TORONTO -- Protests held in solidarity with a blockade of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northern British Columbia by members of the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n Nation continue to grow as experts sound the alarm on what they call 鈥渦nlawful and unjust鈥� arrests.
Tensions have been escalating since Dec.31, when the B.C. Supreme Court granted Coastal GasLink an expanded injunction against the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n Nation members blocking access to the project.
Last Thursday, the RCMP began enforcing that injunction, asking protesters to leave the camp blocking access to a service road near Houston, B.C. The RCMP have since arrested more than 20 protesters in the area.
The ongoing conflict has prompted several , with protesters blocking access to rail lines, legislatures and port entries.
But Indigenous advocates says the conflict goes well beyond pipeline opposition: it鈥檚 a rights issue.
WHAT IS THE PIPELINE PROJECT?
The $6.6-billion, 670-kilometre pipeline would carry natural gas across northern B.C.
According to , the approved route was determined considering 鈥淚ndigenous, landowner and stakeholder input, the environment, archaeological and cultural values, land use compatibility, safety, constructability and economics.鈥�
The company says it has signed agreements with the elected council of all 20 First Nations along the route, including the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n.
However, the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n hereditary chiefs oppose the pipeline construction and say they never consented to its construction on their traditional territory.
Hereditary chiefs are a traditional form of Indigenous governance that pre-date colonization. The Indian Act established elected band councils, made up of elected chiefs and councillors, who have authority over reserve lands.
WET鈥橲UWET鈥橢N NATION 鈥楢LWAYS CLAIMED THE LAND鈥�
The underlying concern of the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n Nation surrounds the control of their traditional territory.
The Canadian government previously recognized that all of the land in the country was originally owned by Indigenous people. Before Canada can rightfully claim the ability to make decisions about the land, it has to take ownership of it.
But Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n Nation never surrendered its Aboriginal title, otherwise known as its inherent right to the land.
鈥淭he Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n Nation have always claimed the land in question,鈥� Brenda Gunn, associate professor of law at the University of Manitoba, explained to CTVNews.ca by phone from Winnipeg.
鈥淔rom their perspective there was no action that was taken to remove their jurisdiction over the land.鈥�
In 1997, the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n themselves were involved in a landmark Supreme Court ruling regarding Aboriginal title. Known as , the ruling confirmed that Aboriginal title entails rights to the land itself, not just the right to extract resources from it.
The case also outlined specific requirements for Indigenous people to prove their Aboriginal title -- the most important of which, Gunn explained, is continuous occupation of the land. However, the case did not answer specific questions of title by the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n.
鈥淭he Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n are now in a precarious position of acquiring the land by occupying it鈥� and are now being criminalized for following the laws that have been set out by the government,鈥� she said.
Indigenous advocate Pamela Palmater notes that the occupation of traditional territory is 鈥渇ully within the legal right of the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n,鈥� noting that the RCMP鈥檚 use of force is concerning.
鈥淭hese shouldn鈥檛 be viewed as anti-pipeline protests. These are really demonstrations by Indigenous people all over the country to say we don鈥檛 want the government using the RCMP to violently take down people who are living on their own territories,鈥� Palmater said during an interview Monday on CTV鈥檚 Your Morning.
鈥楽ERIOUS VIOLATION OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTS鈥�
On Sunday, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) issued a renewed complaint regarding what it describes as 鈥渋mproper and increasingly unlawful actions of the RCMP.鈥�
The letter, , requests to initiate a policy complaint and public investigation into the so-called 鈥渆xclusion zone鈥� on Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n territory.
鈥淭here is absolutely no legal precedent nor established legal authority for such an overbroad policing power associated with the enforcement of an injunction,鈥� reads the letter.
鈥淭he arbitrary RCMP exclusion zone and overbroad access restrictions are completely unjustified and unlawful, and constitute a serious violation of Indigenous rights.鈥�
Greenpeace Canada Executive Director Christy Ferguson echoed that sentiment, noting that Canadians are 鈥渞ight to be disturbed鈥� by government response and RCMP action.
鈥淲e鈥檝e seen people from all walks of life take to the streets, blockade ports, occupy government buildings and even interrupt rail service across the country in solidarity with the Wet鈥檚uwet鈥檈n people, who are being forced to put their lives on the line in an effort to protect their territory and their rights,鈥� Ferguson said in a press release Monday.
Both Palmater and Gunn also note that government response points towards a conflicting message of reconciliation with Indigenous people.
鈥淲hat becomes frustrating for many Indigenous peoples is that the government states they support Aboriginal rights yet fail to take action to support those rights,鈥� Gunn said.
鈥淵ou begin to question Canada belief in the rule of law when they disrespect the law that even their courts set out.鈥�
