Update 27 July 2014: Today I did a circuit of the DCE site and there was no evidence seen of the installation of a chain link fence or fence of any description.
Update 29 July 2014: The HDI have begun erecting a fence on the north side of the property. See here.
1) Erection of Fence and Land Claim: Today, 16 July 2014, "Turtle Island News" (TIN), the, it is said, publicity and propaganda arm of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), included an article entitled, Neighbours' encroachment, garbage, group's protests force security (p.2).
Here the article claims that, Installation of a long-awaited safety fence at Kanonhstaton started last week to enclose the "former Douglas Creek Estates housing development site in Caledonia". This would be the DCE. The reason given for this action is a plan, to mitigate a recent increase in disruption at the site from non-native political activists and encroachment by neighbouring homeowners who are extending their yards onto the site or have thrown old furniture and garbage onto the land. The work will be carried out by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) under authority of the HCCC, according to the Director and spokesperson of the HDI. This individual specifically blamed the confrontations over the past month on, non-native activists who bought a small piece of property on the site beside Gord's Garage - which the Director terms, "a trap for incitement. They're going to keep trying to come on (to the property)"; whereas the group who illegally occupied DCE in 2006, have maintained a protective presence on the land ever since. The Director boldly says that the land is no longer public, it's a private driveway. It's our land, ......... we've taken it back".
"Two Row Times" (TRT), July 16th, 2014 has an article on page 3 entitled. Fence going up to protect Kanonhstaton. Here we obtain much the same information as the report in TIN, but with a few additions of importance. The Director of the HDI confirmed that it will be a chain link fence that is erected around DCE, and that, sometime within 7 to 10 days, the construction of the fencing and a front gate facing Argyle Street, would begin. The Director also claims that the Plank Road (Argyle Street; old Highway 6) saying, That road is ours. Also the Director, spoke of the authority of the HCCC in contrast to that of the Elected Band Council.
In the TRT article the Director of the HDI reportedly said, that since the people stood as a Nation to reclaim the land, Band Council or the Ontario (Government) should have no say if we want to put up a fence or a gate, or building a meeting area.
Furthermore, "The people are not ready to take down that trailer right now because it represents violence that was coming upon us". In fact the violence was coming entirely from Six Nations with arson (bridge burning), blockading Argyle Street with gravel, burning tires, and a stolen and vandalized Hydro One tower, etc. How is this reality perverted into Six Nations being the victims of violence justifying leaving the hideous burned out big rig trailer in place. It is a symbol of Six Nations violence against the innocent victims of Caledonia and surrounds!! By leaving it present, it merely rubs salt into the wound any time we pass through the southern entrance (or exit) to Caledonia.
Comment: So basically the thugs and terrorists who stole the land in 2006, and who have trashed everything on the property except the wood ticks which are crawling all over the property, are claiming without authority (the land belongs to Ontario) that they have the right to build a fence around the stolen land. If Ontario permits this travesty, I predict that there will be much more civil disobedience than has been seen to date as citizens realize the message here. Why wouldn't locals, knowing it was an illegal fence on Ontario Government owned, land simply use local resources to remove it in whole or in part?
If allowed to actually construct a fence on land they merely claim, without any evidence, as their own it would set a precedent such that anyone can claim a patch of Ontario and call it their own and erect a fence to keep everyone else out. The HDI supporters are not special in this regard, they merely think they are. 230 years ago my ancestors owned a large Tract on the Grand River confirmed to them by the Six Nations in Council as they were "people of our own nation". I don't have this land in my possession at present - it was sold out of the family long ago. If I follow the HDI plan, then I will be able to go to the land, have some of my younger cousins camp out there, and start erecting a fence to keep out "non-natives" or whomever you want to call them and say, The land is ours. We owned it 230 years ago, and we've taken it back. Is this ok? There is no difference whatsoever with what the HDI have done and what I might propose to do if they set a precedent.
Also, according to the HDI, the elected representatives of the people are not the legitimate governing body. This despite the fact that around the world, countries are attempting to come out of the Middle Ages and authoritarian rule by demagogues and seek a way to introduce democracy into their languishing countries. When chiefs or heads of state are not accountable to the people, they are free to take full advantage of nepotism and favouring those who have "connections", and ensuring that there is no effective voice for those who disagree. So the HDI would have Six Nations slip backward, not to some utopian time (which in fact never existed), but into the era where anarchy ruled on the Reserve and most who had a way out left or just laid low and kept a low profile. I can guess who will rule with an iron fist if the HDI has their way. Kim Jong Un and "banana republic" rule is but a short hop away in time - unless the people become aware of what is about to happen.
2) The Expiration of the Protocol with Ontario: After a brief review of the "reclamation", the TIN article mentions that the meeting between the Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister, the Mayor of Haldimand County, and the Elected Chief of the Six Nations was, at odds with a communications protocol it [Ontario] signed with former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kathleen Wynne, now the premier of Ontario.
"It was a very bold move on her part, ........... "Nobody else had done that. It wasn't on conditions that the band had to be sitting there. It was a recognition of the Confederacy first and foremost. That's the process we've been working with. That expired (a few weeks ago). We've been waiting to renew that process".
The reporter continues, Last week's meeting, ............ took place only weeks after that communications protocol expired and there have been no attempts by Ontario to renew the protocol despite being contacted by the HDI.
The TIN article has the Director of the HDI attempt to rationalize why they were not at the negotiating table with the Province, County and Elected Council even though they were formally invited. The explanation given was that, the HCCC would be happy to meet with their Ministers through the process they struck when Kathleen Wynne, who was Minister of Aboriginal affairs at the time, and came to the Longhouse and set up a communications process with the Confederacy.
"She was ballsy in setting up a table to talk without condition that the Band Council or Haldimand had to be there, when no other government had done that". However the agreement, had expired in June 12, and that the HCCC has been waiting to renew that process.
Comment: It is probable the Ontario allowed the "protocol" to expire because that was the original intent, and it became clear in the intervening time just what the HDI, who represents the HCCC is. Words such as "thugs", "extortionists" have come into play - and it has been apparent to all that in the intervening period the HDI has engaged in actions that are illegal, questionable at best, and they have no legal authority whatsoever to negotiate with anyone - that is the purview of the Six Nations Elected Council who did meet with the representatives of Ontario, and Haldimand County. As a courtesy the HCCC was invited to send a Chief to attend, but they declined. They are well aware that the Federal Government will never give them the land because it was ceded in 1844 and they have the documents to prove it. So HDI hope that by leaning on the weak Ontario Government that they might get what they want - seemingly not realizing that as representatives of the Crown it would have to be the Federal Government who gave the ok to add the land to the Reserve. This is a problematic procedure even when a claim has some validity since it takes the land out of a County's land base and can no longer be taxed. Since it would be unfair to a County and its taxpaying citizens to "pick up the tab" it would likely be the Federal Government (the taxpayers of Canada) who would foot the bill. It would not create any "happy campers" among those who pay taxes in this Country.
This subject is expanded upon by the same reporter in an article appearing on the same page of TIN, and entitled, Ontario's rushed meeting produced decision to meet again. There is a lot of repetition here so I will fix on the part where there is some new information. In essence, the article is about the "expired protocol" noted above. The HDI Director said, That protocol ........ allowed for both Ontario and the HCCC to meet and discuss issues arising at, not just Kanonhstaton (the former Douglas Creek Estates subdivision) but on the Burtch Tract lands outside Brantford.
"We have been calling Ontario to discuss renewing the agreement but we are getting no where".
In the meanwhile trouble may be brewing in Caledonia as non-native activists continue to swarm the site .................
Next comes the warning, in light of these occurrences they [HCCC] are "deeply concerned for grave consequences" at Kanonhstaton over the ensuring summer months as the Ontario legislature takes a summer break.
Then the spin about the protocol (recently expired) is again mentioned, and as well as instructions for Ontario to remember that the Tsilhqot'in Supreme Court decision will apply to Six Nations (in other words the Elected Council does not represent nor is it the voice of the people). I discussed this matter in a recent posting and it is only wishful thinking that anyone is going to draw a parallel between the Tsilhqot'in and Six Nations situations. The HCCC spokesperson said that they want Ontario to return to the expired protocol provisions. However Ontario is very clear about the matter at this point. To be specific, Ontario is still holding the land in trust and has not turned it over to the Confederacy
Comment: Next in this article comes a statement that is absurd but which is always said, likely in the hope that people will have forgotten what the Federal Government has said in the matter - that Six Nations has no valid land claim to the property. Here are the words from the article, Neither the federal or provincial governments have proven any surrender of the lands has taken place. If one says this lie often enough perhaps some will believe them. Basically the HDI is saying that they can do whatever they want to do at DCE, and no one else has a stake or say in the matter - it is their decision alone to make. Considering their track record even after 2006 (work stoppages, violent encounters) it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and reversing victim status.
This is a self-serving group which represents its own interests, and who will get rich on the backs of those who give in to their wild assertions, and will be empowered to do just about whatever they please because no one is calling them to task. No one is challenging them - except maybe one blogger. I seriously hope that there are many both on and off Reserve who are seeing the HDI for what they truly are - and recognize the dangers in dealing with them on any level. If the HCCC wants to speak with some group they should not have assigned the HDI such a powerful role with, apparently, no checks and balance. Who is overseeing them? In theory the HCCC Chiefs and Clan Mothers, in practice ....................
Misuse of Funds?: **** It is not only the Elected Council researchers who have concerns about possible misuse of funds. People, even supporters, are (and have been) questioning HDI about what they are doing with the money they are receiving. The "transparency issue" raised its head once again at the meeting at the barricade above where the HDI Director spoke about the fence going up at DCE, and the expiration of the protocol with the Province. Then an female elder who was, one of the original group who took over the site Feb. 28th, 2006 questioned [Director] about the transparency of the HDI.
"As Haudenosaunee people, can we know what all these negotiations are about"? the elder asked of the Director who said that, "the door is always open". The elder then said, "I'm glad to hear that because there's a lot of people that want to know about the money and where it has gone". The Director then said they were currently "undergoing our audit" then explained about the, "three different columns" including:
1) Administration dollars
2) Lease money
3) Land acquisition money
In relation to number 2 above, the Director said, "that is restricted", apparently only, "The people through their clans and their families, if you are participating with your clan family and know the process of the Confederacy, that's who gets to decide that". Considering that most folks at Six Nations have no idea as to what clan they belong, it means that a select group of individuals will have the knowledge of where the monies are going from "lease money" but not the "everyday" citizens of Six Nations. This will probably come back to bite the Director in the ......... but only time will tell. The rest of this part of the answer to the Elder's question is gibberish to me, I don't understand at all what the Director is getting at. Expressions such as, "you stood as Nations even when the Chiefs told you to go home" is left hanging - perhaps not everything got recorded .................... It is all somewhat bizarre.
DeYo.
Wednesday 16 July 2014
Tuesday 15 July 2014
"Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council Newsletter" - Very Revealing
I have a copy of the first Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council Newsletter (July 2014). Its format, although packaged to appear very friendly and informative, is clearly little more than a platform for the radical Haudenosaunee Development Institute. It would be worth sifting through, paragraph by paragraph, to get a sense of what "the message" is that is being conveyed by this propaganda tool. The contents will be listed by title of article within the Newsletter.
1) She:koh: In the sidebar they use the term "She:koh" (Sagoh - depending on the Six Nations language) or "Welcome". Their goal is, about reaching Haudenosaunee citizens (some 16,000 readers). Their goal is to, provide information about a variety of issues facing the HCCC, our departments, organizations or committees who are working towards the protection of Haudenosaunee rights, treaties, land rights, culture, language and future. Here is where it gets interesting, and one can get clues as to the group backing this "friendly flyer", and the true agenda. Specifically:
Our inaugural edition features our planning and development department the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, why it was created and its works to date.
There is, an exciting new website and YouTube Channel featuring talks with Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) director Hazel E. Hill. In other words the newsletter is in effect a propaganda tool for the HDI who dominates the HCCC. They even have a toll free number where people are invited to provide feedback.
2) What is the Confederacy?: I don't take exception to this general overview except when they say, Often described as the oldest, participatory democracy on Earth, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy's constitution is believed to be a model for the American Constitution. This information is unfounded. The Confederacy is not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Chiefs are appointed by Clan Mothers via inherited titles. These Chiefs are responsible only to their Clan Mother from their Ohwachira (family lineage) who could dehorn (depose) them at any time. In general council (originally at Onondaga, NY) Chiefs would pass resolutions back and forth across the longhouse until consensus was reached. If consensus was not reached, there was nothing binding and all parties went their own way. Where is the democracy in this system. There were no elections, only appointments. The business about the Six Nations Confederacy being the model for the American Constitution is an old belief, often stated, but there are virtually no academics who agree that the Confederacy had any role in shaping the ideas of the founding fathers of the 13 original colonies. Old beliefs die hard.
3) The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council: Flipping over to the next page, we find a side bar with more focus on the HDI. First it should be noted that the HDI have created their own very detailed Wikipedia page, seen here, although the editor notes that it has "multiple issues", perhaps the most damaging is the complete lack of any references.
In the Newsletter it says that the HCCC, has legislated the Haudenosaunee Development Institute ('HDI') to represent HCCC interests in the development of lands within areas of Haudenosaunee jurisdiction, including but not limited to the land prescribed by the Haldimand Proclamation and the 1701 Treaty area. The true facts are clear, the HDI has zero jurisdiction beyond its own imagination. The Six Nations have control over the present day Reserve #40 and 40b but nothing beyond this except what their fantasy dictates - and no legal rights over lands they ceded between 1787 and 1850 to the Crown. The only way that they can exercise their false beliefs is to illegally occupy land owned by a third party and claim it as their own - as they have done with respect to the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) in Caledonia. All land outside present day Reserve boundaries is protected by Crown Patent, but the HDI will not accept what is legal and what the ancestors agreed to 170 years ago - they make their own rules and find their own version of history. As to the Treaty of 1701, this is the fraudulent "Nanfan Treaty of 1701" which is a huge embarrassment, but is still cited as the basis for "rights and entitlements" within the entire Southwestern Ontario region. I have discussed this ad nauseum in may previous postings, and much the same information can be found in Garry Horsnell's excellent summary found here.
4) What is the Great Law?: I don't really want to take exception to what is written here.
5) What is the HDI and How Does it Work?: It is the next, much longer article, that is the most salient and is the main bulk of information (propaganda) provided in the Newsletter. Some would say that this is a group which specializes in extortion and racketeering, but lets see what they have to say. I will state what is written here, and try not to gag during this exercise. They say,
The HDI process was established on the heels of the reclamation of the lands at Kanonhstaton (the former Douglas Creek Estates).
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) found their monthly meeting agendas becoming filled with developers who were looking for sanctioning for their projects. After realizing Ontario did not have a structured consultation process which developers could enter into, the HCCC created the HDI to provide that consultation process.
I will stop here and add some facts. There were NO developers "lining up" - they occasionally capitulated to the demands put in place after the HDI sent their thugs to shake down the developers - we will continue to stop your work until you agree to our terms. For a beginning, there was the "application fee" which was the ultimate and only goal. If developers did not want to have goons sitting on their equipment and barricading their projects, they would have to pony up for example $7,000 - for starters. If this was any other group they would be arrested and charged with extortion. However this is a "Native" group and their is a double standard at present where this group can get away with things even the Mafia of Naples or Palermo would not dare do. This insanity has continued to this day - although took a significant hit once developers in Hagersville, Cayuga and Brantford sought and obtained Court Injunctions to keep the goons away. The HDI and their "representatives" have been taken to Court on many occasions and have ALWAYS lost - with damages being assigned to developers. The most dramatic and detailed case was put before Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario whose initial fines levied against the HDI were over $800,000, dropped to $350,000 and settled for $125,000. After the ruling in November of 2009 the HDI kept a lower profile and sent in representatives in the form of Men's Fire to take over the shakedown end of things. However recently the HDI, perhaps after the fine was paid, have come out of hiding and are front and center at the barricades in Caledonia in 2014, and leading the charge to fence the DCE property, pretend they have a legal land registry system, and argue that they, not the Province of Ontario, own DCE.
There are numerous articles on the shady dealings of the HDI, so the following (see here) on their losing their appeal in the fine levied against them in the Brantford Injunction case will give a flavor of what is out there.
So out of the shadows the HDI appears, and now claims that they are the "chosen ones", selected to enforce the HCCC God given rules, or in their terms, no one else besides the collective voice of the HCCC can speak to the treaty rights on behalf of its citizens. We have seen many groups, including band councils ...... attempting or purporting to speak on behalf of the Haudenosaunee with respect to our land rights and treaty rights, but those groups and / or individuals have no authority and cannot abrogate or derogate from the instructions and process that Sonkwiontison through the Peacemaker, delegated to the HCCC. This "lawyer speak" is saying that the HCCC do not recognize the authority of the Six Nations Elected Council, the duly constituted authority on the Six Nations Reserve, and the only legally constituted body authorized to for example negotiate with Ontario or the Federal Government - this is a fact, the HDI version is spin / wishful thinking.
They include a sub heading entitled, "Engagement Process" where they go on to say that have a "unique" consultation process (in Canada perhaps, but not Palermo), which, provides for a more open, transparent and participatory process for the people. Well now, that is a stretch, since there have been chronic complaints on the Reserve (and reported in the Reserve newspapers - including "Tekawenake" the only objective paper, but is was put out of business) that there is zero transparency with respect to the HDI funds. What happens to the money obtained in shakedowns of developers. Into whose pocket(s) does it go? No one outside HDI seems to know. Do the HCCC Chiefs or Clan Mothers know?
6) Update on Projects:
a) First Solar - they received $90,000 from this "Green Energy" group to, they say, commence the Haudenosaunee Archaeology Monitoring Programm which began with just one (1) monitor, and advanced to eighteen (18) full-time monitors. The company has no need to do this. The SNEC had already reached an agreement with the Ontario Professional Archaeology group to train monitors. It does not appear that any HCCC monitors have any training in the field and are likely in no position to make any sort of informed decisions, other than how much money they are going to demand for their services. I know of this problem from my contacts in Hamilton where projects have been held up for weeks or longer because there were unreasonable demands for money coming from the HCCC "monitors". This is making a mockery out of the process and intent of preserving our archaeological heritage. Apparently this is the tip of the iceberg since the HDI is for example extracting money from Union Gas for training monitors in the environmental field. How and by whom are these individuals trained is a question that should be asked.
b) Samsung - apparently things aren't going well here. There were reports (posted here) that Samsung was to give $65 million to Six Nations, Elected Council, over 20 years. Getting wind of this the HDI apparently "laid down the law" to Samsung about their "engagement process", but Difficulties have arisen due to the fact that Samsung and its partners continue to attempt to unilaterally determine what justification they are willing to provide to the Haudenosaunee for the treaty infringement, without providing any explanation and / or financial documentation to support their limited offer. One can only hope that my letters to Samsung officials about the bogus treaty rights have had some effect.
c) City of Brantford - here they discuss the litigation and resultant fines against HDI and others. They seem to laugh it off and assert that they only paid anything, Given the HCCC's concern over Haudenosaunee citizens who own property 'off reserve' being targeted by the City, so agreed to settle for and undisclosed sum (it was $125,000). Apparently the City of Brantford now refuses to participate in the HDI "Engagement Process". Is that a surprise given the circumstances?
d) Eagle's Nest - this involves the ongoing dispute between the HDI and the "Mohawks of the Iroquois Confederacy" ("Mohawks of the Grand River", formerly "Kanata Mohawks", formerly "Mohawk Workers").
Land Leases Already Approved: All of what follows hinges on the bogus / fraudulent Nanfan Treaty of 1701 relating to lands in Southwestern Ontario. Apparently HDI has succeeded in convincing some corporations that they have real treaty rights. One wonders that when the truth is widely known whether they will be required to pay back all these ill gotten gains with interest. Of course being 'on Reserve' means that no one can come after their assets there - sweet.
NextEra (or NexTerror as those in the anti Wind Turbine movement call this company), Silvercreek Solar, Pattern Energy, Capital Power have all coughed up money to HDI, usually over a period of 20 years (the length of time the wind energy turbines will operate before being "decommissioned". In addition, the HDI have managed to convince various companies to provide land lease revenues.
Comment: The Elected Council is also into negotiations with, and receiving funds from, some of the corporations named above (plus others). Isn't this a form of "double dipping" especially when you are fishing in a pond that is not yours.
Next we come to the bottom line of this Newsletter which is entitled:
Haudenosaunee Land Acquisition Revenues: I will quote from this section and readers can draw their own conclusions. HDI operates on key principles. These principles are:
- no surrender of lands
- compensation for all past land leases/losses
- lease monies for future projects
- land
The HDI has ensured that these 4 founding principles are worked in to every engagement process that the HCCC is considering and therefore nearly all of the recent agreements have included a set amount of financial support to assist the Haudenosaunee in expanding its current land base.
These funds will be set up in a separate account specifically used as a land acquisition fund. It is the HCCC's goal to acquire at least 500 additional acres of land to be registered in the Haudenosaunee land registry for use and benefit of our future generations.
If you wish to contact the HCCC, there is an Haudenosaunee Development Hotline at 1-844-445-4222. Their website will be www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com.
DeYo.
1) She:koh: In the sidebar they use the term "She:koh" (Sagoh - depending on the Six Nations language) or "Welcome". Their goal is, about reaching Haudenosaunee citizens (some 16,000 readers). Their goal is to, provide information about a variety of issues facing the HCCC, our departments, organizations or committees who are working towards the protection of Haudenosaunee rights, treaties, land rights, culture, language and future. Here is where it gets interesting, and one can get clues as to the group backing this "friendly flyer", and the true agenda. Specifically:
Our inaugural edition features our planning and development department the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, why it was created and its works to date.
There is, an exciting new website and YouTube Channel featuring talks with Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) director Hazel E. Hill. In other words the newsletter is in effect a propaganda tool for the HDI who dominates the HCCC. They even have a toll free number where people are invited to provide feedback.
2) What is the Confederacy?: I don't take exception to this general overview except when they say, Often described as the oldest, participatory democracy on Earth, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy's constitution is believed to be a model for the American Constitution. This information is unfounded. The Confederacy is not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Chiefs are appointed by Clan Mothers via inherited titles. These Chiefs are responsible only to their Clan Mother from their Ohwachira (family lineage) who could dehorn (depose) them at any time. In general council (originally at Onondaga, NY) Chiefs would pass resolutions back and forth across the longhouse until consensus was reached. If consensus was not reached, there was nothing binding and all parties went their own way. Where is the democracy in this system. There were no elections, only appointments. The business about the Six Nations Confederacy being the model for the American Constitution is an old belief, often stated, but there are virtually no academics who agree that the Confederacy had any role in shaping the ideas of the founding fathers of the 13 original colonies. Old beliefs die hard.
3) The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council: Flipping over to the next page, we find a side bar with more focus on the HDI. First it should be noted that the HDI have created their own very detailed Wikipedia page, seen here, although the editor notes that it has "multiple issues", perhaps the most damaging is the complete lack of any references.
In the Newsletter it says that the HCCC, has legislated the Haudenosaunee Development Institute ('HDI') to represent HCCC interests in the development of lands within areas of Haudenosaunee jurisdiction, including but not limited to the land prescribed by the Haldimand Proclamation and the 1701 Treaty area. The true facts are clear, the HDI has zero jurisdiction beyond its own imagination. The Six Nations have control over the present day Reserve #40 and 40b but nothing beyond this except what their fantasy dictates - and no legal rights over lands they ceded between 1787 and 1850 to the Crown. The only way that they can exercise their false beliefs is to illegally occupy land owned by a third party and claim it as their own - as they have done with respect to the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) in Caledonia. All land outside present day Reserve boundaries is protected by Crown Patent, but the HDI will not accept what is legal and what the ancestors agreed to 170 years ago - they make their own rules and find their own version of history. As to the Treaty of 1701, this is the fraudulent "Nanfan Treaty of 1701" which is a huge embarrassment, but is still cited as the basis for "rights and entitlements" within the entire Southwestern Ontario region. I have discussed this ad nauseum in may previous postings, and much the same information can be found in Garry Horsnell's excellent summary found here.
4) What is the Great Law?: I don't really want to take exception to what is written here.
5) What is the HDI and How Does it Work?: It is the next, much longer article, that is the most salient and is the main bulk of information (propaganda) provided in the Newsletter. Some would say that this is a group which specializes in extortion and racketeering, but lets see what they have to say. I will state what is written here, and try not to gag during this exercise. They say,
The HDI process was established on the heels of the reclamation of the lands at Kanonhstaton (the former Douglas Creek Estates).
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) found their monthly meeting agendas becoming filled with developers who were looking for sanctioning for their projects. After realizing Ontario did not have a structured consultation process which developers could enter into, the HCCC created the HDI to provide that consultation process.
I will stop here and add some facts. There were NO developers "lining up" - they occasionally capitulated to the demands put in place after the HDI sent their thugs to shake down the developers - we will continue to stop your work until you agree to our terms. For a beginning, there was the "application fee" which was the ultimate and only goal. If developers did not want to have goons sitting on their equipment and barricading their projects, they would have to pony up for example $7,000 - for starters. If this was any other group they would be arrested and charged with extortion. However this is a "Native" group and their is a double standard at present where this group can get away with things even the Mafia of Naples or Palermo would not dare do. This insanity has continued to this day - although took a significant hit once developers in Hagersville, Cayuga and Brantford sought and obtained Court Injunctions to keep the goons away. The HDI and their "representatives" have been taken to Court on many occasions and have ALWAYS lost - with damages being assigned to developers. The most dramatic and detailed case was put before Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario whose initial fines levied against the HDI were over $800,000, dropped to $350,000 and settled for $125,000. After the ruling in November of 2009 the HDI kept a lower profile and sent in representatives in the form of Men's Fire to take over the shakedown end of things. However recently the HDI, perhaps after the fine was paid, have come out of hiding and are front and center at the barricades in Caledonia in 2014, and leading the charge to fence the DCE property, pretend they have a legal land registry system, and argue that they, not the Province of Ontario, own DCE.
There are numerous articles on the shady dealings of the HDI, so the following (see here) on their losing their appeal in the fine levied against them in the Brantford Injunction case will give a flavor of what is out there.
So out of the shadows the HDI appears, and now claims that they are the "chosen ones", selected to enforce the HCCC God given rules, or in their terms, no one else besides the collective voice of the HCCC can speak to the treaty rights on behalf of its citizens. We have seen many groups, including band councils ...... attempting or purporting to speak on behalf of the Haudenosaunee with respect to our land rights and treaty rights, but those groups and / or individuals have no authority and cannot abrogate or derogate from the instructions and process that Sonkwiontison through the Peacemaker, delegated to the HCCC. This "lawyer speak" is saying that the HCCC do not recognize the authority of the Six Nations Elected Council, the duly constituted authority on the Six Nations Reserve, and the only legally constituted body authorized to for example negotiate with Ontario or the Federal Government - this is a fact, the HDI version is spin / wishful thinking.
They include a sub heading entitled, "Engagement Process" where they go on to say that have a "unique" consultation process (in Canada perhaps, but not Palermo), which, provides for a more open, transparent and participatory process for the people. Well now, that is a stretch, since there have been chronic complaints on the Reserve (and reported in the Reserve newspapers - including "Tekawenake" the only objective paper, but is was put out of business) that there is zero transparency with respect to the HDI funds. What happens to the money obtained in shakedowns of developers. Into whose pocket(s) does it go? No one outside HDI seems to know. Do the HCCC Chiefs or Clan Mothers know?
6) Update on Projects:
a) First Solar - they received $90,000 from this "Green Energy" group to, they say, commence the Haudenosaunee Archaeology Monitoring Programm which began with just one (1) monitor, and advanced to eighteen (18) full-time monitors. The company has no need to do this. The SNEC had already reached an agreement with the Ontario Professional Archaeology group to train monitors. It does not appear that any HCCC monitors have any training in the field and are likely in no position to make any sort of informed decisions, other than how much money they are going to demand for their services. I know of this problem from my contacts in Hamilton where projects have been held up for weeks or longer because there were unreasonable demands for money coming from the HCCC "monitors". This is making a mockery out of the process and intent of preserving our archaeological heritage. Apparently this is the tip of the iceberg since the HDI is for example extracting money from Union Gas for training monitors in the environmental field. How and by whom are these individuals trained is a question that should be asked.
b) Samsung - apparently things aren't going well here. There were reports (posted here) that Samsung was to give $65 million to Six Nations, Elected Council, over 20 years. Getting wind of this the HDI apparently "laid down the law" to Samsung about their "engagement process", but Difficulties have arisen due to the fact that Samsung and its partners continue to attempt to unilaterally determine what justification they are willing to provide to the Haudenosaunee for the treaty infringement, without providing any explanation and / or financial documentation to support their limited offer. One can only hope that my letters to Samsung officials about the bogus treaty rights have had some effect.
c) City of Brantford - here they discuss the litigation and resultant fines against HDI and others. They seem to laugh it off and assert that they only paid anything, Given the HCCC's concern over Haudenosaunee citizens who own property 'off reserve' being targeted by the City, so agreed to settle for and undisclosed sum (it was $125,000). Apparently the City of Brantford now refuses to participate in the HDI "Engagement Process". Is that a surprise given the circumstances?
d) Eagle's Nest - this involves the ongoing dispute between the HDI and the "Mohawks of the Iroquois Confederacy" ("Mohawks of the Grand River", formerly "Kanata Mohawks", formerly "Mohawk Workers").
Land Leases Already Approved: All of what follows hinges on the bogus / fraudulent Nanfan Treaty of 1701 relating to lands in Southwestern Ontario. Apparently HDI has succeeded in convincing some corporations that they have real treaty rights. One wonders that when the truth is widely known whether they will be required to pay back all these ill gotten gains with interest. Of course being 'on Reserve' means that no one can come after their assets there - sweet.
NextEra (or NexTerror as those in the anti Wind Turbine movement call this company), Silvercreek Solar, Pattern Energy, Capital Power have all coughed up money to HDI, usually over a period of 20 years (the length of time the wind energy turbines will operate before being "decommissioned". In addition, the HDI have managed to convince various companies to provide land lease revenues.
Comment: The Elected Council is also into negotiations with, and receiving funds from, some of the corporations named above (plus others). Isn't this a form of "double dipping" especially when you are fishing in a pond that is not yours.
Next we come to the bottom line of this Newsletter which is entitled:
Haudenosaunee Land Acquisition Revenues: I will quote from this section and readers can draw their own conclusions. HDI operates on key principles. These principles are:
- no surrender of lands
- compensation for all past land leases/losses
- lease monies for future projects
- land
The HDI has ensured that these 4 founding principles are worked in to every engagement process that the HCCC is considering and therefore nearly all of the recent agreements have included a set amount of financial support to assist the Haudenosaunee in expanding its current land base.
These funds will be set up in a separate account specifically used as a land acquisition fund. It is the HCCC's goal to acquire at least 500 additional acres of land to be registered in the Haudenosaunee land registry for use and benefit of our future generations.
If you wish to contact the HCCC, there is an Haudenosaunee Development Hotline at 1-844-445-4222. Their website will be www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com.
DeYo.
Monday 14 July 2014
Will the Supreme Court Decision in the B.C.Tsilhqot'in Claim Affect Six Nations?
Tsilhqot'in First Nation Title and Rights Case (British Columbia):
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC0 and their enforcement arm the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) seem to be wringing their collective hands in glee over this following Court case. Perhaps this is a hasty and precipitous response. First we will need to look at the details of the Supreme Court decision, and the way that the HCCC et al. see it as impacting their situation, particularly in relation to their legally subordinate status to the Six Nations Elected Council.
Unfortunately the Province of British Columbia has been deficient in addressing the claimed treaty rights of its aboriginal people, in contrast to Ontario which has treaties (largely from the 19th Century) covering the entire Province. Thus in B.C. many bands have been relegated to the area immediately surrounding their villages. They claim that their aboriginal rights extend far beyond these small patches, which is doubtless true - but how far, that is the sticky question. The can of worms has finally been opened.
For years commercial logging operations have been harvesting timber within the territory claimed by the Tsilhqot'in First Nations (TFN), who are clustered in 7 villages southwest of Williams Lake. For years the Tsilhqot'in people have been claiming that this is an infringement on their aboriginal rights - it is land that is traditionally theirs, and they need to be consulted before any commercial activity takes place within this domain. One of the stumbling blocks, in addition to the B.C. Government dragging its heels, is that the group did not have a geographical aboriginal territory that had been surveyed or in any other way clearly defined. A serious problem is that the 59 aboriginal groups have competing interests (overlapping claims to land) in certain regions. Thus, before any ruling could be made, it was imperative to ascertain clear evidence to support the Tsilhqot'in claim.
There are many media articles on the subject, and it is not necessary for my purposes to be comprehensive, so I would refer interested parties to articles such as the one here from the CBC. The Supreme Court of Canada heard the case and ruled on 26 June 2014 in favour of the Tsilhqot'in position. It awarded 438,000 hectacres of land to the TFN as aboriginal territory. Although they must not sell this land, they must be consulted by any party who wishes to establish any sort of commercial activity (e.g., logging, pipeline, resource extraction) within these boundaries. The geographical boundaries were established with the help of academics, and fieldwork to collect oral histories. Quoting from the above article:
Kent McNeil wrote the book on aboriginal title — and a number of learned articles to boot. His book, Common Law Aboriginal Title, was one of the texts cited in the Supreme Court's decision.
He would agree with John that there is no question about land anymore — if you're Tsilhqot'in.
"The outcome in court is, yes, they are, no doubt, going to be able to prove they have aboriginal title. But the extent will depend on the evidence," he explained. In the Tsilhqot'in case, the original trial judge took five years to outline the borders of their title claim. And that involved visits to the land and talking with elders for oral historical evidence among other sources.
"So it's not necessarily a better option. They've got a much stronger hand than they had before in the negotiations" and, said McNeil, that's because governments can no longer argue that aboriginals only have title to the postage stamp-sized areas that were their villages.
Implications of this Ruling: There are other First Nations, both within B.C. and others such as Inuit groups, and the groups whose aboriginal territories include the James Bay watershed in Quebec, who want to re-open negotiations. Actually a more accurate statement is that their legal advisors have told them that it would be worthwhile to proceed in a manner similar to the Tsilhqot'in. I am not in a position to comment about these possible claims, but it is time to turn to what some at Six Nations have said in relation to the Supreme Court decision.
What this Means for Six Nations: Before I delve into how some at Six Nations have jumped on this ruling, and provide the specific statements of various parties, I would like to mention some facts that should be (but aren't) obvious:
1) Ontario has already negotiated actual treaties and purchased the land outright from the aboriginal owners. These treaties and surrenders are largely found in, Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890 - in Two Volumes, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1891. The situation in British Columbia is in no way comparable to what the circumstances are in Ontario.
2) The Six Nations are not aboriginal to Ontario but rather what is today Upstate New York. While most Six Nations are adamantly opposed to this reality, this statement is easily verifiable. The Six Nations came to what is today Ontario as Loyalist refugees in 1785. There had been Loyalist settlements in the Niagara Penninsula from about 1779 by elderly members of Butler's Rangers. By 1783 Loyalist refugees of all racial - ethnic - cultural backgrounds were already flooding into Ontario from the present day eastern border to the western border in the Windsor area. This is two years before the Six Nations moved from the American side of the Niagara River to occupy the Grand River Tract. The land that was to become the Haldimand or Grand River Tract was purchased by Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand from the Mississauga (an Anishinaabe / Algonquin people) who were the aboriginal owners of the land. The Grand River Tract is the aboriginal territory of the Mississauga, who sold all right, title and deed to the Crown in 1784. An excellent overview of this subject can be found in Garry Horsnell's article and viewed here.
So in effect, the above decision has no impact on the Six Nations of Ontario.
The above are the facts in the matter. I will now provide what information is available to date on:
How the Six Nations Interpret the Tsilhqot'in Decision: Facts and fantasy often get confused in Six Nations politics. While the Haudenosaunee Development Institute is the enforcement arm of the HCCC, the newspaper "Turtle Island News" is its voice, with the Editorials and reporting consistently in favour of the HCCC over the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC). Since the only other Reserve newspaper is managed (at the operational and editorial level) by non-Native Communist Party of Canada activists, it is clear that the Elected Council can expect to have little support from the local media.
In an article entitled, Haudenosaunee Confederacy says Ontario can end any violence ("Turtle Island News" (TIN), July 9, 2014, p.2) in a press release of 8 July 2014 directed to the Province of Ontario, the HCCC said that they want, to maintain a "path of peace and friendship" and return to the agreed upon resolution process i.e. the Communications Protocol discussions". Furthermore they are "deeply concerned that there will be grave consequences for all people involved should the Crown's inaction continue. We will make ourselves available to meet with your Ministers through the Communications Protocol negotiation process at which time we will meaningfully consider how best to continue with our reconciliation efforts". This statement was issued after they had turned down an opportunity to meet with the various Ministers. However since a "representative of the Indian Act system" (Elected Council) would be present, they declined to attend. Apparently it is "our way or our way". Who would negotiate under direct threat with an element that has been involved in criminal activities for which they (HDI members) were assigned hefty fines by the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford. Their extortion methods had been put to the test and failed. Here is where we come to the part which brings the Tsilhqot'in decision into play.
The HCCC press release, according to the article in TIN, said the following. The release also reminded Ontario of a Supreme Court decision in the Tsilhqot'in title and rights case which determined that that Band Councils do not have the ability in Canadian law to represent the collective rights and interests of the original peoples of this land.
"We find ourselves in agreement with the Supreme Court of Canada's endorsement of the Honourable Justice Vickers following statement:
"While band level organization may have meaning to a Canadian federal bureaucracy, it is without any meaning in the resolution of Aboriginal title and rights for Tsilhqot'in people".
So what does this decision have to do with Six Nations Band members? Nothing. The Judge was speaking ONLY of situation concerning the Tsilhqot'in people, and to extrapolate any further is unwarranted cherry picking. The only way to find out if this would be deemed true is to test it in an Ontario Court. However due to the above two conditions (treaties have been made with the First Nations peoples of Ontario; and the Mississauga not the Six Nations are aboriginal to the lands upon which the latter are making a claim) it would be a futile endeavour.
Perhaps the HCCC and their legal advisors think that they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, but Ontario would only cave for other reasons, not the ruling in British Columbia.
Clearly it is the B.C. ruling that has given new vigour to the assertions of the HCCC, but energized or not - they are following a false path that will lead to a dead end. It is understandable that most people do not have the skills needed to challenge their claim in the Court of public opinion - although I really doubt that any but their hard core supporters would see the parallel they are trying to draw.
Interpretation: The HCCC has refused to recognize the legal right of the Elected Council (SNEC) since 1924. This is nothing but a continuation of this factional squabble, with an attempt at using the Tsilhqot'in decision to jockey for more power and diminish the role of SNEC. In my opinion this latest assertion is a desperate ploy on the part of the HCCC legal staff, and will backfire in both the legal Courts and the court of public opinion. It does not seem that the HCCC is getting the best of advice, and may as a consequence make a serious misstep. The Ontario Government requested their presence at a meeting to discuss the problem and they refused (yet are calling for meetings with Ontario, under their terms). The Federal Government has already repeatedly deemed the land claim to be invalid and thus the Six Nations who occupy the Douglas Creek Estates are there illegally, and occupying Ontario Government owned land while refusing entry to any citizen of Ontario except those who they have deemed to be worthy. The Ontario Government has title to the DCE, and Haldimand County has title to the roads (such as the blockaded Surrey Street) leading into DCE. The HCCC has no legal rights whatsoever, and their hugely expensive illegal acts plus intimidation and threats of violence cannot be tolerated by the taxpayers of Canada (who are footing the bill) and citizens of Caledonia (who are on the front lines) any longer. What they are doing is illegal and immoral.
DeYo.
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC0 and their enforcement arm the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) seem to be wringing their collective hands in glee over this following Court case. Perhaps this is a hasty and precipitous response. First we will need to look at the details of the Supreme Court decision, and the way that the HCCC et al. see it as impacting their situation, particularly in relation to their legally subordinate status to the Six Nations Elected Council.
Unfortunately the Province of British Columbia has been deficient in addressing the claimed treaty rights of its aboriginal people, in contrast to Ontario which has treaties (largely from the 19th Century) covering the entire Province. Thus in B.C. many bands have been relegated to the area immediately surrounding their villages. They claim that their aboriginal rights extend far beyond these small patches, which is doubtless true - but how far, that is the sticky question. The can of worms has finally been opened.
For years commercial logging operations have been harvesting timber within the territory claimed by the Tsilhqot'in First Nations (TFN), who are clustered in 7 villages southwest of Williams Lake. For years the Tsilhqot'in people have been claiming that this is an infringement on their aboriginal rights - it is land that is traditionally theirs, and they need to be consulted before any commercial activity takes place within this domain. One of the stumbling blocks, in addition to the B.C. Government dragging its heels, is that the group did not have a geographical aboriginal territory that had been surveyed or in any other way clearly defined. A serious problem is that the 59 aboriginal groups have competing interests (overlapping claims to land) in certain regions. Thus, before any ruling could be made, it was imperative to ascertain clear evidence to support the Tsilhqot'in claim.
There are many media articles on the subject, and it is not necessary for my purposes to be comprehensive, so I would refer interested parties to articles such as the one here from the CBC. The Supreme Court of Canada heard the case and ruled on 26 June 2014 in favour of the Tsilhqot'in position. It awarded 438,000 hectacres of land to the TFN as aboriginal territory. Although they must not sell this land, they must be consulted by any party who wishes to establish any sort of commercial activity (e.g., logging, pipeline, resource extraction) within these boundaries. The geographical boundaries were established with the help of academics, and fieldwork to collect oral histories. Quoting from the above article:
Kent McNeil wrote the book on aboriginal title — and a number of learned articles to boot. His book, Common Law Aboriginal Title, was one of the texts cited in the Supreme Court's decision.
He would agree with John that there is no question about land anymore — if you're Tsilhqot'in.
The Tsilhqot'in First Nation is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize its aboriginal title over a wide area to the south and west of Williams Lake and Alexis Creek, which it considers its traditional territory. (CBC)
Must establish borders on the ground
"Each First Nation is going to have to establish where its aboriginal title is on the ground," McNeil pointed out. So giving up on negotiations and going to court has risks."The outcome in court is, yes, they are, no doubt, going to be able to prove they have aboriginal title. But the extent will depend on the evidence," he explained. In the Tsilhqot'in case, the original trial judge took five years to outline the borders of their title claim. And that involved visits to the land and talking with elders for oral historical evidence among other sources.
"So it's not necessarily a better option. They've got a much stronger hand than they had before in the negotiations" and, said McNeil, that's because governments can no longer argue that aboriginals only have title to the postage stamp-sized areas that were their villages.
Implications of this Ruling: There are other First Nations, both within B.C. and others such as Inuit groups, and the groups whose aboriginal territories include the James Bay watershed in Quebec, who want to re-open negotiations. Actually a more accurate statement is that their legal advisors have told them that it would be worthwhile to proceed in a manner similar to the Tsilhqot'in. I am not in a position to comment about these possible claims, but it is time to turn to what some at Six Nations have said in relation to the Supreme Court decision.
What this Means for Six Nations: Before I delve into how some at Six Nations have jumped on this ruling, and provide the specific statements of various parties, I would like to mention some facts that should be (but aren't) obvious:
1) Ontario has already negotiated actual treaties and purchased the land outright from the aboriginal owners. These treaties and surrenders are largely found in, Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890 - in Two Volumes, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1891. The situation in British Columbia is in no way comparable to what the circumstances are in Ontario.
2) The Six Nations are not aboriginal to Ontario but rather what is today Upstate New York. While most Six Nations are adamantly opposed to this reality, this statement is easily verifiable. The Six Nations came to what is today Ontario as Loyalist refugees in 1785. There had been Loyalist settlements in the Niagara Penninsula from about 1779 by elderly members of Butler's Rangers. By 1783 Loyalist refugees of all racial - ethnic - cultural backgrounds were already flooding into Ontario from the present day eastern border to the western border in the Windsor area. This is two years before the Six Nations moved from the American side of the Niagara River to occupy the Grand River Tract. The land that was to become the Haldimand or Grand River Tract was purchased by Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand from the Mississauga (an Anishinaabe / Algonquin people) who were the aboriginal owners of the land. The Grand River Tract is the aboriginal territory of the Mississauga, who sold all right, title and deed to the Crown in 1784. An excellent overview of this subject can be found in Garry Horsnell's article and viewed here.
So in effect, the above decision has no impact on the Six Nations of Ontario.
The above are the facts in the matter. I will now provide what information is available to date on:
How the Six Nations Interpret the Tsilhqot'in Decision: Facts and fantasy often get confused in Six Nations politics. While the Haudenosaunee Development Institute is the enforcement arm of the HCCC, the newspaper "Turtle Island News" is its voice, with the Editorials and reporting consistently in favour of the HCCC over the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC). Since the only other Reserve newspaper is managed (at the operational and editorial level) by non-Native Communist Party of Canada activists, it is clear that the Elected Council can expect to have little support from the local media.
In an article entitled, Haudenosaunee Confederacy says Ontario can end any violence ("Turtle Island News" (TIN), July 9, 2014, p.2) in a press release of 8 July 2014 directed to the Province of Ontario, the HCCC said that they want, to maintain a "path of peace and friendship" and return to the agreed upon resolution process i.e. the Communications Protocol discussions". Furthermore they are "deeply concerned that there will be grave consequences for all people involved should the Crown's inaction continue. We will make ourselves available to meet with your Ministers through the Communications Protocol negotiation process at which time we will meaningfully consider how best to continue with our reconciliation efforts". This statement was issued after they had turned down an opportunity to meet with the various Ministers. However since a "representative of the Indian Act system" (Elected Council) would be present, they declined to attend. Apparently it is "our way or our way". Who would negotiate under direct threat with an element that has been involved in criminal activities for which they (HDI members) were assigned hefty fines by the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford. Their extortion methods had been put to the test and failed. Here is where we come to the part which brings the Tsilhqot'in decision into play.
The HCCC press release, according to the article in TIN, said the following. The release also reminded Ontario of a Supreme Court decision in the Tsilhqot'in title and rights case which determined that that Band Councils do not have the ability in Canadian law to represent the collective rights and interests of the original peoples of this land.
"We find ourselves in agreement with the Supreme Court of Canada's endorsement of the Honourable Justice Vickers following statement:
"While band level organization may have meaning to a Canadian federal bureaucracy, it is without any meaning in the resolution of Aboriginal title and rights for Tsilhqot'in people".
So what does this decision have to do with Six Nations Band members? Nothing. The Judge was speaking ONLY of situation concerning the Tsilhqot'in people, and to extrapolate any further is unwarranted cherry picking. The only way to find out if this would be deemed true is to test it in an Ontario Court. However due to the above two conditions (treaties have been made with the First Nations peoples of Ontario; and the Mississauga not the Six Nations are aboriginal to the lands upon which the latter are making a claim) it would be a futile endeavour.
Perhaps the HCCC and their legal advisors think that they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, but Ontario would only cave for other reasons, not the ruling in British Columbia.
Clearly it is the B.C. ruling that has given new vigour to the assertions of the HCCC, but energized or not - they are following a false path that will lead to a dead end. It is understandable that most people do not have the skills needed to challenge their claim in the Court of public opinion - although I really doubt that any but their hard core supporters would see the parallel they are trying to draw.
Interpretation: The HCCC has refused to recognize the legal right of the Elected Council (SNEC) since 1924. This is nothing but a continuation of this factional squabble, with an attempt at using the Tsilhqot'in decision to jockey for more power and diminish the role of SNEC. In my opinion this latest assertion is a desperate ploy on the part of the HCCC legal staff, and will backfire in both the legal Courts and the court of public opinion. It does not seem that the HCCC is getting the best of advice, and may as a consequence make a serious misstep. The Ontario Government requested their presence at a meeting to discuss the problem and they refused (yet are calling for meetings with Ontario, under their terms). The Federal Government has already repeatedly deemed the land claim to be invalid and thus the Six Nations who occupy the Douglas Creek Estates are there illegally, and occupying Ontario Government owned land while refusing entry to any citizen of Ontario except those who they have deemed to be worthy. The Ontario Government has title to the DCE, and Haldimand County has title to the roads (such as the blockaded Surrey Street) leading into DCE. The HCCC has no legal rights whatsoever, and their hugely expensive illegal acts plus intimidation and threats of violence cannot be tolerated by the taxpayers of Canada (who are footing the bill) and citizens of Caledonia (who are on the front lines) any longer. What they are doing is illegal and immoral.
DeYo.
Saturday 12 July 2014
Radical's Abusive Disrespect of Six Nations Female Elder at DCE Barricade. Disrespect is Endemic
Disrespect of Protesters Toward their own Female Elders - 5 July 2014: I expect that the following video will "go viral" across North America - for a number of reasons. One of these would be the belief that Six Nations people have reverence towards their elders, and a particular respect for women due to their traditional role within Six Nations culture. That is apparently a fallacy.
The "rank and file" among the activists at the barricade are also influencing events. The metaphorical body of the serpent, especially the underbelly, can still have an influence on events or their perception. People should remember to be careful what you say, especially when you know that there are cameras rolling. Some amazing things get caught on tape. Some people have little in the way of filters or self control. At the time that this incident was video taped I was nearby, but the person "featured" in the video was hurling so many insults and threats at so many people, it was hard to keep track of what was going on. About this time I had asked him if he had any words in his vocabulary that don't begin with the word "f" - trying to get him to tone things down.
Hence the importance of videotaping, and the key role of an excellent videographer. The individual shown here was abusive (issuing coarse language, threats) to others including myself at various other points during the melee. Also they have been seen in videos or photographs engaging in anti-social acts such as hurling tires on the fire burning in the middle of Argyle Street in 2006. I do wish to emphasize that while there is a strong element of this type present among the protesters, they do not make up the majority of the Six Nations folks there even at the barricade. Without any doubt, there will be general condemnation of actions such as these by the vast majority of the good people of Six Nations.
The camera and the audio don't lie, they tell a story, in this case a rather sordid one that has got to be embarrassing to people on both sides of the barricade. It has already been published to the Internet so I am merely making it accessible to my readers - but with some hesitancy due to the graphic nature of the content.
The video from CANACE HD (see home page here) was taken during the melee of 5 July 2014 at the barricade across Surrey Street, Caledonia. Before viewing please be aware that there is extreme vulgar / coarse language directed towards one (Six Nations) woman, and sexually oriented threats towards the daughter of another woman. It will be upsetting for some viewers. At best it is suitable only for those over 18 - although even at any age it has the potential of causing distress. If you decide to view the video even after these warnings, click here. You will gain insight into what we in Caledonia, as well as Six Nations moderates, must endure during this conflict.
Disrespect of Protesters Toward the Ontario Judicial System - 2007 and 2008: There is a huge undercurrent of angry disrespect that is rampant at Six Nations and we who are on the front lines know it from direct experience, but it even shows itself in situations where there are strict and enforced protocols on behavior - such as at proceedings held in Ontario Provincial Court in Cayuga. I have worked in this setting and know full well what is allowed, and what crosses a line. For example if you shout out in Court you will be removed by the Bailiff - although in some cases you may be given a warning first. What I have never seen in all my days in Court, testifying as an expert witness, is the degree of blatant disrespect shown by some Six Nations individuals - it appears to be endemic, not merely isolated instances. I have heard of many examples, but perhaps it is best to quote from a reporter, ensuring that my biases will not enter into the mix. Christie Blatchford covered some of the trials of the perpetrators of crimes related to the DCE or smoke shack incidents. As Blatchford says Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010), and I know to be true from my own direct experience, is that normally Court officials such as bailiffs take their role very seriously - maintaining Court decorum. This is why the trial of A Douglas had a dramatic impact on the OPP officers who were waiting to testify. No doubt they had never seen anything remotely resembling what they were about to witness.
By the end of 2007 and early 2008 many of the criminal charges and trials relating to the violent DCE takeover had reached the stage of requiring the accused to appear in Court. Friends and relatives are allowed to attend and to sit in the gallery, but they are expected to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. Apparently no one has informed many at Six Nations of what should be common sense. Here the OPP officers witnessed in "the graceful old Cayuga courthouse" with,
angry supporters sitting, and sometimes standing, in the body of the Court, yelling out "Who is the army that can arrest this judge?" and "Why don't you let him [Douglas] the fuck out?". There was audible hissing and swearing, and hostility so naked that the complete lack of security precautions genuinely began to worry the police (pp.225-226) However when all this misbehavior was brought to the attention of everyone from Crown attorneys to the Judge - no one did anything. And if it had been a "regular" Canadian citizen behaving in the same way, I can assure one and all that there would have been all hell to pay. However there is a separate set of rules for "Natives" who "get a pass on misbehavior".
On 19 December 2007, in front of an OPP officer, the co-accused of Douglas, T Miller when the OPP officer heard Miller say, "That f*cking Crown, I could take his f*cking head off!" The same day one of the "Natives" present came up to the Crown Attorney and said, "I'm somebody who knows everyone. You'd be surprised who we know; we have pictures and we know where they live". If that is not a threat, then I don't know the meaning of the term. All officials, from the OPP brass to the Court officers, refused to take any action - including beefing up Court security! So it should be no surprise that when Douglas made his next Court appearance, both Miller and the unidentified man who made the threats were allowed into the Court (unheard of in other venues). It should be no surprise also that the supporters of Douglas were, loudly muttering curses and epithets such as "You racist" (p.228) in the direction of the same Crown attorney. Then the most disgusting actions probably every witnessed in Court in Cayuga (or most other venues) occurred. When Douglas was led out to the clapping and cheering of supporters, a teenager, at the very front of the courtroom looked directly at Judge Joe Nadel and shouted, in a clear voice, "You f*cking piece of shit!". To a Judge!!!! While OPP officers from various parts of the courtroom heard the comment, the Judge simply continued to write and appears to have ignored the despicable comment.
Comment: So this is what we are dealing with. People who have no respect for anyone or anything, not the Court, not even their own Elders. They are a law unto themselves and have degenerated into a sub-species who certainly cannot behave civilly in any human interaction. The behavior is low class - no class as it would be in any society. Normally there would be severe sanctions for such actions, but here, if it is committed by someone considered to be "Native", then the normal rules are not only bent but dispensed with to avoid confrontation. So the Courts and others have acted as enablers and we can expect these sorts of grotesquely inappropriate behavior as long as the Court does not use its authority to maintain a single standard of law for all people regardless of racial - ethnic - cultural background. While on the barricades pretty much anything goes in terms of name calling, and the OPP are the recipients of all sorts of gross comments, but they don't have any authority to stop it - but in the Courts, there are rules in this context, and if broken there are consequences that can be directed at perpetrators. I do not have any evidence that the situation has changed.
I just have to groan when I hear ill informed non-Natives talk about the respectfulness that Natives show. Really, have you ever been to Haldimand County?
DeYo.
The "rank and file" among the activists at the barricade are also influencing events. The metaphorical body of the serpent, especially the underbelly, can still have an influence on events or their perception. People should remember to be careful what you say, especially when you know that there are cameras rolling. Some amazing things get caught on tape. Some people have little in the way of filters or self control. At the time that this incident was video taped I was nearby, but the person "featured" in the video was hurling so many insults and threats at so many people, it was hard to keep track of what was going on. About this time I had asked him if he had any words in his vocabulary that don't begin with the word "f" - trying to get him to tone things down.
Hence the importance of videotaping, and the key role of an excellent videographer. The individual shown here was abusive (issuing coarse language, threats) to others including myself at various other points during the melee. Also they have been seen in videos or photographs engaging in anti-social acts such as hurling tires on the fire burning in the middle of Argyle Street in 2006. I do wish to emphasize that while there is a strong element of this type present among the protesters, they do not make up the majority of the Six Nations folks there even at the barricade. Without any doubt, there will be general condemnation of actions such as these by the vast majority of the good people of Six Nations.
The camera and the audio don't lie, they tell a story, in this case a rather sordid one that has got to be embarrassing to people on both sides of the barricade. It has already been published to the Internet so I am merely making it accessible to my readers - but with some hesitancy due to the graphic nature of the content.
The video from CANACE HD (see home page here) was taken during the melee of 5 July 2014 at the barricade across Surrey Street, Caledonia. Before viewing please be aware that there is extreme vulgar / coarse language directed towards one (Six Nations) woman, and sexually oriented threats towards the daughter of another woman. It will be upsetting for some viewers. At best it is suitable only for those over 18 - although even at any age it has the potential of causing distress. If you decide to view the video even after these warnings, click here. You will gain insight into what we in Caledonia, as well as Six Nations moderates, must endure during this conflict.
Disrespect of Protesters Toward the Ontario Judicial System - 2007 and 2008: There is a huge undercurrent of angry disrespect that is rampant at Six Nations and we who are on the front lines know it from direct experience, but it even shows itself in situations where there are strict and enforced protocols on behavior - such as at proceedings held in Ontario Provincial Court in Cayuga. I have worked in this setting and know full well what is allowed, and what crosses a line. For example if you shout out in Court you will be removed by the Bailiff - although in some cases you may be given a warning first. What I have never seen in all my days in Court, testifying as an expert witness, is the degree of blatant disrespect shown by some Six Nations individuals - it appears to be endemic, not merely isolated instances. I have heard of many examples, but perhaps it is best to quote from a reporter, ensuring that my biases will not enter into the mix. Christie Blatchford covered some of the trials of the perpetrators of crimes related to the DCE or smoke shack incidents. As Blatchford says Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010), and I know to be true from my own direct experience, is that normally Court officials such as bailiffs take their role very seriously - maintaining Court decorum. This is why the trial of A Douglas had a dramatic impact on the OPP officers who were waiting to testify. No doubt they had never seen anything remotely resembling what they were about to witness.
By the end of 2007 and early 2008 many of the criminal charges and trials relating to the violent DCE takeover had reached the stage of requiring the accused to appear in Court. Friends and relatives are allowed to attend and to sit in the gallery, but they are expected to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. Apparently no one has informed many at Six Nations of what should be common sense. Here the OPP officers witnessed in "the graceful old Cayuga courthouse" with,
angry supporters sitting, and sometimes standing, in the body of the Court, yelling out "Who is the army that can arrest this judge?" and "Why don't you let him [Douglas] the fuck out?". There was audible hissing and swearing, and hostility so naked that the complete lack of security precautions genuinely began to worry the police (pp.225-226) However when all this misbehavior was brought to the attention of everyone from Crown attorneys to the Judge - no one did anything. And if it had been a "regular" Canadian citizen behaving in the same way, I can assure one and all that there would have been all hell to pay. However there is a separate set of rules for "Natives" who "get a pass on misbehavior".
On 19 December 2007, in front of an OPP officer, the co-accused of Douglas, T Miller when the OPP officer heard Miller say, "That f*cking Crown, I could take his f*cking head off!" The same day one of the "Natives" present came up to the Crown Attorney and said, "I'm somebody who knows everyone. You'd be surprised who we know; we have pictures and we know where they live". If that is not a threat, then I don't know the meaning of the term. All officials, from the OPP brass to the Court officers, refused to take any action - including beefing up Court security! So it should be no surprise that when Douglas made his next Court appearance, both Miller and the unidentified man who made the threats were allowed into the Court (unheard of in other venues). It should be no surprise also that the supporters of Douglas were, loudly muttering curses and epithets such as "You racist" (p.228) in the direction of the same Crown attorney. Then the most disgusting actions probably every witnessed in Court in Cayuga (or most other venues) occurred. When Douglas was led out to the clapping and cheering of supporters, a teenager, at the very front of the courtroom looked directly at Judge Joe Nadel and shouted, in a clear voice, "You f*cking piece of shit!". To a Judge!!!! While OPP officers from various parts of the courtroom heard the comment, the Judge simply continued to write and appears to have ignored the despicable comment.
Comment: So this is what we are dealing with. People who have no respect for anyone or anything, not the Court, not even their own Elders. They are a law unto themselves and have degenerated into a sub-species who certainly cannot behave civilly in any human interaction. The behavior is low class - no class as it would be in any society. Normally there would be severe sanctions for such actions, but here, if it is committed by someone considered to be "Native", then the normal rules are not only bent but dispensed with to avoid confrontation. So the Courts and others have acted as enablers and we can expect these sorts of grotesquely inappropriate behavior as long as the Court does not use its authority to maintain a single standard of law for all people regardless of racial - ethnic - cultural background. While on the barricades pretty much anything goes in terms of name calling, and the OPP are the recipients of all sorts of gross comments, but they don't have any authority to stop it - but in the Courts, there are rules in this context, and if broken there are consequences that can be directed at perpetrators. I do not have any evidence that the situation has changed.
I just have to groan when I hear ill informed non-Natives talk about the respectfulness that Natives show. Really, have you ever been to Haldimand County?
DeYo.
Legal Problems for the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI)? The Law Society of Upper Canada
A) Leaders of Non-Native Solidarity Groups: In 2012, non-Native solidarity groups, composed at least at the leadership level of radical unionists, Communits, Anarchists, and members of anti - Semitic groups (e.g., those supporting Hamas and Palestinian militants), flocked to the side of the Six Nations to give (whether it was asked for or not) advice and support. This had happened on a number of occasions since the "reclamation" of Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) in 2006, but became most apparent to Caledonia when one of their number, Tom Keefer, organized a "picnic" and a "parade" in the spring of 2012 which shut down the town as the protest march proceeded from Edinburgh Square on the north side of town, across the bridge, and south to DCE. See here for a balanced description of the "event". There are a number of issues involved here:
1) They had no permits for what was euphemistically called a "parade", but were still allowed by Haldimand County and the Ontario Provincial Police (who provided traffic control for them) to proceed.
2) They had among their ranks known terrorist groups such as members of a Palestinian group, and the Black Panthers - all proudly carrying the flags as symbols of their role as our oppressors.
3) The parade shut down the already economically bruised Caledonia on a Saturday for the key business hours resulting in economic hardship for local businesses.
4) Those marching with this group were largely very naïve individuals, such as the students of the leaders of the march, who did not have the remotest grasp of the complexity of what we in Caledonia have experienced.
5) The "parade" only served to open old wounds (the then Six Nations Elected Council Chief expressed the same opinion).
There is a concept with which I have been long familiar. Metaphorically expressed, we can look at disreputable groups as snakes. There is the long wiggly body which, although it is very "showy" and generates a lot of activity, is not by itself dangerous. Even the noisy tail of the rattlesnake is harmless, although it may send chills down the spines of those who hear it. What one has to be concerned with is the head of the snake (or serpent). Here is where the sensing and decision making parts are situated, as well as the fangs and the poison which can maim or kill. Hence it makes little sense to worry about the former, it is the latter that needs to be "dealt with" in order to remove the danger.
It was strongly maintained that their leaders (the heads of the serpents) had acted irresponsibly and that there should be consequences. Since all were university graduate students from the Toronto and Kitchener - Waterloo area, a number of us, including community members and our representatives, wrote to the supervisors of these students in the Departments of History and Political Science, as well as the university chancellors. What we said was that your students are causing a lot of pain and suffering to innocent members of a small community in rural Ontario, and that as the supervisors of these students you bear some responsibility in ensuring that their actions are not illegal or damaging to others. This campaign seemed to bear fruit - although the supervisors and chancellors talked about the rights to free speech and the like. We agreed with them, but asserted that if anything went "really wrong", they would be held accountable as well as their students. It may be just a coincidence, but since the infamous "parade" the "support groups" took a very low profile and amounted to only a handful being present at DCE during protests by local residents. Some were never to be seen again in this area.
So a reasonable conclusion is that by deploying actions designed to remove the head of the serpent, we may be able to reduce some of the problems (e.g., violent agitation) to more manageable levels.
B) Legal Representative of the HCCC and HDI: This brings us to 2014 where our main problem is the outlandish behavior of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), as seen in many of the previous postings to this blog. Most recently, through their legal representative who is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada (required for all lawyers in Ontario) which regulates activities of lawyers throughout the Province, they have issued a press release warning everyone of "grave consequences" if the Province does not negotiate with them using the HCCC "accommodation protocol". As a host of one of the programmes on "Sun News TV" said, "that's a threat". Correct. Here follows a summary list of some of the alleged questionable actions of the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI:
1) Issuing threats.
2) Recommending and supporting an illegal occupation of lands owned first by a private individual and later the Province of Ontario.
3) Extortion (e.g., demanding that developers use the "application process" / paying a fee in order to avoid work stoppages).
4) Racketeering.
5) Knowingly issuing false statements.
6) Acting irresponsibly in negotiations with government.
7) Sowing dissention within the community (further driving a wedge between the Elected Council and HCCC supporters).
8) Failure to obey a Court Injunction.
9) Removing assets to the Reserve in order to avoid paying a fine issued by the Superior Court of Ontario.
This is just for starters.
If in fact the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI has engaged in criminal and / or unethical acts, it is possible that the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) will remove their right to practice law in Ontario (see here). Here is an excerpt from their "The Complaints Process: Information for Complainants" page:
The Law Society of Upper Canada has a duty to regulate Ontario lawyers and licensed paralegals in the public interest.
As a part of carrying out that duty, we deal with complaints from members of the public about lawyers and paralegals. We also respond to information about unlicensed practitioners who are providing legal services or practising law.
If you have a complaint about a lawyer or paralegal, read this page.
NOTE: If you choose to make a complaint, you must do so in writing by completing this form.
If the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI is removed due to malpractice, then these groups will be rudderless and considerably less organized and effective in carrying out their disruptive illegal practices.
In life one does not get very far by tippy toeing around. Only entirely legal but firm and direct action is likely to succeed. Therefore such action needs to be taken to remove the head of the serpent through the reporting procedures of the LSUC.
If the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI has not resigned their position within one week (7 days) of this posting, and given public notice of such action, I will need to seriously contemplate making a formal complaint to the LSUC. See here for procedures required, and here for a copy of the complaint form.
It is suggested that multiple individuals make submissions in the matter, but only if in all honesty they believe that there is a case that can be made for malpractice. It would be unfair to tarnish the reputation of someone who is acting entirely within the confines of the law and standards of practice of their profession.
DeYo.
1) They had no permits for what was euphemistically called a "parade", but were still allowed by Haldimand County and the Ontario Provincial Police (who provided traffic control for them) to proceed.
2) They had among their ranks known terrorist groups such as members of a Palestinian group, and the Black Panthers - all proudly carrying the flags as symbols of their role as our oppressors.
3) The parade shut down the already economically bruised Caledonia on a Saturday for the key business hours resulting in economic hardship for local businesses.
4) Those marching with this group were largely very naïve individuals, such as the students of the leaders of the march, who did not have the remotest grasp of the complexity of what we in Caledonia have experienced.
5) The "parade" only served to open old wounds (the then Six Nations Elected Council Chief expressed the same opinion).
There is a concept with which I have been long familiar. Metaphorically expressed, we can look at disreputable groups as snakes. There is the long wiggly body which, although it is very "showy" and generates a lot of activity, is not by itself dangerous. Even the noisy tail of the rattlesnake is harmless, although it may send chills down the spines of those who hear it. What one has to be concerned with is the head of the snake (or serpent). Here is where the sensing and decision making parts are situated, as well as the fangs and the poison which can maim or kill. Hence it makes little sense to worry about the former, it is the latter that needs to be "dealt with" in order to remove the danger.
It was strongly maintained that their leaders (the heads of the serpents) had acted irresponsibly and that there should be consequences. Since all were university graduate students from the Toronto and Kitchener - Waterloo area, a number of us, including community members and our representatives, wrote to the supervisors of these students in the Departments of History and Political Science, as well as the university chancellors. What we said was that your students are causing a lot of pain and suffering to innocent members of a small community in rural Ontario, and that as the supervisors of these students you bear some responsibility in ensuring that their actions are not illegal or damaging to others. This campaign seemed to bear fruit - although the supervisors and chancellors talked about the rights to free speech and the like. We agreed with them, but asserted that if anything went "really wrong", they would be held accountable as well as their students. It may be just a coincidence, but since the infamous "parade" the "support groups" took a very low profile and amounted to only a handful being present at DCE during protests by local residents. Some were never to be seen again in this area.
So a reasonable conclusion is that by deploying actions designed to remove the head of the serpent, we may be able to reduce some of the problems (e.g., violent agitation) to more manageable levels.
B) Legal Representative of the HCCC and HDI: This brings us to 2014 where our main problem is the outlandish behavior of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), as seen in many of the previous postings to this blog. Most recently, through their legal representative who is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada (required for all lawyers in Ontario) which regulates activities of lawyers throughout the Province, they have issued a press release warning everyone of "grave consequences" if the Province does not negotiate with them using the HCCC "accommodation protocol". As a host of one of the programmes on "Sun News TV" said, "that's a threat". Correct. Here follows a summary list of some of the alleged questionable actions of the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI:
1) Issuing threats.
2) Recommending and supporting an illegal occupation of lands owned first by a private individual and later the Province of Ontario.
3) Extortion (e.g., demanding that developers use the "application process" / paying a fee in order to avoid work stoppages).
4) Racketeering.
5) Knowingly issuing false statements.
6) Acting irresponsibly in negotiations with government.
7) Sowing dissention within the community (further driving a wedge between the Elected Council and HCCC supporters).
8) Failure to obey a Court Injunction.
9) Removing assets to the Reserve in order to avoid paying a fine issued by the Superior Court of Ontario.
This is just for starters.
If in fact the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI has engaged in criminal and / or unethical acts, it is possible that the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) will remove their right to practice law in Ontario (see here). Here is an excerpt from their "The Complaints Process: Information for Complainants" page:
The Law Society of Upper Canada has a duty to regulate Ontario lawyers and licensed paralegals in the public interest.
As a part of carrying out that duty, we deal with complaints from members of the public about lawyers and paralegals. We also respond to information about unlicensed practitioners who are providing legal services or practising law.
If you have a complaint about a lawyer or paralegal, read this page.
NOTE: If you choose to make a complaint, you must do so in writing by completing this form.
If the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI is removed due to malpractice, then these groups will be rudderless and considerably less organized and effective in carrying out their disruptive illegal practices.
In life one does not get very far by tippy toeing around. Only entirely legal but firm and direct action is likely to succeed. Therefore such action needs to be taken to remove the head of the serpent through the reporting procedures of the LSUC.
If the legal representative of the HCCC / HDI has not resigned their position within one week (7 days) of this posting, and given public notice of such action, I will need to seriously contemplate making a formal complaint to the LSUC. See here for procedures required, and here for a copy of the complaint form.
It is suggested that multiple individuals make submissions in the matter, but only if in all honesty they believe that there is a case that can be made for malpractice. It would be unfair to tarnish the reputation of someone who is acting entirely within the confines of the law and standards of practice of their profession.
DeYo.
Friday 11 July 2014
THIS TIME IT IS DIFFERENT: Massive Media Coverage & Canadians Overwhelming Support Caledonians in Land Dispute
While for years now the media has virtually ignored us, joining the Ontario Provincial Police and the Government of Ontario as those we perceived as having deserted us to our fate. In the last two weeks there has been almost constant (even daily) media newspaper articles as well as TV reports and interviews. The online comments to these stories are overwhelmingly supportive of us - and the anger towards the "Natives" is palpable. Now people are questioning why they get Government cheques yet disrespect the Government and create costly and destructive situations which they turn around and blame the victims (Caledonians), the Federal Government, the Ontario Government, the Ontario Provincial Police, and anyone but themselves. Clearly the "average Canadian" is fed up with the whining coming from Native groups, the violence, the threats, the misuse of funds and so on.
What the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and Haudenosaunee Development Institute do not seem to realize is that virtually everyone sees them for what they are - a group led by terrorists and thugs. No longer perceived as a victim of "colonialism" or "racism" - terms for which Canadians no longer have patience, the HCCC / HDI spin masters are going to have a serious uphill battle this time around. What really got people, even former supporters, thoroughly disgusted are recent statements which amount to nothing more nothing less than threats. If "the government" does not negotiate (translation - give in completely to our demands), then there will be "dire consequences", that will make 2006 seem like a tea party.
After the virtual "media blackout" in relation to events in Caledonia post 2006, it might have been the fact that in 2011 the then 22 year old Richard Smoke got a Court sentence of less than two years for beating builder Sam Gaultieri almost to death in his own home after a break and enter - still threatening others; and whose family and supporters showed the ultimate in class act in failing to rise when the presiding judge entered the Court. This pitiful situation where there was a double standard in sentencing (a non-Native person would have expected a sentence of about 8 years) echoes what we still experience in Caledonia - one set of rules for those classed as "Natives", and another set of rules for those classed as "non-Native". Live here as I do and you see it play out time and time and time again. So Mr. Smoke is now out and I wonder how he is getting on. There are no photos of him on the Internet, so those of us who would like to know if we are facing him along the barricades simply don't know. There was general outrage against this travesty of justice, as reflected in the article by Peter Worthington, Sentence too lenient, in the "Toronto Sun", 26 December 2011 (see here). The comments section will illustrate how Canadians feel about a double standard in sentencing where the fact that Smoke's grandparents were in Residental School. So therefore he is less culpable. Alas, this makes no sense because the "Mohawk Institute" Residental School is on the Six Nations Reserve and within walking distance of anyone's home there. The public doesn't know that of course, and it sounds so "compassionate" to take this into account, but it is an irrelevant factor - and Mr. Gaultieri has to live a lifetime with permanent brain damage caused by Smoke's liberal use of a 2x4 piece of wood.
It is as if the media now can't get enough of our situation and has finally come to the conclusion - how were they able to endure the abuse, and importantly, why should they have to continue to live in fear with anarchy and violence on their doorstep, and without the protections all other Canadians take for granted?
Here is a sample of some of the media coverage that should be watched in full:
Sun News TV (Toronto): Six Nations chiefs warn of 'grave consequences' if talks with province break down. Click here. On this page there are a series of reports and interviews which shed light on the changing views of the general public on what we have been forced to endure for 8 years. In general, the reporters and interviewers seem incredulous - amazed at the lawlessness that is still rampant in this cute little rural town called Caledonia. The same interviewee, Sarah McLaughlin, was later interviewed by Anthony Furey on Sun News Toronto TV, but the video does not appear to be available any longer.
CHCH TV (Hamilton): An article entitled, Gov't releases statement about disputed land (see here) is a good example with numerous comments. Al Sweeney has been the most consistent reporter following the Caledonia crisis at various points - showing up when only Six Nations media are present. He is to be commended for his exemplary work.
The National Post: A good summary of Minister Duguid's (falsely) blaming the Federal Government for the "Caledonia crisis" is found here, and is entitled, Ontario says federal government to blame if dispute with Six Nations leads to unrest in Caledonia this summer. An amazing number of comments (I lost count) particularly since it was published 11 July 2014 and I retrieved it two days later. Virtually all commenters have caught the Ontario Government in this ruse, knowing full well that they are abrogating their responsibility to the people of Caledonia and Ontario - and that the OPP must be called in to enforce the various Court Injunctions to remove the occupiers.
The Brantford Expositor: A good example of the changing perspective in the print media is seen in the "Expositor". See here, and particularly, you may wish to scroll through the comments (there are plenty, and they are consistent). Numerous comments.
The Hamilton Spectator: An example of a recent article, entitled, Six Nations warns removing blockade will disrupt peace, with comments can be found here. 11 comments.
The Sachem: One might think that since this is the local (to Caledonians) newspaper, that articles about the blockade would bring forth a large number of comments. This is not the case, and a mere 3 would be considered typical (on any subject). An example is, Considering talk before action at DCE, see here, 2 comments.
A heartfelt thank you to the media who now "get it" and understand what we have been through over a period of 8 years, and are now facing once again - with the threat that the violence this time will far exceed what we experienced in 2006 (and subsequent years). In particular thanks to Christie Blatchford who wrote her book "Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us" in 2010, providing poignant glimpses into what life was like for those living near DCE. She received death threats, and had leftist university students attempt to stop her talks at major universities (a fine example of how the importance of freedom of speech is taught in our schools to these "spoiled brats"). Her subsequent articles in the National Post, Globe and Mail and Brantford Expositor helped keep the matter in the public light. Furthermore, without Gary McHale's valiant stand on equal justice before the law, reflected in his book "Victory in the No-Go Zone" (focusing on two - tiered policing) and published in 2013. However the trigger for the present circumstances, bringing the simmering anger of residents to a boil, was his citizen's arrest of a self - proclaimed "land protector" at DCE, initiating an abreaction from the "usual suspects" among the HCCC followers. Their recent action involving the pulling of the barricade across Surrey Street was immensely ill conceived as it only served to bring attention to the double standard existing in Haldimand with one law for the "Natives" and another for non-Natives. Fortunately we have an excellent Mayor in Ken Hewitt at the helm, and Council members who could all see that there was a serious problem that could only be rectified by removing the barricade which blocked a County road, and also ensuring that if anyone was allowed on DCE it would be all residents of whatever racial - ethnic - cultural background. If my blog and incessant e-mails to every official imaginable helped to play some small role, I am pleased.
DeYo.
What the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and Haudenosaunee Development Institute do not seem to realize is that virtually everyone sees them for what they are - a group led by terrorists and thugs. No longer perceived as a victim of "colonialism" or "racism" - terms for which Canadians no longer have patience, the HCCC / HDI spin masters are going to have a serious uphill battle this time around. What really got people, even former supporters, thoroughly disgusted are recent statements which amount to nothing more nothing less than threats. If "the government" does not negotiate (translation - give in completely to our demands), then there will be "dire consequences", that will make 2006 seem like a tea party.
After the virtual "media blackout" in relation to events in Caledonia post 2006, it might have been the fact that in 2011 the then 22 year old Richard Smoke got a Court sentence of less than two years for beating builder Sam Gaultieri almost to death in his own home after a break and enter - still threatening others; and whose family and supporters showed the ultimate in class act in failing to rise when the presiding judge entered the Court. This pitiful situation where there was a double standard in sentencing (a non-Native person would have expected a sentence of about 8 years) echoes what we still experience in Caledonia - one set of rules for those classed as "Natives", and another set of rules for those classed as "non-Native". Live here as I do and you see it play out time and time and time again. So Mr. Smoke is now out and I wonder how he is getting on. There are no photos of him on the Internet, so those of us who would like to know if we are facing him along the barricades simply don't know. There was general outrage against this travesty of justice, as reflected in the article by Peter Worthington, Sentence too lenient, in the "Toronto Sun", 26 December 2011 (see here). The comments section will illustrate how Canadians feel about a double standard in sentencing where the fact that Smoke's grandparents were in Residental School. So therefore he is less culpable. Alas, this makes no sense because the "Mohawk Institute" Residental School is on the Six Nations Reserve and within walking distance of anyone's home there. The public doesn't know that of course, and it sounds so "compassionate" to take this into account, but it is an irrelevant factor - and Mr. Gaultieri has to live a lifetime with permanent brain damage caused by Smoke's liberal use of a 2x4 piece of wood.
It is as if the media now can't get enough of our situation and has finally come to the conclusion - how were they able to endure the abuse, and importantly, why should they have to continue to live in fear with anarchy and violence on their doorstep, and without the protections all other Canadians take for granted?
Here is a sample of some of the media coverage that should be watched in full:
Sun News TV (Toronto): Six Nations chiefs warn of 'grave consequences' if talks with province break down. Click here. On this page there are a series of reports and interviews which shed light on the changing views of the general public on what we have been forced to endure for 8 years. In general, the reporters and interviewers seem incredulous - amazed at the lawlessness that is still rampant in this cute little rural town called Caledonia. The same interviewee, Sarah McLaughlin, was later interviewed by Anthony Furey on Sun News Toronto TV, but the video does not appear to be available any longer.
CHCH TV (Hamilton): An article entitled, Gov't releases statement about disputed land (see here) is a good example with numerous comments. Al Sweeney has been the most consistent reporter following the Caledonia crisis at various points - showing up when only Six Nations media are present. He is to be commended for his exemplary work.
The National Post: A good summary of Minister Duguid's (falsely) blaming the Federal Government for the "Caledonia crisis" is found here, and is entitled, Ontario says federal government to blame if dispute with Six Nations leads to unrest in Caledonia this summer. An amazing number of comments (I lost count) particularly since it was published 11 July 2014 and I retrieved it two days later. Virtually all commenters have caught the Ontario Government in this ruse, knowing full well that they are abrogating their responsibility to the people of Caledonia and Ontario - and that the OPP must be called in to enforce the various Court Injunctions to remove the occupiers.
The Brantford Expositor: A good example of the changing perspective in the print media is seen in the "Expositor". See here, and particularly, you may wish to scroll through the comments (there are plenty, and they are consistent). Numerous comments.
The Hamilton Spectator: An example of a recent article, entitled, Six Nations warns removing blockade will disrupt peace, with comments can be found here. 11 comments.
The Sachem: One might think that since this is the local (to Caledonians) newspaper, that articles about the blockade would bring forth a large number of comments. This is not the case, and a mere 3 would be considered typical (on any subject). An example is, Considering talk before action at DCE, see here, 2 comments.
A heartfelt thank you to the media who now "get it" and understand what we have been through over a period of 8 years, and are now facing once again - with the threat that the violence this time will far exceed what we experienced in 2006 (and subsequent years). In particular thanks to Christie Blatchford who wrote her book "Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us" in 2010, providing poignant glimpses into what life was like for those living near DCE. She received death threats, and had leftist university students attempt to stop her talks at major universities (a fine example of how the importance of freedom of speech is taught in our schools to these "spoiled brats"). Her subsequent articles in the National Post, Globe and Mail and Brantford Expositor helped keep the matter in the public light. Furthermore, without Gary McHale's valiant stand on equal justice before the law, reflected in his book "Victory in the No-Go Zone" (focusing on two - tiered policing) and published in 2013. However the trigger for the present circumstances, bringing the simmering anger of residents to a boil, was his citizen's arrest of a self - proclaimed "land protector" at DCE, initiating an abreaction from the "usual suspects" among the HCCC followers. Their recent action involving the pulling of the barricade across Surrey Street was immensely ill conceived as it only served to bring attention to the double standard existing in Haldimand with one law for the "Natives" and another for non-Natives. Fortunately we have an excellent Mayor in Ken Hewitt at the helm, and Council members who could all see that there was a serious problem that could only be rectified by removing the barricade which blocked a County road, and also ensuring that if anyone was allowed on DCE it would be all residents of whatever racial - ethnic - cultural background. If my blog and incessant e-mails to every official imaginable helped to play some small role, I am pleased.
DeYo.
Thursday 10 July 2014
Factional Dispute Between the Six Nations Confederacy and Elected Council Plagues Attempts to Address Problems at DCE Barricade - A Dangerous Twist
-------------------------------------------------------------
Please see CHCH TV evening news coverage here for the most recent update and key details Please click on the video news coverage as reported by Al Sweeny.
I want to emphasize that we in Caledonia are once again under virtual siege, and that violence could erupt at any time - it is a powder keg situation where we are dealing with individuals who have absolutely no respect for law and order.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What follows is a chronological summary of what occurred on a very busy 10 July 2014 - with new information trickling in all day and into the evening.
It might be useful to read the immediately preceding posting to this blog since it gives a lead in to the events of the 9th and 10th of July 2014.
First Reports: The "Brantford Expositor" of 9 July 2014 provides an update on the meeting that took place between David Zimmer, Ontario Minister of Aboriginal Affairs; Ken Hewitt, Mayor of Haldimand County; and Ava Hill, Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
In an article entitled, Sides in talks over DCE barricade (see here), it is reported that, The meeting at an undisclosed time and place included Zimmer, Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid, Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt and Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill.
Details concerning the outcome of the meeting were not available Wednesday evening.
Although it is not required by law, and generally proves disruptive to the process, it is noteworthy that a Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) representative such as Head Chief Allen MacNaughton was not present. It can easily be determined why the no show as per the wording here:
The Six Nations Confederacy was invited to send a chief to the meeting, but the day before issued a statement that it “must respectfully decline the invitation to meet with Minister Zimmer, Minister Duguid, Mayor Hewitt and the representative of the Indian Act system” (the Confederacy's terminology for the elected council chief).
“The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council have, through the communication protocol established with Ontario, repeatedly expressed their concerns to the province over the disruption of peace that continues to grow from the Crown's side of the Two Row Wampum,” the statement says.
“We would remind Ontario that this issue was dealt with in 2006 when Ontario agreed to remove all third party interests with the purchase of the land in question, without prejudice to our position that the land in question is Haudenosaunee land.
“It is within the authority to Ontario to rectify any outstanding issues with regard to third-party interests that affect Haudenosaunee lands at Kanonhstaton.”
The above was clearly written by someone with formal legal training. The HCCC / Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) legal representative is Aaron Detlor (a licensed lawyer in Ontario).
Interpretation: So one might infer (particularly in light of previous statements on this subject) that HCCC does not recognize the legitimacy of SNEC despite the fact that the change to an elected system in 1924 was instituted by request of Six Nations progressives, and because the then Council had become severely dysfunctional and seriously delayed any business (decisions) that needed to be conducted with the Government of Canada (e.g., transfer payments, infrastructure, schools). Calling the duly elected, by a democratic process, Chief Hill a "representative of the Indian Act system" is a very clear indicator of why there will never be agreements until and unless the Federal Government recognizes the HCCC as the legitimate representatives of the people of the Six Nations Reserve. There are excellent legal reasons why that will never happen, including Court decisions such as Davey et al. v. Isaacs et al. (1974). However, mysteriously, the HCCC will consistently turn around and blame the Federal Government for failing to negotiate. It should be obvious that their blaming the Ontario or Federal Government is specious and self serving. The idea that in this day and age an oligarchy should be given authority over the elected representatives of the people is regressive and counterproductive. This is not 1714, it is 2014 and we have entered a highly complex modern era where if in this case Six Nations wishes to have the Government institute timely actions, there is a requirement for a representative body that will meet at regular intervals and are prepared to work with Government representatives to keep things working efficiently. It is Canadian taxpayer dollars which keeps the Six Nations programmes and services (e.g., policing, schools) humming along, and there is a need for accountability, something the HCCC has been unable or unwilling to do (e.g., with respect to the money extracted from developers by the HDI - no one outside this small clique knows where that money goes - a chronic complaint at Six Nations which I have discussed before).
The article continues, stating that, On the morning of the meeting Scott Cavan, a spokesman from Zimmer's office, expressed disappointment that the Confederacy would not be attending it.
“The province intends to proceed with the meeting and remains hopeful the Confederacy will reconsider their decision not to attend,” Cavan said at the time. But the Confederacy did not change its mind.
Interpretation: No, the Confederacy / HDI did not change its mind, but for some unknown reason, was gathered together on 9 July 2014 at the barricade blocking Surrey Street, with their legal representative, apparently waiting for someone from the Ontario or Haldimand governments to appear (at least that is the rumour that was going around in that location) to inform them of the meeting or consult in some manner - despite adamantly refusing to participate in any manner. What is a mystery is that if they wanted to be part of the process, why would they not see it to their advantage to be at the table and have input? Apparently it gives them license to later complain that they had no involvement so are not bound by any decisions made without them.
Further information, from "CHCH TV", includes what seem to be confusing platitudes offered by the HCCC legal representative as to why they refused to attend the meeting can be found here.
The "Hamilton Spectator" also has a story about the matter, and notes that Minister David Zimmer was not willing to provide further information about the meeting at this time (see here). However there are interesting statements from HCCC and as well HDI which speak volumes. Specifically, Representatives from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy were also invited to Wednesday's meeting, but declined. Hazel Hill, the director of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, said the summit didn't meet the group's established communications protocol. The latter statement (bold printed by the present author) shows precisely what Haldimand County Council, developers and anyone has to face - their arbitrary set of "rules" which have no authority in law, and often end up being thinly disguised ways to extort something. In the past it has always meant paying an "application fee" (usually from $3,000 to $7,000) before anything can move forward. Ka ching. Anyone who wishes further information on this arbitrary "protocol" can read more here.
The HDI Director also said that, "The confederacy was put in the lead by the Six Nations people, and so the confederacy is the body to deal with treaties."
Interpretation - The Destructive Role of the HDI: Actually the above statement is not true:
1) The Six Nations Elected Council is the legally mandated voice of Six Nations. The Confederacy has, if anything, only "moral authority" and is invited to discussions as a courtesy.
2) The Ontario Government does not negotiate treaties, that is the purview of the Federal Government. The matter under review has nothing to do with a treaty (there are no treaties between the Crown and the Six Nations). The Ontario Government owns the property at DCE and it is registered on title in the Haldimand County Land Registry Office in Cayuga. Haldimand County is responsible for the roads currently established thereon, including Surrey Street. How this relates to supposed treaties is "unclear" to me.
As noted in recent postings to this blog, the HCCC / HDI intend to put a fence around the entire Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) property, and turn it into a "gated community" - even though it is owned by the Province of Ontario. Their goal is to continue the "reclamation" (theft) process, adding the DCE to the Six Nations Reserve (as indicated by the official welcome sign at the Surrey Street entrance to the property). Actually they consider the property to be theirs, and have attempted to keep all others from even entering the property - when in fact it belongs to the people of Ontario.
One basic conclusion can be drawn here at this point:
Factionalism ensures that nothing substantive can result from negotiations about the barricade.
The fact is that in most quarters outside the Reserve there is an almost complete lack of understanding of the key factionalism issues that keep Six Nations from acting as a unit. This is reflected in the Opinion column of "The Sachem" as seen here, where it is asserted that Haldimand County should have consulted with Six Nations before proceeding with the proposed barricade removal. The harsh reality, the true facts, are that that is impossible because you can at best meet with only one or the other of the Six Nations "governing bodies". If the Elected Council is consulted, the Confederacy will dig in its heels and refuse to meet with those who consult with their "rival" Elected party. This has been going on since 1924, and there are absolutely no indicators suggesting even a remote chance that this is going to change any time soon. Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council understand the dynamic and realize where negotiations lead - down the road to factional disagreement which ensure that nothing will get done. Often only a lawful unilateral decision can work. By meeting with the lawfully recognized party at Six Nations early in the matter, they have taken steps to ensure that the only ones that will fault them are those who do not understand Six Nations politics.
Provincial Government's Response is Released: An update just appeared in the "Brantford Expositor" in an article entitled, Two Ministers claim early success in talks (see here). Information not included to date here includes the following:
The joint statement by Ministers Zimmer and Duguid states that, their summit with Six Nations and Haldimand County leaders over the ongoing situation at the Douglas Creek Estates was successful enough to keep meeting to find a solution, and further that, “This meeting of the political leadership of the parties affected by DCE is a significant milestone for our ongoing efforts to reach a long-term, sustainable resolution for DCE”. Furthermore, The political leadership at the meeting committed to meet again later in the summer, and agreed to have their respective staff work on proposals for near-term and long-term issues.
In addition, “Only the settlement of the Six Nations' land claim will provide a permanent and sustainable solution to DCE,” they said.
“We reiterated our call for the federal government to return to the negotiation table.”
The two ministers also expressed disappointment the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council declined an invitation to join the meeting.
“We will continue to encourage the Confederacy Chiefs Council to participate in our future discussion,” the statement said.
Further Update from the Brantford Expositor: Another article appeared in the "Brantford Expositor" later in the day (see here), entitled, Ministers call on Ottawa to restart land talks. Much of the article is an expansion on the above article in the same newspaper reported earlier in the day. I will divide the content into three components, relating to the responses of the three parties directly involved in the matter:
a) Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt: The Mayor has quite a bit to say - as follows:
Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt says he sees signs of hope from a summit meeting held by two Ontario cabinet ministers over the latest Douglas Creek Estates dispute.
"It was positive to get a multi-ministerial meeting together so they could hear what we and Six Nations feel about the issues. That in itself was a good start," Hewitt said in an interview Thursday morning.
He was speaking about a meeting he attended Wednesday at an undisclosed location with Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer, Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid and Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill.
"We have to be optimistic that when parties come together and share their opinions, people come to understand each other better," Hewitt said.
He said the meeting contained frank and wide-ranging discussion about the concerns of Haldimand and Six Nations council resulting from the county's decision to remove a barrier on Surrey Street, the entrance to the disputed former Douglas Creek Estates property.
"We left it with the ministers that we both have concerns in our communities," said Hewitt.
"The ministers said they will meet with the cabinet and the premier (Kathleen Wynne) to talk about what can be done to bridge our communities' differences and not have them fighting."
Furthermore, the Mayor said about the parties involved in the meeting, "They're going to work on proposals keeping in mind what's doable from a pragmatic standpoint and a legal standpoint," said Hewitt.
b) Ontario Ministers Zimmer and Duguid: Ministers Zimmer and Duguid had similar perspectives of the meeting in a joint statement released early Thursday morning.
"This meeting of the political leadership of the parties affected by DCE is a significant milestone for our ongoing efforts to reach a long-term sustainable resolution for DCE," the statement says.
The ministers, Hewitt and Hill commited to meet again this summer and agreed to have their staff work on proposals for short- and long-term issues.
Furthermore, In their statement, Zimmer and Duguid said all parties in the meeting recognized that a solution can only be found in working co-operatively and in good faith.
"We also recognized the need to reduce the potential for confrontation and risk to public safety," the statement says.
Zimmer and Duguid contended in their statement that one ingredient is essential for a permanent resolution: "Only the settlement of the Six Nations' land claim will provide a permanent and sustainable solution to DCE," they said.
"We reiterated our call for the federal government to return to the negotiation table."
The two ministers also expressed disappointment the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council declined an invitation to join the meeting, but said they "will continue to encourage the Confederacy Chiefs Council to participate in our future discussion."
c) Six Nations Elected Chief Ava Hill: The article did not note that either Chief Hill or her office had issued any sort of press release.
Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council / Haudenosaunee Development Institute: Although having refused to in any way participate in a meeting where the Elected Council would also be present, the HCCC representatives, the HDI, did issue a press release. Specifically, The Confederacy council had issued a statement Wednesday afternoon declining to join the meeting, because it didn't meet its established communications protocol.
The council released another statement Thursday, saying it is "concerned for grave consequences that could erupt over the ensuing summer months as the Ontario legislature takes a summer break without returned to the communications protocol and discussions."
The statement also said the Confederacy council considers the DCE land rights issue settled because "third party interests have been removed with the land now registered in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy chiefs Council land registry."
The statement further noted a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in a land rights case involving the Tsilhqot'in Nation "which determined that band councils do not have the ability in Canadian law to represent the collective rights and interests of the original people of this land."
The Confederacy council urged the Ontario government to return to a communications protocol to resolve outstanding issues. So the HCCC do not recognize the authority of the Elected Council - that is not new (it has been true since 1924), nor a surprise in the least.
This ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada is being used to re-energize the Hereditary faction and the HDI. I will include a separate posting with more details on the nature of this development. First,
Problems Concerning the Above Bold Printed Information:
1) Statement of the Ontario Government (Liberal Party) representatives: The Federal Government (Progressive Conservative Party) never left the negotiating table until the HCCC (who was there only as a courtesy) began making unreasonable proposals. The land claims were submitted in 1987, and in 1995 all parties agreed that the surrenders were legal and valid, but that there may have been irregularities in relation to Six Nations Trust Fund monies. Hence it was about money, not land. There things rested until 2006, and with amnesia and a sense of self - righteousness, some at Six Nations decided that despite what their own research and legal team had found, it was time to make a demand for land to be "returned", so they embarked on a "reclamation" process. As to the post 2006 negotiations, it was the Elected Council who bailed out in 2010 (in utter frustration having to deal with the HCCC's demands) leaving the Hereditary Council to carry the ball, however the latter do not have a legal mandate to negotiate for Six Nations. The negotiations at that point fell apart when the HCCC failed to be in any way reasonable in their demands with the Federal Government who thus were forced to withdraw as the Elected Council had.
2) Statements of the HCCC / HDI: We who live here well know what "grave consequences" means - in other words violence, and disruptions be they work stoppages or blocking roads.
The "communications protocol" is a sick joke. The HDI consistently make outlandish declarations. They are claiming facts that are not true, entitlements to which they are not due, and powers they don't possess - all the while threatening that if they don't get their way there will be dire consequences. Nothing has changed, This group, which has been fined by the Superior Court of Ontario for their illegal and shady activities is still demanding concepts originating in the mind of their legal representative such as conforming to their "communications protocol" - or else. This has been their modus operandi since 2006 to extract as much money as possible from for example developers. I have included specific information about this behavior in many previous postings to this blog. The bottom line - what does it take to have the goons go away and work stoppages end? Answer - payment of the "application fee" (generally between $3,000 and $7,000). They seem to have suffered a major blow with the judgment (injunction) of Justice Harrison Arrell of the Brantford Superior Court in 2009 fining them and associates over $800,000, later dropped to $350,000 and finally a settlement for $125,000. While this appears to have been a setback, the new ruling relating to the Indian Nation in BC has been over interpreted to somehow apply to Six Nations. Anyone who would buy into this assertion would be very naïve indeed. As ridiculous as it may be, the matter will probably have to be tested in Court. My sense of all this is that they are going to get caught in the lie, and again with their hand in the cookie jar since there is nothing to support their claims of a requirement to follow their "communications protocol" other than brash bravado.
As to the HCCC land registry, while there may be a HDI land registry, it is as legal as one I might chose to set up tomorrow. It is extremely presumptuous and a lie to say that the land no longer belongs to Ontario and is now in their Land Registry. What would happen if my extended family decided to "reclaim" lands along the Grand River that once belonged to our family, ejected the people who owned the land who possessed a deed registered in the Land Registry Officer in Cayuga, then began erecting a fence around the property? I can guarantee that we would all be instantly arrested and face a series of charges in Court. It is 8 years now and the HDI (a step child of the DCE "reclamation") has never relinquished their false claim to the DCE property and have remained "in control". The ONLY difference between the HDI and my extended family is that the former have government issued "status cards" and recognized as "special" under the Indian Act of 1876; the latter group at this time does not have "status" nor fall under the provisions of the Indian Act (which ironically tends to be "hated" by the very group that is profiting from it). Is this fair or just? The objective answer is that it is a reflection of a two-tiered system where one group of Canadians has rights and "entitlements" not given to others. If that is fair, I don't understand the meaning of the term. I have spent 40 years studying for example the Two Row Wampum, Covenant Chain, 1763 Proclamation, Haldimand Deed (of occupation), and all the surrenders from the 1780s onwards to 1850 - topics "status" people do not expect "non status" people to know and understand. I am not giving opinions pulled out of the clouds in this blog, but rather an assessment based on all of the facts pertaining to the matter.
In an article in "The Hamilton Spectator" of 11 July 2014 entitled, Six Nations Confederacy warns of "grave consequences", we learn further assertions of the HCCC / HDI in relation to the land. They state that, "The land is now under the sole jurisdiction of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council" said the statement issued by the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy of the Grand River Country. Sole jurisdiction? I wonder what the Elected Chief Ava Hill has to say about this. Also the name appended to the press release is brand new. To the best of my knowledge it has never been used before. Clearly the HDI are stepping up the pace and trying to turn the screws to exercise power they do not lawfully have - using threats and intimidation as their weapons of choice.
In summary, the Federal Government has repeatedly stated that Six Nations do not have any valid land claim which would result in the return of or payment for land - all surrenders were legal and are valid. At least three Ontario Superior Court Judges have ruled that if the land claims were to go to Court, Six Nations have only the weakest possible case. Again, there are possible issues related to the fiduciary responsibility of the Government - so the only wiggle room is over money not land - as well the legal representatives of the Elected Council knows. However, the legal representatives of the HCCC, if they do know it, in other words are aware of the results of the research of the Lands and Resources Department and previous negotiations, do not accept it.
Latest Update: "CHCH TV" on 11 July 2014 includes a report that, Province asks Ottawa for help in Caledonia (see here). An example of the content is, Duguid says he’s hoping for a solution in the coming months, but is looking to Ottawa for support: “At the end of the day, the federal government has not done enough. It’s time for the federal government to do more. Disagree with that as well.”
"The National Post" of 11 July 2014 provides more details (click here) of the Ontario Government's wrongful accusation of Federal Government inactivity in this file as follows:
It’s Ottawa’s fault that a Six Nations confederacy is warning of “grave consequences” this summer if Ontario continues talking with other groups about access to disputed land in Caledonia, Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said Friday.
“I think that the responsibility for any consequence rests with the federal government, who is refusing to get to the table right now and solve that land claim,” Duguid told reporters. “That’s really the crux of the challenge.”
The province will do all it can to restore harmony in the area, such as meeting with the elected chief of the Six Nations, to discuss restricting access to the Douglas Creek Estates, but only Ottawa can deal with the land claim at the heart of the problem, added Duguid.
“The single most significant way that we can move beyond these challenges is for the federal government to get back to the bargaining table and settle that federal land claim,” he said. “That’s really the reason for the discontent, and the uncertainty that creates in the community.”
Sorry, but the ball is in the Ontario Government's Court, and must use its Courts and the Provincial police force to quell the problem. The above is nothing more than a classic example of "passing the buck". The Federal Government at the moment has its hands tied due to the negotiation process of 2010 where the Elected Council left the negotiating table, leaving the Hereditary Council to carry on - but it has no legal authority and so anything that might have emerged has no weight in law. The Hereditary Council don't want to negotiate (I have spoken to they and their supporters, they only want confirmation that the land at DCE is theirs and that their private HCCC "land registry" has supplanted the Ontario Land Registry system - which of course is absurd.
Right now, in the midst of the "Caledonia crisis", and event of their own making, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) must be wringing their hands in glee. By sheer chance a new ruling has come from the Supreme Court that they (meaning their legal representative) has deemed also applies to them. In a nutshell, their perception is that it is the law of Canada that there is no requirement for the Government of Canada or the Provinces to work only with the elected band councils (mandated by the Indian Act of 1876 and revisions) - these bodies must also consult with the "wider community". There are some rather large flies in the ointment here, and a lot of assumptions, as far as Six Nations goes - but it is full steam ahead for the HCCC and their henchmen. So just what is this new ruling that the HCCC applies to them?
Bottom Line: The Ontario Government clearly does not understand that the Federal Government cannot do anything, by law, until the Six Nations Elected Council opts to return to the negotiating table. In other words the "Feds" hands are tied. So the answer is to "cave", and give in to the terrorists? The threats are now coming from HCCC about "grave consequences" if Ontario does not negotiate with them (despite the HCCC adamant refusal to negotiate with Ontario only a few days previous). NEVER negotiate with terrorists, NEVER give in to threats - it will seriously backfire in the long run.
The HCCC and HDI will torpedo the entire process - mark my words - the latter include dangerous thugs bent on enriching themselves, and who have shown that they will stop at nothing to get their own way. It seems that the Elected Council needs to step up to the plate and assert their rights. If they fail to do so, the Federal Government needs to stop all monies (our tax dollars) being sent to Six Nations until the matter is sorted out. If the Government caves, they could be placing land in the hands of the criminal elements poised on the doorstep of our community - a community which has suffered so much pain in the last 8 years. Can we expect to see ever more cigarette shacks selling contraband tobacco, or perhaps a casino? It would be the ultimate slap in the face, and would open the door, set a precedent, to permit the violent assertion of non existent rights across Ontario. We MUST draw the line in the sand here. NO MORE.
DeYo.
Please see CHCH TV evening news coverage here for the most recent update and key details Please click on the video news coverage as reported by Al Sweeny.
I want to emphasize that we in Caledonia are once again under virtual siege, and that violence could erupt at any time - it is a powder keg situation where we are dealing with individuals who have absolutely no respect for law and order.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What follows is a chronological summary of what occurred on a very busy 10 July 2014 - with new information trickling in all day and into the evening.
It might be useful to read the immediately preceding posting to this blog since it gives a lead in to the events of the 9th and 10th of July 2014.
First Reports: The "Brantford Expositor" of 9 July 2014 provides an update on the meeting that took place between David Zimmer, Ontario Minister of Aboriginal Affairs; Ken Hewitt, Mayor of Haldimand County; and Ava Hill, Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
In an article entitled, Sides in talks over DCE barricade (see here), it is reported that, The meeting at an undisclosed time and place included Zimmer, Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid, Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt and Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill.
Details concerning the outcome of the meeting were not available Wednesday evening.
Although it is not required by law, and generally proves disruptive to the process, it is noteworthy that a Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) representative such as Head Chief Allen MacNaughton was not present. It can easily be determined why the no show as per the wording here:
The Six Nations Confederacy was invited to send a chief to the meeting, but the day before issued a statement that it “must respectfully decline the invitation to meet with Minister Zimmer, Minister Duguid, Mayor Hewitt and the representative of the Indian Act system” (the Confederacy's terminology for the elected council chief).
“The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council have, through the communication protocol established with Ontario, repeatedly expressed their concerns to the province over the disruption of peace that continues to grow from the Crown's side of the Two Row Wampum,” the statement says.
“We would remind Ontario that this issue was dealt with in 2006 when Ontario agreed to remove all third party interests with the purchase of the land in question, without prejudice to our position that the land in question is Haudenosaunee land.
“It is within the authority to Ontario to rectify any outstanding issues with regard to third-party interests that affect Haudenosaunee lands at Kanonhstaton.”
The above was clearly written by someone with formal legal training. The HCCC / Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) legal representative is Aaron Detlor (a licensed lawyer in Ontario).
Interpretation: So one might infer (particularly in light of previous statements on this subject) that HCCC does not recognize the legitimacy of SNEC despite the fact that the change to an elected system in 1924 was instituted by request of Six Nations progressives, and because the then Council had become severely dysfunctional and seriously delayed any business (decisions) that needed to be conducted with the Government of Canada (e.g., transfer payments, infrastructure, schools). Calling the duly elected, by a democratic process, Chief Hill a "representative of the Indian Act system" is a very clear indicator of why there will never be agreements until and unless the Federal Government recognizes the HCCC as the legitimate representatives of the people of the Six Nations Reserve. There are excellent legal reasons why that will never happen, including Court decisions such as Davey et al. v. Isaacs et al. (1974). However, mysteriously, the HCCC will consistently turn around and blame the Federal Government for failing to negotiate. It should be obvious that their blaming the Ontario or Federal Government is specious and self serving. The idea that in this day and age an oligarchy should be given authority over the elected representatives of the people is regressive and counterproductive. This is not 1714, it is 2014 and we have entered a highly complex modern era where if in this case Six Nations wishes to have the Government institute timely actions, there is a requirement for a representative body that will meet at regular intervals and are prepared to work with Government representatives to keep things working efficiently. It is Canadian taxpayer dollars which keeps the Six Nations programmes and services (e.g., policing, schools) humming along, and there is a need for accountability, something the HCCC has been unable or unwilling to do (e.g., with respect to the money extracted from developers by the HDI - no one outside this small clique knows where that money goes - a chronic complaint at Six Nations which I have discussed before).
The article continues, stating that, On the morning of the meeting Scott Cavan, a spokesman from Zimmer's office, expressed disappointment that the Confederacy would not be attending it.
“The province intends to proceed with the meeting and remains hopeful the Confederacy will reconsider their decision not to attend,” Cavan said at the time. But the Confederacy did not change its mind.
Interpretation: No, the Confederacy / HDI did not change its mind, but for some unknown reason, was gathered together on 9 July 2014 at the barricade blocking Surrey Street, with their legal representative, apparently waiting for someone from the Ontario or Haldimand governments to appear (at least that is the rumour that was going around in that location) to inform them of the meeting or consult in some manner - despite adamantly refusing to participate in any manner. What is a mystery is that if they wanted to be part of the process, why would they not see it to their advantage to be at the table and have input? Apparently it gives them license to later complain that they had no involvement so are not bound by any decisions made without them.
Further information, from "CHCH TV", includes what seem to be confusing platitudes offered by the HCCC legal representative as to why they refused to attend the meeting can be found here.
The "Hamilton Spectator" also has a story about the matter, and notes that Minister David Zimmer was not willing to provide further information about the meeting at this time (see here). However there are interesting statements from HCCC and as well HDI which speak volumes. Specifically, Representatives from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy were also invited to Wednesday's meeting, but declined. Hazel Hill, the director of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, said the summit didn't meet the group's established communications protocol. The latter statement (bold printed by the present author) shows precisely what Haldimand County Council, developers and anyone has to face - their arbitrary set of "rules" which have no authority in law, and often end up being thinly disguised ways to extort something. In the past it has always meant paying an "application fee" (usually from $3,000 to $7,000) before anything can move forward. Ka ching. Anyone who wishes further information on this arbitrary "protocol" can read more here.
The HDI Director also said that, "The confederacy was put in the lead by the Six Nations people, and so the confederacy is the body to deal with treaties."
Interpretation - The Destructive Role of the HDI: Actually the above statement is not true:
1) The Six Nations Elected Council is the legally mandated voice of Six Nations. The Confederacy has, if anything, only "moral authority" and is invited to discussions as a courtesy.
2) The Ontario Government does not negotiate treaties, that is the purview of the Federal Government. The matter under review has nothing to do with a treaty (there are no treaties between the Crown and the Six Nations). The Ontario Government owns the property at DCE and it is registered on title in the Haldimand County Land Registry Office in Cayuga. Haldimand County is responsible for the roads currently established thereon, including Surrey Street. How this relates to supposed treaties is "unclear" to me.
As noted in recent postings to this blog, the HCCC / HDI intend to put a fence around the entire Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) property, and turn it into a "gated community" - even though it is owned by the Province of Ontario. Their goal is to continue the "reclamation" (theft) process, adding the DCE to the Six Nations Reserve (as indicated by the official welcome sign at the Surrey Street entrance to the property). Actually they consider the property to be theirs, and have attempted to keep all others from even entering the property - when in fact it belongs to the people of Ontario.
One basic conclusion can be drawn here at this point:
Factionalism ensures that nothing substantive can result from negotiations about the barricade.
The fact is that in most quarters outside the Reserve there is an almost complete lack of understanding of the key factionalism issues that keep Six Nations from acting as a unit. This is reflected in the Opinion column of "The Sachem" as seen here, where it is asserted that Haldimand County should have consulted with Six Nations before proceeding with the proposed barricade removal. The harsh reality, the true facts, are that that is impossible because you can at best meet with only one or the other of the Six Nations "governing bodies". If the Elected Council is consulted, the Confederacy will dig in its heels and refuse to meet with those who consult with their "rival" Elected party. This has been going on since 1924, and there are absolutely no indicators suggesting even a remote chance that this is going to change any time soon. Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council understand the dynamic and realize where negotiations lead - down the road to factional disagreement which ensure that nothing will get done. Often only a lawful unilateral decision can work. By meeting with the lawfully recognized party at Six Nations early in the matter, they have taken steps to ensure that the only ones that will fault them are those who do not understand Six Nations politics.
Provincial Government's Response is Released: An update just appeared in the "Brantford Expositor" in an article entitled, Two Ministers claim early success in talks (see here). Information not included to date here includes the following:
The joint statement by Ministers Zimmer and Duguid states that, their summit with Six Nations and Haldimand County leaders over the ongoing situation at the Douglas Creek Estates was successful enough to keep meeting to find a solution, and further that, “This meeting of the political leadership of the parties affected by DCE is a significant milestone for our ongoing efforts to reach a long-term, sustainable resolution for DCE”. Furthermore, The political leadership at the meeting committed to meet again later in the summer, and agreed to have their respective staff work on proposals for near-term and long-term issues.
In addition, “Only the settlement of the Six Nations' land claim will provide a permanent and sustainable solution to DCE,” they said.
“We reiterated our call for the federal government to return to the negotiation table.”
The two ministers also expressed disappointment the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council declined an invitation to join the meeting.
“We will continue to encourage the Confederacy Chiefs Council to participate in our future discussion,” the statement said.
Further Update from the Brantford Expositor: Another article appeared in the "Brantford Expositor" later in the day (see here), entitled, Ministers call on Ottawa to restart land talks. Much of the article is an expansion on the above article in the same newspaper reported earlier in the day. I will divide the content into three components, relating to the responses of the three parties directly involved in the matter:
a) Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt: The Mayor has quite a bit to say - as follows:
Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt says he sees signs of hope from a summit meeting held by two Ontario cabinet ministers over the latest Douglas Creek Estates dispute.
"It was positive to get a multi-ministerial meeting together so they could hear what we and Six Nations feel about the issues. That in itself was a good start," Hewitt said in an interview Thursday morning.
He was speaking about a meeting he attended Wednesday at an undisclosed location with Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer, Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid and Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill.
"We have to be optimistic that when parties come together and share their opinions, people come to understand each other better," Hewitt said.
He said the meeting contained frank and wide-ranging discussion about the concerns of Haldimand and Six Nations council resulting from the county's decision to remove a barrier on Surrey Street, the entrance to the disputed former Douglas Creek Estates property.
"We left it with the ministers that we both have concerns in our communities," said Hewitt.
"The ministers said they will meet with the cabinet and the premier (Kathleen Wynne) to talk about what can be done to bridge our communities' differences and not have them fighting."
Furthermore, the Mayor said about the parties involved in the meeting, "They're going to work on proposals keeping in mind what's doable from a pragmatic standpoint and a legal standpoint," said Hewitt.
b) Ontario Ministers Zimmer and Duguid: Ministers Zimmer and Duguid had similar perspectives of the meeting in a joint statement released early Thursday morning.
"This meeting of the political leadership of the parties affected by DCE is a significant milestone for our ongoing efforts to reach a long-term sustainable resolution for DCE," the statement says.
The ministers, Hewitt and Hill commited to meet again this summer and agreed to have their staff work on proposals for short- and long-term issues.
Furthermore, In their statement, Zimmer and Duguid said all parties in the meeting recognized that a solution can only be found in working co-operatively and in good faith.
"We also recognized the need to reduce the potential for confrontation and risk to public safety," the statement says.
Zimmer and Duguid contended in their statement that one ingredient is essential for a permanent resolution: "Only the settlement of the Six Nations' land claim will provide a permanent and sustainable solution to DCE," they said.
"We reiterated our call for the federal government to return to the negotiation table."
The two ministers also expressed disappointment the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs council declined an invitation to join the meeting, but said they "will continue to encourage the Confederacy Chiefs Council to participate in our future discussion."
c) Six Nations Elected Chief Ava Hill: The article did not note that either Chief Hill or her office had issued any sort of press release.
Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council / Haudenosaunee Development Institute: Although having refused to in any way participate in a meeting where the Elected Council would also be present, the HCCC representatives, the HDI, did issue a press release. Specifically, The Confederacy council had issued a statement Wednesday afternoon declining to join the meeting, because it didn't meet its established communications protocol.
The council released another statement Thursday, saying it is "concerned for grave consequences that could erupt over the ensuing summer months as the Ontario legislature takes a summer break without returned to the communications protocol and discussions."
The statement also said the Confederacy council considers the DCE land rights issue settled because "third party interests have been removed with the land now registered in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy chiefs Council land registry."
The statement further noted a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in a land rights case involving the Tsilhqot'in Nation "which determined that band councils do not have the ability in Canadian law to represent the collective rights and interests of the original people of this land."
The Confederacy council urged the Ontario government to return to a communications protocol to resolve outstanding issues. So the HCCC do not recognize the authority of the Elected Council - that is not new (it has been true since 1924), nor a surprise in the least.
This ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada is being used to re-energize the Hereditary faction and the HDI. I will include a separate posting with more details on the nature of this development. First,
Problems Concerning the Above Bold Printed Information:
1) Statement of the Ontario Government (Liberal Party) representatives: The Federal Government (Progressive Conservative Party) never left the negotiating table until the HCCC (who was there only as a courtesy) began making unreasonable proposals. The land claims were submitted in 1987, and in 1995 all parties agreed that the surrenders were legal and valid, but that there may have been irregularities in relation to Six Nations Trust Fund monies. Hence it was about money, not land. There things rested until 2006, and with amnesia and a sense of self - righteousness, some at Six Nations decided that despite what their own research and legal team had found, it was time to make a demand for land to be "returned", so they embarked on a "reclamation" process. As to the post 2006 negotiations, it was the Elected Council who bailed out in 2010 (in utter frustration having to deal with the HCCC's demands) leaving the Hereditary Council to carry the ball, however the latter do not have a legal mandate to negotiate for Six Nations. The negotiations at that point fell apart when the HCCC failed to be in any way reasonable in their demands with the Federal Government who thus were forced to withdraw as the Elected Council had.
2) Statements of the HCCC / HDI: We who live here well know what "grave consequences" means - in other words violence, and disruptions be they work stoppages or blocking roads.
The "communications protocol" is a sick joke. The HDI consistently make outlandish declarations. They are claiming facts that are not true, entitlements to which they are not due, and powers they don't possess - all the while threatening that if they don't get their way there will be dire consequences. Nothing has changed, This group, which has been fined by the Superior Court of Ontario for their illegal and shady activities is still demanding concepts originating in the mind of their legal representative such as conforming to their "communications protocol" - or else. This has been their modus operandi since 2006 to extract as much money as possible from for example developers. I have included specific information about this behavior in many previous postings to this blog. The bottom line - what does it take to have the goons go away and work stoppages end? Answer - payment of the "application fee" (generally between $3,000 and $7,000). They seem to have suffered a major blow with the judgment (injunction) of Justice Harrison Arrell of the Brantford Superior Court in 2009 fining them and associates over $800,000, later dropped to $350,000 and finally a settlement for $125,000. While this appears to have been a setback, the new ruling relating to the Indian Nation in BC has been over interpreted to somehow apply to Six Nations. Anyone who would buy into this assertion would be very naïve indeed. As ridiculous as it may be, the matter will probably have to be tested in Court. My sense of all this is that they are going to get caught in the lie, and again with their hand in the cookie jar since there is nothing to support their claims of a requirement to follow their "communications protocol" other than brash bravado.
As to the HCCC land registry, while there may be a HDI land registry, it is as legal as one I might chose to set up tomorrow. It is extremely presumptuous and a lie to say that the land no longer belongs to Ontario and is now in their Land Registry. What would happen if my extended family decided to "reclaim" lands along the Grand River that once belonged to our family, ejected the people who owned the land who possessed a deed registered in the Land Registry Officer in Cayuga, then began erecting a fence around the property? I can guarantee that we would all be instantly arrested and face a series of charges in Court. It is 8 years now and the HDI (a step child of the DCE "reclamation") has never relinquished their false claim to the DCE property and have remained "in control". The ONLY difference between the HDI and my extended family is that the former have government issued "status cards" and recognized as "special" under the Indian Act of 1876; the latter group at this time does not have "status" nor fall under the provisions of the Indian Act (which ironically tends to be "hated" by the very group that is profiting from it). Is this fair or just? The objective answer is that it is a reflection of a two-tiered system where one group of Canadians has rights and "entitlements" not given to others. If that is fair, I don't understand the meaning of the term. I have spent 40 years studying for example the Two Row Wampum, Covenant Chain, 1763 Proclamation, Haldimand Deed (of occupation), and all the surrenders from the 1780s onwards to 1850 - topics "status" people do not expect "non status" people to know and understand. I am not giving opinions pulled out of the clouds in this blog, but rather an assessment based on all of the facts pertaining to the matter.
In an article in "The Hamilton Spectator" of 11 July 2014 entitled, Six Nations Confederacy warns of "grave consequences", we learn further assertions of the HCCC / HDI in relation to the land. They state that, "The land is now under the sole jurisdiction of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council" said the statement issued by the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy of the Grand River Country. Sole jurisdiction? I wonder what the Elected Chief Ava Hill has to say about this. Also the name appended to the press release is brand new. To the best of my knowledge it has never been used before. Clearly the HDI are stepping up the pace and trying to turn the screws to exercise power they do not lawfully have - using threats and intimidation as their weapons of choice.
In summary, the Federal Government has repeatedly stated that Six Nations do not have any valid land claim which would result in the return of or payment for land - all surrenders were legal and are valid. At least three Ontario Superior Court Judges have ruled that if the land claims were to go to Court, Six Nations have only the weakest possible case. Again, there are possible issues related to the fiduciary responsibility of the Government - so the only wiggle room is over money not land - as well the legal representatives of the Elected Council knows. However, the legal representatives of the HCCC, if they do know it, in other words are aware of the results of the research of the Lands and Resources Department and previous negotiations, do not accept it.
Latest Update: "CHCH TV" on 11 July 2014 includes a report that, Province asks Ottawa for help in Caledonia (see here). An example of the content is, Duguid says he’s hoping for a solution in the coming months, but is looking to Ottawa for support: “At the end of the day, the federal government has not done enough. It’s time for the federal government to do more. Disagree with that as well.”
"The National Post" of 11 July 2014 provides more details (click here) of the Ontario Government's wrongful accusation of Federal Government inactivity in this file as follows:
It’s Ottawa’s fault that a Six Nations confederacy is warning of “grave consequences” this summer if Ontario continues talking with other groups about access to disputed land in Caledonia, Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said Friday.
“I think that the responsibility for any consequence rests with the federal government, who is refusing to get to the table right now and solve that land claim,” Duguid told reporters. “That’s really the crux of the challenge.”
The province will do all it can to restore harmony in the area, such as meeting with the elected chief of the Six Nations, to discuss restricting access to the Douglas Creek Estates, but only Ottawa can deal with the land claim at the heart of the problem, added Duguid.
Sorry, but the ball is in the Ontario Government's Court, and must use its Courts and the Provincial police force to quell the problem. The above is nothing more than a classic example of "passing the buck". The Federal Government at the moment has its hands tied due to the negotiation process of 2010 where the Elected Council left the negotiating table, leaving the Hereditary Council to carry on - but it has no legal authority and so anything that might have emerged has no weight in law. The Hereditary Council don't want to negotiate (I have spoken to they and their supporters, they only want confirmation that the land at DCE is theirs and that their private HCCC "land registry" has supplanted the Ontario Land Registry system - which of course is absurd.
Right now, in the midst of the "Caledonia crisis", and event of their own making, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) must be wringing their hands in glee. By sheer chance a new ruling has come from the Supreme Court that they (meaning their legal representative) has deemed also applies to them. In a nutshell, their perception is that it is the law of Canada that there is no requirement for the Government of Canada or the Provinces to work only with the elected band councils (mandated by the Indian Act of 1876 and revisions) - these bodies must also consult with the "wider community". There are some rather large flies in the ointment here, and a lot of assumptions, as far as Six Nations goes - but it is full steam ahead for the HCCC and their henchmen. So just what is this new ruling that the HCCC applies to them?
Bottom Line: The Ontario Government clearly does not understand that the Federal Government cannot do anything, by law, until the Six Nations Elected Council opts to return to the negotiating table. In other words the "Feds" hands are tied. So the answer is to "cave", and give in to the terrorists? The threats are now coming from HCCC about "grave consequences" if Ontario does not negotiate with them (despite the HCCC adamant refusal to negotiate with Ontario only a few days previous). NEVER negotiate with terrorists, NEVER give in to threats - it will seriously backfire in the long run.
The HCCC and HDI will torpedo the entire process - mark my words - the latter include dangerous thugs bent on enriching themselves, and who have shown that they will stop at nothing to get their own way. It seems that the Elected Council needs to step up to the plate and assert their rights. If they fail to do so, the Federal Government needs to stop all monies (our tax dollars) being sent to Six Nations until the matter is sorted out. If the Government caves, they could be placing land in the hands of the criminal elements poised on the doorstep of our community - a community which has suffered so much pain in the last 8 years. Can we expect to see ever more cigarette shacks selling contraband tobacco, or perhaps a casino? It would be the ultimate slap in the face, and would open the door, set a precedent, to permit the violent assertion of non existent rights across Ontario. We MUST draw the line in the sand here. NO MORE.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)