I always knew that, as we age, most people tend to get a bit more reactionary, a bit more (dare I say it?) conservative. That's not to say that we all turn into died-in-the-wool, blue-rinse, archetypal tories; we just get a little less radical than we were in our youth, a little more resistant to change, a little less patient and forgiving of radical youth. Whatever the reason for it, it does seem to be a fact of life (with some exceptions of course), which, in a world that is gradually ageing, is a scary thought.
So, maybe it shouldn't surprise me that, while I might once have been fully supportive of the disruptive indigenous protests occurring throughout Canada in support of the Wet'suwet'en opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline project in BC, I do not feel myself able to support such a protest with any enthusiasm. Maybe from an environmental point of view the pipeline is indeed a bad idea. But the idea of a handful of (mainly indigenous, with the usual rent-a-crowd bunch of anarchist types) protesters holding hostage commercial and personal transportation across most of the country sits awkwardly with me, and just seems a bit wrong. It also potentially risks putting Indigenous-Settler relations back decades.
It doesn't help that I am keenly aware that most First Nations, including the Wet'suwet'en themselves and all the First Nations councils along the proposed route, are actually in favour of the pipeline and the money and job opportunities such a development might bring to some poor, struggling indigenous communities. The democratically-elected band councils, are in favour of it; it is only the much more traditional hereditary clan and house chiefs who are opposing it, and even some Wet'suwet'en house leaders were in favour of it until they were unceremonially ousted from their (hereditary) positions by other house leaders. How is that possible, and how is it being condoned?
For their part TC Energy, the company behind the Coastal GasLink pieline, has done everything right: the project has passed the government's stringent environmental assessment, they have consulted and obtained consent from all 20 of the indigenous communities along its route, and they have had the project officially designated as in the public interest.
We should not lose sight of the fact that it is in support of these non-elected Wet'suwet'en hereditary leaders that the current protests across the country are being held. To support the views of an ornery, "traditional" few over the democratic majority? That can't be right, no matter what the environmental considerations might be. The other Indigenous protestors around the country (and their non-Indigenous hangers-on) are guilty, to my mind, of an over-simplistic reflex response, without giving the entire issue, and the wishes of the Wet'suwet'en people as a whole, full consideration.
The Wet'suwet'en people themselves are hopelessly split over the issue. It should be said that, to their credit, a couple of brave Wet'suwet'en hereditary sub-chiefs have come out publicly to say that the five hereditary chiefs that instigated the dispute and the protests do not actually speak for the Wet'suwet'en people, and are not following any traditional laws, but are probably only in it for themselves.
If nothing else, Indigenous people in general need to sort out who actually represents them. Some Indigenous groups have made some attempts to synthesize and rationalize their traditional and elected leaderships, but it has proven a messy and fraught process. As we see in the current Wet'suwet'en case, the two different branches are often leagues apart in their views and policies. Believers in the inherent wisdom of traditional elders (who I would guess are mainly the traditional elders themselves!), say that elected band councils are part of a "white" system imposed by the Indian Act. But I just bet that most Indigenous people, given a choice, would prefer a representative who is democratically responsible and accountable to the regular folk, and who can be judged on their merits and their policies. Otherwise, it is like Canada agreeing to be led by the unelected Governor-General and Lieutenant-Generals rather than by the elected government. Traditional does not always mean better, and Indigenous people deserve the opportunity to emerge from the dark ages of would-be kings and family dynasties.
The powers that be - from the police to the provincial and federal governments - are being very cagey and pussyfooting around the issue, despite the issue of a court order which would legally justify their wading in and turfing out the protesters. This is partly in order to avoid any chance of another Ipperwash or Oka or Caledonia, but partly also due to a new unwillingness to be seen to be crossing the will of the original inhabitants of this country, with whom we settlers are supposed to be pursuing a reconciliation. It is fraught with sensitive and delicate repercussions with which no-one wants to be seen to be ignoring.
So, how do we square that with ignoring the wishes of the majority of the country's indigenous people? It's an insoluble no-win situation, which Tories in non-governing positions like Andrew Scheer make light of when they complain that the government is doing nothing and letting the country go to rack and ruin out of weakness and ineptitude. That is just a reminder that Scheer is not able to understand the subtleties surrounding high-level political negotiations, and should make us very glad that he lost the last election.
No comments:
Post a Comment