Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Direct Threat of Violence at the McClung / Avalon Housing Development

After the "draft agreement" relating to the agreement between the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and McClung Properties Ltd., whereby the latter agreed to give the former 200 acres of land there is still a question as to precisely where this land will be situated - some say the land will adjoin the former Burtch Correctional property in Brant County, and others say there is absolutely no indication as to where the land will be located.  So the reality of the matter is that for no good reason other than intimidation, McClung decided that a "gift" of property will thwart agitation leading to another 2006 Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton - DCE) conflagration.  Some might call this transfer a form of "extortion".  Again, there is no treaty that would give any justification, and the land was formally surrendered by the Chiefs in Council in the 1840s prior to the issuance of patents which are the basis of land tenure in the area to this day.

Despite this obvious manna from Heaven that would be dropped in the lap of Six Nations, there are those who are adamant that it is a bad deal and that all the land in the Haldimand Tract still belongs to Six Nations - 200 acres is a drop in the bucket and accepting the land is tantamount to giving up legitimate rights, some would say.  The arguments tend to get somewhat bizarre, largely because the vast majority of those at Six Nations still have no concept that there are no treaties and the land was surrendered 170 years ago.  There is an unsupported belief that the Nanfan gift of land to the Crown of 1701, and having only 1/10 of the original Haldimand Tract, must mean that the land was stolen from them.  This false belief is the driving and pervasive rationale that is said over and over to the point where just about everybody believes that it must be true.  Hence the justification of the "land reclamation" at DCE, which was nothing more than theft of private property.  However Six Nations "got away with" the land grab, so it opens the door to doing the same thing once again - given the right circumstances.

What is of concern, and has triggered the present posting, is the stated threat of violence at McClung.  In Turtle Island News of June 8, 2016, p.8 they report on the events of  a SNEC "committee of the whole".  While much of the contents will be described elsewhere, I want to focus on the comments by one JG.  He may be the same JG who resides at the sole house still standing at DCE, and whose services (e.g., gas) is paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, and whose role seems to be as some sort of quasi security officer in charge of the property (owned by the Province of Ontario, but still claimed by Six Nations - at least the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC).  This JG was arrested by the Ontario Provincial Police about 2014 when video tape showed him assaulting Gary McHale who claimed the justified right to walk on Surrey Street, a public thoroughfare owned by the County.  JG speaks about the "coming faces" (next generations).  He insists that, It is still our land.  He goes into some largely incomprehensible (at least to me) rant, for example, You're getting to the position that you're letting the Crown tell us what to do.  It was already said no to that.  They tried to do that at Kanonhstaton:  it was stopped.

The reporter then noted that JG, said "there may well be a repeat of the 2006 land dispute in Caledonia".  In the words of JG, Now, you're putting us in a position where me and my friends will have to go there and stop it and face jail, possibly violence in standing up for our children's rights and your rights.  He then states his bottom line - It's not about getting more land:  it's already our land.  WRONG, but perception is reality.

So what I believe one can take away from this posting is that there is an element at Six Nations who, because of their false beliefs, assume they are entitled to all of McClung.  What is not entirely clear is what percentage of Six Nations would ascribe to the views of JG - at least the possible need for violence as we saw in 2006.  That is a bit scary for those of us who recall what 2006 means.


No comments:

Post a Comment