On 4 July 2014 there was a meeting of Haldimand County Council, and a summary has been published in "The Sachem" under the title of the present posting. See here for the complete article.
While I could quote the entire article, the content is largely a repeat of what has been said before and discussed in recent postings on this blog. The parts which I consider new or different in some way are the following in quotation marks:
Haldimand Council met on July 4th to discuss the next steps. They agreed with Six Nations Elected Chief Ava Hill’s comments that the Federal government needs to resume active negotiations on the native land claims for the long term stability of this area. Mayor Hewitt stated that “the Province needs to honour its commitment to work with both Haldimand County and Six Nations to actively develop a future use for the lands that benefits both communities.” At the local level, the focus needs to be on finding common ground which will lead to peaceful solutions. This is particularly important given the negative pressure being exerted by a few individuals, which will only serve to further divide the two communities.
The obvious question here is, who are these "few individuals" who have been exerting "negative pressure". Could this be Gary McHale, the bane of the existence of Six Nations militants because he stands up for the rule of law and is against two - tiered policing - he has been the one constant here in Caledonia - ready to come to our defense despite considerable risks to himself (particularly from the Ontario Provincial Police). It is solely because of the actions of Gary that the matter was brought to a head. His simple act of walking down a public road, inadvertently challenging the "authority" of Six Nations has put the matter into the spotlight - especially with Sun News. Had he not acted everyone would still be spinning their wheels. Accolades should be given to Gary McHale, not the "demonizing" seen by not only Six Nations militants, but also by at least some (all?) on Haldimand County Council. Shame on them.
Perhaps I am included here, since I have had a number of discussions with the mayor about the matter and my blog is anything but supportive of Six Nations "concerns". If I was a Government official, I am sure I would have been sent for "sensitivity training" despite the fact that I am one of the Caledonians most familiar with Six Nations culture, history, and genealogy.
An important question needs to be asked? Does the list of those exerting "negative pressure" include HH of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and AM of the Men's Fire?
Also noted was, At its meeting, Council reviewed a draft by-law which will remove public access rights on the roads leading into DCE. Such action is aimed at eliminating the unnecessary, negative disruptions that are occurring at the site. This by-law will be further considered at a future Council meeting. Council also authorized the Mayor to continue discussions with Six Nations and the Province regarding the DCE property.
So presumably this edict is a fascist - like attempt to stop Gary McHale from exercising his rights as a Canadian, and also for keeping all us pesky locals away from DCE. Ok, I have a question, does this mean that Six Nations will no longer have any "public access" to the site? It is not Six Nations land, and is actually land stolen from a developer and occupied illegally by Six Nations activists despite a Court Injunction issued by Judge Marshall of the Superior Court in Cayuga. If there is a move to allow one group of citizens (those whose acts are illegal and highly disruptive) to wander about DCE at will (Six Nations members), but bars anyone who is not a member of Six Nations (or their outside supporters) from entering the premises (in other words Caledonian residents) - this is blatant discrimination, blatant racism at its worst. However, before I make assumptions, more information is needed.
DeYo.
Saturday 5 July 2014
Friday 4 July 2014
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister to Intervene in Caledonia Barricade Impass
Recently I wrote to Hon. David Zimmer, the Aboriginal Affairs Minister for Ontario to alert him to recent developments, with the emphasis on the need to address the facts of the matter. Specifically I emphasized that Six Nations have absolutely no legal claim to the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) (Kanonhstaton), that it is imperative to stop giving in to terrorists, and that under no circumstances (in my opinion) should Six Nations be given DCE. See here for specific of e-mail. I am convinced that if DCE is turned over to Six Nations it will set a very very dangerous precedent. For example it will lead to expectations that they should also have the Burtch Correctional lands, and "surplus" lands in South Cayuga Township owned by the Province obtained by expropriating family farms with the odd belief that they would need it to create a residential satellite community to serve the Nanticoke industrial complex. From there all doors are open, and that cannot be allowed.
For reasons not stated, David Zimmer had come to the conclusion that he would enter the fray and become directly involved in negotiations with various elements among Six Nations (that will prove to be a challenge), and Haldimand County. Sun News Network has limited information here.
In an article entitled, Province hopes to help cool divide over Caledonia blockade removal, 4 July 2014 the "plan" is outlined - Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer's office is setting up a summit meeting with Six Nations chiefs and Haldimand County officials to find a "viable solution" after the county agreed to start tearing down the blockade at the former housing development site. A very brief overview of the conflict is given - but little else since, No date or place for the meeting has been confirmed.
Some further details are provided, but much is unclear or hazy. What is stated is as follows:
"We hope to have our concerns recognized and Six Nations hopes to have theirs recognized," Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt said Friday. "Somewhere between the two is where we hope to land."
Chief Ava Hill said in an e-mail that she was withholding comment until the meeting date is confirmed and after she's had a discussion with the Six Nations council.
We will see where this leads. I will go on record saying that it is unacceptable for the Province to give in to those who have terrorized Caledonia for 8 years. Both the Elected and Hereditary Councils need to be told in no uncertain terms that no land, including DCE, will be forthcoming. If they believe (despite what two Superior Court judges has said about their chances of success - zero to none - actually they said "weak") that they have a case, then take it to Court - but ultimately all rulings have been consistent, only monetary issues will be considered, absolutely no granting of land protected by the Ontario Land Registry system.
Giving Six Nations ANY LAND will open the door to anarchy.
I hope that Hon. David Zimmer appreciates this fact. Here follows a recent (5 July 2014) e-mail sent to David Zimmer:
Update 6 July 2014: Article from the "Brantford Expositor" on this matter - Minister pushes for meeting on Caledonia barrier, see here.
DeYo.
For reasons not stated, David Zimmer had come to the conclusion that he would enter the fray and become directly involved in negotiations with various elements among Six Nations (that will prove to be a challenge), and Haldimand County. Sun News Network has limited information here.
In an article entitled, Province hopes to help cool divide over Caledonia blockade removal, 4 July 2014 the "plan" is outlined - Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer's office is setting up a summit meeting with Six Nations chiefs and Haldimand County officials to find a "viable solution" after the county agreed to start tearing down the blockade at the former housing development site. A very brief overview of the conflict is given - but little else since, No date or place for the meeting has been confirmed.
Some further details are provided, but much is unclear or hazy. What is stated is as follows:
"We hope to have our concerns recognized and Six Nations hopes to have theirs recognized," Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt said Friday. "Somewhere between the two is where we hope to land."
Chief Ava Hill said in an e-mail that she was withholding comment until the meeting date is confirmed and after she's had a discussion with the Six Nations council.
We will see where this leads. I will go on record saying that it is unacceptable for the Province to give in to those who have terrorized Caledonia for 8 years. Both the Elected and Hereditary Councils need to be told in no uncertain terms that no land, including DCE, will be forthcoming. If they believe (despite what two Superior Court judges has said about their chances of success - zero to none - actually they said "weak") that they have a case, then take it to Court - but ultimately all rulings have been consistent, only monetary issues will be considered, absolutely no granting of land protected by the Ontario Land Registry system.
Giving Six Nations ANY LAND will open the door to anarchy.
I hope that Hon. David Zimmer appreciates this fact. Here follows a recent (5 July 2014) e-mail sent to David Zimmer:
Hon. David Zimmer
Ontario Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
Dear Sir,
I learned via Sun News that you have decided to attempt to intervene in the ongoing dispute in Caledonia. While that is certainly a very positive step, and very commendable if only for the fact that very few politicians have "dared" even show their faces in Caledonia over the years. The former Liberal Premier McGuinty never one came to Caledonia during our time of need. We here have long memories.
As you may be aware, Six Nations politics is extremely complicated. The chronic dispute between the Hereditary and Elected Councils is only the tip of the iceberg. You may get one side on board, but that will be a signal to the other side to oppose everything to do with any agreement. The two sides have yet to sit down together to effect any sort of agreement - even about trash disposal.
I know the entire situation very well. My roots are here, I have studied Six Nations and local history in depth (e.g., sifting through all the relevant documents at Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa since the 1970s), and I can tell you one thing that is a complete certainty. If you give Six Nations even an acre of land, the decision will come back to bite you. Guaranteed. They are set to exploit any such attempt and will then "demand" the "return" of not only Burtch Correctional Center lands (250 acres), but fully ceded (in 1834) Provincially owned lands in Dunn and South Cayuga Townships - then the door flies open to numerous other items on their agenda.
Perhaps the following posting will provide some useful details:
Sir, by all means come here and listen to what all have to say. I am at this point begging that you will not consider giving Six Nations any land - hoping that this action is not on the table - since those of us who reside here will have to live with the consequences. Please be aware that if Six Nations are, under whatever pretext, given the former Douglas Creek Estates, there will be a furious backlash from residents of Haldimand County and beyond. You are dealing with international terrorists, and appeasement will not bring "peace in our time", as Chamberlain was to learn the hard way in dealing with Adolph Hitler just before WWII.
Best of luck, and trusting that you will make decisions that will endure, ...............
Update 6 July 2014: Article from the "Brantford Expositor" on this matter - Minister pushes for meeting on Caledonia barrier, see here.
DeYo.
Wednesday 2 July 2014
Haldimand Mayor Backtracks on Promise that Barricade Is Coming Down?
In the today's issue of "Turtle Island News" (TIN), 2 July 2014, p.5, is the article entitled, Haldimand Mayor puts threat to take out "barricade" on hold after private weekend meeting.
I have no patience with people, especially elected officials, who say they will do one thing, waffle, change their mind, and then retreat to the status quo. Is this an example of flip flopping or the "Stockholm syndrome" - some sort of identification with the aggressors? Perhaps, but it is more likely that the Mayor has little choice but to meet with the self appointed representatives of Six Nations in relation to this matter which is bound to cause discord, and if all cards are not played well, the terrorists could use any action as a pretext to escalate the situation to their advantage. The Men's Fire and affiliated Haudenosaunee Development Institute have shown in numerous work stoppages in Haldimand and Brant Counties that they do not "play fair", and that the facts and the truth mean nothing to them - only their "agenda" holds any sway, and the end justifies any means.
As noted in postings below, Haldimand County Council had voted unanimously to remove the illegal barrier blocking Surrey Street, a County Road. This structure is a legacy of the total breakdown in the rule of law, and the two - tiered policing that has been the order of things since local thugs, international organized criminal elements, lay abouts, White Communist - Anarchist supporters, and other unsavoury elements have plagued the site since day one. Caledonia had been terrorized, and individual citizens brutalized by the uncaring, unfeeling, control freaks who made their life miserable particularly during 2006. It is disappointing that the Mayor has concluded that these groups are even worthy of two minutes of his time ................. but until more is known, perhaps we need to give him some slack and the benefit of the doubt.
Since 2006, we here have learned that the police (Ontario Provincial Police), the Federal Government, the Provincial Government could care less about us rubes out in the sticks. Let us suffer, there are not that many votes involved anyway. So who is here to protect us? Who can we call if we need assistance and there is a "Native issue" in progress? I did report earlier on a well documented (by video camera with sound) take down of a Six Nations "land protector" who assaulted a citizen and was arrested in a calm professional manner by the OPP. This event gives some hope that if individual officers have the discretion to make an arrest, they will do so - if there is no interference from "up top" (the most egregious examples being from the era of Commissioner Fantino who blamed everything on the one person we could depend upon, Gary McHale).
Here is what is reported in the above newspaper article. There are no immediate plans to remove the security barrier at the front entrance of Kanonhstaton after a secret meeting on Sunday with Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt, the Six Nations Men's Fire, OPP and a handful of elected councilors.
Hewitt told Turtle Island News on Monday that he walked away from the meeting with more understanding of the "emotional attachment" Six Nations people have to the land at the former Douglas Creek Estates housing development on Argyle Street in Caledonia.
"I believe it was a very good start for me to appreciate and understand a lot of the dealings and the sentiments of the people ........... who are pretty emotionally attached to the property" said Hewitt.
"At the same time, it was an opportunity for me to express to them where we're coming from. It was an opportunity for people to learn more about each other".
The article once again perpetuates the lies that JG suffered numerous bruises and injuries when police arrested him after an altercation with Binbrook activist Gary McHale. Any injuries, according to the multiple videos of the take down were caused by JG resisting arrest and placing himself in a situation where he caused a few scrapes, and perhaps sore arms because he forced the officers to carry him dead weight (refusing to walk to the squad car).
HH, the Director of the radical Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI, the extortion wing of the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council), gave her opinion that, Any concerns they have should be directed to Ontario rather than attempting to hijack what are very serious and established treaty rights and turn it into their own political platforms in a campaign stunt. This is sheer nonsense since the Six Nations have NO valid treaty rights (only the fraudulent "Nanfan Treaty"), and it is the Federal Government not Ontario who negotiates with Native leaders - which would be the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) based on a number of key Court decisions such as "Isaac et al. v. Davey et al. (1974)" noted previously. So the HDI and Haudenosaunee Men's Fire (HMF), who are responsible for so much chaos and destruction are allowed to rule the roost here and it is they who are calling the shots. It is also they, and their stubborn insistence that they alone have the right to negotiate with the Government (any level of) who in turn caused SNEC, the legally constituted party for all Six Nations negotiations, enormous frustration to the point where they, walked away from the talks in 2010.
The Ontario Government is saying that the Federal Government needs to return to the table before they former can get fully engaged, but the latter cannot do so because of the factionalism at Six Nations with infighting between HCCC and SNEC. So basically the Ontario and Federal Governments are being told by Six Nations that they need to return to the bargaining table or that they are delaying or that ................. when the truth is that no level of Government knows who is in charge (so many competing factions make that claim) - yet they are blamed for holding up negotiations! What is really incredible is that many people buy into this concocted story, where in fact it is the Six Nations who are putting everyone else into a no win situation yet have the audacity to point the finger of blame at "the Government".
What is really galling are the veiled threats given to Mayor Hewitt. There is not a shadow of a doubt that he and the Government are negotiating with terrorists here. The article in TIN continues, saying, Sources said Hewitt was warned at the meeting if the county tried to forcefully remove the barrier, there would be a flare - up in the town "worst than what happened in 2006" when Six Nations reclaimed the land from developers. Really, well that is a lie - there was no "reclamation" only "theft".
Mayor Hewitt said that, As mayor, I only speak for council. I can't simply remove a resolution that was passed. (I said) I would give council an update on the meeting and encouragement that there was opportunity to discuss ways to assist each other in achieving our goals. With due respect, that has been tried for 8 years with absolutely no success. It is time to shift gears and put some teeth into the law. An injunction was issued 8 years ago requiring the removal of all the protestors. It has never been enforced (all hell broke loose when the OPP attempted to do so in 2006).
The world needs to see the evidence of the surrender of the land at DCE at the Onondaga Longhouse on 18 December 1844 by 45 Chiefs in Council, and again on 17 September 1845 by 66 Chiefs in Council, and the question is why 170 years later should descendants of those who granted the land to the Crown have any right to undo what Council agreed to so many years ago. What is the rationale. There is none that will wash and the world needs to know that the reclamation is based on greed, and perceived entitlement, not on law. If the Flemish citizens of say Belgium decide that despite signed agreements by the legitimate authorities that they don't like what was done and they want the land to be assigned back to only the Flemish - would that be accepted, or does it make any sense? A deal is a deal, and it was done in Haldimand to allow the Six Nations Community to remain intact as it was becoming evident that individual members were selling off their lots to White buyers and what remained of Six Nations territory was becoming a patchwork of plots and the Six Nations becoming scattered (many left in disgust for the American Northwest - Ohio - at this time where they hoped to live as a group in the Honey Creek Mohawk settlements and nearby Seneca settlements).
If there is an insurrection as described, then finally the military can be called in to clear the land of terrorists and restore order. The law is fully on the side of the Crown, there is no gray area here. If Six Nations members defied the law and threatened surrounding communities, it is the duty of the army to "take care of business" - something that should have been done long ago since there is not the faintest hope that the emboldened (thanks to the many enablers) activists will back away. They have learned that if they press ahead forcefully, the "authorities" will always back down. I have heard them laugh at the police and the Courts and anyone who "defies them" since, the attitude is that "the land is ours for the taking". With my own ears I have heard activists say precisely this - and that "Caledonia is ours". You cannot reason with people like this, as events since 2006 have shown, only the force of the law applied evenly to all Canadians can do that - and if it takes the army, it will show that a line has been crossed and that outright anarchy will not be allowed to prevail in this small section of Canada. If no one else will assist us, the onus will be on our shoulders to deal with these domestic terrorists as befits the circumstances.
DeYo.
I have no patience with people, especially elected officials, who say they will do one thing, waffle, change their mind, and then retreat to the status quo. Is this an example of flip flopping or the "Stockholm syndrome" - some sort of identification with the aggressors? Perhaps, but it is more likely that the Mayor has little choice but to meet with the self appointed representatives of Six Nations in relation to this matter which is bound to cause discord, and if all cards are not played well, the terrorists could use any action as a pretext to escalate the situation to their advantage. The Men's Fire and affiliated Haudenosaunee Development Institute have shown in numerous work stoppages in Haldimand and Brant Counties that they do not "play fair", and that the facts and the truth mean nothing to them - only their "agenda" holds any sway, and the end justifies any means.
As noted in postings below, Haldimand County Council had voted unanimously to remove the illegal barrier blocking Surrey Street, a County Road. This structure is a legacy of the total breakdown in the rule of law, and the two - tiered policing that has been the order of things since local thugs, international organized criminal elements, lay abouts, White Communist - Anarchist supporters, and other unsavoury elements have plagued the site since day one. Caledonia had been terrorized, and individual citizens brutalized by the uncaring, unfeeling, control freaks who made their life miserable particularly during 2006. It is disappointing that the Mayor has concluded that these groups are even worthy of two minutes of his time ................. but until more is known, perhaps we need to give him some slack and the benefit of the doubt.
Since 2006, we here have learned that the police (Ontario Provincial Police), the Federal Government, the Provincial Government could care less about us rubes out in the sticks. Let us suffer, there are not that many votes involved anyway. So who is here to protect us? Who can we call if we need assistance and there is a "Native issue" in progress? I did report earlier on a well documented (by video camera with sound) take down of a Six Nations "land protector" who assaulted a citizen and was arrested in a calm professional manner by the OPP. This event gives some hope that if individual officers have the discretion to make an arrest, they will do so - if there is no interference from "up top" (the most egregious examples being from the era of Commissioner Fantino who blamed everything on the one person we could depend upon, Gary McHale).
Here is what is reported in the above newspaper article. There are no immediate plans to remove the security barrier at the front entrance of Kanonhstaton after a secret meeting on Sunday with Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt, the Six Nations Men's Fire, OPP and a handful of elected councilors.
Hewitt told Turtle Island News on Monday that he walked away from the meeting with more understanding of the "emotional attachment" Six Nations people have to the land at the former Douglas Creek Estates housing development on Argyle Street in Caledonia.
"I believe it was a very good start for me to appreciate and understand a lot of the dealings and the sentiments of the people ........... who are pretty emotionally attached to the property" said Hewitt.
"At the same time, it was an opportunity for me to express to them where we're coming from. It was an opportunity for people to learn more about each other".
The article once again perpetuates the lies that JG suffered numerous bruises and injuries when police arrested him after an altercation with Binbrook activist Gary McHale. Any injuries, according to the multiple videos of the take down were caused by JG resisting arrest and placing himself in a situation where he caused a few scrapes, and perhaps sore arms because he forced the officers to carry him dead weight (refusing to walk to the squad car).
HH, the Director of the radical Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI, the extortion wing of the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council), gave her opinion that, Any concerns they have should be directed to Ontario rather than attempting to hijack what are very serious and established treaty rights and turn it into their own political platforms in a campaign stunt. This is sheer nonsense since the Six Nations have NO valid treaty rights (only the fraudulent "Nanfan Treaty"), and it is the Federal Government not Ontario who negotiates with Native leaders - which would be the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) based on a number of key Court decisions such as "Isaac et al. v. Davey et al. (1974)" noted previously. So the HDI and Haudenosaunee Men's Fire (HMF), who are responsible for so much chaos and destruction are allowed to rule the roost here and it is they who are calling the shots. It is also they, and their stubborn insistence that they alone have the right to negotiate with the Government (any level of) who in turn caused SNEC, the legally constituted party for all Six Nations negotiations, enormous frustration to the point where they, walked away from the talks in 2010.
The Ontario Government is saying that the Federal Government needs to return to the table before they former can get fully engaged, but the latter cannot do so because of the factionalism at Six Nations with infighting between HCCC and SNEC. So basically the Ontario and Federal Governments are being told by Six Nations that they need to return to the bargaining table or that they are delaying or that ................. when the truth is that no level of Government knows who is in charge (so many competing factions make that claim) - yet they are blamed for holding up negotiations! What is really incredible is that many people buy into this concocted story, where in fact it is the Six Nations who are putting everyone else into a no win situation yet have the audacity to point the finger of blame at "the Government".
What is really galling are the veiled threats given to Mayor Hewitt. There is not a shadow of a doubt that he and the Government are negotiating with terrorists here. The article in TIN continues, saying, Sources said Hewitt was warned at the meeting if the county tried to forcefully remove the barrier, there would be a flare - up in the town "worst than what happened in 2006" when Six Nations reclaimed the land from developers. Really, well that is a lie - there was no "reclamation" only "theft".
Mayor Hewitt said that, As mayor, I only speak for council. I can't simply remove a resolution that was passed. (I said) I would give council an update on the meeting and encouragement that there was opportunity to discuss ways to assist each other in achieving our goals. With due respect, that has been tried for 8 years with absolutely no success. It is time to shift gears and put some teeth into the law. An injunction was issued 8 years ago requiring the removal of all the protestors. It has never been enforced (all hell broke loose when the OPP attempted to do so in 2006).
The world needs to see the evidence of the surrender of the land at DCE at the Onondaga Longhouse on 18 December 1844 by 45 Chiefs in Council, and again on 17 September 1845 by 66 Chiefs in Council, and the question is why 170 years later should descendants of those who granted the land to the Crown have any right to undo what Council agreed to so many years ago. What is the rationale. There is none that will wash and the world needs to know that the reclamation is based on greed, and perceived entitlement, not on law. If the Flemish citizens of say Belgium decide that despite signed agreements by the legitimate authorities that they don't like what was done and they want the land to be assigned back to only the Flemish - would that be accepted, or does it make any sense? A deal is a deal, and it was done in Haldimand to allow the Six Nations Community to remain intact as it was becoming evident that individual members were selling off their lots to White buyers and what remained of Six Nations territory was becoming a patchwork of plots and the Six Nations becoming scattered (many left in disgust for the American Northwest - Ohio - at this time where they hoped to live as a group in the Honey Creek Mohawk settlements and nearby Seneca settlements).
If there is an insurrection as described, then finally the military can be called in to clear the land of terrorists and restore order. The law is fully on the side of the Crown, there is no gray area here. If Six Nations members defied the law and threatened surrounding communities, it is the duty of the army to "take care of business" - something that should have been done long ago since there is not the faintest hope that the emboldened (thanks to the many enablers) activists will back away. They have learned that if they press ahead forcefully, the "authorities" will always back down. I have heard them laugh at the police and the Courts and anyone who "defies them" since, the attitude is that "the land is ours for the taking". With my own ears I have heard activists say precisely this - and that "Caledonia is ours". You cannot reason with people like this, as events since 2006 have shown, only the force of the law applied evenly to all Canadians can do that - and if it takes the army, it will show that a line has been crossed and that outright anarchy will not be allowed to prevail in this small section of Canada. If no one else will assist us, the onus will be on our shoulders to deal with these domestic terrorists as befits the circumstances.
DeYo.
Monday 30 June 2014
Reporter Provides Erroneous Information in Comments to a Letter to the Editor of the Brantford Expositor
It was interesting to see a newspaper reporter, in this case from "Two Row Times" (TRT), comment on a Letter to the Editor submitted to another newspaper, specifically The "Brantford Expositor" (Expos) - by in this case submitting his own Letter to the Editor of the Expos entitled, Caledonia Barricade serves Purpose. I don't know that I have ever seen that occur before. Generally a reporter needs to maintain their independence and at least give the appearance of objectivity as a member of the media. So when I saw the name JW, it tweaked my curiosity as to why, as a reporter for TRT, Mr. W would compromise professional standards or guidelines, and whether he had "crossed a professional line". To be absolutely frank, I don't know if this is considered appropriate in media circle, I am only extrapolating from guidelines and standards in my own profession. It would not have been as troubling if the letter was factual, but instead it was replete with unsupported opinions, and serious errors in fact.
The letter in question can be found here.
First some background. JW, a non-Native person residing in Brantford, used to be a reporter and photographer with the Reserve newspaper "Tekawenake". When the latter folded somewhat more than a year ago Mr. W and colleague TK, a White radical Communist - Anarchist who has caused untold suffering in Caledonia, became associated with a start up newspaper, "Two Row Times". As it now stands Mr. W is a reporter, and Mr. K has risen in the ranks to become a General Manager and Editor of the Six Nations and "Dish with One Spoon" territory newspaper which competes with "Turtle Island News", which maintains that they are the only Reserve newspaper. I don't suppose that it would be "fair game" to include any information that I overheard Mr. W say to another non-Native in a local restaurant about his situation, so that will not be included here.
The primary focus of the present blog posting is to challenge the factual content of Mr. W's (JW)letter. I will do this by quoting from the Letter, then will offer sourced information to content. In my opinion what was written by JW is largely Six Nations propaganda - the party line. In italics below are excerpts from the letter by JW, then to be followed by my comments and evidence.
1) Cam Martindale's letter published last Friday Shows that he is one of so many Canadians who have no idea what is going on around them. The key to understanding Six Nations is that they are not Canadians, but rather a distinct and sovereign people with a constitution that precedes ours by about 1,500 years.
I have been unable to locate Mr. Martindale's letter, however, the allegation of the latter's ignorance is going to be attenuated when examining JW's written assertions. As to the comment that Six Nations people "are not Canadians" that is nothing but a political statement of politically correct dogma. In fact Six Nations and all who live within Canadian boundaries and who are subject to Canadian jurisdiction are de facto Canadians. Six Nations are subject to Canadian laws and any Criminal Code violations will result in the same sentence as any other Canadian. Six Nations accepts Transfer Payments and Welfare from the Federal Government of Canada - so if they are not Canadian, they need to return a lot of money - and with interest.
Six Nations are not aboriginal to Canada. Their homeland is in what is today Upstate New York, United States of America. So Six Nations are immigrants and refugees just as the White United Empire Loyalists who departed American territory after the Revolution. The argument about sovereignty is specious. There is not a shred of evidence to support it - but it is widely believed to be true. Six Nations were given "occupancy rights" by virtue of the Haldimand Deed, but the title to the land was and is vested in the Crown and its successors. It is true that in the 1640s the then Five Nations (including my own ancestors) committed an act of genocide, destroying all of the Nations residing in Southwestern Ontario. However, attempts to settle or lay claim to the land from the 1680s was net with increasing hostility from the Mississauga and their neighbours (including the remnants of the Huron / Wendat who escaped the attempt at complete annihilation in the 1640s) such that by 1700 all 8 Five Nations settlements north of Lake Ontario had been destroyed and their surviving inhabitants pushed back to the aboriginal lands in what is today Upstate New York. In each and every document or council dating from 1700 onward, the Six Nations recognized the sovereignty of the Crown and "His Majesty the Great King of England". Never once has the Crown or its legitimate agents questioned that the Six Nations were subjects of the King - it was true of all within the lands claimed by Great Britain, just as the same situation was true of the lands claimed by the King of France (lands that ultimately came under the sovereign control of the British Crown). I have written about this matter in numerous postings, with examples and sources. So the claim that Six Nations (all 23,000 on and off Reserve) are a sovereign people is only wishful thinking, and of relatively recent origin. It is the Mississauga, from whom Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand purchased the Grand River (Haldimand) Tract - it is the Mississauga (e.g., those residing on the New Credit Reserve near Hagersville) who are aboriginal to the Caledonia and surrounds area.
As to the antiquity of their Constitution. First, it was never recorded until the mid 19th Century, so we do not know how much has changed since the founding of the "League" or "Confederacy". One thing is absolutely certain though, and that is that JW's dates are nothing by a stab in the dark. For those who want to look at hard evidence, there is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest the timeline proposed by JW - that the League was formed about 500 AD at which time a "Constitution" was established. Anyone who wants to check out the facts here would be well advised to read a summary text by the doyen of Upstate New York archaeology (a man I know and respect), Dean R. Snow. His book which is part of "The Peoples of America" series is entitled, The Iroquois, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, Blackwell Publishing, 1996.
The data shows that the ancestors of those who would become the Five Nations began to arrive from what is today Central Pennsylvania circa 900 AD. So not only are Six Nations not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, they are not entirely aboriginal (depending on definition) to Upstate New York. They came from somewhere else, just like everyone else over the years - via migration. At this time a new people arrived in Upstate New York, but with many of the pottery traditions continuing for some time - likely because the females of the defeated groups were incorporated into the Five Nations by adoption - a practice that extended into modern times. So we are talking about 1100 years ago when the Five Nations made their first appearance as immigrants, displacing the former occupants. The archaeological record shows increasing violence over time (cannibalism via cut marks on human bones; and torture, for example fingers severed and tossed among the garbage thrown over the palisade walls). With the selection of sites for defense and the surrounding of villages with increasingly more substantial palisades we have evidence of warfare likely between the peoples who were to become the Five Nations. Then, around 1500 AD there is a shift in settlement patterns suggesting that warfare was less of a concern (villages on flatlands and without palisades). It would seem that about this time, say beginning circa 1400 AD a peace accord between those who would become the Five Nations was established. As Dr. Snow concludes, Both Iroquois oral tradition and archaeological evidence for endemic warfare suggest that the League could not have formed prior to around 1450, and the process completed by around 1525 (p.60). After this their violence was then directed outward toward neighbours not under the Great Tree of Peace - resulting in the wholesale destruction of the people in Huronia, the St. Lawrence Valley, Lake Erie shores, and down the Susquehanna River.
2) In speaking of Surrey Street JW states that, a young Caledonia man drove a van down that same road at high speed and crashed it into the house where Six Nations people were sleeping, narrowly missing the gas meter. Those in the house administered first aid until the ambulance got there. In fact, there is a lot more to this matter than the selective information presented here. It was part of the ongoing chaos at the former Douglas Creek Estates site, which has included a number of rapes, assaults and other acts of violence. The situation described by JW was kept out of the mainstream media - the only information I can find via google is on Six Nations Solidarity sites (hardly a reliable source) such as here. It may have been reported in "Turtle Island News", or the now defunct "Tekawenake", but their content is not on google and my hard copies would have been recycled years ago. What I recall is that the incident involved not a White person as JW alludes, but a young Native male who was apparently bent on committing suicide, but the name of the injured person was withheld to protect the family. Fortunately he failed, but this is a reflection of the horrors that have gone on here, perpetuated by Six Nations members and their invited outsiders, not the people of Caledonia. That one single house is a microcosm or reflection of the social dysfuction that afflicts much (certainly not all) of the Reserve Community.
3) A firebomb burned down the first structure built where the barricade is now. A nearby smoke shop, with people inside, was firebombed. A trailer was firebombed. as well. Well, I live here and this is news to me. Any "firebombing" has been perpetrated by Six Nations members or their supporters (see Blatchford or any of the local newspapers) - for example the arson incident which resulted in the complete burning of the Stirling Street Bridge which crosses the railway tracks - which is to this day closed. That was well reported and here is a picture:
Here is another picture of the April 2006 riot by Six Nations and their supporters, where fire was involved in the form of a tire fire in the middle of Argyle Street, Caledonia:
The smoke shacks are clustered around the former Douglas Creek Estates, and most are illegally situated on Hydro One land. There is a smoke shack that may have burned on the Caledonia bypass near the stub of the Hydro One tower demolished by militants to use as a barricade - at least there is a lot of rubble around the new one - but it is well known that that there is no love lost between "business rivals" in the smokes trade. Where is the evidence that anyone from Caledonia had anything to do with these alleged incendiary acts. This is very irresponsible reporting. Wait, technically it is not reporting, just a "letter to the editor" and hence you can say what you want and not have to provide evidence - under the guise of "opinion" and "free speech". There is the freedom to lie too - although one may get caught in the lie and then later have to take responsibility in some manner.
DeYo.
The letter in question can be found here.
First some background. JW, a non-Native person residing in Brantford, used to be a reporter and photographer with the Reserve newspaper "Tekawenake". When the latter folded somewhat more than a year ago Mr. W and colleague TK, a White radical Communist - Anarchist who has caused untold suffering in Caledonia, became associated with a start up newspaper, "Two Row Times". As it now stands Mr. W is a reporter, and Mr. K has risen in the ranks to become a General Manager and Editor of the Six Nations and "Dish with One Spoon" territory newspaper which competes with "Turtle Island News", which maintains that they are the only Reserve newspaper. I don't suppose that it would be "fair game" to include any information that I overheard Mr. W say to another non-Native in a local restaurant about his situation, so that will not be included here.
The primary focus of the present blog posting is to challenge the factual content of Mr. W's (JW)letter. I will do this by quoting from the Letter, then will offer sourced information to content. In my opinion what was written by JW is largely Six Nations propaganda - the party line. In italics below are excerpts from the letter by JW, then to be followed by my comments and evidence.
1) Cam Martindale's letter published last Friday Shows that he is one of so many Canadians who have no idea what is going on around them. The key to understanding Six Nations is that they are not Canadians, but rather a distinct and sovereign people with a constitution that precedes ours by about 1,500 years.
I have been unable to locate Mr. Martindale's letter, however, the allegation of the latter's ignorance is going to be attenuated when examining JW's written assertions. As to the comment that Six Nations people "are not Canadians" that is nothing but a political statement of politically correct dogma. In fact Six Nations and all who live within Canadian boundaries and who are subject to Canadian jurisdiction are de facto Canadians. Six Nations are subject to Canadian laws and any Criminal Code violations will result in the same sentence as any other Canadian. Six Nations accepts Transfer Payments and Welfare from the Federal Government of Canada - so if they are not Canadian, they need to return a lot of money - and with interest.
Six Nations are not aboriginal to Canada. Their homeland is in what is today Upstate New York, United States of America. So Six Nations are immigrants and refugees just as the White United Empire Loyalists who departed American territory after the Revolution. The argument about sovereignty is specious. There is not a shred of evidence to support it - but it is widely believed to be true. Six Nations were given "occupancy rights" by virtue of the Haldimand Deed, but the title to the land was and is vested in the Crown and its successors. It is true that in the 1640s the then Five Nations (including my own ancestors) committed an act of genocide, destroying all of the Nations residing in Southwestern Ontario. However, attempts to settle or lay claim to the land from the 1680s was net with increasing hostility from the Mississauga and their neighbours (including the remnants of the Huron / Wendat who escaped the attempt at complete annihilation in the 1640s) such that by 1700 all 8 Five Nations settlements north of Lake Ontario had been destroyed and their surviving inhabitants pushed back to the aboriginal lands in what is today Upstate New York. In each and every document or council dating from 1700 onward, the Six Nations recognized the sovereignty of the Crown and "His Majesty the Great King of England". Never once has the Crown or its legitimate agents questioned that the Six Nations were subjects of the King - it was true of all within the lands claimed by Great Britain, just as the same situation was true of the lands claimed by the King of France (lands that ultimately came under the sovereign control of the British Crown). I have written about this matter in numerous postings, with examples and sources. So the claim that Six Nations (all 23,000 on and off Reserve) are a sovereign people is only wishful thinking, and of relatively recent origin. It is the Mississauga, from whom Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand purchased the Grand River (Haldimand) Tract - it is the Mississauga (e.g., those residing on the New Credit Reserve near Hagersville) who are aboriginal to the Caledonia and surrounds area.
As to the antiquity of their Constitution. First, it was never recorded until the mid 19th Century, so we do not know how much has changed since the founding of the "League" or "Confederacy". One thing is absolutely certain though, and that is that JW's dates are nothing by a stab in the dark. For those who want to look at hard evidence, there is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest the timeline proposed by JW - that the League was formed about 500 AD at which time a "Constitution" was established. Anyone who wants to check out the facts here would be well advised to read a summary text by the doyen of Upstate New York archaeology (a man I know and respect), Dean R. Snow. His book which is part of "The Peoples of America" series is entitled, The Iroquois, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, Blackwell Publishing, 1996.
The data shows that the ancestors of those who would become the Five Nations began to arrive from what is today Central Pennsylvania circa 900 AD. So not only are Six Nations not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, they are not entirely aboriginal (depending on definition) to Upstate New York. They came from somewhere else, just like everyone else over the years - via migration. At this time a new people arrived in Upstate New York, but with many of the pottery traditions continuing for some time - likely because the females of the defeated groups were incorporated into the Five Nations by adoption - a practice that extended into modern times. So we are talking about 1100 years ago when the Five Nations made their first appearance as immigrants, displacing the former occupants. The archaeological record shows increasing violence over time (cannibalism via cut marks on human bones; and torture, for example fingers severed and tossed among the garbage thrown over the palisade walls). With the selection of sites for defense and the surrounding of villages with increasingly more substantial palisades we have evidence of warfare likely between the peoples who were to become the Five Nations. Then, around 1500 AD there is a shift in settlement patterns suggesting that warfare was less of a concern (villages on flatlands and without palisades). It would seem that about this time, say beginning circa 1400 AD a peace accord between those who would become the Five Nations was established. As Dr. Snow concludes, Both Iroquois oral tradition and archaeological evidence for endemic warfare suggest that the League could not have formed prior to around 1450, and the process completed by around 1525 (p.60). After this their violence was then directed outward toward neighbours not under the Great Tree of Peace - resulting in the wholesale destruction of the people in Huronia, the St. Lawrence Valley, Lake Erie shores, and down the Susquehanna River.
2) In speaking of Surrey Street JW states that, a young Caledonia man drove a van down that same road at high speed and crashed it into the house where Six Nations people were sleeping, narrowly missing the gas meter. Those in the house administered first aid until the ambulance got there. In fact, there is a lot more to this matter than the selective information presented here. It was part of the ongoing chaos at the former Douglas Creek Estates site, which has included a number of rapes, assaults and other acts of violence. The situation described by JW was kept out of the mainstream media - the only information I can find via google is on Six Nations Solidarity sites (hardly a reliable source) such as here. It may have been reported in "Turtle Island News", or the now defunct "Tekawenake", but their content is not on google and my hard copies would have been recycled years ago. What I recall is that the incident involved not a White person as JW alludes, but a young Native male who was apparently bent on committing suicide, but the name of the injured person was withheld to protect the family. Fortunately he failed, but this is a reflection of the horrors that have gone on here, perpetuated by Six Nations members and their invited outsiders, not the people of Caledonia. That one single house is a microcosm or reflection of the social dysfuction that afflicts much (certainly not all) of the Reserve Community.
3) A firebomb burned down the first structure built where the barricade is now. A nearby smoke shop, with people inside, was firebombed. A trailer was firebombed. as well. Well, I live here and this is news to me. Any "firebombing" has been perpetrated by Six Nations members or their supporters (see Blatchford or any of the local newspapers) - for example the arson incident which resulted in the complete burning of the Stirling Street Bridge which crosses the railway tracks - which is to this day closed. That was well reported and here is a picture:
Here is another picture of the April 2006 riot by Six Nations and their supporters, where fire was involved in the form of a tire fire in the middle of Argyle Street, Caledonia:
Where is it reported that a structure built where the barricade sits now was firebombed, and if it was, where is the evidence as to who committed the act?The smoke shacks are clustered around the former Douglas Creek Estates, and most are illegally situated on Hydro One land. There is a smoke shack that may have burned on the Caledonia bypass near the stub of the Hydro One tower demolished by militants to use as a barricade - at least there is a lot of rubble around the new one - but it is well known that that there is no love lost between "business rivals" in the smokes trade. Where is the evidence that anyone from Caledonia had anything to do with these alleged incendiary acts. This is very irresponsible reporting. Wait, technically it is not reporting, just a "letter to the editor" and hence you can say what you want and not have to provide evidence - under the guise of "opinion" and "free speech". There is the freedom to lie too - although one may get caught in the lie and then later have to take responsibility in some manner.
DeYo.
Thursday 26 June 2014
Legal Representatives for All Parties Agree, Six Nations Have No Valid Claim for Land, Only Money
It appears that there is a major disconnect between the legal teams representing Six Nations in so called "land claims", and some or most of the Six Nations members.
If you ask, as I have, any Six Nations member who shows up at the former Douglas Creek Estates when for example Gary McHale makes an appearance, what the true concern is, they will say the return of "stolen" land. Many or most are under the impression that the Haldimand Deed gave them (or should have given them) rights as a sovereign people to do with the land as they pleased. Thus they reject (or do not understand, or are unaware of) repeated rulings by various levels of the local, Ontario and Canadian (formerly Crown) Courts as it relates to land ownership. So once again, perception rears its ugly head and many people are completely misguided because they not only do not know the legal rulings, but neither the facts upon which they are based.
In the video clip of the interview of Sun News with Gary McHale (25 June 2014), the latter asserts that time and again the Courts have universally agreed that disagreements relating to the land claims submitted by Six Nations in 1987 are not about the legal title of land ownership, but only about monetary compensation for perceived damages dating back 170 years. It is time for me to make further specific inquiries.
Historical Record from 1841: I have spent considerable time presenting the facts (documentation arising from the time before Confederation in 1867) which are freely available at the Library and Archives Canada (with microfilm copies at the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford) in various postings to this blog. I have seen the original documents and assessed the content of the Council Minutes accompanying each surrender, the surveyor's records, the land inspection returns, and as well have obtained copies of other relevant documents such as the personal papers of the "Colonial" officials (e.g., Superintendant David Thorburn) charged by the Crown with the responsibility of ensuring that the duties of the Crown to the Six Nations are properly maintained. My efforts have shown that there are no irregularities in the surrender of the lands within the Haldimand Tract with the exception of those parcels that the Chiefs, during the 1840s, wished to have set aside for the Six Nations as a Reserve so that they could live together as a people. At the time there were farms and communities of White people. Some of the White and Black people were mere squatters with no legal title, others had purchased the "improvements" of one or more Six Nations members and had deeds from them, and there were those who had legally recognized Patents stemming from 999 year leases granted by Chief Joseph Brant who was given Power of Attorney by the Six Nations Chiefs. The result was that there were Six Nations groups interspersed as a patchwork quilt along the Grand River, extending back to the line shown in the survey accompanying the Haldimand Deed (1784) and Simcoe Patent (1793). The record shows that the Government officials were concerned that the Six Nations would be so scattered that their existence as a community was in jeopardy.
The Six Nations Chiefs in 1840 were well aware of the problem, and in many cases frustrated not only at the White squatters, but their own people who made a practice of hopping from plot to plot of land, selling each after clearing a few acres then moving on to repeat the process. The result was a demographic shift whereby there were as many non-Natives as Six Nations members residing on the Grand River Tract. The only viable solution, other than moving west to unoccupied lands on for example Manitoulin Island en mass (an option that was considered), was to consolidate. Since no one considered mass eviction of Whites as a viable solution since the large number of residents would need to be compensated for their improvements, and the monies taken from the Six Nations Trust account to pay for it.
As I have noted before, the single most comprehensive published source on this subject, which includes copies of the original documents, is Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1964.
On 5 January 1841, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Upper Canada, Samuel P. Jarvis, provided a very thoughtful consideration of all of the issues relating to the decision to form a compact Reserve in his presentation to a delegation of Mohawk Chiefs at a meeting in Toronto. While Jarvis has been criticized for his handling of the Trust Account, it was his assertion that the lands should not be assigned in fee simple that resulted in a Reserve which boasts of vibrant Six Nations community to this day. Had the lands been granted to each head of family in fee simple, the individuals had every right to sell their lands to the highest bidder. This is precisely what happened in a number of American jurisdictions with the result that today there is no Reserve lands, or only parcels of land scattered randomly among the holdings of non - Members. Jarvis suggested that all Six Nations families should have the right to remain on their present holdings, and move to the consolidated Reserve at a later date if they so chose. So all of the available lands would be assigned to the Crown to be sold and the monetary advantage given to the Six Nations, with the exception of the farms at present in their actual occupation and cultivation, and of 20,000 acres as a further reservation (p.191). The Chiefs at this time were in agreement, but asked that lands in the Johnson Settlement be exempted unless conforming to their specific wishes. This stipulation would change before everything was finalized prior to 1850.
On 18 January 1841 the "General Surrender" or "Surrender of Lands by the Six Nations" was read to the Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations upon the Grand River in full Council assembled at Onandaga Council House. It was signed by members of each Nation (including two Mohawks).
Although the initial agreement, which is accepted to this day by the Federal Government of Canada as a binding agreement, stated that 20,000 acres would be reserved such that every head of family could be assigned from 100 to 200 acres of land, the Chiefs changed their minds many times between 1841 and 1848 when agreement was reached in the last remaining parcel (the Burtch Tract). The total "land mass" which comprises the Six Nations Reserve today is about 46,000 acres, which is over double the amount noted in the original agreement of 1841.
Ultimately the choice was made of lands where there were no Brant Leases, and evicting the relatively few individuals residing there would make this choice of the primary focus of the consolidated settlement the most reasonable. The initial choice, one that met the criteria, was Tuscarora Township. Over the years between 1841 and 1848 there was a lot of back and forth, and ultimately the final choice was Tuscarora, plus lands between Onondaga and Middleport in Onondaga Township (both in Brant County), and a single strip of land six lots wide at the far eastern margin of Oneida Township in Haldimand County. Finally there was a 200 acre parcel known as the "Glebe Lands" around the Mohawk Institute and the Mohawk Chapel - which remain as part of Indian Reserve 40 (Six Nations), noted as 40b.
Evidence for the Surrender of DCE / Kanonhstaton in 1845: The best source for the primary source documentation of each transaction between 1841 and 1848 is the 2009 report to the Corporation of the City of Brantford by Joan Holmes & Associates as found here. It should be noted that the contentious lands along the Plank Road, the subject of so much acrimony today, including the location of the former Douglas Creek Estates, are specifically noted as being surrendered to the Crown on 17 September 1845 by the 66 Chiefs in Council who signed the document.
Land Claims in 1987: Six Nations made no further claims on this land until the submissions by the Land and Resources Department of the Six Nations Band Council in 1987 (see here).
What Changed in 1995?: By 1995 it was evident to Six Nations legal representatives that there would be no return of lands that were now lawfully patented by Crown Deed, and that the only recourse to any perceived and proven claims was monetary compensation (see here). This has not stopped certain radical elements at Six Nations for making false claims of lands that were improperly sold and therefore must be returned to the Six Nations forthwith. This despite the opinions of their own Counsel, and the facts as available in the archived documents.
Since 1995 Has the Federal Government Reaffirmed its View that there is No Validity to the Plank Road Claim(s)?: The answer is yes. For example in 2006, Federal Government representative Monique Dorion stated in no uncertain terms that, Ottawa was firm that there was no validity to the Plank Road claim (Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010, p.137). Three years later,
"In a letter dated January 9, 2009, Chuck Strahl, the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada said “the Government of Canada’s position is that the surrender of 1844 is valid”." (see here, p.11).
A Recent Court Case that Applies Directly to DCE / Kanonhstaton: Evidence that to this day, the situation remains the same can be found in recent Court Injunctions issued against those who were blocking legal and lawful work on lands traceable back to a Crown Patent by developers who were attempting to build homes on their land. A good example can be found in the conflict over Plank Road lands in Hagersville owned by John Voortman, and in the process of being developed by him. He and his contractors were stopped from doing any work between October and December 2008 by the Haudenosaunee Men's Fire (HMF) led by Chief Alan MacNaughton. Ultimately Mr. Voortman took the matter to Court and the following findings were made. Only the key clauses are included. The case was heard by Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson, 3 April 2009. The proceedings and conclusions have direct implications for the lands at DCE. The full transaction can be found here:
[49] The position of the Six Nations Council is set out in their letter to Voortman’s counsel. Essentially, the Six Nations Council takes the position that the aboriginal interest in the land in the Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road land claim was never lawfully surrendered to the Crown. But, in the legal action there is no claim for an interest in the land. That is, the Six Nations Council do not make a legal claim for possession of or return of the land. Rather, the 1995 legal action claims an accounting for all revenues that the Six Nations people should have received from the land.
[50] In summary, the Ontario Court of Appeal has found that there has been no conveyance of title to the Six Nations people, and the two recognized governing bodies of the aboriginal people, namely the Six Nations Council and the Six Nations Chiefs, have not made any claim for title to or possession of the property.
[51] Moreover, even if the HMF have the authority to speak on behalf of the Six Nations people, I note that there is no claim made by the HMF in this action or in any other action for the possession of or return of this property. The only request that the HMF have made with respect to the return of the lands is the demand that was made of Mr. Voortman Sr. at the meeting of December 21, 2008.
[52] Therefore, I find that there is no merit to the suggestion that the Six Nations people have a right to ownership of the property. I find that if there is an aboriginal claim it is for compensation for the loss of the usufructuary right regarding the property, not for title to the land.
.
.
.
[56] In the present case Voortman can trace its title back to the Crown Patents, and therefore, pursuant to the Chippewas case, Voortman’s title is presumed to be valid. That presumption is acknowledged by the Six Nations Council in its letter to Voortman’s lawyers. Moreover, even if the surrender of the Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road land in this case is found to be invalid, given the decision in the Chippewas case, it is very unlikely that the court would set aside the Crown Patents.
[57] Therefore, I find that Voortman has a strong case to show that it is the legal owner of the property, and that Voortman is entitled to exercise its rights as the property owner. The arguments to the contrary are weak, and even if successful would not result in any change in the registered ownership of the property.
.
.
.
IV - CONCLUSION REGARDING SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED
[76] I now wish to summarize my findings with respect to whether there is a serious issue to be tried. I accept that Voortman is the registered owner of the property and therefore is entitled to exercise its rights as owner. I accept that the Six Nations people have an ongoing claim regarding these lands, but that claim is not for title to or possession of the lands; rather it is for damages.
.
.
.
THE RULE OF LAW
[84] Before I conclude I would like to emphasize the rule of law. All people in Canada are governed by the rule of law as confirmed in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, all people in Canada are required to obey the law. As a corollary, all people in Canada are entitled to know that every other person in Canada will be required to obey the law. If any person in Canada does not obey the law, the courts will enforce the law. In that way the public has some assurance that they can live in peace without fear of those who might choose to disobey the law.
[85] In the present case the representatives of the HMF delivered a message to this court that they did not accept the court process. Moreover, there was a veiled threat that if an injunction were to issue the HMF would have no choice but to continue their tactics of intimidation and criminal and civil disobedience. That threat does not alter or affect my decision today.
[86] The HMF clearly have a choice. An injunction will be issued today. The HMF may choose in good faith to abide by the injunction, live within the criminal and civil law, participate in peaceful demonstrations, and pursue whatever claim they believe they have through their own negotiations and/or court actions. They are not compelled, as was suggested, to disobey the injunction and engage in further criminal and civil misconduct.
[87] The rule of law means that the HMF will be required to obey any court order, just as any person in Canada would be required to obey a court order. The assertion of an aboriginal right does not permit any person, aboriginal or otherwise, to break the law.
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
[88] For all of the aforementioned reasons I find that Voortman is entitled to an Order for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from entering onto the property and from obstructing Voortman’s development of the property.
[89] I also declare that Voortman has title to and is the owner of the property, and as such is entitled to exclusive possession of the property. I make this finding so that no other group can come forward to occupy the property as the putative land owner.
[90] This Order will be enforced by the Sheriff of Haldimand County with the assistance of the O.P.P. I also order that Voortman and its designates may use reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing upon the property, and to remove any trespasser from the property in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
--------
So the simple question is, WHY ARE THE ACTIVISTS STILL OCCUPYING DCE AFTER 8 YEARS? They are clearly contravening the law, and there is no possibility of the land being returned to Six Nations (the HCCC). The above "Statement of Claim" of 1995 makes it evident that the only compensation that could be forthcoming to Six Nations is money. The legal representatives of the Six Nations Elected Council have concluded that this is the only viable course of action. Alas this does not stop rogue members from finding their own path and followers. In particular, despite the ruling against the HCCC and Men's Fire, the Hereditary Council seems to have a short memory (from 2009) when they were given the clearest possible message via the Courts that their claim to land was without merit, and the Courts would not overturn what is registered in the Ontario Land Registry. The only recourse is to push forward with monetary claims. Of course the goal of the HCCC, and particularly their radical / enforcement arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) is to twist the arm of the Province of Ontario and have the actual land at DCE returned to them as Reserve land. If that ever happened it would make a travesty of the justice system, which to date has upheld the rights of land owners whose deeds can be traced back to Crown Patents, to ownership free of interference by groups such as the HMF.
It would appear that without a shadow of a doubt, the legal and moral obligation of the occupiers is to remove themselves immediately and allow the legal system to determine whether there is any merit in the claim for monetary compensation for a matter extending back 170 years. That is for the Courts to decide.
DeYo.
If you ask, as I have, any Six Nations member who shows up at the former Douglas Creek Estates when for example Gary McHale makes an appearance, what the true concern is, they will say the return of "stolen" land. Many or most are under the impression that the Haldimand Deed gave them (or should have given them) rights as a sovereign people to do with the land as they pleased. Thus they reject (or do not understand, or are unaware of) repeated rulings by various levels of the local, Ontario and Canadian (formerly Crown) Courts as it relates to land ownership. So once again, perception rears its ugly head and many people are completely misguided because they not only do not know the legal rulings, but neither the facts upon which they are based.
In the video clip of the interview of Sun News with Gary McHale (25 June 2014), the latter asserts that time and again the Courts have universally agreed that disagreements relating to the land claims submitted by Six Nations in 1987 are not about the legal title of land ownership, but only about monetary compensation for perceived damages dating back 170 years. It is time for me to make further specific inquiries.
Historical Record from 1841: I have spent considerable time presenting the facts (documentation arising from the time before Confederation in 1867) which are freely available at the Library and Archives Canada (with microfilm copies at the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford) in various postings to this blog. I have seen the original documents and assessed the content of the Council Minutes accompanying each surrender, the surveyor's records, the land inspection returns, and as well have obtained copies of other relevant documents such as the personal papers of the "Colonial" officials (e.g., Superintendant David Thorburn) charged by the Crown with the responsibility of ensuring that the duties of the Crown to the Six Nations are properly maintained. My efforts have shown that there are no irregularities in the surrender of the lands within the Haldimand Tract with the exception of those parcels that the Chiefs, during the 1840s, wished to have set aside for the Six Nations as a Reserve so that they could live together as a people. At the time there were farms and communities of White people. Some of the White and Black people were mere squatters with no legal title, others had purchased the "improvements" of one or more Six Nations members and had deeds from them, and there were those who had legally recognized Patents stemming from 999 year leases granted by Chief Joseph Brant who was given Power of Attorney by the Six Nations Chiefs. The result was that there were Six Nations groups interspersed as a patchwork quilt along the Grand River, extending back to the line shown in the survey accompanying the Haldimand Deed (1784) and Simcoe Patent (1793). The record shows that the Government officials were concerned that the Six Nations would be so scattered that their existence as a community was in jeopardy.
The Six Nations Chiefs in 1840 were well aware of the problem, and in many cases frustrated not only at the White squatters, but their own people who made a practice of hopping from plot to plot of land, selling each after clearing a few acres then moving on to repeat the process. The result was a demographic shift whereby there were as many non-Natives as Six Nations members residing on the Grand River Tract. The only viable solution, other than moving west to unoccupied lands on for example Manitoulin Island en mass (an option that was considered), was to consolidate. Since no one considered mass eviction of Whites as a viable solution since the large number of residents would need to be compensated for their improvements, and the monies taken from the Six Nations Trust account to pay for it.
As I have noted before, the single most comprehensive published source on this subject, which includes copies of the original documents, is Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1964.
On 5 January 1841, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Upper Canada, Samuel P. Jarvis, provided a very thoughtful consideration of all of the issues relating to the decision to form a compact Reserve in his presentation to a delegation of Mohawk Chiefs at a meeting in Toronto. While Jarvis has been criticized for his handling of the Trust Account, it was his assertion that the lands should not be assigned in fee simple that resulted in a Reserve which boasts of vibrant Six Nations community to this day. Had the lands been granted to each head of family in fee simple, the individuals had every right to sell their lands to the highest bidder. This is precisely what happened in a number of American jurisdictions with the result that today there is no Reserve lands, or only parcels of land scattered randomly among the holdings of non - Members. Jarvis suggested that all Six Nations families should have the right to remain on their present holdings, and move to the consolidated Reserve at a later date if they so chose. So all of the available lands would be assigned to the Crown to be sold and the monetary advantage given to the Six Nations, with the exception of the farms at present in their actual occupation and cultivation, and of 20,000 acres as a further reservation (p.191). The Chiefs at this time were in agreement, but asked that lands in the Johnson Settlement be exempted unless conforming to their specific wishes. This stipulation would change before everything was finalized prior to 1850.
On 18 January 1841 the "General Surrender" or "Surrender of Lands by the Six Nations" was read to the Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations upon the Grand River in full Council assembled at Onandaga Council House. It was signed by members of each Nation (including two Mohawks).
Although the initial agreement, which is accepted to this day by the Federal Government of Canada as a binding agreement, stated that 20,000 acres would be reserved such that every head of family could be assigned from 100 to 200 acres of land, the Chiefs changed their minds many times between 1841 and 1848 when agreement was reached in the last remaining parcel (the Burtch Tract). The total "land mass" which comprises the Six Nations Reserve today is about 46,000 acres, which is over double the amount noted in the original agreement of 1841.
Ultimately the choice was made of lands where there were no Brant Leases, and evicting the relatively few individuals residing there would make this choice of the primary focus of the consolidated settlement the most reasonable. The initial choice, one that met the criteria, was Tuscarora Township. Over the years between 1841 and 1848 there was a lot of back and forth, and ultimately the final choice was Tuscarora, plus lands between Onondaga and Middleport in Onondaga Township (both in Brant County), and a single strip of land six lots wide at the far eastern margin of Oneida Township in Haldimand County. Finally there was a 200 acre parcel known as the "Glebe Lands" around the Mohawk Institute and the Mohawk Chapel - which remain as part of Indian Reserve 40 (Six Nations), noted as 40b.
Evidence for the Surrender of DCE / Kanonhstaton in 1845: The best source for the primary source documentation of each transaction between 1841 and 1848 is the 2009 report to the Corporation of the City of Brantford by Joan Holmes & Associates as found here. It should be noted that the contentious lands along the Plank Road, the subject of so much acrimony today, including the location of the former Douglas Creek Estates, are specifically noted as being surrendered to the Crown on 17 September 1845 by the 66 Chiefs in Council who signed the document.
Land Claims in 1987: Six Nations made no further claims on this land until the submissions by the Land and Resources Department of the Six Nations Band Council in 1987 (see here).
What Changed in 1995?: By 1995 it was evident to Six Nations legal representatives that there would be no return of lands that were now lawfully patented by Crown Deed, and that the only recourse to any perceived and proven claims was monetary compensation (see here). This has not stopped certain radical elements at Six Nations for making false claims of lands that were improperly sold and therefore must be returned to the Six Nations forthwith. This despite the opinions of their own Counsel, and the facts as available in the archived documents.
Since 1995 Has the Federal Government Reaffirmed its View that there is No Validity to the Plank Road Claim(s)?: The answer is yes. For example in 2006, Federal Government representative Monique Dorion stated in no uncertain terms that, Ottawa was firm that there was no validity to the Plank Road claim (Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010, p.137). Three years later,
"In a letter dated January 9, 2009, Chuck Strahl, the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada said “the Government of Canada’s position is that the surrender of 1844 is valid”." (see here, p.11).
A Recent Court Case that Applies Directly to DCE / Kanonhstaton: Evidence that to this day, the situation remains the same can be found in recent Court Injunctions issued against those who were blocking legal and lawful work on lands traceable back to a Crown Patent by developers who were attempting to build homes on their land. A good example can be found in the conflict over Plank Road lands in Hagersville owned by John Voortman, and in the process of being developed by him. He and his contractors were stopped from doing any work between October and December 2008 by the Haudenosaunee Men's Fire (HMF) led by Chief Alan MacNaughton. Ultimately Mr. Voortman took the matter to Court and the following findings were made. Only the key clauses are included. The case was heard by Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson, 3 April 2009. The proceedings and conclusions have direct implications for the lands at DCE. The full transaction can be found here:
[49] The position of the Six Nations Council is set out in their letter to Voortman’s counsel. Essentially, the Six Nations Council takes the position that the aboriginal interest in the land in the Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road land claim was never lawfully surrendered to the Crown. But, in the legal action there is no claim for an interest in the land. That is, the Six Nations Council do not make a legal claim for possession of or return of the land. Rather, the 1995 legal action claims an accounting for all revenues that the Six Nations people should have received from the land.
[50] In summary, the Ontario Court of Appeal has found that there has been no conveyance of title to the Six Nations people, and the two recognized governing bodies of the aboriginal people, namely the Six Nations Council and the Six Nations Chiefs, have not made any claim for title to or possession of the property.
[51] Moreover, even if the HMF have the authority to speak on behalf of the Six Nations people, I note that there is no claim made by the HMF in this action or in any other action for the possession of or return of this property. The only request that the HMF have made with respect to the return of the lands is the demand that was made of Mr. Voortman Sr. at the meeting of December 21, 2008.
[52] Therefore, I find that there is no merit to the suggestion that the Six Nations people have a right to ownership of the property. I find that if there is an aboriginal claim it is for compensation for the loss of the usufructuary right regarding the property, not for title to the land.
.
.
.
[56] In the present case Voortman can trace its title back to the Crown Patents, and therefore, pursuant to the Chippewas case, Voortman’s title is presumed to be valid. That presumption is acknowledged by the Six Nations Council in its letter to Voortman’s lawyers. Moreover, even if the surrender of the Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road land in this case is found to be invalid, given the decision in the Chippewas case, it is very unlikely that the court would set aside the Crown Patents.
[57] Therefore, I find that Voortman has a strong case to show that it is the legal owner of the property, and that Voortman is entitled to exercise its rights as the property owner. The arguments to the contrary are weak, and even if successful would not result in any change in the registered ownership of the property.
.
.
.
IV - CONCLUSION REGARDING SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED
[76] I now wish to summarize my findings with respect to whether there is a serious issue to be tried. I accept that Voortman is the registered owner of the property and therefore is entitled to exercise its rights as owner. I accept that the Six Nations people have an ongoing claim regarding these lands, but that claim is not for title to or possession of the lands; rather it is for damages.
.
.
.
THE RULE OF LAW
[84] Before I conclude I would like to emphasize the rule of law. All people in Canada are governed by the rule of law as confirmed in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, all people in Canada are required to obey the law. As a corollary, all people in Canada are entitled to know that every other person in Canada will be required to obey the law. If any person in Canada does not obey the law, the courts will enforce the law. In that way the public has some assurance that they can live in peace without fear of those who might choose to disobey the law.
[85] In the present case the representatives of the HMF delivered a message to this court that they did not accept the court process. Moreover, there was a veiled threat that if an injunction were to issue the HMF would have no choice but to continue their tactics of intimidation and criminal and civil disobedience. That threat does not alter or affect my decision today.
[86] The HMF clearly have a choice. An injunction will be issued today. The HMF may choose in good faith to abide by the injunction, live within the criminal and civil law, participate in peaceful demonstrations, and pursue whatever claim they believe they have through their own negotiations and/or court actions. They are not compelled, as was suggested, to disobey the injunction and engage in further criminal and civil misconduct.
[87] The rule of law means that the HMF will be required to obey any court order, just as any person in Canada would be required to obey a court order. The assertion of an aboriginal right does not permit any person, aboriginal or otherwise, to break the law.
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
[88] For all of the aforementioned reasons I find that Voortman is entitled to an Order for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from entering onto the property and from obstructing Voortman’s development of the property.
[89] I also declare that Voortman has title to and is the owner of the property, and as such is entitled to exclusive possession of the property. I make this finding so that no other group can come forward to occupy the property as the putative land owner.
[90] This Order will be enforced by the Sheriff of Haldimand County with the assistance of the O.P.P. I also order that Voortman and its designates may use reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing upon the property, and to remove any trespasser from the property in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
--------
So the simple question is, WHY ARE THE ACTIVISTS STILL OCCUPYING DCE AFTER 8 YEARS? They are clearly contravening the law, and there is no possibility of the land being returned to Six Nations (the HCCC). The above "Statement of Claim" of 1995 makes it evident that the only compensation that could be forthcoming to Six Nations is money. The legal representatives of the Six Nations Elected Council have concluded that this is the only viable course of action. Alas this does not stop rogue members from finding their own path and followers. In particular, despite the ruling against the HCCC and Men's Fire, the Hereditary Council seems to have a short memory (from 2009) when they were given the clearest possible message via the Courts that their claim to land was without merit, and the Courts would not overturn what is registered in the Ontario Land Registry. The only recourse is to push forward with monetary claims. Of course the goal of the HCCC, and particularly their radical / enforcement arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) is to twist the arm of the Province of Ontario and have the actual land at DCE returned to them as Reserve land. If that ever happened it would make a travesty of the justice system, which to date has upheld the rights of land owners whose deeds can be traced back to Crown Patents, to ownership free of interference by groups such as the HMF.
It would appear that without a shadow of a doubt, the legal and moral obligation of the occupiers is to remove themselves immediately and allow the legal system to determine whether there is any merit in the claim for monetary compensation for a matter extending back 170 years. That is for the Courts to decide.
DeYo.
"Six Nations 'Does Not Support' Removal of Blockade"
Updated 4 July 2014.
I woke up this morning to find that overnight the online version of "The Sachem" (see here) included information about the title of this posting. In addition an article in "Two Row Times" hard copy edition addressed the same topic, and later, articles in "Sun News" came to my attention. All spoke of the response of Six Nations to the decision of the Haldimand County Council about removing the barricade blockading Surrey Street (a County road). The content of each will be provided below:
1) The Sachem, dated 25 June 2014 included an article entitled, Six Nations "does not support" removal of blockade. Below I have included some quotes from the article which are coming from the elected counterpart (and bitter rival) of the hereditary council. So the bottom line is that the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) has weighed in with respect to the Haldimand County Council's unanimous decision to remove the barrier blocking Surrey Street in Caledonia.
Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) is “urgently (calling) on the (Haldimand) County Council to reconsider,” removing the blockade from the entrance way of Surrey Street in Caledonia, located at the former Douglas Creek Estates.
A press release was issued by SNEC shortly after 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25 following a release sent out the day previous by Haldimand County Council detailing its intentions.
SNEC’s statement in response to Haldimand County Council’s press release minced no words: “Six Nations Elected Council does not support the County Council’s decision… (SNEC) believes that Haldimand County’s decision and proposed actions will only serve to cause unnecessary problems by disrupting the peace that has been maintained there for some time.”
“Mayor Hewitt’s statement about ‘working with its neighbours’ and ‘moving forward in a unified fashion’ is contradictory to Haldimand County’s resolution to remove the ‘illegal blockades’ without first consulting with its neighbours in Six Nations. Actions speak louder than words and Haldimand County’s decision and proposed actions, if carried through, will only deepen the divide on all sides as opposed to creating unity.
“The provincial government has taken no meaningful action in the past eight years to resolve the Douglas Creek Estates Land claim. Six Nations Elected Council calls on the Haldimand County to refocus their efforts by working with Six Nations Elected Council to end the provincial government’s inaction.”
2) Information from Two Row Times of 25 June 2014, Mayor Hewitt ups the ante at Kanonhstaton, p.3:
It appears that the reporter here does not believe that Mayor Hewitt is simply trying to clean up the site, and provide access along a County owned road. The reporter appears to see deeper or more nefarious themes lurking in the background. He, in my opinion, linked the action of Council to the, two recent provocative incidents created by Haldimand residents, Gary McHale and Randy Fleming a week apart which brought back memories of the 2006 shut down of Argyle Street.
The reporter (a White Brantford resident) goes on to say that, To cool the situation down at the time, David Peterson, former provincial Premier was sent in to negotiate a settlement, which eventually brought down the barricades. That included promises to turn over disputed land in Burtch, Townsand and South Cayuga, which has yet to happen eight years later.
The move by Haldimand council has put the Six Nations community on high alert
3) Information from Sun News of 25 June 2014, Native Band Opposes Removal of Long-Controversial Caledonia Blockade:
See here for the perspective of Sun News. This article repeats much of what has been said in this and the previous blog postings. It also states that the removal of the blockade may not happen, "without a fight". Chief Ava Hill of the Elected Band Council (SNEC) stated that, she disagreed with that sentiment, and said removing the blockade would only "deepen the divide on all sides."
She blamed the federal and provincial governments for failing to negotiate, and wants to meet with provincial Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer.
The article also has a link to an interview with Gary McHale which provides excellent and accurate information. In particular note the statement that the lawyers for Six Nations all agree that the disagreement that provoked the original uprising in 2006 is actually over the misappropriation of funds and other monetary matters, not a land claim - despite what many activists would have you believe. I have elsewhere noted that the land claims were withdrawn by the Elected Council as of 1995, but that the Hereditary Council continues to maintain that it is a land claim. Things get confused when former Elected Chief William Montour negotiated with Samsung, maintaining that Six Nations had unceded lands in Dunn and South Cayuga Township (an unsupported claim), in order to extract a very sweet deal worth $65 million over 20 years. So Six Nations individuals from many walks are maintaining that the real issue is primarily over land - so things get further confused.
In the video Gary states that he wrote letters to each Councilor hoping to capitalize on the fact that elections were on the horizon. He reportedly told them that he was prepared to picket their homes in order to make a point. One wonders if this action influenced the Councilors in some manner.
Note that the picture at the header of the article shows former Six Nations Elected Chief William Montour, NOT Mayor Ken Hewitt as the caption indicates.
4) Information from Two Row Times (TRT), July 2nd, 2014, p.7, The people say no to Hewitt's plan for Kanonstaton:
A bit late, but anyway, the White reporters at TRT have provided what can best be described as "predictable" reports on the reaction on some of the Six Nations residents, and their White supporters, to the plan of Haldimand County Council. Clearly, there is an element, how large is impossible to say at present, who are locked in a time warp and still think that the former DCE is "ours", and that it is just a matter of a short while before the Ontario Government will be handing over "Kanonhstaton" to ........................ well, that part is not clear. There is the legal entity (Six Nations Elected Council), and those who have usurped the process and have abandoned all pretense at recognizing anything except their own entrenched world view - the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council "representatives" - the militant HDI and Men's Fire. Anyway, back to the specific content of the article which states that, Plans are being made to respond to the intimidation of Caledonia provocateurs that have been harassing those at the Kanonhstaton site for the past few weeks. But the plans are to fight hate with friendship, family and fun. Well, that sounds lovely, but history teaches us that this is just spin, designed to gloss over the fact that violent militants still lurk behind the scenes ready at a moment's notice to spring into action and create another "Caledonia 2006". Why would I say this? HDI have threatened to initiate a wave of violence that would make 2006 pale in comparison (see up posting for more information). Here the Two Row Society, a gathering of Onkwehon:we and non-Native supporters of Indigenous Rights and land claims, had recommended, that they reestablish the communication network to quickly alert Six Nations residents and allies if there should be any further provocations at the site by Gary McHale and others. Those of use who call Caledonia and vicinity home know exactly what that means - militants will be streaming down 5th and 6th Lines (Stirling Street Bridge was torched by Six Nations activists in 2006 closing this access route permanently) ready to commit terrorist acts to defend their twisted world view.
Apparently, according to the White reporter, The controversial burned out trailer visible from Highway #6 will also remain in place as a memorial and reminder of the fire bombings against Six Nations during the hottest of times in 2006 and the summer of 2007. Really. I realize that some at Six Nations do blame "anti reclamation" forces for the burning, but there is no evidence as to the perpetrator. As I have said so often, at Six Nations, belief trumps everything including the facts. Click here to read what has been reported in a newspaper that is unlikely tainted by biases in the matter. Where is there any report anywhere that any of the criminal arson acts were committed by anyone other than Six Nations members or their supporters? I recall the tire fire on Argyle Street, the torching of the Stirling Street Bridge - all "accomplished" by Six Nations members. The trailer was firebombed by Caledonia residents? That is a bald faced lie unless this reporter, who has said the same thing in the past, can provide anything remotely resembling evidence that anyone outside of the Six Nations and supporter group committed incendiary acts. Good luck.
This Two Row group outlined further plans involving camp outs and kumbaya stuff, but this just deflects from the plans for illegal acts such as, putting up a fence around the entire site ASAP. Six Nations do not own this land, the Ontario Provincial Government owns the land. If a Caledonia group decided that they were going to place a fence around Queen's Park, would that fly? How about any Ontario owned land? In the double standard world in which we much endure, Six Nations will almost certainly be permitted to put up the fence (probably funded by taxpayer dollars or the money HDI has extorted from developers in the heydays of 2006 to 2008), but should Caledonia residents do the same - surely people can predict what the response would be from the Ontario Government in their racist attempts to deal "firmly" with the non Native Status individuals. I perhaps need to remind the Government and others that many who reside in Haldimand County are mixed descendants of Six Nations and early settler families who are not eligible for a precious Status Card with all its entitlements. Thus Six Nations membership is to an extent arbitrary - some of that coming from Six Nations and some from Federal Government rulings which impact Six Nations rights to decide who is and who is not a member of the Community.
Bloggers Comments: As I have maintained all along, the Provincial Government made a bad move in negotiating with terrorists, and the "agreement" was basically offering a bribe of lands that Six Nations had zero legal rights to, and that the Province happened to own and so could use as a bargaining chip. I will have a lot more to say about this attempted sell out (without the authority of the Federal Government who has the say in any Aboriginal Affairs matter of any consequence), by our Provincial Government. Basically, should the Provincial Government follow through on any of this under the table agreement, all hell will break loose - there is a lot at stake, but the matter needs to be addressed and the Six Nations given the "bad news".
First, a proposed "solution". Points would be gained by Six Nations deciding to obey the law and taking proactive action - dismantling the barricade themselves. Alas, this will never happen because it is the Hereditary Council who claims authority here. They are not on speaking terms with the Elected Council, and cooperating with the latter would mean recognizing that they have some legitimacy in the governance of the Six Nations Reserve. History shows that while potentially productive, due to politics, it will never happen. Recently the Chief of the Elected Council stated that dismantling the blockade is a bad idea - so now we have the top brass for both Councils on board - although it would be a first if this translated to seeing the two bodies work together cooperatively.
Second, a comment on the Federal - Provincial potential overlap (conflict). It is actually the Federal Government who would need to become involved. Options including saying "you have no valid claim" (the truth), or deciding to transfer the land from the Ontario Land Registry system to the Indian Affairs Land Registry system which is under Federal jurisdiction. So it is an illusion that the Provincial Government can make any binding decisions. In a panic they bought out the developer after the riot in April of 2006, but it is Provincial land. If they were for some politically motivated reason to decide to transfer the land to Six Nations, this would impact Haldimand County in a negative way with huge losses in tax revenue.
As to the content of the above article, what SNEC says will be supportive of the stance taken by their hereditary counterpart, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) whose enforcement and extortion arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, has been in the forefront of the "reclamation" (theft) of the Douglas Creek Estates housing development. They can make political hay by temporarily cooperating with their adversary. While the HCCC has absolutely no official status (being replaced by an elected system in 1924), it carries moral authority as the supposed embodiment of the traditional governance system dating back to time immemorial (although by 1924 showing inertia and severe dysfunction). Of course "colonialism" was blamed for the latter issues. There is a chronic shortage of personal responsibility at Indian Reserve 40, so with ample finger pointing, the accusation of "racism", the handmaiden of "colonialism", is the convenient attribution. Six Nations are always (in their minds eye) the victims. The concept is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Six Nations members on or off the Reserve - and many in the general population who have failed to do any meaningful research have bought into this world view. Those of us who live here and have done their homework know that this is simply unfounded propaganda.
So what does SNEC have to say about the County's legal right to enforce the laws applicable to all within its jurisdiction? True to form, they take the opportunity to assert bogus rights and pretend ownership of the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) when in fact the land was obtained by a violent insurrection perpetrated in April of 2006. Despite the evidence that the land was surrendered in 1845 by 66 Chiefs in Council, and the fact that the "reclaimed" land is presently owned by the Provincial Government and duly registered in the Ontario Land Registry on title in the Cayuga Land Office, radical activists at Six Nations have held local people hostage for 8 years - dictating what can and cannot occur at DCE. On the proximal surrounding land two contraband cigarette shacks and a hamburger outlet have been built. The Provincial Government paid the legal owners $15 million to keep the land in limbo and allow the illegal occupation by Six Nations activists to continue since 2006. In addition about $10 million was paid for OPP policing (much of it overtime), as well as millions more to those affected by the insurrection, including those brutalized and assaulted when all fetters of civilization were removed and Six Nations thugs and their White Communist - Anarchist supporters were given carte blanche to do as they pleased when the OPP refused to answer 911 calls to any areas where the rioters held sway.
So today, Six Nations wants the Provincial Government to turn over DCE to them (whether the HCCC or SNEC is a huge problem because each sees itself as the legitimate authority at Six Nations). If they did so it would be tantamount to giving in to the demands of terrorists. If Six Nations was given this land they would not be paying taxes to anyone. The taxpayers of Ontario and Canada would be footing the bill. The taxpayers of Haldimand County would have to pick up the tab on a yearly basis too. The County as already lost 8 years of tax from the development, and if the land was put into Six Nations hands, and added to the Reserve land base, they would not be paying one penny in taxes (to Six Nations Council or Haldimand County) even though using infrastructure provided by the taxpayers of Canada. Expect a major backlash when the entire tally is presented to the citizens of the County, the Province, and the country - with the realization that there will never be any income, only disbursements - and for ill gotten gains. The land was surrendered 170 years ago, and there is not one shred of evidence to warrant a reconsideration of the purchase by the Crown. Sour grapes and "Indian givers" is an apt description - if not politically correct.
If this transfer is allowed to go through, it will be the thin edge of the wedge as it will set a precedent and encourage militants to grab other lands throughout the Haldimand Tract on some thin pretext or another. It is fortunate that there is irrefutable evidence that Six Nations own no land beyond the present boundaries of today's Reserve. However if the Federal Government will not stand by negotiated settlements and surrenders and the hard evidence in the Indian Affairs Papers (RG10 Series) at the Library and Archives Canada, and the Province won't honour the Ontario Land Registry system, no property is safe from the acquisitive eyes of Six Nations "grabbers". Just as an example, they have decided to declare that the beautiful historic building on Edinburgh Square in Caledonia is, based on some twisted logic, their land. I warn all from Port Maitland to Dundalk - Six Nations has its eyes on your land - it is only a question of when and how they will move to "reclaim" the land, and give it a new name - DCE is now Kanonhstaton (The Protected Place). If DCE was ever given to Six Nations the floodgates would be opened!
It is time to take a stand, and fully support our County Council. Whatever assistance they need we must be prepared to offer it and send the usurpers back to their own territory. There is too much at stake for any compromise - particularly since the land was formally surrendered 170 years ago - and having to revisit this signed, sealed and delivered transaction so many years later is a grotesque insult and an immense waste of time and resources.
DeYo.
I woke up this morning to find that overnight the online version of "The Sachem" (see here) included information about the title of this posting. In addition an article in "Two Row Times" hard copy edition addressed the same topic, and later, articles in "Sun News" came to my attention. All spoke of the response of Six Nations to the decision of the Haldimand County Council about removing the barricade blockading Surrey Street (a County road). The content of each will be provided below:
1) The Sachem, dated 25 June 2014 included an article entitled, Six Nations "does not support" removal of blockade. Below I have included some quotes from the article which are coming from the elected counterpart (and bitter rival) of the hereditary council. So the bottom line is that the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) has weighed in with respect to the Haldimand County Council's unanimous decision to remove the barrier blocking Surrey Street in Caledonia.
Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) is “urgently (calling) on the (Haldimand) County Council to reconsider,” removing the blockade from the entrance way of Surrey Street in Caledonia, located at the former Douglas Creek Estates.
A press release was issued by SNEC shortly after 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25 following a release sent out the day previous by Haldimand County Council detailing its intentions.
SNEC’s statement in response to Haldimand County Council’s press release minced no words: “Six Nations Elected Council does not support the County Council’s decision… (SNEC) believes that Haldimand County’s decision and proposed actions will only serve to cause unnecessary problems by disrupting the peace that has been maintained there for some time.”
“Mayor Hewitt’s statement about ‘working with its neighbours’ and ‘moving forward in a unified fashion’ is contradictory to Haldimand County’s resolution to remove the ‘illegal blockades’ without first consulting with its neighbours in Six Nations. Actions speak louder than words and Haldimand County’s decision and proposed actions, if carried through, will only deepen the divide on all sides as opposed to creating unity.
“The provincial government has taken no meaningful action in the past eight years to resolve the Douglas Creek Estates Land claim. Six Nations Elected Council calls on the Haldimand County to refocus their efforts by working with Six Nations Elected Council to end the provincial government’s inaction.”
2) Information from Two Row Times of 25 June 2014, Mayor Hewitt ups the ante at Kanonhstaton, p.3:
It appears that the reporter here does not believe that Mayor Hewitt is simply trying to clean up the site, and provide access along a County owned road. The reporter appears to see deeper or more nefarious themes lurking in the background. He, in my opinion, linked the action of Council to the, two recent provocative incidents created by Haldimand residents, Gary McHale and Randy Fleming a week apart which brought back memories of the 2006 shut down of Argyle Street.
The reporter (a White Brantford resident) goes on to say that, To cool the situation down at the time, David Peterson, former provincial Premier was sent in to negotiate a settlement, which eventually brought down the barricades. That included promises to turn over disputed land in Burtch, Townsand and South Cayuga, which has yet to happen eight years later.
The move by Haldimand council has put the Six Nations community on high alert
3) Information from Sun News of 25 June 2014, Native Band Opposes Removal of Long-Controversial Caledonia Blockade:
See here for the perspective of Sun News. This article repeats much of what has been said in this and the previous blog postings. It also states that the removal of the blockade may not happen, "without a fight". Chief Ava Hill of the Elected Band Council (SNEC) stated that, she disagreed with that sentiment, and said removing the blockade would only "deepen the divide on all sides."
She blamed the federal and provincial governments for failing to negotiate, and wants to meet with provincial Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer.
The article also has a link to an interview with Gary McHale which provides excellent and accurate information. In particular note the statement that the lawyers for Six Nations all agree that the disagreement that provoked the original uprising in 2006 is actually over the misappropriation of funds and other monetary matters, not a land claim - despite what many activists would have you believe. I have elsewhere noted that the land claims were withdrawn by the Elected Council as of 1995, but that the Hereditary Council continues to maintain that it is a land claim. Things get confused when former Elected Chief William Montour negotiated with Samsung, maintaining that Six Nations had unceded lands in Dunn and South Cayuga Township (an unsupported claim), in order to extract a very sweet deal worth $65 million over 20 years. So Six Nations individuals from many walks are maintaining that the real issue is primarily over land - so things get further confused.
In the video Gary states that he wrote letters to each Councilor hoping to capitalize on the fact that elections were on the horizon. He reportedly told them that he was prepared to picket their homes in order to make a point. One wonders if this action influenced the Councilors in some manner.
Note that the picture at the header of the article shows former Six Nations Elected Chief William Montour, NOT Mayor Ken Hewitt as the caption indicates.
4) Information from Two Row Times (TRT), July 2nd, 2014, p.7, The people say no to Hewitt's plan for Kanonstaton:
A bit late, but anyway, the White reporters at TRT have provided what can best be described as "predictable" reports on the reaction on some of the Six Nations residents, and their White supporters, to the plan of Haldimand County Council. Clearly, there is an element, how large is impossible to say at present, who are locked in a time warp and still think that the former DCE is "ours", and that it is just a matter of a short while before the Ontario Government will be handing over "Kanonhstaton" to ........................ well, that part is not clear. There is the legal entity (Six Nations Elected Council), and those who have usurped the process and have abandoned all pretense at recognizing anything except their own entrenched world view - the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council "representatives" - the militant HDI and Men's Fire. Anyway, back to the specific content of the article which states that, Plans are being made to respond to the intimidation of Caledonia provocateurs that have been harassing those at the Kanonhstaton site for the past few weeks. But the plans are to fight hate with friendship, family and fun. Well, that sounds lovely, but history teaches us that this is just spin, designed to gloss over the fact that violent militants still lurk behind the scenes ready at a moment's notice to spring into action and create another "Caledonia 2006". Why would I say this? HDI have threatened to initiate a wave of violence that would make 2006 pale in comparison (see up posting for more information). Here the Two Row Society, a gathering of Onkwehon:we and non-Native supporters of Indigenous Rights and land claims, had recommended, that they reestablish the communication network to quickly alert Six Nations residents and allies if there should be any further provocations at the site by Gary McHale and others. Those of use who call Caledonia and vicinity home know exactly what that means - militants will be streaming down 5th and 6th Lines (Stirling Street Bridge was torched by Six Nations activists in 2006 closing this access route permanently) ready to commit terrorist acts to defend their twisted world view.
Apparently, according to the White reporter, The controversial burned out trailer visible from Highway #6 will also remain in place as a memorial and reminder of the fire bombings against Six Nations during the hottest of times in 2006 and the summer of 2007. Really. I realize that some at Six Nations do blame "anti reclamation" forces for the burning, but there is no evidence as to the perpetrator. As I have said so often, at Six Nations, belief trumps everything including the facts. Click here to read what has been reported in a newspaper that is unlikely tainted by biases in the matter. Where is there any report anywhere that any of the criminal arson acts were committed by anyone other than Six Nations members or their supporters? I recall the tire fire on Argyle Street, the torching of the Stirling Street Bridge - all "accomplished" by Six Nations members. The trailer was firebombed by Caledonia residents? That is a bald faced lie unless this reporter, who has said the same thing in the past, can provide anything remotely resembling evidence that anyone outside of the Six Nations and supporter group committed incendiary acts. Good luck.
This Two Row group outlined further plans involving camp outs and kumbaya stuff, but this just deflects from the plans for illegal acts such as, putting up a fence around the entire site ASAP. Six Nations do not own this land, the Ontario Provincial Government owns the land. If a Caledonia group decided that they were going to place a fence around Queen's Park, would that fly? How about any Ontario owned land? In the double standard world in which we much endure, Six Nations will almost certainly be permitted to put up the fence (probably funded by taxpayer dollars or the money HDI has extorted from developers in the heydays of 2006 to 2008), but should Caledonia residents do the same - surely people can predict what the response would be from the Ontario Government in their racist attempts to deal "firmly" with the non Native Status individuals. I perhaps need to remind the Government and others that many who reside in Haldimand County are mixed descendants of Six Nations and early settler families who are not eligible for a precious Status Card with all its entitlements. Thus Six Nations membership is to an extent arbitrary - some of that coming from Six Nations and some from Federal Government rulings which impact Six Nations rights to decide who is and who is not a member of the Community.
Bloggers Comments: As I have maintained all along, the Provincial Government made a bad move in negotiating with terrorists, and the "agreement" was basically offering a bribe of lands that Six Nations had zero legal rights to, and that the Province happened to own and so could use as a bargaining chip. I will have a lot more to say about this attempted sell out (without the authority of the Federal Government who has the say in any Aboriginal Affairs matter of any consequence), by our Provincial Government. Basically, should the Provincial Government follow through on any of this under the table agreement, all hell will break loose - there is a lot at stake, but the matter needs to be addressed and the Six Nations given the "bad news".
First, a proposed "solution". Points would be gained by Six Nations deciding to obey the law and taking proactive action - dismantling the barricade themselves. Alas, this will never happen because it is the Hereditary Council who claims authority here. They are not on speaking terms with the Elected Council, and cooperating with the latter would mean recognizing that they have some legitimacy in the governance of the Six Nations Reserve. History shows that while potentially productive, due to politics, it will never happen. Recently the Chief of the Elected Council stated that dismantling the blockade is a bad idea - so now we have the top brass for both Councils on board - although it would be a first if this translated to seeing the two bodies work together cooperatively.
Second, a comment on the Federal - Provincial potential overlap (conflict). It is actually the Federal Government who would need to become involved. Options including saying "you have no valid claim" (the truth), or deciding to transfer the land from the Ontario Land Registry system to the Indian Affairs Land Registry system which is under Federal jurisdiction. So it is an illusion that the Provincial Government can make any binding decisions. In a panic they bought out the developer after the riot in April of 2006, but it is Provincial land. If they were for some politically motivated reason to decide to transfer the land to Six Nations, this would impact Haldimand County in a negative way with huge losses in tax revenue.
As to the content of the above article, what SNEC says will be supportive of the stance taken by their hereditary counterpart, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) whose enforcement and extortion arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, has been in the forefront of the "reclamation" (theft) of the Douglas Creek Estates housing development. They can make political hay by temporarily cooperating with their adversary. While the HCCC has absolutely no official status (being replaced by an elected system in 1924), it carries moral authority as the supposed embodiment of the traditional governance system dating back to time immemorial (although by 1924 showing inertia and severe dysfunction). Of course "colonialism" was blamed for the latter issues. There is a chronic shortage of personal responsibility at Indian Reserve 40, so with ample finger pointing, the accusation of "racism", the handmaiden of "colonialism", is the convenient attribution. Six Nations are always (in their minds eye) the victims. The concept is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Six Nations members on or off the Reserve - and many in the general population who have failed to do any meaningful research have bought into this world view. Those of us who live here and have done their homework know that this is simply unfounded propaganda.
So what does SNEC have to say about the County's legal right to enforce the laws applicable to all within its jurisdiction? True to form, they take the opportunity to assert bogus rights and pretend ownership of the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) when in fact the land was obtained by a violent insurrection perpetrated in April of 2006. Despite the evidence that the land was surrendered in 1845 by 66 Chiefs in Council, and the fact that the "reclaimed" land is presently owned by the Provincial Government and duly registered in the Ontario Land Registry on title in the Cayuga Land Office, radical activists at Six Nations have held local people hostage for 8 years - dictating what can and cannot occur at DCE. On the proximal surrounding land two contraband cigarette shacks and a hamburger outlet have been built. The Provincial Government paid the legal owners $15 million to keep the land in limbo and allow the illegal occupation by Six Nations activists to continue since 2006. In addition about $10 million was paid for OPP policing (much of it overtime), as well as millions more to those affected by the insurrection, including those brutalized and assaulted when all fetters of civilization were removed and Six Nations thugs and their White Communist - Anarchist supporters were given carte blanche to do as they pleased when the OPP refused to answer 911 calls to any areas where the rioters held sway.
So today, Six Nations wants the Provincial Government to turn over DCE to them (whether the HCCC or SNEC is a huge problem because each sees itself as the legitimate authority at Six Nations). If they did so it would be tantamount to giving in to the demands of terrorists. If Six Nations was given this land they would not be paying taxes to anyone. The taxpayers of Ontario and Canada would be footing the bill. The taxpayers of Haldimand County would have to pick up the tab on a yearly basis too. The County as already lost 8 years of tax from the development, and if the land was put into Six Nations hands, and added to the Reserve land base, they would not be paying one penny in taxes (to Six Nations Council or Haldimand County) even though using infrastructure provided by the taxpayers of Canada. Expect a major backlash when the entire tally is presented to the citizens of the County, the Province, and the country - with the realization that there will never be any income, only disbursements - and for ill gotten gains. The land was surrendered 170 years ago, and there is not one shred of evidence to warrant a reconsideration of the purchase by the Crown. Sour grapes and "Indian givers" is an apt description - if not politically correct.
If this transfer is allowed to go through, it will be the thin edge of the wedge as it will set a precedent and encourage militants to grab other lands throughout the Haldimand Tract on some thin pretext or another. It is fortunate that there is irrefutable evidence that Six Nations own no land beyond the present boundaries of today's Reserve. However if the Federal Government will not stand by negotiated settlements and surrenders and the hard evidence in the Indian Affairs Papers (RG10 Series) at the Library and Archives Canada, and the Province won't honour the Ontario Land Registry system, no property is safe from the acquisitive eyes of Six Nations "grabbers". Just as an example, they have decided to declare that the beautiful historic building on Edinburgh Square in Caledonia is, based on some twisted logic, their land. I warn all from Port Maitland to Dundalk - Six Nations has its eyes on your land - it is only a question of when and how they will move to "reclaim" the land, and give it a new name - DCE is now Kanonhstaton (The Protected Place). If DCE was ever given to Six Nations the floodgates would be opened!
It is time to take a stand, and fully support our County Council. Whatever assistance they need we must be prepared to offer it and send the usurpers back to their own territory. There is too much at stake for any compromise - particularly since the land was formally surrendered 170 years ago - and having to revisit this signed, sealed and delivered transaction so many years later is a grotesque insult and an immense waste of time and resources.
DeYo.
Wednesday 25 June 2014
"Caledonia Blockade is Coming Down"
It was with immense joy that I read an article in the online version of "The Spec" (Hamilton Spectator, 24 June 2014) entitled, Caledonia Blockade is Coming Down (see here). Oddly, the online edition of our local "Sachem" (see here), while including information about for example the expansion of the Kinsman parking lot in anticipation of the replacement of the 9 span bridge over the Grand River, has not yet included any other information from Monday's meeting of the Haldimand County Council - which was held behind closed doors. It is also not in the hard copy of the newspaper, published Wednesday (today), perhaps the information about the blockade will be found in next week's edition by which time there may well be a lot more information to include. The online paper does, however, include an article of 24 June 2014 on the events at the Surrey Street entrance, and the citizen's arrest by Gary McHale, events occurring since 8 June 2014 (see here).
A Blockade of Argyll Street on 16 June 2014:
First I will discuss the online Sachem data, since clearly these events helped precipitate the action by Haldimand County Council on Monday 23 June 2014.
A Blockade of Argyll Street on 16 June 2014:
First I will discuss the online Sachem data, since clearly these events helped precipitate the action by Haldimand County Council on Monday 23 June 2014.
 |
| Barricades Moved from the Blockaded Argyll Street to Blockade Surrey Street |
The above picture is from the Sachem.ca.
After recounting the Gary McHale citizen's arrest (discussed in previous blog postings), the reporter describes a key event of the previous Monday, 16th of June 2014 where activists blocked Argyll Street for a short time, then moved the barricade to block Surrey Street. Shades of Caledonia, April 2006 when such a blockade caused irreparable damage in the relations between residents of Caledonia and Six Nations. Apparently at the time the Ontario Provincial Police saw this blockade of Surrey Street as a sensible compromise. As the communications officer noted, it would take the complaint of a citizen for them to act to address the new blockade situation. It appears that there were no more than a dozen activists (how many Native and how many White "solidarity supporters" is anyone's guess - I wasn't there, and knew nothing of this event). Apparently the Six Nations Band Council could not be reached for comment. Since this was the doings of the rival Hereditary Chiefs Council, I am not sure what sort of comment would be forthcoming.
Haldimand County Council Votes to Dismantle the Surrey Street Blockade:
1) Information from The Hamilton Spectator (Spec) of 24 June 2014, Caledonia Blockade is Coming Down: Mayor Ken Hewitt said the vote took place behind closed doors Monday night. The county will hire a contractor to take apart the barrier — fashioned with metal, concrete and other materials — at Surrey Street in Caledonia.
The street is a closed road leading into the former estates. "For us, the intent is really to clean up that area, obviously we have to ensure emergency vehicles have access," Hewitt said.
"It is not the council's intention to "cause any undue stress," to anyone, he added. Mayor Hewitt further added that, he wants to see the issue resolved, and the land used in a way that brings the community together.
"I don't want to diminish land claims, but those could be going on for many years to come. I'd like to see the land represent something that brings people together."
The county will be asking Ontario Provincial Police to "maintain peace" while the work is going on.
Haldimand OPP Constable Mark Foster said it has been relatively quiet at the site recently, adding that police had not been informed of the council decision.
As to the Six Nations (actually the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council only), Blake Bomberry, a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, said in an emailed statement that the chiefs are "in discussion with Ontario about the Haldimand County decision."
While the site has remained largely peaceful, he acknowledged there have been "issues of mischief recently" that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute has been working with the province to address.
A Six Nations Council spokesperson said the council planned to gather Tuesday night to discuss the issue, and would not be able to comment until Wednesday.
2) Information from Turtle Island News (TIN) of 25 June 2014, Haldimand council votes to take out Kanonhstaton hydro towers, p.2: The Reserve newspaper adds a few pieces of additional information on the matter. Apparently the vote of the Haldimand Council was "unanimous". Furthermore, Mayor Hewitt told TIN that, his council voted to remove the hydro tower at an in-camera meeting Monday night, calling it "an illegal blockade" and saying it is causing a "barrier" between Six Nations and Caledonia.
Furthermore, Hewitt claims the driveway - also known as Surrey Street - is a public road.
"It's an unopened road that is registered with Haldimand County. It was deemed or felt that we have issues with the signage and the road being closed by someone who is not Haldimand County. What we'd like is to remove the barricades, clean up the site and start moving towards more of a progressive and positive solution for both communities than to continue to put wedges and barriers between the two communities".
The HCCC continues to maintain that while there are "issues" they are working with the Ontario Government to effect a solution. However Haldimand County has not contacted the HCCC about the matter, and the HCCC is now in talks with Ontario about the actions of Haldimand County. However Mayor Hewitt is, attempting to contact Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill to notify her about their plans. Haldimand County will only consult with band council on the issue, said Hewitt, adding that he has no plans to speak with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council before the County's contractors attempt to remove the hydro tower.
Mayor Hewitt added that, While the former Douglas Creek Estates land is provincially owned, Haldimand County maintains ownership of all roads. The County is obliged to keep all roadways open for access. Also, Haldimand Council has decided to have the illegal barriers removed and the entrance to the former Douglas Creek Estates land reopened. The County will seek the assistance of the OPP to maintain peace while a contractor will be hired to perform the work".
2) Information from Turtle Island News (TIN) of 25 June 2014, Haldimand council votes to take out Kanonhstaton hydro towers, p.2: The Reserve newspaper adds a few pieces of additional information on the matter. Apparently the vote of the Haldimand Council was "unanimous". Furthermore, Mayor Hewitt told TIN that, his council voted to remove the hydro tower at an in-camera meeting Monday night, calling it "an illegal blockade" and saying it is causing a "barrier" between Six Nations and Caledonia.
Furthermore, Hewitt claims the driveway - also known as Surrey Street - is a public road.
"It's an unopened road that is registered with Haldimand County. It was deemed or felt that we have issues with the signage and the road being closed by someone who is not Haldimand County. What we'd like is to remove the barricades, clean up the site and start moving towards more of a progressive and positive solution for both communities than to continue to put wedges and barriers between the two communities".
The HCCC continues to maintain that while there are "issues" they are working with the Ontario Government to effect a solution. However Haldimand County has not contacted the HCCC about the matter, and the HCCC is now in talks with Ontario about the actions of Haldimand County. However Mayor Hewitt is, attempting to contact Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill to notify her about their plans. Haldimand County will only consult with band council on the issue, said Hewitt, adding that he has no plans to speak with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council before the County's contractors attempt to remove the hydro tower.
Mayor Hewitt added that, While the former Douglas Creek Estates land is provincially owned, Haldimand County maintains ownership of all roads. The County is obliged to keep all roadways open for access. Also, Haldimand Council has decided to have the illegal barriers removed and the entrance to the former Douglas Creek Estates land reopened. The County will seek the assistance of the OPP to maintain peace while a contractor will be hired to perform the work".
Conclusion: This brave move on the part of the Haldimand County Council, unanimous at that, which is the proper decision based on the facts of the matter, speaks well for the leadership of our Mayor Ken Hewitt and his Council in making difficult decisions. He can continue to stand firm knowing that the facts of ownership of this property are crystal clear (they were stolen from the legal rightful owners by Six Nations activists), and that there will be overwhelming support by his constituents in his quest for justice. I have worked with the Mayor before and know him to be an honourable person, and expect that he will not cave into inevitable bogus name calling of "racist", "colonialist" and such nonsense by both the SN activists and their White Communist Anarchist union backed supporters (puppeteers).
Blog Credits McHales for the Proposed Removal of the Blockade:
Without a doubt Mark Vandermaas has been among the most dedicated opponents of the illegal occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates, and has been present at most or all protest events. His blog, "Caledonia Victims Project" (see here) has been of immense help (as have the websites of Gary McHale and Jeff Parkinson) to local residents in keeping us abreast of developments.
In Mark's most recent posting (24 June 2014) he credits both Gary McHale and his wife Christine McHale as being responsible for the Council's decision. He comes to the conclusion that a letter written by the latter to Premier Kathleen Wynne was what tipped the scales. With due respect, Premier Wynne has been hyper focused on the Election and is positively giddy about "World Pride Week", which is taking place in Toronto this week. I am not aware that Premier Wynne, born and raised in Toronto, has any inkling whatsoever about the Caledonia situation. There is nothing in her actions or words that would lead me to believe that she either cares, or is informed about this subject. This does not in any way take away from the robust and valued support given to the cause by the McHales. What is clear is that the HDI was triggered to act (construct the blockade) due to the citizen's arrest of John Garlow by Gary McHale, and a subsequent action by Randy Fleming. Hence Gary is a key ingredient in the chain of events.
Only Council knows what drove them to make the decision to remove the blockade. I am also not quite so confident as Mr. Vandermaas about Six Nations just rolling over on this new development. The occupiers and their supporters may be more than the usual handful that appear during local protests. The numbers who tacitly support the take over are unknown, and it is not just a few "thugs" who are involved in one way or another. Six Nations, particularly the Hereditary faction, have a tremendous amount of time, resources and credibility invested in "Kanonhstaton". I would predict a much rockier course until justice is served, but only time will tell. If the good name of Six Nations is badly stained by another riot by terrorists, they will likely have to deal with the shame for generations. A second riot will not ever be forgiven by some of us. It is a critical time for Six Nations and others who call this area home. We must all play our cards well - using rational reasoned arguments rooted in the factual evidence. Those who fly off in some emotional based direction would do a disservice to those of us on both sides who want to see resolution.
I expect that more information will be forthcoming very soon, and will include it in a subsequent posting.
A very encouraged,
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)