At the start of Douglas Adams’ classic Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Arthur Dent (Arther Philip Dent) wakes up with a hangover and a bulldozer about to knock his house down. With him inside.
Once his head clears from the hangover and upset by this turn of events, he winds up—15 seconds later—laying in front of the bulldozer advancing up his garden path.
The plans for the bypass being built for which his house is to be sacrificed, are stored in the cellar of the local planning office where there are no lights and no stairs and on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard.”
The situation is resolved a short time later when the earth itself is destroyed to make way for an hyperspace bypass. (I mentioned it was a comedy, right?)
Not quite so funny are the protests happening around the country in support of the Wet’suwet’en, and the reactions to them.
The issue is complex and—like the caribou issue before it—has been brewing for a long time.
We’ll start our story with a fellow named Delgamuukw. We could go back even farther, but in 1997, this case contained the first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title.
Ever since Europeans first arrived in BC in the 1800s, the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples had attempted to negotiate jurisdiction, recognition of ownership, and self-government.
But at the time, the province refused to participate in the land claims process.
In 1984, logging began on the traditional Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territory without permission from the hereditary chiefs, and so began a court battle that is at the heart of the current pipeline dispute.
This was only two years after the Constitutional Act declared “The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
When the logging began, Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs (including Delgamuukw) claimed “unextinguished Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over territory in northwest British Columbia totalling 58,000 square kilometres, and compensation for land already alienated.”
The province argued they had no right or interest in the land.
It took more than a decade, but The court found that the provincial government had no right to extinguish the Indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral territories.
To put that more simply, traditional land held by the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en is still their land.
Here’s the kicker; while is seems the Wet’suwet’en are being unreasonable, are not wanting a pipeline on their land, the Wet’suwet’en themselves proposed an alternative route that wouldn’t go through “ecologically pristine and culturally important areas.”
The alternate route would have been 89 km longer and more costly (to the tune of about $800-million), but would have followed areas already disturbed by the Highway 16 corridor and away from salmon spawning areas along the Skeena river.
If Coastal GasLink were to change the route, it might add a year on to the process and mean consulting with four other First Nations. The implication is to re-route is too much effort. That pursuing this course of action is better/easier/faster.
Meanwhile, protesters in support of the Wet’suwet’en are creating chaos across the country, shutting down railroads, road- ways and cities in a show of solidarity for the Wet’suwet’en.
This has led to some people calling for violence against the protesters, posting pictures of snow clearing trains with giant spinning blades in the front and suggesting these could be used to clear the protesters.
But here’s the thing. The same laws, attitudes and cultural norms that allow you to call Trudeau “A treasonous POS” without getting arrested are the same ones that protect protesters—even illegal ones.
We hold free speech to be important, though we are a culture that imposes some “reasonable” limits to what is considered appropriate. Hate speech, and obscenity (which, strangely enough, includes false claims about medication intended to enhance virility, as well as child pornography) are both verboten, for instance.
Which brings us back to the protesters. And the question: what happens when the rights granted you are taken away?
What do you do when there’s a bulldozer heading for your house and you were just about to have breakfast? Do you just sit there and allow the house to come down around you, or do you get up and go lay down in front of it, in the hopes of stopping what is happening, of being able to talk a bit more. In the hopes of finding some alternative? Because, let’s not forget, there are alternatives out there.
I’m not trying to say “these folks are in the right” and “these folks are in the wrong.” Rather, I’m trying to say “this is a complex issue, with a lot more moving parts than people realize.” And rather than just choose sides based on our political lines, maybe we should try and understand the issues motivating the people on the other side.
There’s an old poem, written by Mary Lathrap that says:
Pray, don’t find fault with the man that limps,
Or stumbles along the road.
Unless you have worn the moccasins he wears,
Or stumbled beneath the same load.
There may be tears in his soles that hurt Though hidden away from view.
The burden he bears placed on your back May cause you to stumble and fall, too.
Don’t sneer at the man who is down today Unless you have felt the same blow That caused his fall or felt the shame
That only the fallen know.
You may be strong, but still the blows That were his, unknown to you in the same
way,
May cause you to stagger and fall, too.
