Thread by @shiripasternak

Maybe a niche thread, but picking up from the @Yellowhead_ work I led on injunctions, I've been back at the dataset & want to show you how the "irreparable harm" you have to prove to "win" is weighted towards financial loss, rarely recognizing or valuing Indigenous economies.

https://twitter.com/Kris_Statnyk/status/1462616837271658499

Going back to '74, the court told the Cree: "It is imp to note at the start that hydro-electricity is the only primary energy resource possessed by the province of QC... this resource has become of a capital importance to ensure the economic future & well-being of the citizens.”

Despite concerns re: logging to traplines, Mathias Colomb lost b/c: "If Repap is hindered in its activities, the consequences will be the forced closure of its plant in the Pas...w/ the consequent loss of jobs for employees & loss of revenues...” Losses deemed “unrecoverable.”

The Secwepemc were likewise unable to convince the judge that the Pine Marten and their traplines would suffer, while OTOH, Riverside & Weyerhauser, their contractors and employees, would suffer substantial losses "which would be difficult, although not impossible to calculate."

Fighting a mine, the Tahltan were informed that the violation of Indigenous law didn't count as much as “the emotional and psychological effects of long-term unemployment" which are harms ... "that cannot be compensated through damages.”

In the face of Lax Kw’Alaams concerns around logging, they were told the economic health of “the region” was paramount: “An injunction..would create uncertainty...for the logging contractor..engaged to perform this work, the employees hired for the work, & their families.”

Of course, in the CGL case, harm to Wet’suwet’en authority, land, use of the territory, to their security, plus lack of compliance with EAC were recognized. But none of this trumped jobs, tax revenue, financial benefits to FNs, contracts, or investment and training for FNs.

I could go on. & @irinaceric & I will be annoying af about this when our study is complete. But there's an abundance of evidence that injunctions against First Nations violate constitutional rights, Section 15 Charter rights & Indigenous law. @AbRts called it: a legal billy club.

@irinaceric @AbRts Citations: Simard-Beaudry Inc v Kanatewat, 1974; Repap Manitoba Inc. v. Mathias Colomb Indian Band, 1996; Derickson v. British Columbia, 1996; Red Chris Development Company Ltd. v. Quock, 2014; Lax Kw'Alaams Indian Band v. BC, 2004; Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. v Huson, 2019.