term that has a specialized meaning in a particular field or profession.

Sat, 2019-05-25 18:33

(Reply to #9) #10

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering you are entitled to your opinions. I post after you merely to ensure that other people reading this site don't think your opinions are based on actual legal precedence. That is why I post definitions. You can define words anyway you want but I prefer to stick to the proper definitions when dealing with legal matters because they are what are called terms of art, i.e. a term that has a specialized meaning in a particular field or profession.

Which can be accomplished in a civil manner.

Sat, 2019-05-25 18:42

#11

kropotkin1951

To reiterate I am a little testy because you are basically saying that given the resilience of the indigenous people of this land in resisting our genocidal actions we should not really call it genocide anymore.

I know its hard as a settler to be treated with the kind of disregard that indigenous people receive on a daily basis every where in this great land of ours. If I am not nice enough in answering your posts that dismiss the people who are most oppressed in our country, too bad so sad.

Sat, 2019-05-25 18:48

(Reply to #11) #12

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To reiterate I am a little testy because you are basically saying that given the resilience of the indigenous people of this land in resisting our genocidal actions we should not really call it genocide anymore.

I know its hard as a settler to be treated with the kind of disregard that indigenous people receive on a daily basis every where in this great land of ours. If I am not nice enough in answering your posts that dismiss the people who are most oppressed in our country, too bad so sad.

Then I should think you would want to succeed rather than fail but if you want to embrace failure too bad so sad.

Mon, 2019-05-27 20:41

#13

kropotkin1951

I will just send you thoughts and prayers and hope they are enough to enlighten you.

Mon, 2019-05-27 22:21

#14

Pondering

That's an unusual approach for you but much appreciated.