babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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.
'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 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!
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.