Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED – The protesters are the essence of spoiled brats … demanding, despotic, discontent, ill mannered, unsatisfied and useless


Our Prime Minister was on television tonight. He had been asked question related to the Canada wide “protests” in respect of the British Columbia pipeline under construction for Coastal GasLink.

Mr. Trudeau stated that “everyone has the right to peaceful protest.”


Since when?

Where is that articulated in our legal system? We have the freedoms of belief and expression and can tell the world that we disagree with building a pipeline or anything else if we wish to.

We are not entitled to a public platform to express our views. If many of us want to get together and hold a parade to express our common views, we apply for permit and obey regulations to hold our parade.

Holding an impromptu “protest” on busy streets during rush hour is not “peaceful protest”.

Camping on a railway track in Bellville, Ontario -- about 4,600 kilometres and 45 hours driving from where the pipeline is under construction -- and disrupting passenger and rail traffic, is not “peaceful protest”, it is anarchy.

Our freedoms and rights have limits. We cannot exercise freedoms and rights that infringe on anyone else’s freedoms and rights. 

The common law expression is “A’s rights end at the tip of B’s nose.”

If “A” exercises rights that infringe on “B”’s normal activities “A” is no longer protected under rights legislation. “A” has crossed a line and is now acting illegally. A’s freedoms of belief and expression do not give him licence to sermonize in “B”’s living room.

Media misrepresentation of the issues is not helpful.

News anchors refer to indigenous lands which is incorrect. Lands claimed by hereditary chiefs are lands in dispute; no settlement has been made and the claim does not constitute ownership.


“Protesters” have been interviewed and come up with some pretty bizarre claims such as … “We were here long before confederation, so we do not recognize colonial laws and tribe councils.”

That has not been thought through. That is a claim to separate sovereignty. It is a claim to give up all current relations with Canada and operate as a foreign nation.

That means hard borders between the land claimed, and Canada … no one in or out without passing through customs, loss of Canadian passports, no access to Canadian currency, and so on. The disputed territory would have to create and enforce its own laws and create its own economy. There is no evidence that the people the hereditary chiefs claim to represent would support such drastic action.

Our Prime Minister is so steeped in politically correct ‘progressiveness’ that he cannot call a spade a spade and deal with it for fear of being accused of demeaning dark-skinned people - again. We are stuck living in a bad farce presentation in some obscure revue. We can be forgiven for wondering how we wound up on a different planet where everything is backward and upside down.

The root of all this is the federal departments of Indigenous Services Canada and Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is difficult to find out what they spend, but a couple of hours sleuthing revealed expenditures of about $16 billion. That does not include operational costs of Indigenous Services which I could not find.

Those are not sums spent on indigenous people because they include operational costs – offices, personnel and expenses. That is a lot of bureaucracy and jobs to protect. Having Indigenous Services in charge of indigenous reconciliation is one of the worst cases of conflict of interest imaginable.

Indigenous people have legitimate concerns we need to address. They have been badly treated for decades and deserve better. Indian Affairs is a big part of the problem. We cannot fix problems under the Indian Act and using Indian Affairs. We must admit we have failed and reset the clock.                          

At the very least we need a Reconciliation Agency independent of government and reporting to Parliament. Agency members should represent the business and social community and be appointed by the Governor General.

We need adult to adult negotiations with indigenous people to resolve issues.

Indigenous people must decide who will represent them in negotiations. The notion that a handful of hereditary chiefs in northern British Columbia speak for, or represent, the entire indigenous community across the nation is breathtakingly insane.

Our government is allowing these Chiefs to drive the reconciliation agenda and Canadians are fed up with the spineless twits in charge.


John Feldsted
Political Commentator, Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Baldrey: 2024 meets 1991? How B.C. election history could repeat itself (Times Colonist)

NOTE ... not the original image from Keith Baldrey's op/ed 1991 BC general election -- Wikipedia   A veteran NDP cabinet minister stopped me in the legislature hallway last week and revealed what he thinks is the biggest vulnerability facing his government in the fall provincial election. It’s not housing, health care, affordability or any of the other hot button issues identified by pollsters. "I think we are way too complacent,” he told me. “Too many people on our side think winning elections are easy.” He referenced the 1991 election campaign as something that could repeat itself. What was supposed to be an easy NDP victory then almost turned into an upset win for the fledgling BC Liberal Party. Indeed, the parallels between that campaign and the coming fall contest are striking ... CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more