Injunction hearing: Six Nations
December 31, 2008 - 1:28pm
I posted this in another thread but I'm starting a new one for updates. The injunction hearing may resume this Friday in Brantford:
I THINK FRIDAY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUNIOR
EMPLOYEE(PAUL SULLIVAN) TO SPEAK ON NEGOTIATIONS! AFTER I WROTE YOU
LAST ,THE NEXT DAY IN COURT THE JUDGE AGREED TO HAVE THIS PERSON ATTEND
COURT!THIS HAS CAUSED STRONG OBJECTIONS FROM SIX NATIONS AND I'M UNDER
THE SILLY BELIEF THAT THIS IS ILLEGAL BUT WHAT DO I KNOW!
Background, from Patrick Brazeau thread:
The Supreme Court just put a ban on injunctions, failing "adequate" consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal Rights by 'the Crown', and 'the Crown' regularly fails.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/july/2008ONCA0534.pdf
[48]
Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.
'Frontenac Ventures' (uranium prospectors) appealed this to the Supreme Court and it was just recently dismissed, so that's the end of it, that's the law: No injunctions against Indigenous people defending their Aboriginal land Rights, until the Crown has accommodated those rights.
EG,
http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/12/update-from-brantford-court-re-six.html
Dec 22 2008 Update from Brantford Court re Six Nations, Aboriginal Rights
The
City of Brantford requested an injunction against Six Nations to
prevent them from blocking construction. The injunction hearing is
being held today and tomorrow.
The Supreme Court, the final
'court of appeal' recently upheld the ruling that the court cannot
grant an injunction until the Crown (Ontario) has fulfilled its duty to
consult and accommodate Aboriginal Rights. The Brantford court is
obligated to follow this ruling:
Update rec'd from a Brantford supporter:
I was in court today, well actually 20 minutes ago, and the judge made
the city of brantford pay for a certain motion that they bungled,
$1200.00 plus other related costs and gst. They will be in court
tomorrow. On a more interesting note I have been made aware of charges being laid very soon against, I repeat against, Brantford city
council!!! Lets see how that turns out.
The judge seemed quite agitated with lawyer Neal Smitherman and was losing patience. They tried to summons a negotiating employee of Indian Affairs her name is Murphy but that met with resistance from the judge! No one from the federal government appeared and the lawyer from the provincial government said he would not be prepared for tomorrow, but the judge didn't care and clearly stated that he had 3 to 4 months to prepare so all parties should show up tomorrow, unless there is 15 to 30
centimeters tomorrow, there will be no adjournment!
...
It seems to me that the lawyers for the City of Brantford and the Province of Ontario are unprepared to present their cases. Hmm ... Looks like more stalling by governments. That's all they can do now is stall, and
they are very good at that, but the court cannot grant the City of
Brantford an injunction.
Yup ... This is huge.
No injunctions, no arrests, no early morning police raids of occupied
sites ... no development, no mining, no logging, unless the rights of
Aboriginal people are accommodated, to the satisfaction of the court.
On this latter point, it is interesting to note the precedents in BC. When
the province pulled the typical government move and coerced an
Indigenous community into 'agreeing to agree in the future' while
logging continued, the court did not accept the agreement, and ordered
the province to stop the logging until a proper agreement was in place, accommodating the rights of the Indigenous community on their traditional land.
More here ...
http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/12/supreme-court-upholds-provinces-duty-to.htmlI will look for positive news from that court Friday. What a start for breakthroughs in 2009 that would be. How irrelevant Brazeau could become.
It is a terrific breakthrough, since the Supreme Court has already ruled. It simply remains for local courts to abide by the ruling whenever an injunction is requested to shut down (a) blockade(s) by Indigenous people, eg, the City of Brantford v Haudenosaunee Six Nations. The court has to evaluate the "adequacy" of the consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal Rights first.
It also remains for the developers, miners and loggers, etc. to get the message clearly: Provincial 'approvals' to drill,develop, etc. mean nothing if Aboriginal Rights have not been "adequately" accommodated.
RE Brantford: Though there is a 'temporary' injunction in place, Six Nations continued to block developments anyway and eventually the developers pulled up stakes and moved on, so the sites are mostly shut down anyway. However, the Supreme Court ruling applies to all sites of development throughout the Haldimand Tract (and Ontario, and Canada).
RE Brazeau ... Though the paradoxes in his beliefs are a concern, the discussion created by his presence in the Senate could bring a breath of fresh clean air. There is the issue of reorganization of land and resources by traditional Indigenous Nations that can gain some ground.The Supreme Court, the final
'court of appeal' recently upheld the ruling that the court cannot
grant an injunction until the Crown (Ontario) has fulfilled its duty to
consult and accommodate Aboriginal Rights. The Brantford court is
obligated to follow this ruling:
The result of the APPEAL was for the sentencing and fines only which means that they can still grant an injunction they just have to be more careful in the sentencing and fines when the injunctions are broken.
If another appeal were made on the actual injunction based on the statement made by the upheld decision it would likely be struck down however unless there is decision I am not aware of that has not been done yet which means that injunction still stands, the current injunction against Six Nations still stands and future injunctions still can go through.
The Supreme Court, the final
'court of appeal' recently upheld the ruling that the court cannot
grant an injunction until the Crown (Ontario) has fulfilled its duty to
consult and accommodate Aboriginal Rights. The Brantford court is
obligated to follow this ruling:
The result of the APPEAL was for the sentencing and fines only which means that they can still grant an injunction they just have to be more careful in the sentencing and fines when the injunctions are broken.
That's true regarding the charges against the individuals from Ardoch and KI. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of injunctions:
[47]
I am quick to point out that in this case, the AAFN did not appeal either the interim or the interlocutory injunctions granted by Thomson J. and Cunningham A.S.C.J.C. It is thus not for this court to address the merits of either order. However, I think it is important to give judicial guidance on the role to be played by the nuanced rule of law described in Henco when courts are asked to grant injunctions, the violation of which will result in aboriginal protestors facing civil or criminal contempt proceedings.
[48]
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/july/2008ONCA0534.pdfWhere a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532.
The Supreme Court upheld this ruling by dismissing Frontenac Ventures appeal (http://www.uraniumdefense.ca/). Thus there is no further appeal, and there can be no more injunctions against Indigenous Peoples asserting Aboriginal Rights until the Crown has fulfilled its "duty to consult and accommodate" Aboriginal rights.
This is a well known ruling in BC, where the courts are also actively evaluating the "adequacy" of the Crown's consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal Rights.
That is what the Brantford court must do.
It will drag out for sure. The feds sent a junior person, the province no one as yet. It's the province that has failed to consult before approving developments.
It's interesting to note that the injunctions against Ardoch, KI, Six Nations and others could be appealed. For example, without the injunction, I don't believe Frontenac can sue the Algonquins for anything.
Six Nations, Brantford court date
The injunction hearing - City of Brantford v Haudenosaunee Six Nations - resumes Wednesday Jan 7
On wednesday the 7th Dick Hill will be in court in brantford over the illegal injunction using a constitutional defense!
70 Wellington St.
Brantford, Ontario
Perhaps the mod would move this to 'Activism' ?
Has anyone heard anything from the injunction hearing today?
Actually there can be further appeals. Because the Supreme court dismissed the appeal Frontenac can come up with a different reason to appeal and then appeal again. It isn't very likely, though because they probably put thier best reasons for appeal in the first appeal. If the Supreme court had heard the appeal and then made a decsion on the case then there could be no further appeal.
Also different "parties" could be heard on similar issues as this case and the court could change it's mind on those cases ( not on this case - the Supreme Court is the only one that can change the ruling in this case ).
This case can be used to show precident for other FN cases but it is not a guarentee. Meaning that companies can still take the money to push through injunctions that they know they will eventually lose to buy them some time (worked for Hampton Inn). Looking into the judges that were involved at the first level it is a good bet that there will still be some judges out there that will still push the injunction through based on precident of civil cases rather than precident of FN cases just because they want to. But the more cases that get heard, after the time it takes to go through the system if this rulings is upheald at the higher levels such as the Supreme Court, the more that will end up being able to show precidence which makes a stronger case for FN in the future to fight the injuction before there is an interim injunction put against them.
Haudenosaunee Six Nations injunction hearing:
An Amicus curiae was appointed, and the report says the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent are both
valid.(-edit-) "legally binding as treaties".Thanks very much for these encouraging updates, saga.
In regard to the Court of Appeal decision, this does appear to severely restrict the ability to prosecute FN people for breach of these kinds of injunctions. From the information in this thread however, it's unclear how much of an effect this decision would have on judges' ability to impose these injunctions. It is possible that the courts may not follow the Court of Appeal's reasoning on imposing injunctions, because this issue was not properly before the appeals judge. He didn't have jurisdiction to write judge-made law on that issue. His comments are very helpful but technically it looks like they would be considered 'obiter dicta' -- that is, not binding precedent.
Haudenosaunee Six Nations injunction hearing:
An Amicus curiae was appointed, and the report says the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent are both valid.
Thanks, saga. Do you have any links to information about the report or details? I looked on the net but can't seem to find anything yet.
Haudenosaunee Six Nations injunction hearing:
An Amicus curiae was appointed, and the report says the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent are both
valid-edit-
"legally binding as treaties".
Thanks, saga. Do you have any links to information about the report or details? I looked on the net but can't seem to find anything yet.
The hearing is still in progress this week. I just got a verbal update. Not sure how long it will go on for, but when the ruling is completed, I'll post a link.
It's interesting that an Amicus curiae can quickly research and figure out something that the feds haven't admitted in three years of negotiations!
Of course, that's just the feds style of negotiating: Admit NOTHING! EVER! Even after signing new treaties, the feds don't admit to errors or injustices.
It's just a game to "minimize liability of the Crown".
It's regrettable that Six Nations has been dragged into our courts, but from my perspective, I have more hope for a rational approach from the courts than the feds.
Update from the court this morning:
Brantford tried to have what the Amicus curiae found (or parts of it - not clear on if one or both) not be apart of the evidence but the Judge is accepting it as evidence.
Thanks livewire!
Resuming tomorrow?
Yep, it was adjourned till tomorrow. There was a lot of lawyerly discussions going on after lunch but court never formerly started again after lunch.
Tomorrow morning it is suppose to start at 9:30.
Please keep the updates coming
Put over until Monday, 23rd, 10 am.
anything further on this?
Smitheman is up to his usual tricks. Taking what started as facts and reporting them like the national enquirer. The Haudenosaunee start presenting their case today.
Here are two reports on it, keeping in mind they are ONLY the case that Smitheman is giving and just because he says it doesn't make it true.
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1448174
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1450189
Here is why the court proceding were adjourned until this week. Please note that even though the article tries to imply that the Haudensaunee have rejected the memorandium, in fact they want to talk to lawyers, and both the federal and provincial negotiators first (or they could just trust them.......
)
The city is disappointed that Six Nations leaders have rejected a provincial effort aimed at ending native protests in the municipality.
Who leaked?City councillors calling for investigationPage A3
Mayor Mike Hancock and councillors are also angry that a draft memorandum outlining the intiative was leaked less than an hour after being reviewed in a closed-door meeting at city hall a week ago. And some are calling for an investigation to determine the source of the leak.
"Council is disappointed, but we will continue to work toward an avenue that will allow us to reach a resolution of our differences," Hancock said in an interview Tuesday.
The mayor said he got council's agreement to release the document and explain its contents, after it became clear that the information could be made public.
The memorandum commits Ontario to continuing discussions between the city, the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council and the elected band council toward an interim agreement on development in Brantford. Under such an agreement, the Haudenosaunee would benefit financially from development.
If the agreement had worked, the protests would have ended and the city would have given up its legal action against native protesters.
Mohawk Chief Allan MacNaughton said the Confederacy council is equally disappointed in the city's actions surrounding the memorandum and the continuing injunction proceedings.
"They're negotiating in the courts and the press," he said.
"I've never seen anything like this. Is it a publicity tactic? I don't know, but it's certainly not good negotiating."
The chief said he is upset that Hancock released the memorandum, insisting that it violates a commitment to confidentiality from all sides.
"It should not be done like this."
Hancock praised the province for taking the lead in the talks. "We were exceptionally happy that the province would be a participant in helping find a resolution," he said.
"Everyone on council recognized the opportunity and were looking for a different approach."
The Six Nations elected and Confederacy councils rejected consideration of the document in a joint meeting last Sunday.
Hancock said it is "absolutely necessary at this point" that Brantford's injunction court case continues, but he held out hope of a political resolution.
"We have demonstrated a willingness to look at other options."
Holding up a copy of the memorandum, Hancock said: "I'd much rather be doing this as opposed to that," referring to the continuing injunction case in Superior Court across from city hall.
MacNaughton explained that the two Six Nations councils rejected proceeding with the draft memorandum because they didn't like the way city council was proceeding.
"We haven't had an opportunity to consider it," he said, adding they wanted to consult with their lawyers.
He also said they want to speak with federal and provincial representatives during land claims negotiations that resume today.
He said a joint statement on the position of the Haudenosaunee and band councils could come shortly after those talks.
- - -
Draft details
According to key clauses in a provincial document, an interim agreement would:
Establisha process that could see the Haudenosaunee Six Nations benefit financially from the development process;
Acknowledge the Haudenosaunee have "multiple unresolved assertions" (land and compensation claims) involving Brantford and other parts of Ontario;
And encourage Canada to resolve the outstanding claims affecting Brantford "in an expeditious manner."
The memorandum further says:
Discussions should be confidential unless the parties otherwise agree.
The city would agree to ask the Superior Court to adjourn its injunction motion against the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and others for a three-month period, unless further protests occur.
The elected council would agree to put its legal action against the city and Ontario in abeyance while the discussions take place.
The Haudenosaunee leadership would agree to "use its best efforts" to halt all protests that delay or stop work on any development sites to give the talks a chance to succeed.
The province would give the Haudenosaunee $100,000 to help pay their costs in the talks.
ETA: When I try and post the link my entire post disapears, don't know why but will try to post the link in the next posting.
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1450210
The memorandum commits Ontario to continuing discussions between the city, the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council and the elected band council toward an interim agreement on development in Brantford. Under such an agreement, the Haudenosaunee would benefit financially from development.
...Hancock praised the province for taking the lead in the talks. "We were exceptionally happy that the province would be a participant in helping find a resolution," he said.
Their methods and intentions are shabby as usual, BUT ... Ontario is there. That's a missing link: the Crown (province) has a duty to consult with Six Nations and accommodate their Aboriginal Rights in the Haldimand Tract BEFORE any development is approved.
That's why developments are being stopped, and the province has been absent, in hiding.
It's about time they started to do their job, but it appears they have a ways to go yet. One unilateral memorandum does not an agreement make, perhaps?
But after 3 years, it's at least an acknowledment from Ontario that it's their responsibility.
Of course, I expect they only showed up because it looks like Six Nations is winning in court, and the province was going to be ordered to consult anyway. (imo)
Hearing Adjourned to March 9
Lawyers huddled together for a whispered consultation at the native injunction hearing Wednesday when Justice Harrison Arrell brought the proceedings to a stop by asking a pointed question.
"I want to understand what you want me to do," said the judge, who is deciding whether a temporary injunction will move on to the next stage in keeping protesters away from area development sites.
Arrell interrupted Fay Farady, who was making a point that protesters are pushing for the municipality to negotiate with them rather than just notify them of construction when Arrell stopped her by noting that the concept she was outlining meant the end of development in the city.
"Is your solution to have good faith negotiation and, until there is that, all development in Brantford stops? Is that your position?
"It is a question that is foremost in my mind."
The group of lawyers are representing the natives -- Floyd and Ruby Montour, Hazel Hill, Aaron Detlor and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute -- named in the injunction.
An "amicus curiae" or friend of the court also has been appointed to represent others named and to assist the court in other issues.
Together the defence team has divided the case into issues rather than each defending a single client.
Farady, representing the Montours, was stopped by the judge as she outlined the importance of land to native culture and was giving an overview of the native argument against the injunction, laying out the case for Canada, Ontario and municipalities, such as Brantford, to consult and accommodate natives.
After a brief consultation, the lawyers promised that they'll explain everything in March when the hearing resumes.
"We have to go through the analysis and I don't want to shortchange things," said Faraday.
Lou Strezos, who represents the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, promised to address the issue down the road, but assured the judge that no one on the native side was trying to insist that all development be frozen.
Faraday also noted during her presentation, that it was a serious allegation the city was making through its lawyer when it called HDI a "sham" and that it was demanding "protection money."
Faraday said HDI isn't demanding money, nor is it directing protesters.
Earlier in the day, the city's lawyer, Neal Smitheman, finished his case by trying to assure local property owners they have no worries about their land under the Real Property Act.
"You have a 10-year period after finding out you may have a right to the land and if you don't bring legal action in that time, you can't hope to get the land back," said Smitheman.
"If you search the title and if you don't find a certificate of pending litigation, then the title is clean and you can rely on it. It doesn't matter what's in the newspaper or if someone is standing on a soapbox with a different opinion. That's the system and people can go home and sleep in their beds knowing they own their own land."
The hearing continues on March 9 for four or five more days.
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1452243
Native leaders willing to work out deal with city
Leaders from the Six Nations elected and traditional councils say they are still willing to work toward an agreement with Brantford and Ontario that could put an end to court injunctions and blockades of construction sites, and allow natives to benefit financially from development.
But they made it clear in news conferences and interviews Wednesday that they won't bother considering any further a confidential draft memorandum of understanding negotiated by the province between the city, the Confederacy council and elected band council.
"That document is right out the window," Mohawk Chief Allan MacNaughton of the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy told reporters in a foyer of the Oneida Business Centre on Fourth Line, where ongoing land claims negotiations were being conducted.
If all parties had agreed to the memorandum, over a three-month period the city would have stopped its injunction application against protesters, the Confederacy council would have gotten activists to stop disruptive activities at construction sites, and the elected band council would have delayed its legal action against Brantford and Ontario.
Eventually, a formula would have been implemented to allow Six Nations to benefit financially from development projects.
But MacNaughton said both the Confederacy and elected councils had decided in a joint meeting last Sunday not to consider the draft memorandum, "not because of its contents," but because they believed an agreed process involving strict confidentiality was not being followed.
It was "tainted" by a leak from Brantford's council immediately following its consideration of the document in a closed-door session last week, he said, and was further violated when Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock released it to the media.
MacNaughton also recounted an instance from last week when "some lawyer" held up a document in a proceeding and said: "There's an agreement" -- when it was still supposed to be confidential until all councils had a chance to review it.
He further insisted the memorandum was supposed to remain in a process of confidentiality all the way to the table of the ongoing land claims negotiations involving Six Nations, Canada and Ontario.
The leak not only "disrupted" the process, he said, it also raises concerns in the eyes of Six Nations about the motives of Brantford council.
"Is it something to discredit us?" he wondered.
"You know what it shows? I think it shows Brantford does not have its hand held out, it shows it does not like the way its injunction is going.
"But the way this is ending up, they'll be able to say, 'See, it just shows those Indians can't make up their own mind.' "
Hancock had no response to those comments when phoned Wednesday.
Although the memorandum is dead, "it doesn't mean the ideas are not worthy of consideration," said Mac- Naughton.
He held out hope that some aspects of it could be revived in renewed negotiations, as long as the established process is respected.
"We are also willing to consider others means of constructive dialogue together," said Hancock.
Tom Molloy, Ontario's chief negotiator, said he is aware of the memorandum and its failure, but hoped some good may come of it.
"I hope it sends a signal that we can find a model to work together," he said.
"We're just worried about the land."
'We're just worried about the land'
that soapbox Smitheman is a real jerk. 'national enquirer' material indeed.
and the city leaking confidential materials, pathetic, really.
so March 9 resumption of hearings, and does that mean there's further negotiations in the meanwhile?
appreciate the updates.
I think there are negotiations this Wednesday.
The feds have decided they want to abandon the Welland Canal lands for now and present their position on the Brantford casino lands.
thanks saga, can you provide a brief summary of these two land issues, i don't know much about the background there
I am often impressed with the dignity shown by FN people in the face of hostility:
"Don't look at me as a warrior or terrorist. I'm an individual born to an obligation. We're trying to keep the treaty of peace," said Farmer.
Here's the claims booklet:
http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/Lands2008Booklet.pdf
The Clench, Eagles Nest, Johnson and Oxbow claims are in Brantford. I think the casino is in the Eagle's Nest (#12), but not sure.
Lands flooded for the Welland Canal - #6
The specific claims in the booklet are not the full scope of Six Nations rights, which extend to a comprehensive claim re sovereignty and self-governance as well as Aboriginal rights throughout the Haldimand Tract and Nanfan treaty area.
FACTUM OF THE AMICUS to the Brantford Superior Court for the hearing of the injunction of the City of Brantford against Haudenosaunee Six Nations
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13041574/FactumI browsed for something clear and conclusive, and I recommend
SUMMARY OF THE POSITION OF THE AMICUS
Paragraphs 239 - 243
but I'm not typing all that.
Just this:
242. There is evidence that harm may be suffered by Brantford if the injunction is not granted and, further that harm may be suffered by the Six Nations if the injunction is granted.
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/524200
'Peaceful protest' allowed at Hagersville site
Barbara Brown
The Hamilton Spectator
(Mar 5, 2009)
A Superior Court judge issued a temporary order yesterday aimed at keeping peace in the short term between a land developer and Six Nations groups that are protesting his townhouse project in Hagersville.
Justice Joseph Henderson adjourned the application by John Voortman & Associates for an interim injunction restraining the protesters until March 26. He gave the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and members of the Haudenosaunee Men's Fire of the Grand River a deadline to file their legal materials and warned the hearing would proceed in English unless they returned to court with a Mohawk interpreter and translator.
In the meantime, said Henderson, native organizers were entitled to engage in "peaceful protest" on the sidewalk and in public areas near the development site, "so long as they do not interfere with the work."
The judge gave Voortman and his contractors the go-ahead to dig sewer lines and build roads on the property, but not to erect any building until the issue of the injunction was decided.
The plan to build affordable townhouses in the north end of Hagersville is contentious because the land falls within the Haldimand Tract, located 10 kilometres on each side of the Grand River from its mouth to its source, which is subject to negotiations between the federal government and Six Nations elected band council.
The tract was granted to the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations in 1784 in recognition of their loyalty to the Crown during the American Revolution. The Six Nations reserve covers about 20,200 hectares of the original 405,000-hectare tract. The Haudenosaunee claim that in the last 200 years, thousands of hectares were stolen from them and sold to non-natives without proper compensation.
Men's Fire spokesperson Jij anh dah told court his people do not consider themselves as "protesters" but as "protectors of the land."
bbrown@thespec.com
905-526-3494
The judge gave Voortman and his contractors the go-ahead to dig sewer lines and build roads on the property, but not to erect any building until the issue of the injunction was decided.
The judge is a fool, or is deliberately sabotaging the case of the Haudenosaunee. How can the land be protected when it is already trashed with concrete and asphalt?
Oh ya
... he did protect it from third party alienation - ie, "occupied structures" on the land ... for reasons of Canadian constitutionally mandated negotiations in progress.
... but he did not respect Haudenosaunee Law that the treaty was breached when the earth was first moved.
The developer, John Voortman told me he was "impressed, very impressed" by the reading of the Two Row Wampum treaty belt.
I think I understand now how Aboriginal Law is also Canadian Law, and it has to be 'read in'.
I also understand that Canadian governance has three branches:
Executive - Cabinets and the bureaucracies (the business of governing)
Legislative - All legislative bodies in Canada and the provinces
Judicial - All courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada the final appeal.
Governance is not complete without all three.
Damn good thing too.
Our elected representation - legislatures, cabinets - is only temporary, and they can just break the laws and then spend public money stalling and running and hiding and covering up.
The courts provide more consistent and reliable application of law, even against our other branches of governance. In fact it's the job of the courts to interpret the law for our governments, by applying it to them when necessary.
Makes sense to me!
Six Nations women ask developer to cease construction
Posted By KAREN BEST, CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER
Posted 3 hours ago
Excavators bobbed up and down in the Hagersville construction site as three Six Nations women asked developer John Voortman to stop construction.
The message was delivered on March 2 by a woman speaking in a native language.
"We bring this to you in our language because you have to understand who we are and why we come here," explained Claudine VanEvery-Albert. "We are the women. We brought our men with us. We are the protectors of this land and the men, we are the keepers of the men. And the men help us protect the land."
She saying this was a civil matter not a criminal one. According to a letter from lawyer Michael Bordin, a native language translator will not be arranged for the hearing on Voortman's request for an injunction because it was a civil matter.
In a declaration made in February, OPP said Voortman Development is the only entity with property rights on the site. Any dispute on land rights is a matter for the courts or negotiating table. The declaration went on to say no law permits people to block highways or impede construction.
"Taking the law into your own hands is not allowed anywhere in Canadian law including aboriginal law, civil law, constitutional law and criminal law," the declaration outlined.
People who did not leave the property may be charged with a criminal offence, stated the OPP.
On Feb. 25 in the Caledonia Tim Hortons shop, Voortman met with provincial representatives to share his side of the issue.
Earlier that day, tension escalated. Based on an agreement with Six Nations men, he stopped construction for two days but came
back this week thinking work could continue uninterrupted.
"You want another Caledonia on your hands. That's what you want so the province can buy you out," a man called out.
Willing to call the province to ask them to negotiate with Six Nations, Voortman said, "Our intentions are to build 46 townhouses here...We have all kinds of money invested in this and we can't afford to stop working."
"We bought this land in good faith. We have title for it," he said mentioning he had paperwork back to 1916.
VanEvery-Albert said the land registry office failed in its due diligence and put him into a mess. The title search should have gone back further than 1784, she added.
"Right now the government says we own this property," responded Voortman.
"It's not your land," she insisted. "What are you going to do when you develop and it's taken away from you because it's not yours? It is not your land. It is ours...Don't you think enough has been taken away?"
"Your fight is with the government. It's not with us," said Voortman.
Then he headed off to contact a provincial official as he promised to do.
Meanwhile his plans were unchanged. "Unless the government tells us in writing that we have to stop, we're going to continue working," stated Voortman.
An attempt to contact him for an update was unsuccessful.
Relevant developments elsewhere:
First Nations to benefit from new bill
Rights and title to be recognized in new legislation
By Judith Lavoie, Canwest News ServiceMarch 6, 2009
The province of B.C. is poised to rectify history, and adjust its laws, with a sweeping bill that would recognize First Nations' historical presence.
It would also recognize their right to make decisions and to share revenues from their traditional land.
...
"This means that First Nations should be able to benefit from resource development in their territory," he said. "People won't be able to run to Victoria and get permits for our territory. Those days are gone."
The whole province was, at one time, Indian territory, so the sweep is province-wide, John said.
A discussion paper on the proposed legislation, circulated among chiefs of B.C.'s 203 First Nations last month, sets out broad concepts, with many details to be worked out later.
It envisages a Council of Indigenous Nations, which would deal with the provincial government as an equal.
One contentious issue is a suggestion that First Nations should be reconstituted with 30 indigenous governments -- instead of 203 -- based on history and geography.
Hupacasath Chief Judith Sayers questioned the need for "reconstitution," but de Jong said legislation will not dictate how First Nations are configured.
About 150 years ago, Canada re-organized First Nations on an arbitrary basis, said de Jong, who admitted it would be easier to deal with 30 groups, instead of 203.
...
BC:Rights and title to be recognized in new legislation
The right to have a say in development and a share in revenues is exactly what Six Nations is currently struggling for in Ontario. To date, Ontario acknowledges no role in resolving these development conflicts, but it is the legal responsibility of the province to "consult and accommodate" Six Nations Aboriginal Rights on their traditional and treaty land (Nanfan and Haldimand respectively).
There are no treaties in BC, thus all is traditional Indigenous land. Treaty lands are subject to the same development constraints as traditional land: The duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate Aboriginal Rights.
May he lose his shirt. And may any government that gives this asshole a nickel in compensation be condemned to 4th-party status for a century.
Wasn't sure where to put updates so put them on this thread
http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/do-local-governmen...