Power and Force in Canada: Wet’suwet’en Blockades and Occupation

Credit: (CBC News/Google Images)

Written by: Morgana Adby

If you are looking for the legal and political context of this situation, you can find the background knowledge here.

Defenders and Leverage

Blockades and ‘illegal’ occupations are akin to labour strikes, in the sense that they hold hostage the priority of authorities in this country: productivity.

Note that the sovereignty of Indigenous nations has been repeatedly violated, especially in provinces like B.C. where most land, including big cities, is unceded. Legal precedents such as the Supreme Court ruling on Aboriginal title in the same area, affirms the use and occupation of unceded land as a validating Aboriginal title. However, the courts are a Canadian legal system, and although activists use them for legal disputes any legal ruling is one step abstracted from the human experiences.

To clarify, the legality is compelling and our legal system a legitimate authority. Our courts will need to increase clarity in moving forward. Reconciliation is largely dependent on the legal system recognizing Indigenous grievances as legitimate; from the missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people to disproportionate police violence.

That said, the injunction to remove Wet’suwet’en people from the pipeline route being enforced could have been the end of the story. But it is not, because of the blockades and occupations that halt productivity, so suddenly the Prime Minister decides that the issue is important enough to remain in the country.

Surely the left-wing block in B.C. would have still had marches in support, and some government officials would have reaffirmed their dedication to reconciliation. Eventually, the issue would be added to a long list of examples to be cited in political discussion.

It is only with the leverage that the momentum continues. Every relevant official in this country knows that there are consequences to ignoring the problem.

It is difficult to make the case that if the Mohawk blockade in Bellville was not so economically consequential the Minister of Indigenous Services would still be negotiating with them as equals. “There’s a lot more work to be done, and I have a few messages I need to go back to the prime minister with,” contributed to a public response that takes them seriously, in a way that land defenders in Wet’suwet’en territory were not afforded.

In short, movements like the Black Civil Rights or labour rights are successful when they find good leverage, and Wet’suwet’en self-governance is no exception. So, how do authorities respond?

At Gunpoint

On February 7th, 2020, a media account of the Gidimt’en clan posted a video showing four land defenders on a structure, asking an officer to stop pointing a gun on them.

The gun appears to be a rifle and can be seen pointed directly at the camera that one land defender is holding. Also in the video, some of the other police are speaking to what appears to be a media member with sound equipment.

One land defender says “They are making the media leave because they do not want them to see them pointing their gun at us. I have nothing, please take down your weapon,”.

This situation ended without loss of life, and the RCMP’s statement implies that there never should have been a concern in the first place.

 “The ERT member did not point the firearm at any protestor during the operation. The riflescope has a large objective lens which allows the viewer to observe people or objects without pointing a rifle at anyone,”.

This explanation is highly contested. The officers had binoculars. The police vastly outnumbered the land defenders, which appeared to be unarmed. The person who has the gun pointed directly at him was filming from a place with good visuals of officers, so it is reasonable to assume that they could see him and assess the risk the person posed.

So why use a firearm as a tool to look at someone?

“... it was unknown whether there were any other persons inside the structures of the camp area. Police officers cannot simply assume there are not threats in situations such as this,” an RCMP officer is quoted saying.

Hunting rifles are not uncommon in the area so it is reasonable for police to consider that risk but the same land defender quoted earlier explicitly states that he “is of no harm,” to the officers. It is also reasonable to assume most Canadian’s want to live in a country where their police only point guns at civilians when there is an imminent threat, and in this case, that threat is questionable at best.

So why make a public statement excusing the use of a firearm as a tool to look at someone?

The RCMP says "this was the most suitable and only piece of equipment to quickly and effectively observe the persons at the scene," and claims that as soon as it was established that there was no threat, the officer switched to binoculars.

This explanation ignores the real relationship between police violence and Indigenous communities; at the very least it is poor optics. When officers are sent to peacefully enforce something, it is intuitive that appearing to point a gun at someone is not de-escalation.

And that is a charitable explanation, because if it really was an honest mistake then when the optics were pointed out to the police, there should have been some reaction. It was clearly pointed out by the person pleading with the officer to not point his gun at him, in real-time, and there is no evidence that even one of the many officers there acknowledged the concern, or changed the practice. Likewise, the RCMP statement doubles down on the practice.

In short, I do not buy what the RCMP says about pointing a gun at these people. This example shows that the relationship between police and Indigenous people will not be solved until excuses stop being made for bad practice.

However, it also shows that for Wet’suwet’en land defenders and allies, the political and legal authorities are happy appearing to support them and reconciliation with conditions. Change is good until Indigenous people threaten the status quo- then, the Canadian police will point guns at them and claim that there was no risk of being shot.

Alternative Pipeline Routes

When the Office of the Wet’suwet’en suggested another route that Coastal Gas Link could take for its expansion, it was declined in 2014. This was for numerous logistical reasons -the pipeline length would be increased and be closer to urban areas- but also for environmental reasons. Yet another route was suggested, this one going through land that had already be damaged with flooding, but this proposal appeared to be ignored, and has not been mentioned in the court injunction or correspondence made public. Other routes have been brought up and dropped as well, which you can read more about here.

One thing that is repeatedly cited by Coastal Gas Link for not using other routes is that new consultations would arise, new environmental assessment work would happen, and costs would increase.

Basically, it would be incredibly inefficient to not use this pipeline route. But should efficiency trump the constitutional right that Indigenous people have to their unceded land?

Keep in mind, British Columbia ratified the UNDRIP in 2019. In ten years as B.C. continues to evolve its Indigenous policy, what then will be done after the land occupiers have long moved away because they were forced out by police? In later court cases, will the fact that there are no Indigenous Nations exclusively using this land ironically be used as evidence that it is not of the Aboriginal title, even though occupiers were forced to leave?

History has taught us that when you institutionalize a practice, it is very hard to undo, even if we as people change.

Perhaps it is time to stop and take the less efficient route in order to build a better nation in the long term.

In the current context, of land defenders already delaying the project, many political pundits are saying that they wished that the whole conflict could have been avoided to protect other interests (transportation, political stability etc.). They wish that there had been proper prevention of this escalation, through actions like early government talks with hereditary chiefs, instead of only consulting band councils.

The efficiency of a pipeline was deemed more valuable than the claims of Indigenous people who were not deemed the ‘right’ person to talk to; their healing center, their water and all their concerns.

Now, in the context of the leverage that the land defenders have, all authoritative interests have to weigh the efficiency of a pipeline against the efficiency of allowing continued direct action.

Canada is full of intelligent, honest, hard-working people. However, if the blockades are dismantled with force and the pipeline goes through, it will further be institutionalized as yet another Indigenous grievance that everyone gets to acknowledge before forgetting about. It is time to start building some social infrastructure that works for everyone. Yes, even if it takes longer for us to build a pipeline; I know from how Canada has stepped up to challenges in times of war, that our nation can accomplish great things.

However, to accomplish great innovation there has to be the will to do so.

Reexamining pipeline routes, and the extent that Canada and corporations consult communities is a good start.

The Big Picture and Canada itself

Colonialism underlies every aspect of our nation, and Canadians shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge the things that they like about colonialism because it can give the word worse connotations in a way that phases it out of the conversation.

For example, a settler that enjoys Canadian beer is enjoying something that is based on colonialism. Does that mean that his enjoyment was worth the harms that came with commercializing Canadian wheat related industries? No, but we cannot change the past, and if this man abstained from Canadian beer, nothing would be fixed or meaningfully decolonized.

Contrast that with Wet’suwet’en land claims. This is an example where the past colonial practice is not only relevant to what is happening in some way. It also is continuing to build new colonial foundations. If unceded Wet’suwet’en land claims were considered and respected, then that would be a major step towards meaningfully decolonizing the way Canada conducts business.

People are not just box to check off, and if Canada does not start recognizing this then productivity will not just be compromised for today. Every project we do will be vulnerable to these mistakes, so it is time to really start examining the colonial underpinnings of our nation and asking which ones Canada will accept and which ones have to go. Then, the things that are decided to be unacceptable, need to be meaningfully changed in a reasonable time frame.

*Disclosure: Morgana Adby has been known to have participated in direct action and other support for both the Indigenous land defenders and general anti-fossil fuel movements.