Because they feared ‘memes and rap’.

Yes…memes and rap…


How could I not? No footage. No transcripts.

Nothing to do with the court hearings at all to be safe…

Just a little story about Site C. 😉

( To the Fresh Prince of Bel Air)



Now this is a story, all about how
Some folks lives got flipped right upside down
Will ya humour me a minute
Just wait and see…
I’ll tell you bout the travesty that is known as Site C.

In Victoria, elected & paid
Was a premier, who really loved to see her name
Making headlines, fundraising she had no shame…
Showing up for photo-ops was her thing

Salutations, big donations, dollars crossed the line
All “Get er done, I’m the one!” was her chime.
But something was missing – she had no real legacy…
Then she dreamed her name was on dam: “Let’s build Site C!”

Hell-bent, off she went, pink hard hat in hand
Grabbed a shiny shovel to break ground on just sand
No business plan? Caucus said, “Not to worry!”…
Cause loyalty was valued more than the Peace River Valley.

But the people said, “Not happening. No dam way!”
They built a camp, I had writer’s cramp,then Nature got her way…
Geotech, another cheque, cracks and slides
When Horgan wins, the fix is in, and UNDRIP’s tossed aside.

He had a chance, but chose to dance & blame Ms. Clark
Now Hydro’s secrets catching up, the truth is stark
No bedrock, stop the clock, this ain’t your legacy…
John, don’t be “the guy who had the chance to stop Site C.”


Yeah…I’m no rapper. Best I could do with some edits by a friend 😛


On a more serious note..but referred to above…the court case reveals the BC govt is backtracking on indigenous rights. A must read:

19 thoughts on “Because they feared ‘memes and rap’.

  1. Your Rap Laila tells a valuable story. How does John live with his conscience? Perhaps politicians were born without one.


    1. We all know Libs take the cake.

      But the ndp were the ones who recently made royalties secret if you recall.Silence reigned on that.
      Silence is what allows bad policy to flourish.

      I’m quite concerned that so many are willing to not only forgoe any criticism,but justify things that shouldn’t be justified. A lot of good is being done.But lack of action or alarming moves on other files still must be examined.


  2. From Amnesty International today:

    BC actions in Site C injunction case a blatant betrayal of its promise to uphold Indigenous rights

    JULY 27, 2018

    As a BC court considers whether to grant an injunction to halt construction of the Site C dam, arguments by BC government lawyers threaten far reaching negative consequences, warns Amnesty International.

    “The legal tactics being employed by the BC government amount to a complete disregard for the rights of Indigenous peoples in favour of building Site C at all costs,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “Not only would these cynical legal tactics deny First Nations the opportunity for a just resolution of the still unaddressed question of Treaty rights violations, the province’s position is brazenly at odds with the Premier’s repeated public commitments to reconciliation and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

    The application for the injunction was filed by the West Moberly First Nation. West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations have launched a civil suit arguing that flooding the Peace Valley will prevent the meaningful exercise of Treaty protected rights. Hearings with respect to that civil suit are not expected to get underway until the fall.

    In a commentary on the written legal submissions put forward by the provincial government to date, Amnesty International names five aspects of the government’s arguments as being particularly “insidious” and “corrosive”. These are the government’s assertions:

    That Indigenous peoples’ own history, culture, traditions and laws are not relevant to the interpretation of their Treaty rights;
    That the onus of upholding the Treaty must be born entirely by First Nations;
    That the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations’ appeal for an injunction should be disregarded because they sought to protect their rights by other means and while there was still reason to be optimistic that the Horgan government would take a different approach to Site C, before resorting to launching a lengthy and costly court case;
    That the “status quo” to be considered in this case should be defined as continued construction of the Site C dam, not protection of Treaty Rights or the Peace River Valley;
    That the Court should “defer” to the government’s determination that the project is in the “public interest” even though the government made its decision without ever considering their legal obligations under Treaty 8.
    “The fact that we have a government in 2018 willing to engage in such cynical legal tactics is utterly shameful and entirely out of step with the Province’s human rights obligations and professed commitment to reconciliation,” said Alex Neve.

    Media Contact:

    Elizabeth Berton-Hunter, Media Relations 416-363-9933 ext332

    For more information:

    Amnesty International’s Analysis of the BC Government’s Submissions to Court in the injunction hearings.
    Updates on the Site C injunction hearings at


  3. Let’s face it. Our government is not capable of running a two hole outhouse.
    First (oh, I’m sure there were many before that!) was BC Rail. The government themselves claimed it was losing money. Then there is BC Hydro. Site C and the IPPs speak for that fiasco.
    ICBC? BC Ferries? Where am I going with this?
    They can’t even sell our assets properly. Kinder Morgan, Less than 2,000 km. Cost: say $8 Billion
    BC Rail: 50% more trackage, 100% more difficult to build, comes complete with rolling stock, locomotives, staffed AND a proven history of clients (which KM doesn’t.) Cost: maybe $1 Billion, although some reports claim BC only received $750 Million.
    Selling our assets? You mean GIVING our assets, like natural gas. Sure, we have thousands of Olympic size swimming pools of the stuff, so give it away. Likewise kilowatts. Buy high, sell low!
    Then there’s the north shore property (the name escapes me) that sold for 50-75% of appraisal.
    And False Creek to Li Kai Chang? (I know, that was eons ago, but it was still government.)
    Can’t even run a crooked casino without screwing up!

    So there you have it folks, my rant for the day!
    And what am I doing about it? Well, I just went solar.
    No more Hydro, no more crooks.
    I’m an IPP, so it looks


      1. Guys,we all either blogged or bashed Lib disasters for over 10 years. There is no comparison.

        But lets not pretend the ndp hasn’t made some critical errors…and some questionable moves. Nor can we ignore that there IS influence from their big donors.
        They did not get rid of Liberal apparatchiks in govt who are advising them into some questionable moves.
        They are choosing to continue down the path at Hydro and worse yet,now claiming its in fantastic hands.
        They quietly legislated royalties into secrecy.Why?

        They have taken Clarks lng giveaway they rightfully criticized in opposition… and now surpassed it with even bigger benefits for lng corps.

        But silence.

        I feel like everyone is so wrapped up in fear over this govt falling, that the bad policy changes are being intentionally ignored. Which is insane.

        The govt isn’t going to fall anytime soon.And it doesn’t need to. No one is even suggesting that!! Imo Weaver is enjoying his position and won’t say Boo even if PR fails.I forsee a full term of greendp because Weaver knows full well he could very well end up back in oblivian if either the NDP or Libs went to an election.

        But ignoring things ‘because Libs were worse’ or bullying or disappointment on certain files isn’t ok.
        Site c is still wrong..hydro is still a mess. Integrity BC posted a tweet about whats left in the reserve fund.

        Like come on!! Making good changes isn’t a hall pass to ignore the bad.

        Sorry. Meggs is part of why Vancouvers such a mess. And he is Horgans right hand man.Keating is mr ‘I didn’t vote to ban big money’ at the municipal level. Those people need to be kept in check.


    1. I prefer, “Our government could not hold a piss-up in a beer tent”!

      Look, the crookedness extends everywhere and it is escalating and the NDP seem either unwilling or unable to deal with it.

      Does anyone remember the cool $1 million left at Clinton Park in Vancouver in the late 90’s?

      A now retired acquaintance from the VPD told me that certain investigators were thought it was payola or bribe money, even though orders from city hall was to say it was drug money.

      The tepid mainstream media did not investigate and in the end the off-duty VPD Officer who found the off duty VPD officer who found the bag and laid claim. In the ensuing court case the claim that the money was drug money and thus not open for claim was tossed out for lack of evidence. He was able to keep the money.

      Then silence. The story has seemed to have been erased.


  4. Nothing wrong with a good rant, John. Especially if it is on target.

    Ironically, people will claim that was then, this is now and we have a new government. Reality is, the ones who are government now were in a position, for decades, to do something about all your topics and chose to sit on therir hands.

    You were probably thinking of the Burke Mountain, Coquitlam land selloff.


  5. Most won’t remeber the last time an NDP Government lawyers argued, in the case of existing legislation meant to protect Austistic Children. that no government could be forced to enforced its own existing laws. Do you remember now?

    From the Globe and Mail article [above] about NDP Treaty negotiations..

    The NDP had denounced Site C’s violation of treaty rights while in opposition. After their election, they not only launched an independent review of the economic rationale for Site C, they promised that their final decision would consider the impacts on Indigenous rights.
    Despite all this, the government’s submission to the injunction hearing asserts that the First Nations should have taken on the enormous burden of launching a legal action even while the province was ostensibly still making up its mind whether the project would proceed. The government’s submission actually states that “political speeches” of that nature are not “legally enforceable promises.”

    It is hard to imagine a more dismal and cynical description of the faith and trust that Indigenous peoples, and the public in general, should be entitled to place in the democratic process and the integrity of our elected representatives.

    There is a fundamental injustice in forcing marginalized and impoverished Indigenous nations to go to court time and again to prove and defend rights that Canada has already committed to uphold. This injustice is further compounded when government lawyers use every argument at their disposal, however ludicrous or harmful, to defend government actions.


    1. i have it in writing from the Attorney General’s office that the government would not be bound by any legal decisions. So there is no remedy while dealing with government by their own admission.


  6. Property rights or rather the perception of government that people have none without their approval. During exchanges on the law and liability of government to follow and be subject to the same as they expect people to be. It was stated that the government would not be bound by any legal decisions. i think private property rights are very much part of Site C.


  7. “Property rights or rather the perception of government that people have none without their approval”

    Now with that in mind read section 109 this 1997 SCOC decision. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010,, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen.

    “The legal significance of those passages is that the Aboriginal “Interest” within the meaning of section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867, was not involved in the appeal. Section 109 is the section that says the Crown’s CONSTITUTIONAL “Interest” is subject to the Aboriginal CONSTITUTIONAL “Interest” so long as the Aboriginal “Interest” has not been sold to the Crown by a valid treaty. It confirms that Aboriginal sovereignty, i.e., exclusive jurisdiction and sole possession, is the supreme law of the land pending treaty and, correspondingly, establishes the utter irrelevance of Crown Parliamentary legislation and Crown court recent inventions based upon the “common law”.
    So what do we learn from this? Aside from a small section of the province of British Columbia ( Treaty 8) the entire province was never settled by Treaty. All of the Douglas treaties were torn up by Joseph Trutch. So we fall back to George’s Declaration of 1763 which remains valid for almost all of BC…..

    Moreover in section 109 we read that Aboriginal sovereignty remains “exclusive jurisdiction and sole possession, is the supreme law of the land. Section 109 also goes on to state that any legislation passed by the crown is irrelevant along with common law recent “inventions.”

    The “recent inventions” part refers to common law things such as the notwithstanding clause and other recent inventions such as C-51.

    In fact C-51 was the harper government’s attempt to do an end run around the legislation and decisions of Delgamuukw and the Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44


Comments are closed.