Councillor Calnan is Wrong
Brantford City Councillor James Calnan has changed his mind about how the city should deal with the Indian terrorists who are disrupting construction around the City and he feels that the City should stop all development on all lands under claim by the Six Nations. This would mean a virtual halt to any and all development in the City of Brantford because according to different groups no lands in all of the Haldimand Tract were ever legally obtained from the Six Nations so all of Brantford is or can be subject to claim. No new Y would be able to be built in the downtown, the University would have to suspend expansion plans and even the B.C. I. rebuild could be put in doubt. In other words all construction would grind to a halt. And for how long?
The consensus is that these negotiations could take a very long time, even centuries according to an Indian spokesman and there isn't even any negotiations taking place right now because the Indian side wanted a break. So how can any type of timetable be set for a resolution when that side although complaining about the lack of action for years doesn't want to seriously bargain when talks are supposed to be under way. And if they don't like any offers all they have to do is suspend these talks knowing that under this proposal it would only hurt the City more.
Kingspan and Hampton Inns are now preparing to abandon their development plans and locate elsewhere taking their hundreds of potential local jobs with them. Large lawsuits will also follow. And this will send a bad signal to the development community about Brantford and could lead to the decline and possible end of Brantford altogether. I guess the Indians would be rejoicing then. The terrorists would have won.
Surely Mr. Calnan will rethink his change of position on this matter or he might as well get out his hammer and drive a spike in the coffin of Brantford.
The consensus is that these negotiations could take a very long time, even centuries according to an Indian spokesman and there isn't even any negotiations taking place right now because the Indian side wanted a break. So how can any type of timetable be set for a resolution when that side although complaining about the lack of action for years doesn't want to seriously bargain when talks are supposed to be under way. And if they don't like any offers all they have to do is suspend these talks knowing that under this proposal it would only hurt the City more.
Kingspan and Hampton Inns are now preparing to abandon their development plans and locate elsewhere taking their hundreds of potential local jobs with them. Large lawsuits will also follow. And this will send a bad signal to the development community about Brantford and could lead to the decline and possible end of Brantford altogether. I guess the Indians would be rejoicing then. The terrorists would have won.
Surely Mr. Calnan will rethink his change of position on this matter or he might as well get out his hammer and drive a spike in the coffin of Brantford.
posted by The Grouchy Old Man at 2:08 PM
34 Comments:
You nailed it. Excellent analysis of the land claims "protests" that have plagued this city. Thank you.
http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/07/duty-to-consult-ontario-as-they-have.html
The Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's established jurisprudence and held that there is a duty on the Crown, as well as private parties, to negotiate with indigenous communities in order to resolve conflicting interests.
(Thus, developers must consult with Six Nations.)
I think there is some question about just who the "terrorists" are here.
Brantford is developing on land to which it has no clear title, and knew that to be the case: HELLO! THE LAND IS IN DISPUTE.
Brantford gets an injunction, calls in the police, calls in the army, whatever ... to defend its stupid decisions and illegal actions with force?
So just who is terrorizing whom?
Granny,
Valid title to land does not emanate from the state. Did it ever occur to you that the colonial governments had no moral right to dispose of the lands either, and could not rightly make a gift of land it did not own to Chiefs, who, in turn, had no right to speak for, or dispose of the lives of subjects?
Where does that leave us? Simple, it leaves us at square one. The developers own the land, on the only rational basis available, original homesteading. Set aside legal gymnastics that are irrelevant to living people, and racial collectivism, and it becomes that simple.
See above ..."Developers must consult..."
Granny,
In the case of Haida Nation v. British Columbia:
“The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that third parties to Aboriginal treaty claims have no duty to consult or accommodate the group that is making the claim. Further, third parties are not subject to any duty or are required to make any accommodation to enable the Province to obtain a remedy to an Aboriginal claim. It is up to the Province to find that remedy without affecting or compromising third party interests.”
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), supra., per McLachlin C.J. at paras 52 to 56”
For my own view, again, see above; "Valid title to land does not emanate from the state. "
Well granny, if you believe that there is no clear title to land in Brantford and that the Six Nations has a valid claim, by your own logic you must admit that you are a squatter and as such must abandon your property. I look forward to hearing that you are moving from the Haldimand Tract and returning your land to what you feel is its rightful owners. Any less would be hypocritical on your part.
That's just silly, Grouchy. They don't want your home, nor mine.
I suggest we not try to guess the outcome of the land claim negotiations for Aboriginal Title.
Regardless of the outcome of that, Six Nations holds Aboriginal Rights throughout the Nanfan Treaty area (Southern Ontario/Northern New York).
That means there is a "Duty on the Crown and on private parties" to consult with Six Nations and come to agreement, BEFORE development proceeds. That is a recent update to the Haida, Taku and other Constitutional rulings in a decision from the Ontario Superior Court on July 7 2008.
http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/07/duty-to-consult-ontario-as-they-have.html
This is the information Brantford City Council is trying to hide from.
Who says that they don't want my home? I've certainly heard differently. And at the least they want the land it is built on.
And just who is the City to consult with? The Traditional Chiefs, the Clan Mothers, the Elected Council, the Haudenosunee Institute, the Mohawk Nation, Floyd and Ruby Montour,or every single resident of the Six Nations?
And what if no agreement can be reached, no development? Seems to be a no win for city.
[url]http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/07/natives-dont-want-your-homes-posted-1.html[/url]
"What if" is a pretty shaky rationalization for taking a violent route instead of making a phone call.
The 'City' could start by contacting the people named in its injunction in a more cordial way than sending them to court, where the 'City' doesn't even have to face them.
It is about "A say in development, and a share in revenues", the standard agreement.
Now in the case of the interim order with conditions, any idea when the judge will write the final decision on the injunction?
He'll have to take the July 7 decision into consideration.
He'll have to tell the province and the developers that they have to consult with Six Nations.
It's not rocket science. It's land on which they have the right to sustain themselves. They have a say in how it is used and abused (or not), and a share in revenues.
It's how it's done in other jurisdictions.
Granny,
The information you allege "Brantford City Council is trying to hide from" referenced by you on your own blog, is an *opinion*, issued by an aboriginal law firm.
In the actual text of the recent "Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation" decision, can you indicate where it clearly asserts that private parties must directly consult with Six Nations before proceeding with development?
"[46] Having regard to the clear line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, from Sparrow to Mikisew, where constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are asserted, injunctions sought by private parties to protect their interests should only be granted where every effort has been made by the court to encourage consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation among the competing rights and interests."
This link is also on my blog:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/july/2008ONCA0534.htm
[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.
[67] Nor, at this juncture, would I order any custodial sentence. That is not to say that incarceration is always out of place in civil contempt cases. In some cases, including potentially this case down the road, incarceration and substantial fines may be necessary. However, it would be wrong to cross this bridge now for these first offenders in a situation that cries out for dedicated negotiation among Ontario, the AAFN and Frontenac with a view to reconciliation of the competing interests.
That's the statement "dedicated negotiation among Ontario, the AAFN and Frontenac".
It can be appealed to the Supreme Court, perhaps will.
But it is kinda silly since it's obvious that the company has to be a party to the required negotiations and there can't be any injunctions until that occurs.
So ... everyone sits around waiting for Supreme Court cases when the answer is obvious?
Talk to the neighbours about an agreement. They have a right to a say and a share. That is what the courts say every time.
Granny, not sure why you would refer to the course of action that the City of Brantford has taken as violent. The only violence, threats, kidnapping and assaults at the protests both here and in Caledonia has all come from the Indian side.
The Indians have yet to prove that they still have any ownership over the disputed lands. Most of the land was surrendered by them in 1841. Unfortunately those involved in all of this are long since dead.
Brantford chose the route to violence when they passed bylaws and requested an injunction. These approaches depend on the police physically removing Six Nations people from the land.
That was Brantford's choice, instead of consulting.
Please read this sentence carefully:
Six Nations have Aboriginal Rights in the Haldimand Tract and indeed throughout the Nanfan Treaty area. This is true regardless of land claims. Brantford legally MUST consult with them about ANY development, the same way Hamilton does and has for several years. Brantford has this responsibility regardless of 'land claims'.
RE: Land claims: Six Nations has shown the evidence - The Haldimand Proclamation and the Nanfan Treaty. Canada/Ontario have not provided any evidence that they ever legally owned any land in the Haldimand Tract.
Granny, the sections you cite all instruct *the courts*, *not* private parties, and can be condensed as follows.
1. The crown has a responsibility to consult with competing "rights and interests" (the latter, "interests" are determined by the former; "rights"), and the legitimacy of an injunction to remove land claims protesters from private property is contingent on these efforts.
Moreover, the decision calls for input in the *specific parties* named in the appeal, and does not indicate in any way that it is intended as a template for further rulings or to apply to "third parties" in all similar situations, although I am sure it will be cited as precedent in an attempt to legalize extortion.
So I will ask again: In the actual text of the recent "Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation" decision, can you indicate where it clearly asserts that private parties must directly consult with Six Nations before proceeding with development?
granny,
The City did not choose any route to violence. The only violence has been a Six Nations protester punching a police office in the face .Funny how you insist that the City must follow court rulings while the Indians are free to ignore them.
The only ones inciting violence are the Indians who defy the courts and are costing Brantford much needed jobs and development. Keep poking your neighbours in the eye with a stick and you will get your much wanted violence.
As to the land claims the land was surrender to the Crown in 1841 and there were other grants and sales of land by Brant before that including the Brantford town plot and grants of land to the builders of the Mohawk Chapel (Smith and Thomas)and the Kirby Tract, the Clench Tract, the Kerr Tract as well as the sale of other parcels of land.But like the protesters you seem to just want to ignore this evidence.
Bosco: I guess you missed it...
"dedicated negotiation among Ontario, the AAFN and Frontenac with a view to reconciliation of the competing interests. "
Frontenac (Ventures) being the 'private party' - the prospecting company - in that case.
The municipality is an entity of the Crown too, and will likely sooner or later be ordered by the Supreme Court to consult.
They can 'pretend' they don't know that but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It is true that Ontario often refuses to carry out its legal Duty to Consult. Increasingly, First Nations are forcing that consultation by preventing development on their traditional land. Thus, Grassy Narrows, Tyendinaga, KI, AAFN and Six Nations have all stopped developments to force the province to do what it should be doing anyway. If Brantford wants to break the log jam, then it should be consulting with Six Nations to develop an agreement.
However, Brantford City Council prefers to use FORCE of law, a strategy specifically denounced by the Supreme Court several times, and by Justice Linden in the Ipperwash Report.
When you use FORCE of law, you are resorting to violence without even consulting. In the case of Brantford, with many Six Nations people living in town and many more thousands shopping there, that strikes me as extremely stupid and ill-conceived. What do they expect? Six Nations to just throw up their hands and say 'ok we'll give up our 'Aboriginal Rights'??
I don't think so! (Like I said ... "stupid".)
It is apparent to me, if not to City Council, that when they finally do consult with Six Nations, as they must, they will have a much harder time striking a deal than they would have if they had done that first insteadx of trying to use force of law. (thus, "ill-conceived")
And Grouchy ... the 1841 thing ... you may need to share your knowledge with the federal negotiating team, because they have NOT PRODUCED that document to prove their right of ownership. (I wonder why?)
The Federal negotiating team has not produced ANY documents that prove Canada's right of ownership of ANY land at any time in the Haldimand Tract.
One is wise to remember that Canada's so called 'surrender' documents have not stood up in any negotiations anywhere in Canada to date, because they were not obtained legally.
No Granny, I think it is you who is missing it. I saw that passage and replied:
"Moreover, the decision calls for input in the *specific parties* named in the appeal, and does not indicate in any way that it is intended as a template for further rulings or to apply to "third parties" in all similar situations, although I am sure it will be cited as precedent in an attempt to legalize extortion."
Even assuming your interpretation is correct (which it is not), the Supreme court of Canada has ruled on this matter, and it has not been "updated" or overturned by the Frontenac decision, the primary concern of which was the appeal of a 6 month jail sentence. The actual passage expresses a *preference*, not a requirement, for 3 way negotiation over incarceration.
You wrote:
"Brantford chose the route to violence when they passed bylaws and requested an injunction. These approaches depend on the police physically removing Six Nations people from the land."
They can't be arrested if they have not invaded the property, harassed, intimidated and threatened violence against landowners and work crews, whose only crime was to build on land that was theirs on the basis of the homestead principle.
Apparently, they can't be arrested even if they do...
Yes, it will stand as Case Law in Ontario unless appealed.
And no, they can't be arrested just for stopping development. They have a right to be consulted before development and that has not happened. The police protect their rights too.
It is unbelievable that Mike Hancock would absolutely refuse to consult with Six Nations, even refusing to return Bill Montour's calls.
However, I believe the residents of Brantford have a different opinion and would prefer to discuss the matters with their neighbours.
Granny wrote:
"However, I believe the residents of Brantford have a different opinion and would prefer to discuss the matters with their neighbours."
The residents of Brantford will have no say in this, and their opinion will mean nothing in what will essentially be a partnership in systematic theft and extortion.
Supporters (among non-natives) of the occupations in Brantford tend to fall within two groups; actual victims of the occupation seeking compensation or financial protection from the city and province, and a large number of people supremely confident they will never be the personal target of these occupations.
And if you really believe the residents of this city welcome a chance to discuss the "matter" of whether they are the rightful owners, I invite you to ask some of them, if you haven't already. Either way, you might learn some new words.
That's not what I'm hearing, but of course there will always be different opinions.
The land Brantford 'claims' as its own is all subject to review of ownership and land rights through the federal negotiation process. You are right that the people of Brantford don't have a choice about that, so it's hardly worth fighting or getting bent out of shape about.
That's the responsibility of the Federal government and the provincial government that guarantees your property deeds. It shouldn't affect home owners at all: They don't want your homes.
Granny, you wrote:
"It shouldn't affect home owners at all: They don't want your homes."
Granny, I think you and I, and anyone with the sense of a goat knows that is not the case. How can the government “settle” land claims of the magnitude you are referring to without “affecting home owners”? Leaving aside the issue of who speaks for "they", and assuming for a moment that the current acts of "reclamation" are morally justified, in your opinion, would similar occupations of private homes be morally justified, and if not, why not?
Please note I am not asking you what they want or would *likely* do, only if you think home invasions would be justified on similar grounds.
I will go out on a limb and assume for the moment that you will reason that the residents of Brantford (and the developers, presumably) are blameless victims of fraud perpetrated by the government resulting in invalid land titles, so let them sue the government for damages. By identifying the government as culpable you give the appearance of siding with the people of this city. However, since government only possesses what it extorts from others, taxpayers would merely be paying their own compensation. If this is the case, then you do indeed advocate a wholesale confiscation/transfer of land rights and wealth from private parties to Native special interest groups. Wouldn’t it be more honest to just come out and say that?
Bosco, if you want to wallow in your irrational fears, go right ahead. Don't let me spoil your enjoyment of your angst!
However, for other people who may want to know the truth ...
"The government, our chiefs, our people and I have stated for the record that existing homes and businesses will not be affected by any land claim process! No established person or corporation will be dispossessed of their property."
Where land under claim is occupied, compensation and/or other land will be substituted.
Focusing your blog on this non-issue means that you are not addressing the real issues, bosco.
granny,
An anonymous quote is hardly the truth. Even if the person who wrote this (I believe it was an O. Garlow)was identified who is he and what right does he have to be the official voice of what ALL the Indians want? Who really speaks for all the Indians? The Hereditary Chiefs, Floyd and Ruby, Clive Garlow, O. Garlow, Tammy Hill, the Clan mothers, the Elected Council, the Mohawk Nation, the Haudenosunee Institute? Just who?
Recently an Indian researcher stated that every single lot in Brantford was being researched to see if it was legally obtained. What is the reason behind this if not to try and get possession of these properties?And callers to the reserve radio station have stated that the "already prepared" eviction notices should start be given to Brantford residents and that it is time to take back their property.But then I see that you live in Hamilton so I guess this is why it is of no concern to you.
Granny, you quoted O. Garlow from the Expositor (presumably in agreement):
"The government, our chiefs, our people and I have stated for the record that existing homes and businesses will not be affected by any land claim process! No established person or corporation will be dispossessed of their property."
My, what a broad consensus this "policy statement" seems to have achieved! No dissent whatsoever? From the infighting and actual comments among natives, I would have thought otherwise, but I am glad you have set the record straight that this is indeed a unanimous decision.
Not to mention, of course, the blatant contradiction of endorsing the actual occupation and invasion of several properties owned by "existing businesses and corporations" in Brantford. Ah, but you will claim of course, that "they don't *really* own it". So what this means, if my decoder ring is working correctly, is that existing home and landowners will be "dispossessed" only if they don't *really own it*. Again, thanks for clarifying.
You wrote,
"Where land under claim is occupied, compensation and/or other land will be substituted."
If Granny has any trouble working out the specifics for this "resettlement plan", I'm sure she can acquire some blueprints from the descendants of Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot.
Granny wrote:
"Focusing your blog on this non-issue means that you are not addressing the real issues, bosco."
I assume you meant to address Grouchy, since this is not my blog. Nonetheless, I think the feasibility and practical consequences of reclamationists' goals are at least a part of the real issues.
If you wish to penetrate to fundamentals, we could discuss the racial collectivism and ethnic nationalism that lies at the heart of native land claims, but yes, that would be outside the scope of this particular post.
So who do you complain to?
You complain to OUR governments, that's who. They are the ones who created the problem, and they are the ones who can solve it. However, as we all know, they won't do squat without a WHOLE lot of pressure.
Blasting away at Six Nations is no solution. Blasting away at your own governments, though, could be helpful.
Yes, all the land transactions are under review. Assuming City Council, the province and the feds address all of them appropriately, you should not have a problem.
If you have a problem, talk to your government reps.
The government knows exactly who they are negotiating with - the Confederacy - and HDI works for the Confederacy.
... And Hamilton has been negotiating agreements with Six Nations for several years, so no we don't have a problem at present. Brantford could take a lesson.
Granny wrote,
"They [the government] are the ones who created the problem, and they are the ones who can solve it."
Delightfully naive as this might be, I would suggest a little less faith in the efficacy and legitimacy of government if you really have an interest in improving the lives of indigenous peoples. Given their history, they should know better than anyone. Glad to see we at least share the same learning curve though.
I didn't say our governments are remotely legitimate nor effective, but they are still responsible, and that's our problem.
So ... we agree on that, at least?
lol
So Hamilton is supposed to be an example to Brantford? Interesting. First of all Hamilton does no fall within the Haldimand Tract and is therefore not subject to the same land claims and demands for the stopping of all development by the Six Nations.
Secondly, as I recall there was strong opposition to the building of the Red Hill Creek Expressway by Indian interests including a lawsuit filed under the Nanfan Treaty (the lawsuit was later withdrawn).And Hamilton's response to protests was injunctions and threats of lawsuits and the forceful removable and arrest of Indian protesters occupying a Longhouse on the site. And the completion of the project over Indian opposition.So just what agreements has Hamilton negotiated with the Six Nations?
Sounds like Brantford is slowly learning from Hamilton after all.
Consulting natives makes sense for city
Email Story Email story
PrintPrint
Text Size Text Size Text SizeChoose text size
Report Typo Report typo or correction
View PDFView newspaper PDF
Email the author Email the author
More Stories
• The prognosis is troubling
• Editorial Cartoon
• Graffiti is a crime
• All eyes on China
• John Tory and a vagabond's life
• Understanding evil
• Pakistan needs unselfish leadership
July 07, 2008
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jul 7, 2008)
Until a few years ago, most Hamiltonians had never heard of the Nanfan Treaty of 1701, which gave the Iroquois Confederacy perpetual hunting and fishing rights in southwestern Ontario.
Now, because of that dusty document, outside consultants are warning the city to be cautious about making any land use decisions without first informing and consulting with Six Nations.
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/398552
That's when they learned a better way, at least in principle
Post a Comment
<< Home