issue 19// vol 46 opinions // no. 15

Crowns law versus First Nations law

> A ‘peaceful’ resolution can never happen with this kind of crisis

EG Manilag
Staff Writer

 

pm Minister Justin Trudeau said after
a cabinet meeting that he will finda
“quick” and “peaceful” resolution to the
recent Wet'suwet'en crisis. However, there
are many reasons why this crisis will never
achieve a peaceful or quick resolution.

But first, let’s start with a brief overview of
what’s going on with the Wet'suwet'en crisis.
On December 31, 2019 the RCMP

were called to enforce a BC Supreme
Court injunction approved on behalf of
Coastal GasLink; their intentions were
to establish a natural-gas pipeline in the
unceded Wet'suwet'en territory. Although
the RCMP and the gas company were in
the legal position to enter the territory,
this sparked conflict due to the fact
that First Nations have a separate legal
system long forgotten and neglected by
Canadian governance. Today, as protests
and rail blockades continue, a call for
reconciliation and resolution is still at bay.
Now, this situation leaves PM
Trudeau with little room to maneuver;
whatever his proposed solution might
be, it is still going to cause some ugly
repercussions. If he chooses to acquiesce
to First Nation laws, he will have no choice
but to deal with the legal pressures of the
corporate giants. If he instead chooses to
follow Crown law however, he will then be

faced with enormous pressures from the
First Nations people... which has already
garnered historic levels of global outcry.

Ina situation like this, I think the
ultimate solution would be to make a
binding law that would unify both the
Crown and the First Nations’ law; in terms
of laws and jurisdictions, two rules of law
ina land simply won't work.

The Wet'suwet'en conflict is more
akin toa clash between countries of power
than a disagreement between neighboring
provinces. From a realist perspective,

international relations, laws, and politics
are all anarchic, as there is no single law
that binds them all.

Also, countries of power clearly
aren't ready to give up their pride nor
compromise. Although this political
perspective is widely criticized as cynic
and evil, it is important to note that
international conflicts are prevalent
because, again, there are no laws that
completely unify the world.

First Nations protest groups are
sick and tired of this kind of treatment.

  
   

  
     
   

E

D

rs

ETE NDERS We

  

ey

eh

 

ha eat po

 

Thirty-one transgressions

» Censorship is unfortunately becoming more commonplace

Matthew Fraser
Opinions Editor

 

Il too often the internet is a dirty place.

The distance bridged by screens and
keyboards—coupled with the anonymity
of cyberspace—can encourage people to
say things they know to be morally wrong,
untrue, or discriminatory.

Simultaneously, prolonged exposure
to this intellectual cesspool can motivate
one to become a censor: a rogue vigilante
meting out an order for silence from
transgressors of ideological orthodoxy. It
is not uncommon, then, for an article or
tweet that states a position contrary to a
certain group to be forcefully taken down.

There is one conversation whose
lines have been clearly drawn and whose
battle flags are well known. Between
November 2018 and January 2019, Harry
Miller crossed those lines 31 times. During
that time, Mr. Miller posted 31 gender-
critical tweets, to the offense of a British
transgender woman identified in court
proceedings as “Mrs. B.”

Miller was soon contacted via phone
(and at his job site) by the Humberside
police department, who then intimated to
him that his tweets were a “non-crime hate
incident,’ and that further tweets could
result in real persecution. The first question
we need to ask is, what did he tweet?

Well, he tweeted about trans woman
and former Olympian Caitlin Jenner.

He tweeted a series of snarky remarks
about misgendering, and a joke about the

CC

What exactly is the purpose of a
“non-crime hate incident?”

 

 

Surrendering this fight is simply not

an option for them. Likewise, Coastal
GasLink is ready to fight for their rights to
continue their pipeline because they know
they are legally backed by the Crown.

This all boils down to PM Trudeau
and the federal governments impasse on
whether to recognize Indigenous laws or
follow the Crown’s law. But, regardless
of what is chosen, they will not be free
from consequences. Ultimately, a true and
peaceful resolution can never be achieved
with this kind of crisis.

transphobia of cancer. None of his tweets
indicated violence. They could be argued
to show prejudice, but they could also

be argued to simply be a dark and wry
humour—purposefully teasing towards
those who are known to be aggressively
staunch in their stance on the topic.

A judge ruled that those tweets were
not in fact warrant for police to threaten
Miller (a former officer himself) and that
Miller had only expressed free speech, well
within reasonable bounds. Miller himself
admitted his tweets were gender critical,
and as it was stated earlier, that his tweets
did not constitute any form of crime.

So, what exactly is the purpose of
a “non-crime hate incident,” and how
critical can one be before it is determined
to be hate? When the lines are drawn by
dogmatists, when any and every infraction
is too far, then the issue has changed.

It worryingly crosses the line into the
enforcement of thought orthodoxy. There
is nothing dangerous or violence-inciting
in saying testicular cancer is transphobic
when it affects women; yes the observation
may be considered rude or very cold, but
it’s clearly not a crime to say it.

As simple as it may be to say any
comment is “punching down,’ the reality
is never so clear and is extremely nuanced.
Many comments on all ends of the
political spectrum could be argued to be
punching down in some sense. Though
there are many tweets that deserve police
attention, this was a case of over policing
for certain.