Comments on: Why I stand with the five traditional leaders of Wet’suwet’en—especially now

By: Cynthia McLean

Cynthia McLean — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 23:53:48 +0000

I agree that this issue is, at heart, about Indigenous Law and Governance and that
it is the Wet’suwet’in people who must decide the who, why and how of exercising the authority of decision-making for their community.
I highly recommend Jody Wilson-Raybould’s collection of speeches, made during the past decade, which focus
on Indigenous Goverance. FROM WHERE I STAND: Rebuilding Indigenous Nations for a Stronger Canada (2019).

By: Elisabeth Staton

Elisabeth Staton — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 03:38:10 +0000

Stop printing political, one- sided articles in a religious paper. This is not the proper forum for these #shutdowncanada views.

By: Maureen Evans

Maureen Evans — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:24:31 +0000

Lamenting the “act of the Ontario and Canadian Government” as “[representing] a complete ignorance of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) or a deliberate violation of it” rings hollow when, by supporting a small group from the Wet’suwet’en Nation, you are failing to uphold the rights of the members of the twenty bands who, exercising “their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them” (UNDRIP) voted to endorse the project.
Whereas Delgamuukw v. British Columbia recognized Aboriginal title, the “Wet’suwet’en usage and claims on territory which goes beyond the land granted them under the Indian Act” has not been tested in court. Twenty bands along the route of the pipeline, for the betterment of their members, voted to endorse the project. Of those twenty bands, five are of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. Contrary to your statement that “some Wet’suwet’en express disagreement with the five traditional leaders”, the majority are in disagreement. As you say, “it is a matter that the Wet’suwet’en must work out for themselves” without the interference of organizations or individuals wishing to “advance a political agenda”.
By denigrating the Prime Minister’s insistence that “injunctions must be obeyed and the law must be upheld” by using a straw man argument that his statement “ignores the vital question of the validity of Indigenous law in the Canadian system”, you are doing nothing to promote “a good future for all”. Your continuing criticism of Trudeau in your article begs the question “are [you] capable of disagreeing without suggesting crude motives, ill-intent, or deformed character”?
As with the “Statement on Conflict on Wet’suwet’en Unceded Territory” from the Anglican Church of Canada, your article is unreasoned, uncalled-for, and unhelpful.

By: David Bowring

David Bowring — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:33:59 +0000

I agree with all of this. Can the protestors commit to non-violence – like Ghandi and MLK? This would be so much better than the threat of shooting – both sides. I am uncomfortable about the presence of the Mohawk Warriors. I heard something about “peace keepers.”

By: Bill Grubb

Bill Grubb — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:44:38 +0000

Archbishop MacDonald I believe highlights a most serious point as well as a failure of our “political leaders” The P.M. huddled with his cabinet then came out to make his demands about the barricades. A wise leader would have gone to sit down personally with these five chiefs to discuss their concerns face to face. Perhaps we should see the problem as similar to a case where someone wanted to put a pipeline across our front lawn. All the neighbours agreed so it was a done deal but we were never consulted. There are indigenous people who want this pipeline, but who is in charge here ? Did the P.M. get both these parties together along with the pipeline people ? THAT would have made more sense and given respect to all parties !! In such a scenario we might never have had barricades on the railroads either !!

By: Charles Jefferson

Charles Jefferson — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:26:33 +0000

Comments are well supported by the Scientific findings of how this Earth’s Biosphere works to support life. The hereditary Chiefs have read those findings and found they support their long held practice of projecting present practices likely impact on future generations. Our present political elite don’t tend to consider seriously such consequences in spite of mounting evidence we are cutting short the Anthropocene Epoch , ending it with extinction of us (humans) as well as most if not all but primitive life forms. The UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is reporting for all to know what is at issue. The window of opportunity to adapt to what Nature requires for survival long term, is closing fast! The after life is going to need a lot of rooms and brimstone in a hurry if we do not heed their advice and leave carbon deposits at rest and take our foot off the pedal of other activities that are destroying the “God” given Biosphere!.

By: Darryl R Taylor

Darryl R Taylor — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:37:27 +0000

I hope these words travel far.

By: Leo Campos Aldunez

Leo Campos Aldunez — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:15:29 +0000

Clear, courageous, and on the right side of history; gracias | LCA

By: Ron Berezan

Ron Berezan — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:10:43 +0000

Thank you for your clear, compassionate and prophetic leadership Archbishop Mark MacDonald.

By: wendy mencel

wendy mencel — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:34:57 +0000

Thank you for such a thorough explanation and I hope that everyone subscriber to this paper reads this. Very important