Protests supporting Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief’s opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline have been taking place in Vancouver and across the country over the past week. Photo Dan Toulgoet
Letter: Columnist didn't tell the full Wet'suwet'en story
Editor:
Re: Greens in tough without Weaver, Opinion
In Keith Baldrey's recent op-ed, he made statements that are misleading and need clarification. He says that a “few hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation ... are leading an attempt to kill or reroute a natural gas pipeline through their traditional territory (even though their nation's elected council supports it)."
Then he says "every First Nation along the pipeline route … supports it."
There are five hereditary chiefs who are against the pipeline. They represent all five clans of the Wet'suwet'en nation who are uniformly against the pipeline through their unceded territory.
The Supreme Court of Canada in its Delgamuukw decision unequivocally stated that the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs hold authority on their unceded land.
The First Nations that support the pipeline are Indian Act reserves. The elected chiefs of these reserves hold authority only over reserve land as stated in the Indian Act, not on unceded territory. At the risk of being repetitive, I must emphasize that the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs hold authority on their unceded territory.
Mr. Baldrey should tell the whole story, not just the part that justifies his chosen narrative.
Andrew Phillips, New Westminster
Re: Greens in tough without Weaver, Opinion
In Keith Baldrey's recent op-ed, he made statements that are misleading and need clarification. He says that a “few hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation ... are leading an attempt to kill or reroute a natural gas pipeline through their traditional territory (even though their nation's elected council supports it)."
Then he says "every First Nation along the pipeline route … supports it."
There are five hereditary chiefs who are against the pipeline. They represent all five clans of the Wet'suwet'en nation who are uniformly against the pipeline through their unceded territory.
The Supreme Court of Canada in its Delgamuukw decision unequivocally stated that the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs hold authority on their unceded land.
The First Nations that support the pipeline are Indian Act reserves. The elected chiefs of these reserves hold authority only over reserve land as stated in the Indian Act, not on unceded territory. At the risk of being repetitive, I must emphasize that the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs hold authority on their unceded territory.
Mr. Baldrey should tell the whole story, not just the part that justifies his chosen narrative.
Andrew Phillips, New Westminster
No comments:
Post a Comment