|
Post by blackcrowheart on Feb 16, 2008 13:05:36 GMT -5
SIX NATIONS "CONFEDERACY COUNCIL" BEING "MUNICIPALIZED" - TIME TO DECLARE CONTINUING INDEPENDENCE MNN. Feb. 2, 2008. There are some very confused minds at Six Nations. The latest update from Hazel Hill lays out the complete violation of the Great Law. A whole slew of interest groups have sprung up purporting to have a say in nation business. For one, the traitorous band council can never have a voice. Neither can these kitchen table, arena groups and social clubs. Anyone outside the clans, the Two Row and Great Law has no voice.
After we physically reclaimed our land in 2006, talks began about reclaiming the rest of it. The negotiators called "sell-outs" and the "Confederacy Chiefs" have fallen into the colonial trap of meeting behind closed doors and working out a "self-government" deal under Canada, without the knowledge or consent of the people. In other words, they´re selling out despite 200 years of resistance by our ancestors.
The sell-outs are letting colonial law override the Great Law. This is turning into a "joint venture" business deal. The actions of the sell-outs is collusion, fraud and betrayal. We cannot negotiate with anyone that doesn´t own anything. We own everything. The intruders are making offers to these sell-outs. Then they take it to the people for sanctioning.
They are working towards "municipalizing" the "Confederacy". They are falling right into the colonial "divide and rule" trap. We´ve told the sell-outs over and over again that we will not give up anything. The colonists present the terms and tell the sell-outs, "Take it or leave it! Get it past the people and then get back to us". And, "If you succeed, it´ll be worth your while ". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!
The sell-outs deliberately restrict themselves to the "community" of Six Nations so that a municipality can be set up by Canada. The update constantly refers to the "Crown! Crown!Crown!" "Nothing but servants of the Crown, my liege!" Today this means the sell-outs are serving the "gangsters" who have taken over.
Everyone knows the Mohawks will never give up anything. The Halidmand Tract is part of the greater Haudenosaunee territory. The sell-outs and the limited "community" they are appealing to live on our territory. They have no authority to make any deal on our behalf.
All Mohawks must be brought in from all our communities and those scattered throughout Onowaregeh, as the Great Law provides. We are a nation, not a community. The Haldimand Tract is Mohawk land. The other nations who live on our tract may be finding it easy to give away our rights as it´s not theirs. The British have always gone to other nations like the Mississauga to trade and barter Haudenosaunee land.
The sell-outs have been in there too long, had too many dinners and late nights with the colonists. This leaves them open to fraud, softening up and seeing too much of the colonial side.
A colonial white lawyer, Aaron Detlor, is running the "Confederacy" show!
He set up the Haudenosaunee Development Institute HDI without the Mohawks to bypass the people and our decision making process through the clans and all the other Haudenosaunee communities. No business can be conducted without us.
HDI mimics the colonial system and puts an HDI stamp on it. HDI plans to use our land as collateral to go to the colonial banks, developers and investors. We don´t use land as collateral for anybody or anything ever! We don´t issue permits to foreigners.
We never gave up our sovereignty, our land and our independence. The only right the "Crown" has is to come to us with their hat in their hand to ask us to exist here. Nothing below or above the ground can ever be sold. It turns out all the so-called "leases" are frauds. It is up to the Canadian government to prove to us they are not, which they can´t. This ain´t do-able! We will do what the Lakota Nation just did, terminate all leases and agreements and continue our independent sovereignty and the reclamation of all our lands and resources. This would respect international law, Haudenosaunee rights and Canadian law.
Just because the intruders have big guns, are ruthless, vicious and can control our people, our land and our resources by threats, force and deceit doesn´ t make their shenanigans any less criminal. Might is not right.
Where are the sell-outs and colonists meeting? In some conference room somewhere? Shouldn´t it be in public just like the Great Law states where we can keep an eye on everybody and so we are all well informed? This is not such a radical idea. Even the colonists have their Parliament which they mostly use as a rubber stamp. Are the colonists scared? Nothing is going to happen to them if they meet with us in public and are truthful, forthright and law abiding. They have to respect the fact that we are the true possessors of this continent.
Why is Alan McNaughton calling himself a chief of the Mohawks? According to the Great Law, the chief has to be condoled and take the name of one of the original 50 chiefs. Alan represents Alan, something like Joseph Brant did. He was a British subject and mason who sat as a ceremonial "Pine Tree Chief" with no power. His only purpose was to translate for the Confederacy. Yet the British got him to sign all kinds of fraudulent documents. Joseph Brant and Alan McNaughton can´t sign s-t! If one chief is missing out of the circle, the meetings cannot be conducted. It goes to the clans and the war chiefs. Only a warrior designated by the clans can sign on our behalf. This has to be done in front of all the people.
We have to question these guys who call themselves chiefs like "Chief Pete Sky", "Chief Alan McNaughton", "Chief Leroy Hill" and "Chief Summerfall Winterspring". These chiefs are advocates of a foreign ideology known as the Handsome Lake Christian based code. The Great Law does not allow us to serve somebody like a bunch of dummies.
We finally figured out what´s wrong with the people at Six. They seem to be suffering from "Brantosis" - a newly diagnosed psychological disorder. It is believed to be caused by the "bread and cheese" they eat every May 24th on the Queen´s birthday. Sometimes it is affected by a peculiar fungus that acts on some people to induce the delusion that they have become Joseph Brant.
It´s sort of like the ergot on bread that LSD comes from. The cheese also makes them constipated and full of s--t. This makes them think they are higher than the people. In a sense it´s true because they´re so stoned and Oh! Phew!
The trouble is they´re being used and they develop a compulsion to sign everything away to anyone waving a foreign flag, just like Joey Brant did. If anyone knows of a good antidote, please send it quick to the sell-outs, and chiefs Peter, Alan, Leroy and Summerfall.
The other antidote is for them to read Seth Newhouse´s version of the Great Law. There is only one Confederacy Grand Council fire in Onondaga in so-called New York State . We still have 9 Mohawk Chiefs, 9 clan mothers and three clans. The Grand Council is not at the Onondaga longhouse in Grand River . The Mohawk council pulled out of the Grand Council in the 1700s thereby rendering all treaty making void. Without the Mohawks no Grand Council can be conducted. Every international alliance or trade agreement [Treaty of Canadaigua, Oneida ´s land grant to the Thirteen Colonies before 1776, etc. ] made since then is fraudulent. We are the Elder Brother and we have to be there. It´s time for the Confederacy Chiefs and clan mothers at Grandeur River to lose their delusions of grandeur and to stop this on-going charade.
When Hazel says, the "creator, creator, creator", we are being put down as subservient. No one can tell us or give us permission to do what is right. This "creator" stuff is Christian gobbledegook. It´s meant to establish a hierarchical system with someone sitting on top of everybody´s head. This unknown made-up wizard that represents the European oligarchy can give and take away. It´s a trap to misinterpret our relationship to the natural world and to each other. The "kasastenera kowa sa oiera", the great natural power, describes us as being part of the natural world, not above or beneath anything.
It´s all part of the sales pitch to lie to us and make us think that we can sell our land and resources, which we can´t.
Whether they realize it or not, these sell-outs are working to bring us marching back into the 19th Century to complete the colonial vision. They could never bring our ancestors into submission.
The whole effort at smoke and mirrors is to help the colonists extract our assets from us. They want us to forget about the coming generations in our society and theirs. It´s a short term deal or "fix" for the benefit of a few colonists and their controlled puppets.
These sell-outs must be replaced immediately by the real representatives who will conduct talks under the guidance of the Great Law. We are being lied to.
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
See Category: " Six Nations "
New MNN Books Available Now!
The books below, email us:
Mohawk Warriors Three - The Trial of Lasagna, Noriega, 20/20 $20.00 usd
The On-Going Confusion between The Great Law and The Handsome Lake Code $20.00 usd
The Agonizing Death of "Colonialism" and "Federal Indian Law" in Kaianere'ko:wa/Great Law Territory $20.00 usd
Who's Sorry Now? The good, the bad and the unapologetic Mohawks of Kanehsatake $20.00 usd
Rebuilding the Iroquois Confederacy Karoniaktajeh $10 usd
Warriors Hand Book Karoniaktajeh $10 usd
Mail checks and money orders to... MNN P.O. Box 991 Kahnawake, QC J0L 1B0
Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePress Store _http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews_ (http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews)
Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates _http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php)
Sign Women Title Holders petition! _http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois_ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois)
Link to MNN Get the code and banners to link to Mohawk Nation News. _http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=promote.html_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=promote.html)
Your Support
Make a contribution to our newsgroup. Secure your online transaction with PayPal®. _http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=donate.html_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=donate.html)
Nia:wen,
Kahentinetha Horn kahentinetha2@yahoo.com Speaking & Contemporary Native Issues Workshops
Katenies katenies20@yahoo.com Manager
Stay tuned! _www.mohawknationnews.com_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/)
Please forward this email to a friend! poster: katenies
Help create awareness. Forward this newsletter to your contacts.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Feb 16, 2008 13:03:58 GMT -5
SIX NATIONS "CONFEDERACY COUNCIL" BEING "MUNICIPALIZED" - TIME TO DECLARE CONTINUING INDEPENDENCE MNN. Feb. 2, 2008. There are some very confused minds at Six Nations. The latest update from Hazel Hill lays out the complete violation of the Great Law. A whole slew of interest groups have sprung up purporting to have a say in nation business. For one, the traitorous band council can never have a voice. Neither can these kitchen table, arena groups and social clubs. Anyone outside the clans, the Two Row and Great Law has no voice.
After we physically reclaimed our land in 2006, talks began about reclaiming the rest of it. The negotiators called "sell-outs" and the "Confederacy Chiefs" have fallen into the colonial trap of meeting behind closed doors and working out a "self-government" deal under Canada, without the knowledge or consent of the people. In other words, they´re selling out despite 200 years of resistance by our ancestors.
The sell-outs are letting colonial law override the Great Law. This is turning into a "joint venture" business deal. The actions of the sell-outs is collusion, fraud and betrayal. We cannot negotiate with anyone that doesn´t own anything. We own everything. The intruders are making offers to these sell-outs. Then they take it to the people for sanctioning.
They are working towards "municipalizing" the "Confederacy". They are falling right into the colonial "divide and rule" trap. We´ve told the sell-outs over and over again that we will not give up anything. The colonists present the terms and tell the sell-outs, "Take it or leave it! Get it past the people and then get back to us". And, "If you succeed, it´ll be worth your while ". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!
The sell-outs deliberately restrict themselves to the "community" of Six Nations so that a municipality can be set up by Canada. The update constantly refers to the "Crown! Crown!Crown!" "Nothing but servants of the Crown, my liege!" Today this means the sell-outs are serving the "gangsters" who have taken over.
Everyone knows the Mohawks will never give up anything. The Halidmand Tract is part of the greater Haudenosaunee territory. The sell-outs and the limited "community" they are appealing to live on our territory. They have no authority to make any deal on our behalf.
All Mohawks must be brought in from all our communities and those scattered throughout Onowaregeh, as the Great Law provides. We are a nation, not a community. The Haldimand Tract is Mohawk land. The other nations who live on our tract may be finding it easy to give away our rights as it´s not theirs. The British have always gone to other nations like the Mississauga to trade and barter Haudenosaunee land.
The sell-outs have been in there too long, had too many dinners and late nights with the colonists. This leaves them open to fraud, softening up and seeing too much of the colonial side.
A colonial white lawyer, Aaron Detlor, is running the "Confederacy" show!
He set up the Haudenosaunee Development Institute HDI without the Mohawks to bypass the people and our decision making process through the clans and all the other Haudenosaunee communities. No business can be conducted without us.
HDI mimics the colonial system and puts an HDI stamp on it. HDI plans to use our land as collateral to go to the colonial banks, developers and investors. We don´t use land as collateral for anybody or anything ever! We don´t issue permits to foreigners.
We never gave up our sovereignty, our land and our independence. The only right the "Crown" has is to come to us with their hat in their hand to ask us to exist here. Nothing below or above the ground can ever be sold. It turns out all the so-called "leases" are frauds. It is up to the Canadian government to prove to us they are not, which they can´t. This ain´t do-able! We will do what the Lakota Nation just did, terminate all leases and agreements and continue our independent sovereignty and the reclamation of all our lands and resources. This would respect international law, Haudenosaunee rights and Canadian law.
Just because the intruders have big guns, are ruthless, vicious and can control our people, our land and our resources by threats, force and deceit doesn´ t make their shenanigans any less criminal. Might is not right.
Where are the sell-outs and colonists meeting? In some conference room somewhere? Shouldn´t it be in public just like the Great Law states where we can keep an eye on everybody and so we are all well informed? This is not such a radical idea. Even the colonists have their Parliament which they mostly use as a rubber stamp. Are the colonists scared? Nothing is going to happen to them if they meet with us in public and are truthful, forthright and law abiding. They have to respect the fact that we are the true possessors of this continent.
Why is Alan McNaughton calling himself a chief of the Mohawks? According to the Great Law, the chief has to be condoled and take the name of one of the original 50 chiefs. Alan represents Alan, something like Joseph Brant did. He was a British subject and mason who sat as a ceremonial "Pine Tree Chief" with no power. His only purpose was to translate for the Confederacy. Yet the British got him to sign all kinds of fraudulent documents. Joseph Brant and Alan McNaughton can´t sign s-t! If one chief is missing out of the circle, the meetings cannot be conducted. It goes to the clans and the war chiefs. Only a warrior designated by the clans can sign on our behalf. This has to be done in front of all the people.
We have to question these guys who call themselves chiefs like "Chief Pete Sky", "Chief Alan McNaughton", "Chief Leroy Hill" and "Chief Summerfall Winterspring". These chiefs are advocates of a foreign ideology known as the Handsome Lake Christian based code. The Great Law does not allow us to serve somebody like a bunch of dummies.
We finally figured out what´s wrong with the people at Six. They seem to be suffering from "Brantosis" - a newly diagnosed psychological disorder. It is believed to be caused by the "bread and cheese" they eat every May 24th on the Queen´s birthday. Sometimes it is affected by a peculiar fungus that acts on some people to induce the delusion that they have become Joseph Brant.
It´s sort of like the ergot on bread that LSD comes from. The cheese also makes them constipated and full of s--t. This makes them think they are higher than the people. In a sense it´s true because they´re so stoned and Oh! Phew!
The trouble is they´re being used and they develop a compulsion to sign everything away to anyone waving a foreign flag, just like Joey Brant did. If anyone knows of a good antidote, please send it quick to the sell-outs, and chiefs Peter, Alan, Leroy and Summerfall.
The other antidote is for them to read Seth Newhouse´s version of the Great Law. There is only one Confederacy Grand Council fire in Onondaga in so-called New York State . We still have 9 Mohawk Chiefs, 9 clan mothers and three clans. The Grand Council is not at the Onondaga longhouse in Grand River . The Mohawk council pulled out of the Grand Council in the 1700s thereby rendering all treaty making void. Without the Mohawks no Grand Council can be conducted. Every international alliance or trade agreement [Treaty of Canadaigua, Oneida ´s land grant to the Thirteen Colonies before 1776, etc. ] made since then is fraudulent. We are the Elder Brother and we have to be there. It´s time for the Confederacy Chiefs and clan mothers at Grandeur River to lose their delusions of grandeur and to stop this on-going charade.
When Hazel says, the "creator, creator, creator", we are being put down as subservient. No one can tell us or give us permission to do what is right. This "creator" stuff is Christian gobbledegook. It´s meant to establish a hierarchical system with someone sitting on top of everybody´s head. This unknown made-up wizard that represents the European oligarchy can give and take away. It´s a trap to misinterpret our relationship to the natural world and to each other. The "kasastenera kowa sa oiera", the great natural power, describes us as being part of the natural world, not above or beneath anything.
It´s all part of the sales pitch to lie to us and make us think that we can sell our land and resources, which we can´t.
Whether they realize it or not, these sell-outs are working to bring us marching back into the 19th Century to complete the colonial vision. They could never bring our ancestors into submission.
The whole effort at smoke and mirrors is to help the colonists extract our assets from us. They want us to forget about the coming generations in our society and theirs. It´s a short term deal or "fix" for the benefit of a few colonists and their controlled puppets.
These sell-outs must be replaced immediately by the real representatives who will conduct talks under the guidance of the Great Law. We are being lied to.
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
See Category: " Six Nations "
New MNN Books Available Now!
The books below, email us:
Mohawk Warriors Three - The Trial of Lasagna, Noriega, 20/20 $20.00 usd
The On-Going Confusion between The Great Law and The Handsome Lake Code $20.00 usd
The Agonizing Death of "Colonialism" and "Federal Indian Law" in Kaianere'ko:wa/Great Law Territory $20.00 usd
Who's Sorry Now? The good, the bad and the unapologetic Mohawks of Kanehsatake $20.00 usd
Rebuilding the Iroquois Confederacy Karoniaktajeh $10 usd
Warriors Hand Book Karoniaktajeh $10 usd
Mail checks and money orders to... MNN P.O. Box 991 Kahnawake, QC J0L 1B0
Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePress Store _http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews_ (http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews)
Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates _http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php)
Sign Women Title Holders petition! _http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois_ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois)
Link to MNN Get the code and banners to link to Mohawk Nation News. _http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=promote.html_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=promote.html)
Your Support
Make a contribution to our newsgroup. Secure your online transaction with PayPal®. _http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=donate.html_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/pg.php?page=donate.html)
Nia:wen,
Kahentinetha Horn kahentinetha2@yahoo.com Speaking & Contemporary Native Issues Workshops
Katenies katenies20@yahoo.com Manager
Stay tuned! _www.mohawknationnews.com_ (http://www.mohawknationnews.com/)
Please forward this email to a friend! poster: katenies
Help create awareness. Forward this newsletter to your contacts.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Oct 3, 2007 13:55:35 GMT -5
May 31, 2007 08:09 PM >Christopher Maughan >Canadian press > > >CALEDONIA, Ont. - Six Nations protesters said Thursday a $125- million >offer by federal land-claim negotiators is not enough to address a >number of outstanding claims, and warned that if Ottawa continues to >offer financial compensation rather than land, talks could go south. >Negotiator Janie Jamieson said that in offering the money, Ottawa is >ignoring aboriginal demands. She said if that continues, First Nations >protesters will have no choice but to pull out of peaceful talks. >"It's happened before and it could happen again," Jamieson said, >referring to last summer's prolonged standoff with police at a former >housing development site in this southwestern Ontario community. >Jamieson said the prospect of Six Nations negotiators accepting the >proposal is bleak. >"In my opinion, the $125 million doesn't begin to address the damage >done to our water system (by the development)," she said. >Ottawa offered the money Wednesday with the condition that aboriginal >protesters end their 15-month occupation of the Caledonia site. In >return, Ottawa asked for a release from the Six Nations on four Ontario >claims. >Negotiators were expecting a written reply to the offer from Six Nations >representatives sometime Thursday. >Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton was also unhappy with the proposal, but >acknowledged it represents progress. >"It's nowhere near what we want or what we've expected, but it does open >the door for talks." >Other protesters were less diplomatic, calling the proposal "a slap in >the face." >Nathan Isaacs said no amount of money could ever convince him to leave >the land he maintains belongs to his people. >"I want my kids to scrape their knees on dirt, not pavement," he said. >"I want them to seek shade under a tree, not next to a building." >On the day of the release of the Ipperwash inquiry report, Isaacs said >he sees similarities between conditions during that standoff and those >at Caledonia, from overly suspicious police to a government using delay >tactics at the negotiating table. >"There's repercussions to everyone's actions," he warned. "The federal >government dragging their feet - there could be repercussions to that." >Said fellow protester Steve Powless: "I find it very insulting that they >think our people can be bought." >But land and money are tied together, said federal Indian Affairs >Minister Jim Prentice. >"The ability I have under the policy is to advance money," he said >outside the House of Commons. "And the money, of course, can be used to >secure land, and that land can be converted to reserve status. >"I don't intend to negotiate through the media. We have extraordinarily >good negotiators at the table, and I think the response of the First >Nation was quite respectful." >Haldimand County Mayor Marie Trainer said there is potential in the >government's offer, but admitted there is still much work to do. >"Just having the federal government meet the heredity chiefs, that >hasn't happened in 80 years," she said. "It's a huge step." >Trainer said she plans to meet with Prentice next week to discuss >security measures in Caledonia. >Most of the southwestern Ontario claims revolve around allegations the >federal government mismanaged land and money in the 19th century. >"All Canada can do in order to live up to our lawful obligations is to >determine what that loss was, what legal obligation we had, and to offer >them compensation for that," said federal negotiator Ron Doering. >One claim involves the flooding of lands in Dunnville, Ont., to >accommodate the building of the Welland Feeder Canal in 1829. >The other claims are the Burtch tract, which involves compensation for >alleged land mismanagement; Moulton Township, which involves allegations >aboriginals weren't adequately compensated in the 1840s; and the >investment of Six Nations money into the Grand River Navigation Co. in >the 1830s.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Jul 5, 2007 8:44:39 GMT -5
Illegal colonialism By Billy Two Rivers,Kahnawake Mohawk Territory The Hamilton Spectator (Mar 3, 2007) Re: 'The Myths of Caledonia' (Opinion, Feb. 24)
Writer John Hagopian states that, basically, there is no legal basis to the Six Nations land claim and that all they (Six Nations) had was an occupancy permit.
For the information of your readers, I must point out that, during that time, the British Crown did not possess an occupancy permit, either -- never mind crown land or ownership -- legal or otherwise.
That said, herein lies a brief response to some of the propaganda conjured up by the mindset of the writer to undermine all calls for historical redress, by way of European colonial law. The current impasse in Caledonia between the Six Nations and non-natives concerning rights to certain lands is very poorly understood by the public and the media alike.
The ownership history of Six Nations lands in Ontario has been ignored, as has the legal basis claim to those lands. It's time for the truth to be told. In short, the Six Nations do have legal rights to the lands in question; the lands have been Iroquoian homelands long before the founding of our confederacy.
They have all the rights to land in Ontario by virtue of aboriginal title. In fact, all land belongs to the indigenous peoples, contrary to the "doctrine of discovery," i.e. the Papal Bulls of January 8, 1455.
Based on this licence to steal, our learned white brother takes the Canadian soap box and carefully regurgitates the position of colonial and assimilative Canada and its provinces that these lands were "Terra Nullius" and inhabited by "soulless creatures." This made the lands ready for the taking by any immigrant colonial thief. That, of course, makes it all legal in the writer's eyes.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Jul 5, 2007 8:41:26 GMT -5
BC Aboriginal group shows solidarity with Six Nations standoff
March 2, 2007 - by Joseph Quesnel
Union of BC Indian Chiefs congratulates Iroquois Confederacy Chief Alan McNaughton and the Mohawk People of the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory
February 28, 2007 On behalf of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, we would to congratulate the Mohawk People of the Grand River territory on their one year anniversary of successfully reclaiming part of their territory that was ceded to them as part of the Haldimand Proclamation some 200 years ago.
We fully support the view of the Confederacy Chiefs, the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police insofar as their collective condemnation of the Government of Canada's refusal to take full responsibility for resolving the land rights dispute at Caledonia, Ontario
Recently, the Government of Canada's Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs released a report concerning the growing tensions and frustrations attached to unresolved Native land-right disputes in Canada. The Senate Report was entitled, "Negotiation or Confrontation - It's Canada's Choice".
Obviously, as we have witnessed in Caledonia, Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Indian Affairs have chosen, through their deliberate refusal to take a leadership role in resolving the standoff at Caledonia, the dangerous and volatile path of confrontation.
Alongside many other First Nations Elders, Leaders, Aboriginal organizations, Grassroots people, human rights groups and organizations, the Union of. BC Indian Chiefs continue to support the Elders, Confederacy Chiefs and Haudenasaune People of the Six Nations of the Grand River.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Jun 13, 2007 14:45:52 GMT -5
The myths of Caledonia Smithsonian Institution Hereditary chiefs carrying wampum meet at Six Nations in 1871. From left: Joseph Snow, Onondaga; George Johnson, Mohawk, interpreter; John Buck, Onondaga, wampum keeper; John Smoke Johnson, Mohawk, council speaker; Isaac Hill, Onondaga, firekeeper; Seneca Johnson, Seneca. There's no legal basis to the Six Nations land claim; all they had was an occupancy permit By John S. Hagopian The Hamilton Spectator (Feb 24, 2007) The current impasse in Caledonia between the Six Nations natives and non-natives concerning rights to certain lands is very poorly understood by the public and the media.
The ownership history of Six Nations lands in Ontario has been ignored, as has the legal basis of the Six Nations claim to those lands. It's time for the politically incorrect truth to be told. In short, the Six Nations have no legal rights to the lands in question, and have had none for over a century.
They have never had any rights to land in Ontario by virtue of aboriginal title or by treaty. For a tract of land along the Grand River, they obtained in 1784 merely an occupancy permit from British colonial Governor Frederick Haldimand that endured only at the pleasure of the Crown. After 1784, the Six Nations surrendered to the Crown various portions of the Grand River tract, and by the middle of the 19th century all that remained was the land contained in the current Six Nations reserve south of Brantford. That is a summary of their legal rights.
As for moral obligations, a review of the history of the Six Nations Indians indicates that they are not innocent victims of land robbery by European colonizers, but are instead themselves the culprits who terrorized, conquered, and displaced many other Indian tribes whose lands and resources they sought to control.
The first myth is that the Six Nations Indians have a valid aboriginal claim to the subject lands, and the second myth is that the Six Nations were the aboriginal occupants of these lands at the time of first contact with European explorers, traders and colonizers.
The truth is that the Attiwandaron Indians, also known as the Neutral Indians, occupied the large tract of land bounded by lines connecting what are now Grand Bend, Oakville, the north shore of Lake Erie, and the St. Clair River in 1615 AD when the French Recollets missionaries entered Ontario. Caledonia is within this tract.
The Attiwandaron were themselves an Iroquois tribe, but were not among the Iroquois tribes that formed the Five Nations Confederacy in about 1459 AD. Those tribes were the Seneca, Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga and Oneida, who were at that time living in the Finger Lakes region of northern New York State. The Confederacy was formed ostensibly to end the wars that had long been fought among those five tribes. The Tuscarora Indians joined the Confederacy in about 1713 to form the Six Nations Confederacy.
The Iroquois tribes of the Confederacy were often hostile to Iroquois tribes that were not part of the Confederacy. In 1651, the Confederacy conquered and displaced the Attiwandarons, and the survivors were taken captive or fled southward to join other tribes in the United States.
Thus, it was by conquest that the Six Nations acquired the Attiwandarons' land; the Six Nations were not the aboriginal occupants. Any compensation paid today by Ontario for those lands is tantamount to a reward to the descendants of the marauding warriors and murderous thieves who conquered the actual aboriginal occupants.
The Six Nations were also not the occupants of the Caledonia lands at the time that the British declared sovereignty over southern Ontario. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (such as the Delgamuukw case) suggest that occupancy at such time can give rise to a claim of aboriginal title, providing it is exclusive occupancy that endures continuously until an aboriginal land claim is asserted.
British sovereignty over what is now southern Ontario was declared in King George's Proclamation of 1763, and was reinforced by the Quebec Act of 1774. The Six Nations did not occupy southern Ontario at these times either.
After conquering the Attiwandaron Indians in 1651, the Iroquois Confederacy returned by the early 18th century to what are now American locations. They had been driven out of southern Ontario in 1696 by the united force of the Ojibwa, Ottawa and Potawatomis Indians. The Mississauga Indians later moved into southern Ontario, and occupied the Grand River tract until 1784.
Most of the Iroquois Confederacy had supported Britain during the American Revolutionary War, and by the terms of the Treaty of Paris, the Finger Lakes homeland of the Iroquois was surrendered by Britain to America. Thus, the Iroquois needed a new home, and Britain provided compensatory lands for them along the Grand River in 1784. The lands were provided in an occupancy permit during the pleasure of the Crown. No ownership rights could be given to the Six Nations because King George's Proclamation of 1763 clarified that Indians on British lands were not sovereign and could not own lands; the only right they could be given were occupancy rights.
Thus, the Six Nations did not occupy the Caledonia lands at the time sovereignty was declared by Britain; neither did they occupy those lands exclusively or continuously, as several other tribes had filled the void.
The third myth is that the Six Nations are the peaceable, innocent victims of exploitation by European colonizers.
The reality is that the Confederacy perpetrated many wars against other Indian tribes.
The Mohawk were particularly savage in war. The word "Mohawk" means "man-eater;" they practised ritual cannibalism for centuries, as did others in the Confederacy. Their wars were motivated by a desire to exploit the resources of neighbouring lands, to steal, plunder, to take captives who would be incorporated into the Confederacy to enhance their numbers, and to monopolize commerce with European traders who offered guns, ammunition, axes, cloth and other manufactured goods in exchange for the furs of trapped animals, mainly beaver.
The list of Iroquois conquests is lengthy. They fought and displaced the Algonquin Indians on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City in the early 1600s. In the 1620s, the Mohawk attacked the Mahican Indians in New York State to gain control of their trade with the Dutch at Albany. In the 1640s, the Five Nations attacked the Huron Indians near Georgian Bay to gain control of their trade with the French. The Jesuit priests Gabriel Lalemont and Jean de Brebeuf were tortured and killed during this raid by the Confederacy.
Also conquered and displaced were the Tionontatehronon Indians in 1649, the Erie Nation during 1654-1657, the Susquehannock in the 1670s, and the Illinois and Miami Indians in 1680.
By this time, the Five Nations were the most powerful Indian confederacy in North America.
They continued their wars into the 18th century, fighting in Georgia and South Carolina against the Catawha and Cherokee Indians for 50 years. The Confederacy initiated war with tribes located virtually all around them, seizing land, resources, booty, and captives at every turn. In short, there was nothing innocent about the Iroquois Confederacy.
As for the Confederacy's "exploitation" by European colonizers, the loss of their New York state homeland was justified given their participation in the Revolutionary War against the Americans. The loss of their other lands in America and in Canada was justified, given that the Confederacy had stolen these lands from other tribes by conquest.
The fourth myth is that the Six Nations received a deed of land from Governor Haldimand of Quebec in 1784 that gave the Confederacy ownership of all lands lying 9.66 kilometres on either side of the entire length of the Grand River.
I published an academic article in a Canadian history journal titled Histoire Sociale/Social History in 1997 that debunks this myth, and presents the full context of the Six Nations land rights in the 18th century. After the British defeated the French in the "French and Indian War," Britain took control of the lands that up to 1763 had been controlled by the French. King George's Proclamation of 1763 served as the constitution for these newly claimed lands. It established Quebec as a British colony, and asserted British sovereignty over what is now Ontario.
The proclamation recognized the rights of natives to continue to occupy lands in Ontario, but they had very limited land rights. Natives were not sovereign over their lands; they did not own their lands; they could not sell their lands; and they could surrender the lands only to the federal Crown. The proclamation still endures today, as it was entrenched in Canada's Constitution Act,1982.
Haldimand issued his proclamation in 1784 in this legal context. He authorized the Six Nations to "settle upon" the lands along the Grand River. There was no mention of aboriginal sovereignty, fee simple title, or anything resembling ownership rights.
Haldimand had been directed by British officials to give lands to the Six Nations to occupy, as they had been promised this in return for their participation with Britain in the war against America. It was an occupancy permit at the pleasure of the Crown. It could be withdrawn at any time, without compensation to the Indians.
The Crown had obtained a surrender of a large tract of southern Ontario lands from the Mississauga Indians earlier in that year. Part of these lands formed the Grand River tract allotted to the Six Nations. The surrender from the Mississauga extinguished all claims to aboriginal title that any native group could have asserted to these lands.
Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada assert that subsection 35(1) of Canada's Constitution Act , 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's natives. However, the Six Nations have no aboriginal or treaty rights, as they have no aboriginal status in Ontario, and since they have not entered into treaties in respect of the Grand River lands. Haldimand's occupancy permit was not a treaty, as it was signed only by Haldimand.
As the Six Nations held only an occupancy permit before 1982, therefore the only right that the Constitution would have recognized was a right to occupancy after 1982. Thus, the constitutional rights that have been afforded to some natives by virtue of the constitution are not applicable to the Six Nations.
Further, most of the lands Haldimand allotted to the Six Nations have since been alienated by the Six Nations to the Crown. All that remains is the formal reserve south of Brantford that was created in the mid-19th century.
The Six Nations have more substantial rights in regard to lands comprising that reserve, as the Indian Act provides that compensation must be given for any lands expropriated from it by the federal Crown. But the lands under dispute in Caledonia are not part of that reserve.
The natives complain that the lands in question are a former native burial ground, but that argument has no legal force. Even if it had legal force, another problem arises. Given the history of the area, it can be argued that the dead are not from the Six Nations tribes alone. Even if it could be determined whose dead are buried there, does this not suggest that compensation must be given pro rata to all surviving tribes who have descendants buried at the site?
It must be remembered that up to 1982, it was very easy to extinguish aboriginal title and native land rights in Canada. A legislature needed only to enact a statute stating that the aboriginal rights in a particular place were being extinguished. No compensation needed to be given. Further, once a reserve is created, aboriginal title is extinguished, as reserve rights are substantially different from aboriginal rights.
Thus, the dealings in Grand River lands up to 1982 left no portion of Grand River lands eligible for a claim of aboriginal title, which would have attracted the special rights and protections afforded by virtue of subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
No native band had the status to assert aboriginal title over these lands in light of the history of occupancy and the legal transactions. Thus the claims of the Six Nations for ownership, sovereignty, self-government or compensation are on a much different basis than the claims of other native groups elsewhere in Canada.
Discussions in the media and among the public are tainted by the general sentiment that "the Indians have been treated badly," as if all Indians have been treated the same, and are equally deserving, and have identical histories, and have identical legal claims.
A full understanding of law and especially of history is required in order to arrive at a just resolution to native land disputes.
As for the Six Nations assertions concerning their ancient burial ground, I think most informed observers would be surprised by what they find buried in the past.
John Hagopian of Whitby was called to the Ontario bar in 1987. He has published articles on various aspects of Canadian history in several academic journals.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Jun 13, 2007 14:29:18 GMT -5
Good Morning from Grand River. Well,I know everyone has been waiting patiently to see whats happening. It's like watching a movie and then having the next episode postponed indefinitely, no idea how the ending is going to be. Well, its the same for those of us here. We never know from one day to the next how things are going to be. With all of the instigating that still goes on, from the stealing of flags to try and get a rise out of us, to the hate mail and death threats that go out through the internet targeted at individuals involved. Its physically and spiritually exhausting. However, it is also a definite and clear message to the people at Kanonhstaton. It helps to keep us strengthened to continue, so, in that respect, we turn it around and say Nya Weh for the support.
It's been a difficult task for me to update when there hasn't been a lot of things to report. But on Thursday, we had an excellent day at the lands side table and main table meetings, with our Chiefs taking a strong position again with the Crown. Sub-Chief Leroy Hill made a direct hit in the morning by tabling evidence that supports the position that the Six Nations has taken all along........ that in fact, the Crown's intention all along was to swindle the lands from the Six Nations as well as encouraging squatters to settle on our lands. The area we concentrated on providing the evidence for is the plank road, but there is plenty of evidence to prove the point all up and down the grand river.
The evidence included a map which shows the lots that were being sold PRIOR to the so-called surrender that the crown is claiming to have recieved from the Six Nations and it clearly shows some of the lands along plank road, including Kanonhstaton, the former Douglas Creek Lands, as being sold in November when they claim to have received their surrender in December. Further to that evidence we also tabled documentation that supports the fact that other lands along the Plank Road were being sold in July, 5 months prior to when they claim our people surrendered it. We also were able to provide documentation that shows the squatters were being given "pre-emptive rights to the land" for their efforts in clearing the lands for the purpose of building plank road. Everything we have been stating all along, everything our elders and ancestors have told us through our oral history, everything our elder Chiefs and historians presented to the Crown at the main table a few months ago, and everything the people have stated from the beginning when we took back the land; was evidenced in the documentation we tabled yesterday. The response of the Crown of course was the same as it has always been. The information we provided is nothing new to them, they are aware of the documents, but they still believe the Six Nations has no legal claim to the land, however they will take the information as it was provided today, back to their department of justice for their consideration.
At this point Chief MacNaughton reminded the Crowns Agents that the most important point in this negotiation process is that the legal interpretation of Canada is irrelevant and that the table itself is a direct result of the precedent set by Canada in its attempt to extinguish 'aboriginal' title and that they continually change their laws to justify the theft of our lands and the extingushment of our rights. He further reminded them that this table has an opportunity to step outside of the box and that it is time for the Crown to recognize the moral wrongs of the past and begin to rectify them. Canada did acknowlede that they are trying to figure out how to deal with the Six Nations as we have clearly stated that we are not interested in monetary compensation and quite honestly they have never even had to consider the option of returning the land.
Our position is clear, we are taking back our lands, lands that were stolen and swindled away, and lands that currently are being swindled away. To support our position, we recently had one of the major developers in Southern Ontario present to the Crown their findings on the research that we asked them to do. They were asked to research the title to the land which they now have in their possession and that they are currently considering for development. These lands are within the Haldimand Tract, currently part of Brantford, and the result of their research is similar to that of the lands in Haldimand. The Crown unilaterally issued patents in this case it was in 1853; and there is a huge gap as to how it went from Six Nations to the Crown. The gap is there because there is nothing that exists to show that we relinquished it. There was no surrender, there was no sale. These lands were intended for the purpose of leasing only and throughout the grand river tract, you will find this practice of the crown over and over again. In fact, at a recent speaking engagement, I encouraged everyone living within the Haldimand Tract to do their own title searches on their property, and find out exactly how these lands came into their possession. I am confident that they will come back with the same results, the Crown unilaterally issued patents without authority and without sanctioning, and those individuals have been frauded by the Crown just as much as the Six Nations has, and today they continue to be frauded because they are paying the taxes on those lands, taxes that Canada has no authority to levy.
So, all in all, we've had a long year. It will be the first anniversary of the land reclamation of Kanonhstaton on February 28th. At this point, I don't believe the Crown is taking seriously the position of the Onkwehonweh. I don't believe they have any intention to turn back the lands of Kanonhstaton according to original title, anymore than they intend to turn back any of the other lands that they openly admit to stealing like Burtch, South Cayuga, Port Maitland, Townsend etc. Their only intent is to keep it as Crown lands with the intended use for Six Nations. They want to be able to dictate how this land will be used, and they want to continue to benefit from the lands. All I know is that from the beginning the people have said, the lands are to be returned to original title, and not according to the Indian Act, because quite frankly, the land is ours. It has always been ours. We've offered enough evidence to prove it, we don't need their paperwork to prove it. Whatever the Crown has to do to adjust its records to rectify its wrongs is entirely their business and has nothing to do with us. We will use the lands for our use and benefit as was intended, for as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow........etc. That IS being a Nation.
The only other thing I want to touch on in this update is the Unity of the people that has been building throughout this year. We have alot of people who have been working very hard to bring the Onkwehonweh together. Alot of people within the confederacy council and alot of people within the band council. Alot of people from Grand River, and alot of people from the other Onkwehonweh Territories. Alot of people from other parts of the world who are supporting us. Those who have organized rallies and fundraisers, we send our thanks because it truly has been amazing to have all of your support and prayers. The people who envision a Six Nations that is united on all issues, just as we stand united on the land at Kanonhstaton. It will not be easy and it will not be quick. But we cannot let those who choose to look for divisions to detract us from that goal. It is no secret there are factions within our territory. It is no secret there are factions within all Onkwehonweh Territories. It is not uncommon that there are factions within any Nation or Country out there, including Canada. In their system their factions are called "opposition parties". So just because we are human like the rest of the world, does not take away from the fact that the Crown has obligations to the Treaties to uphold, regardless of who the people sit at the table to deal with them. It does negate from the fact that Confederacy Council, that the Peacemaker helped us to establish, is a working body of Five Nations, working together, in Unity, Peace, Friendship and Respect, and it has a job to do. The same job that was given to us several hundreds of years before the coming of the Europeans. To oversee all the lands of Turtle Island and to uphold the Peace. That responsibility has never been taken from us and those of us who understand and accept our obligation to that, will continue on the path that has been set before us. All of the Onkwehonweh working TOGETHER. This is the message I would like to send to all of our supporters, both native and non-native who are standing in Unity with us. Do not allow the white serpent to worm its way into your circle to try and disrupt and undermine. It has reared its head once again in Grand River, but once again, we will stand in the light and in defence of what was given to us all, the Onkwehonweh throughout the world, and will continue to work toward upholding and protecting that Peace for All.
On February 28th it will be one year since the land reclamation began. Everyone in Onkwehonweh Territories needs to make the Crown understand that we ARE standing together in UNITY. That Canada, in right of the Crown MUST uphold its obligations to the Treaties. Regardless of the fact that the Crown had no authority or sanctioning to hand those responsibilties to Canada, it is a responsibility it has taken and accepted with its constitution act. Our actions here at Kanonhstaton have apparently not been enough to convince them of this fact. We need all of our supporters to make a STRONG statement on February 28th and send a clear and concise message of the Unity of all the Onkwehonweh in this world. According to a message that was delivered to me, apparently we have not shaken the earth enough for them to understand what they are doing, not only to the Onkwehonweh with their continued development, but what they are doing to their own future by destroying our mother earth. It is up to the Onkwehonweh to send that message that we have had enough. Enough of the encroachment of our homelands, enough of the intrusion of their laws within our circle and enough of their paternalistic attitude toward our people. We must stand united. Nya Weh Kowah!
In Love, Light and Peace,
Hazel
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Jun 13, 2007 14:28:46 GMT -5
Six Nations Confederacy Council blasts court action By John Burman The Hamilton Spectator
The staggering $4.4-trillion lawsuit that seeks to gain Mohawk control of Six Nations and land negotiations has been called a "frivolous action" that hacks at the roots of peace.
That's what the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council said in a statement last night, blasting the court action as "an obvious attempted 'cash grab.'"
Self-titled "stewards of the Haldimand Treaty" say they will sue for $4.4 trillion for "mental anguish, pain and suffering deliberately inflicted on the heirs and descendants of the Mohawk Nation Grand River."
If they win, they also seek another $3 trillion in aggravated and punitive damages.
A notice of action, stating intent to file a lawsuit, was filed in Superior Court in Brantford Feb. 12.
At least three persons named among eight plaintiffs in the suit say they have no intention of suing anyone and thought they were authorizing an injunction to halt negotiations over disputed land in Caledonia until more Mohawk voices can be brought to the table.
The "stewards" contend the Haldimand Tract was given to the Mohawks in October 1784. Friends and allies of the Mohawks, who make up the five other member nations in Six Nations, were granted permission to live there, but do not speak for the territory.
Cayuga sub-chief Leroy Hill, Confederacy council secretary, said last night the plaintiffs have misrepresented themselves as a nation.
"It is clear that this is an attempt to derail the ongoing negotiations as well as an obvious attempted 'cash grab,'" he said. "We can state without any doubt that the claims made in the notice of action are false, untrue and based upon a distorted and misguided agenda."
Justin Griffin, who filed the notice on behalf of eight "stewards," said yesterday he will proceed with the suit and file a statement of claim on the defendants.
The notice of action accuses the Confederacy, the elected band council and its chief, David General, and representatives of the Seneca, Onondaga, Tuscarora, Cayuga and Oneida nations who make up the Six Nations of genocide, of "deliberately undermining the plaintiffs interests as the sole legitimate voice of the Mohawk Territory" and alleges they conspired with Britain and Canada in "unauthorized theft and subsequent sale" of lands given to the Mohawks for the allegiance and support of the Crown during The American Revolution.
Griffin said yesterday the $4.4 trillion sought represents the present day value of the Haldimand Tract between Lake Erie and the headwaters of the Grand River as well as the value and compounded interest of monies calculated as owing to the Mohawks by various commissions and studies for use of the land and treaties broken or ignored.
"There has been no compensation," said Griffin. He admitted the suit has stirred great anger on Six Nations, but added "someone has to make a point that treaties can't be ignored."
He hopes fallout from the suit, which would be the largest ever in Canada, will push native land claims onto the international stage where natives hope to find "justice."
jburman@thespec.com
905-526-2469
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on May 17, 2007 14:00:34 GMT -5
Fear, anger at meeting in Caledonia By Daniel Nolan The Hamilton Spectator CALEDONIA Town residents vented their angst and frustration at a community meeting called by the local councillor to discuss the nearly year-old Caledonia standoff.
About 200 people attended the meeting last night to express their concerns to Councillor Craig Grice, who promised to hold the meeting during last fall's municipal election campaign. Grice beat longtime councillor Craig Ashbaugh to become Caledonia's representative on Haldimand County council.
Residents also gave Grice, who hosted the meeting along with Mayor Marie Trainer and councillor Buck Sloat, ideas on how the county can best deal with the native occupation of the former Douglas Creek Estates, which began nearly a year ago.
Six Nations says it never surrendered the Argyle Street South property, but Ottawa says the band gave it up in the 1840s. Negotiations are ongoing among Six Nations, Ottawa and Queen's Park.
The meeting got raucous when residents discussed Gary McHale, a Richmond Hill resident who has staged rallies near the occupation site. Some believed he should be applauded while others believed he was a troublemaker.
"You didn't want shouting," Grice said. "This isn't about Gary McHale. It's about Caledonia. This will only be resolved by us."
One man expressed concern that there is still potential for violence, despite the fact that things have cooled down since last summer.
"I share that fear," Grice said. "It only takes one person on either side to put it back to what it was or worse."
One man suggested council pressure Ottawa to give it funds so it can have its own lawyer at the negotiating table. Another suggested council send a delegation to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A third said Haldimand should sue the OPP for breach of contract because it downloaded policing of the Sixth Line, which borders Douglas Creek Estates, to Six Nations Police.
Grice said he'll take residents' concerns to the Feb. 21 committee meeting with officials from Ottawa and Queen's Park to get answers. Sloat told the crowd, however, that Ottawa says Haldimand doesn't have anything to offer at the negotiating table. He also said lawyers say the OPP is not breaching its contract because there's policing on the Sixth Line.
dnolan@thespec.com
905-526-3351
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on May 17, 2007 13:38:16 GMT -5
Friday, February 09, 2007 | Updated at 12:51 PM EST
JUST IN FROM THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR!!!!
Six Nations man gets bail Trevor Miller has been ordered released by a Cayuga court.
Miller is to be released on $20,000 bail and has been ordered to stay away from any demonstrations.
Miller was in custoday after being charged with assault and two counts of robbery for incidents last June, one involving a CH TV cameram and the other a scuffle with American law enforcement officials.
He will be free later today.
--------------------------------- The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Feb 26, 2007 7:40:17 GMT -5
Duties, Responsibilities and Obligations of the Crown with On gwa hon weh
The On gwa hon weh (True People) have established this land prior to the Crown stating their supreme authority over the lands. Our traditions have remained unchanged and remain essential to our identity and are consistent throughout. We have the stability of our Confederacy Council between the present and earlier settlers occupation where we have been targeted at the time the Crown asserted their interference over the lands in Canada, and the United States; whereas, we are to travel down the same river, side by side and not steer each others vessel while respecting each others laws. As long as the river flows, the grass grows and the sun shines.
We have distinctive cultural practices that remain within our Tribes. We have lived our Traditional ways; which, existed at the time of first contact with the Europeans. Our current practice of custom have stayed the same within; ceremonies, treaties and wampum�s which remain essential to our culture. Specific rights of our people is understood in the Treaties we entered into with Crown governments. The Crown government were initially France, Britain, and after Confederation, Canada.
Earlier agreements involved between our Nation and the European�s is an important structure of balancing the interests that suit our peoples' needs. This is an important achievement required to be acceptable to avoid further irreparable harm to our people through the governments action or decision and will avoid further reactions. We have addressed our many concerns in a respectful way through our Traditional Council based within our Birth and Treaty Rights.
Our Birth Rights are collective rights throughout the many Territories of our Tribes. The Crown�s duty to consult with the Original Inhabitants has its origin in the honor of the Crown regarding these rights. The Crown has knowledge of our real existence through our Inherent Rights and has an obligation to consult with our peoples when hardship and suffering occur. Their responsibility to think about a possible course of action to carry out so that it does not create a reaction in a way it will affect the, �Treaty of Peace.� Throughout history we have been directly affected by the acts of Conspiracy to commit genocide against our people by the governments with their past actions and or decisions.
The ultimate legal responsibility for fulfilling the Crown�s duty to consult with our people rests with the Crown. This requires the Governor General of Canada to undertake a process of meaningful consultation with our people; which should occur, immediately as we have waited for over 80 years plus. This discussion is based on information already provided and should be considered highly important. Our consent is vital over our territorial lands, as they are significant to our survival through the existing agreements established by our forefathers and King George the Third; therefore, upheld with the honor of intention.
Quote:
�In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, the Crown must act honorably, in accordance with its historical and future relationship with the Aboriginal peoples in question. The Crown�s honor cannot be interpreted narrowly or technically, but must be given full effect in order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by s. 35(1).� Chief Justice McLachlin, Taku River decision (2004, Supreme Court of Canada), para. 24
�the principle of consultation in advance of interference with existing treaty rights is a matter of broad general importance to the relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.� Mikisew Cree decision (2005, Supreme Court of Canada), para. 3
Nya weh Always, Jacqueline
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Dec 21, 2006 10:34:58 GMT -5
A Summary of the narrative presented by Michael McCulloch to the Plank Road Lands Side table on November 3, 2006
The Haldimand Tract
1.In 1776, the Haudenosaunee ("the Six Nations) faced the choice of supporting the British Crown against the American rebels, remainig neutral, or siding with the Revolution. The Six nations divided, not only between Nations but also within them. Many Mohawks, but not all, and some members of the other of the Six nations rallied under the leadership of Joseph Brant and took an active part in the revolution on the side of the Crown. Brant's followers also included a number of non-aboriginal Loyalists, settlers on the new York frontier.
2.In 1783 Britain accepted its defeat at the hand of the "Americans" in the Treaty of Paris. The Crown then addressed the problem of how to deal with those of its supporters who either could not or would not live under the new republican regime. Its general policy was to compensate these "Loyalists" for the property they had lost, and reward them for their loyalty, by grants of lands in what remained of the crown's colonial possessions in North American.
3.the Crown applied this policy to "the Mohawks and their allies". In 1784, the Governor General promises them the land he had purchased from the Mississauga for that purpose ("the Haldimand Proclamation").
4. In 1793, Leiutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe of Upper Canada issued a patent ("the Simcoe Patent") to address uncertainties left by the Haldimand Proclamation. It also barred the Six nations from alienating land to anyone except the Crown.
At some Public Meeting or Assembly of Chiefs, Warriors and People of the said Six Nations to be held for that purpose by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Person Administering Our Government in Our Province of Upper Canada at a public meeting called for that purpose.
Six Nations' alienation to European settlers
5. The Patent, by explicitly restraining the Six Nations' power to alienate land unilaterally, exacerbated a problem. The Six nations, usually through Joseph Brant, insisted that they had the same freedom to alienate the land on the Grand River as they had had in New York. The Six nations invited non-aboriginals, especially Loyalists who had fought under Brant or who had married into the Six Nations, to take up land.
6. In 1796, after the Patent was issued, the Crown refused to ratify certain sales to individual. This resistance on the part of the Crown to allowing the Six Nations to alienate land to the individuals of their choice was a matter of deep-rooted policy: the Six Nations was not alienate their lands unilaterally in order to prevent the dissipation of the Crown's endowment.
7. Despite the Drown's policy, the Six Nations were resolved to alienate land to the individuals they chose. The government of Upper Canada was intimidated by the Six Nations' military strength. In July of 1797, in negotiations conducted according to long established protocols, the Six nations forced the crown to accept the surrender of Blocks 1-6 for the benefit of the individuals the Six nations named.
8. The Crown continued, with increasing reluctance, to accept the Six Nations' nominations of individuals to whom land should be patented. However, with the arrival of large numbers of settlers after the War of 1812, the situation became deteriorated. Europeans occupied land in the Haldimand Tract without any legal pretext, under leases or sales by individual Indians, including individual Chiefs, under leases from Joseph Brant, or under title based on a sale by the Grand Council but unconfirmed by the Crown. Often, several different "Indian titles" existed to the same plot of land. This constituted the "squatter problem".
9. On the 15th of September, 1838, Sir George Arthur, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, held a formal meeting with the Six Nations Council. The Chiefs of the Six Nations complained of the incursion of squatters, but acknowledged that they were partly responsible for the problem because they continued to make sales and leases to individual settlers. The Lieutenant Governor suggest the Six Nations might want to sell some of their land and have a "compact" colony that could be protected from unwanted incursions.
Government Action against the Intruders
10. An Act for the protection of the lands of the Crown in this Province from trespass and injury, was passed on May 11, 1839. It authorized the Lieutenant Governor to appoint Commissioners who had the power to initiate investigations, follow up complaints, summon witnesses, try cases of unlawful occupation, eject the convicted, and send to gaol any convicted squatter who returned to the lands from which he had been removed. (SN#922) Samuel Jarvis, the new Chief Superintendent of Indians Affairs, was ordered to start setting up the Commission on September 11, 1839.
11. In the summer of 1840, Jarvis sent James Gwynne to Brantford to investigate claims to report on how to achieve a final arrangement of the squatter issue. Gwynne's report of September 7, 1840, was considered at a meeting of the provincial Executive Council on 27th of November, 1840. The Council considered the problem of squatters on both the lands already surrendered in Cayuga and Dunn Townships, and the intruders on the unsurrendered lands. It concluded that the Crown should recommend a compact and homogenous reserve, with the rest of the land sold, and the proceeds deposited in the Six nations' trust account.
The Surrendered Proposal
12. Lieutenant Governor Sir George Arthur approved the Executive Council's recommendation that the Six nations be invited to make a general surrender of their remaining lands. Jarvis presented this recommendation in a letter to "a deputation of the Mohawk Chiefs' in Toronto on the 5th of January, 1841. a second letter was sent on January 15, while the Six nations' Chiefs were assembled in Council. In the letter Jarvis explained that he was recommending that the Six nations surrender their land, and pick out a reserve of approximately 20,000 acres.
13. On the 18th of January, two weeks after Jarvis' initial proposal for a comprehensive surrender, the Council assented to the proposal, but insisted on one change: the Johnson settlement was to be excepted from the surrender.
Responses to the January 18, 1841 assent to the Crown's Surrender Proposal
14. The first major subject of controversy to arise after January 18 was location of the reserve to be created under the surrender proposal. By the beginning of February, however, a second issue began to emerge as a result of the January 18 assent: a challenge to the legitimacy to the assent itself. The petition was an indictment of Jarvis and his conduct of the negotiations. It claimed that
• The great majority of the Chiefs were ignorant of Jarvis' intentions, or refused to sign the document, • The signatory Chiefs did not have authority from the great majority of the Six Nations to sign any document for them, • The Six Nations had been given insufficient time to consider, • Many of the Six nations had never heard the surrender was in contemplation under the assent had been given.
15. Petitions for and against the assent were sent to the government.
16. On the 7th of July 1841, a petition signed by 124 members of the Six nations was dispatched. The petitioners insisted that they were not a collection of individuals but spoke on behalf of the Six Nations. The petition made it clear that the central objection was not the idea of a general surrender, but to Jarvis' conduct. The signatories also wanted to reopen the terms of the proposal.
17. The petition was referred to T.W.C. Murdoch, the governor General's Civil Secretary. On the 31st of July, 1841, Murdoch wrote his report. He outlined the various accusations against Jarvis' conduct, and described the strong possibility that the petitions against the surrender were promoted by land speculators, who hoped to gain a claim to land at low prices by making private deals with the Six nations. Murdoch concluded that there was no compulsion used, and the Indians had fully understood the nature of the transaction proposed.
18. Murdoch's judgment was entirely consistent with the latest Instructions the Colonial office had sent out for surrenders in Upper Canada. On August 22, 1838, Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, sent a dispatch to Sir George Arthur, Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, providing him with "General principles by which … the Executive Government should be guided in its Treatment of the Indian Tribes". He wrote:
Their Locations .. [should be] inalienable either by the Tribe or any occupant without the joint concurrence of the lieutenant Governor for the time being, the principle Chief of the Settlement, and the resident Mission or Missionaries.
19. However, the context in which Lord Glenelg's direction was given was clearly and explicitly one which delegated Sir Arthur the discretion to adopt this procedure, or some other:
I do not attempt to give you any detailed instructions on the Subject, since I am aware that for the preparation of such Instructions an acquaintance with many local circumstances … would be indispensable. But I commit to your hands the task of carrying out the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter…
Locating the reserve, 1842-1843
20. Different elements within the Six Nations sent petitions and made representations about what should be included in the reserve and where the main reserve should be located. Finally, the "Chiefs and Sachems of the Six nations … being assembled at our General Council Fire" presented an Address, dated 24 June, 1843, to Sir Charles Metcalfe, the new Governor General of the Province of Canada. The Address, signed by 144 of the Six nations' leaders, detailed the territories the Six nations desired to exempt from the general surrender. The lands consisted of:
• The lands making up "the Oxbow". "Eagle's Next", "Mohawk Flats" and the "Johnson Settlement" in Brantford Township. The Crown could, however, let these lands out on short leases. • All the land on the south side of the Grand River between Cayuga Township and Burtch's landing, with the exception of the lots on either side of the contemplated Hamilton-Port Dover Plant road. These lots, the Plank Road Lands were excluded from the reserve so they could be sold and the money placed in the Six nations' Trust. (In modern terms this would include all of Tuscarora Township, a portion of Brantford township on the south side of the river, the portion of Oneida Township to the east of the eastern tier of the Plank Road Lands and the portion of Oneida Township to the west of the western tier of the Plan Road Lands. Douglas Creek Estates are in the western tier of the Plank Road Lands, and thus excluded from the reserve set out in 1843.) • The lot at Tuscarora (in Onondaga township) where one of the Six nations' churches had been built.
21. the Executive Council adopted the entirety of the chiefs' proposal. On October 46th, 1843, Metcalfe signified his assent to the Council's report.
Final Settlement of the Plank Road Lands boundary, 1844
22. It is not clear from the documentary record whether a particular series of events or simply the government's apprehensions about future problems led to the appointment of David Thorburn on September 18, 1844. Thorburn was appointed as "Commissioner for the adjustment of several questions connected with the affairs of the Six nations Indians.
23. Thorburn was to propose to the Six Nations:
• A reserve of 55,000 acres on the south side of the Grand River; • That all lands outside the reserve be sold for the benefit of the Six Nations; • Equitable treatment of settlers without legal title; and • The protection of timber on unsold land.
24. These instructions were not, however rigid, and thorburn was to adaptthem to the Six nations' wishes.
25. Thorburn invited the chiefs to assemble in Council. On October 17, 1844 at the Mission School House in Onondaga Thorburn then presented the Governor's proposal by asking two questions:
What is [six] your real wishes in regard to the quantity of land to be Reserved for your future residence, the same to form a compact territory as far as possible in the South side of the Grand River …
What are [sic] your wish in regard to the Selling or Leasing of the Lands of which the Oxbow Eagles Next Martins Settlement and Johnston Settlement are Composed.
26. Thorburn met again with the Council on the 24th. There is no record of the content of these discussions. On October 31, the Council assembled again in the Council House. The 41 chiefs present replied on October 31, 1844. in reply to the first question, they declared:
That they desire for their future residence all the lands from the Dceded lands at Burches Landing downward to the Plank Road including the Plank Road Lots from the River at the Caledonia bridge to the Walpole Townline that us the lots on the west side of the said road kept.
27. this constituted two major changes from the reserve established in 1843: the Six nations were surrendering for sale the parts of Oneida township to the east of the Plank Road, but now wanted to keep the west tier fo the Plank Road lands.
28. On December 13, 1844, Thorburn again asked the Council to meeting. All the traditional formalities of Crown-Six Nations relations were observed. The Council was opened by Chief Echo, the Fire Keeper. When the Chiefs were ready, they invited Thorburn to address them. Thorburn presented the Crown's proposal orally through an interpreter. Then, "numerous Interagators [sic] and Explanations took place". The Chiefs than requested an adjournment so they could consider the written "minute of submission" and the map of the proposed reserve in Tuscarora.
29. the Council rassembled on December 18. Again, the formalities were observed. Henry Brant, a Mohawk Chief had been appointed to give the Council's answer. Discussion was renewed. Again, Thorburn asked what land the Six nations wanted as their reserve. This time the Chiefs replied:
The Lands on the South side of the River from that which is Dceded at Burtchs Landing down to the West side of the Plank Road Except the tier of Lots adjoining the said Road as previously reserved and Confirmed by orders in Council of the 4th Oct. 1843.
30. On December 24, 1844 Thorburn summarized the outcome of these negotiations as part failure and part success. He had failed to persuade the Six Nations to accept a reserve confined to Tuscarora Township. He had, however, persuaded them to abandon "the tier of lots bordering the west side of the Plank Road".
31. Incontroverible evidence of the acceptance of the surrender for sale of the Plank Road Lands, including Douglas Creek Estates comes from both the government and Six Nations.
32. On January 14, 1845, the Drown lands Department issued a public notice "By Command of His Excellency The Governor General":
Those lots situated on either side of the Plank Road in the Township of Oneida, alluded to in the notice published in march last, are now open for Sale.
33. The Notice was signed by D-B. Papineau, the Commissioner of Crown lands in the Executive Council.
34. On February 18, 1846, "the Chiefs of the Six nations Indians, in General Council Assembled" submitted a petition to the new Governor General, earl Cathcart. The Petition protested against the government's attempt to reopen the question of the reserve's western boundary, Burtch's Tract in Brantford Township. The petition recited the Chiefs in General Council's understanding of what they had surrendered. It confirms they understood and agreed to the surrender of the Plank Road Lands, including what is now the Douglas Creek Estates:
That at the same General Council, Mr. Thorburn, on the part of the government, agreed with the assembled chiefs, that all the Indian land, which is situated on the South side of the Grand River between the Plank Road in the Township of Oneida and Burtch's landing in the Township of Brantford (with the exception of one tier of lots contiguous to the Plank Road) …should be reserved from sale for the future Settlement of the Six Nations.
35. The Chiefs in Council thus confirmed that in 1844 they had surrendered the Plank Road Lands on both sides of the road, including what is now the Douglas Creek Estates.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Dec 21, 2006 10:34:30 GMT -5
MNN Response to Canada's Position on the History of the Surrender of the Plank Road Lands (including the Douglas Creek Estates).
Based on Narrative of Michael McCulloch to the Plant Road Lands Side Table, November 3, 2006, Department of Justice Canada .
Nov. 12, 2006.
1.The abovenoted document (attached) written by Michael McCulloch pretends to represent Canada 's position on the surrender of the Plank Road Lands which include the area known as Douglas Estates that was being prepared for non-native commercial exploitation. Canada 's position has allegedly been summarized by Michael McCulloch. We note that this has not been discussed in public by authorized representatives of the Canadian people. What is his position in the Department of Justice? What is his authority for claiming to represent the Canadian people? How many different people are we going to be confronted with who claim to represent Canada ? We have no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. McCulloch actually represents Canada . Until such evidence is provided, there are no grounds for talking to him.
2.Even if Mr. McCulloch was an authorized representative of the Canadian people, his position is based on a lot of misrepresentation concerning the historical record. He does not provide any evidence to back his allegations. This is not the proper way to reconstruct history. If the Canadian people want to found their position on history, it needs to be properly researched and fully documented.
3.We cannot clear up the misconceptions that exist between Mr. McCulloch's way of looking at the issues and ours because he has provided no evidence. This is thoroughly improper. A court would not accept this approach. Why does he expect us to?
4. His "narrative" is based on the false assumption that the Six Nations was able to fully alienate land to the Crown or to anyone else. As Tecumseh said, "You can't sell the land anymore than you can sell the air". We do not have European style property rights. We have never treated the environment as a commodity that can be carved up and sold with no regard for the continuity of our people. Those of us who are living are like "trustees" of the land for the unborn generations. This is the way it has always been. We cannot pass on to someone else what we do not own. Our ancestors could only give the colonists limited rights of occupancy. This is something the colonists don't understand. They think that granting limited land rights meant relinquishing everything, including our political sovereignty. If we went to England and bought some land, it would not become Mohawk territory. Why do they think that when they came onto our land we gave the visitors some rights to stay and own everything? This approach is very strange. Especially since equality before the law is supposed to be a valued principle in the visitor's culture.
5.According to the principles of British law, the Haldimand Proclamation is evidence of Britain 's recognition that the Six Nations are the legal possessors of the Grand River territory. The fact that other people are occupying or squatting on much of our land, legally or otherwise, does not affect our underlying possession. Possession is not the same as occupation. Mr. McCulloch seems to think that a right of occupancy is the same as a right to possession. Mr. McCulloch seems to confuse these concepts.
6. Whatever Canada thinks its rights are, if it wants to found whatever its claim is on history, the Haldimand Proclamation certainly pretends to offer British protection of our Grand River territory. Please keep in mind who we needed protection from at the time. British subjects and American citizens, that's whol! We needed protections from the products of your culture. Britain, and Canada as a successor state, definitely did not respect this obligation. The numerous cessions of our land to Canada or the province of Ontario definitely did not amount to "protection" or mutual respect. Under international law a country cannot be incorporated in another country without the fully informed consent of the majority of the people in a free, fair and public decision making process. Mr. McCulloch suggests that there may be documents showing that the same standard was required by Britain . He does not have evidence that the Six Nations ever decided to become British subjects or adopt the colonial land regime. He has no evidence that there was ever a vote by the majority of the Six Nations people to join Canada or to give up any of our land. The Six Nations people have always maintained full sovereignty and property rights over our territory as described in the Proclamation. We do not recognize territorial cessions that were negotiated with improper parties that did not represent our people.
7. The Canadian courts and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples both affirm that, according to modern Canadian law, the opinion of Aboriginal peoples must be taken into account. Mr. McCulloch's narrative does not do this. It relies on a very biased view of the past based on a cherry picked selection of documents. Even under colonial law the Crown was required to prove its title in court. If it is the intention of the Canadian government to prove it has title over the Six Nations territory, this needs to be done before a neutral and independent tribunal that is mutually agreed upon.
8. Mr. McCulloch's interpretation of the historical record demonstrates his ignorance about the way our society functions. We do no operate under the command of "leaders". We, the Rotinonhsonnion:we, select representatives to speak on our behalf. We have always maintained our sovereignty when dealing with the invasion of our territory by a foreign political entity. Our politics are founded on finding fair and equitable solutions while maintaining our sovereignty. Our traditions have been severely challenged by the hegemonic and warlike behavior of the people who have invaded us.
9. In 1783 Britain betrayed its alliance with us by pretending to give us our own land. The Mississauga put you on notice that they were not the owners of the Grand River land. All the Mississauga had were the use of the land between the three lakes. The British could not purchase from them more than they had to give. The Mississauga granted Britain their limited rights so they could live with the King's people and the Six Nations as "brethren". They did not grant a right to despoil the land or to treat it as a saleable commodity. The Haldimand Proclamation represents Britain 's commitment to recognize Six Nations rights to land six miles on both sides of the Grand River . They admit this was being given in exchange for settlements lost due to our alliance with them during the Revolutionary War. Before and after the war we were an independent nation. The Haldimand Proclamation was not a "grant" of land. It was respect for our rights here and a promise to protect us and our land from encroachments on us and our posterity forever. It was written in English. The vocabulary presented Haldimand's promise on behalf of the Crown. It is written evidence of British obligations according to oral treaty arrangements between our peoples.
10. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized the independent sovereignty of the Indigenous People. The only right that Britain had was the right to negotiate with us. They promised that we would not be molested or disturbed in the possession of our lands. The Royal Proclamation reminded British subjects that "Indian land" could only be Purchased by the Crown at a public meeting or assembly of the Indians held by the governor or commander of the colony. This never happened. We never sold our land in the sense the colonists thought we did.
11. We did not participate in the Treaty of Paris 1783. The so- called cession of our land to the Americans is not legal. Britain had no authority to alienate our land. That treaty could only validly describe arrangements within the colonial society to keep a border between those who chose to remain British subjects and those who chose to reject subject status. That treaty had no legal capacity to affect our rights. We were never British subjects. The British crown's policy on Loyalists concerns the crown's internal administration. It does not concern us. It did not create international law or modify Six Nations law. The British Crown had absolutely no authority to make laws for us then. Canada has no authority to make laws for us now. Canada does have an obligation to make sure that it upholds the honor of the Crown and keeps its promises.
12. Mr. McCulloch pretends that Simcoe issued a Patent for the Six Nations land in 1793. The document was never accepted by the Six Nations people. Thus it never became a valid deed according to British law. The Six Nations people did not accept that document because it made it sound as if we were part of the British Empire and under the British land title regime. We never agreed to join the British as anything but allies. We never accepted Simcoe's proposed patent. Thus it never became a valid legal document. Our land cannot be alienated. Even if it could, the procedures required for alienation by the British and by international law have never been met. Please remember that legal validity depended then as now on decisions being made at public meetings of the "chiefs, warriors and people".
13. Simcoe had no authority to restrain Six Nations' internal management in 1793. It is shocking to see that the so-called modern Canadian government is attempting to dictate terms of co-existence. The Six Nations were guaranteed the same rights to the land in the Grand River territory as they had in " New York State ". This guarantee has not been respected. Corrupt colonial officials meddled in our affairs and twisted them to suit their agenda which was based on the hope that we would all die out. It is shocking in this day and age to see Canada continue this genocidal policy. We have always been prepared to live together in peace. In the early days we granted some settler families the right to live on our land and make a livelihood. This right was granted for their families only. It was not saleable to others. It certainly did not represent the alienation of this land from our territory. Once again, we remind you, that if you purchase land in Barbados or Maui, it does not become part of Canada . Why do you think that when foreigners purchase land on our territory it becomes part of Canada ? The question of the legality of the purchases made does not affect our territorial rights.
14. The British Crown's opinion on business transactions within our territory is irrelevant to the validity of those transactions. One would not consider an Iraqi opinion on the internal management of Britain to be legally valid. Canadian representations concerning our internal management are similarly invalid. The Six Nations land was not "endowed" by the British Crown. As an ally, the Crown could only offer protection. We in turn frequently protected the Crown. This friendly and mutually defensive activity did not give Canada or Mr. McCulloch the right to assert "positions" on our internal management. His language makes it sound like the Crown is not willing to live up to its promises, especially when Canada continues to promote the corrupt practice of supporting intrusions on our territory.
15.British policy is completely irrelevant to the legality of our internal affairs. We do understand that you have been illegally collecting taxes from people who are squatters or tenants on our land. Where did you get the right to do this? Have you ever tried to collect taxes from people living in Germany or in the United States ? Why are you collect taxes from people living on our territory?
16.Please remember that Joseph Brant had no authority to act on our behalf. He became a British subject. Because of this he violated Wampum 58 of our law. He was appointed a "Pine Tree" Chief only. This is a ceremonial position. He was stood up to do translations. He had no voice in council. He had no right to sell or give away any of our lands. He was deposed by the Confederacy in 1805 for his treachery. By your own admission, the only way the British could know that a transaction validly represented the will of the people was to make sure it was conducted in a public meeting of the chiefs, warriors and people. Mr. McCulloch has provided no evidence that any of the so-called surrenders took place under these circumstances. You would not accept it if Rick Mercer sold Toronto [which is Six Nations land] to Britney Spears. You would not even accept it if Stephen Harper pretended to sell Toronto to George Bush. Why do you expect us to sanction illegal sales made by Joseph Brant to his buddies?
17.The chiefs have consistently complained of the incursions of the squatters onto our lands. Any actions taken in 1839 to protect our land from intruders was only necessary because Haldimand's promise was not being respected by colonial administrators. The 1840 recommendation by Crown agents to reduce the size of our land was completely illegal. It violated both the Royal Proclamation and international law. As McCulloch's report admits, the majority of the "chiefs" were ignorant of the proposal. How could it possibly be legal under those circumstances? We thought Canada was supposed to be an honorable country. How could you possibly make claims on such a fraudulent basis?
18. the opinion of the Governor General's Civil Secretary, T.W.C. Murdoch, is not relevant to the legality of an agreement between the Six Nations people and Britain . Once again, the requirements of British law, of international law and of the Royal Proclamation were not met.
19.Mr. McCulloch admits that David Thornburn proposed the reduction to the territory of the Six Nations. He had no authority to make such an outrageous proposal. Can you think of any country in the world that would accept an external proposal to reduce their territory? Mr. McCulloch says that "The traditional formalities of the Six Nations-Crown relations were observed". What authority does he have to make this assessment? Is he trying to say he knows more about our customs and our formalities than we do? By Mr. McCulloch's admission dealings were conducted through interpreters. There is no evidence that the public was present. In other words, this is just another attempt to do an end run around firmly established legal standards.
20. Mr. McCulloch is relying on self-serving records. The land in question was within our territory. No British Governor General had any authority to offer it for sale. Once again, what would you think if President George Bush decided to sell Toronto Island to the Japanese? According to the records of our community everyone, except for a few isolated traitors, has always adamantly resisted attempts to diminish our land rights. The fact that the sale you refer to was by "command" proves it was not made with the consent of the people. The Notice was signed by Papineau, not by the people. The historical records, when looked at as a whole, proves that Indian Affairs was always trying to collect fraudulent petitions and fabricate evidence.
21.Mr. McCulloch has made a lot of assertions. He has provided no evidence. His references seem to be based on hearsay. A lot of it is obviously wrong. We don't understand why you expect us to give his personal opinions any credibility.
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
kahentinetha2@yahoo.com
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Dec 7, 2006 12:05:08 GMT -5
MNN Update TYENDINAGA: WAS WAR DECLARED AGAINST MOHAWKS AND CANADA? MNN Nov. 15, 2006.
This morning at 7:30 am some Mohawks were out spray painting over signs on the Culbertrson Tract on which is located the town of Deseronto. They were painting over the housing development signs which now read, "This is Mohawk territory", "No development here" and "This is our land" and other serious messages. All of a sudden the Canadian Army appeared with truckloads of soldiers on the east side of the boundary road. Nearby parked in an old pit were Ontario's finest, the OPP. Same old, same old! Then about 150 Mohawks appeared from out of the woods and ordered the army and police to back off quick. Within a short time they had kicked the army and police right back onto the other side of the line. Then the army took off and the OPP remained. Just this past weekend the Mohawks received assurances that there would be no development. We were informed that no permits had been issued to Tim Letch, the developer, by the mayor of Deseronto. So it looks like we were lied to again. We know our history. The colonists were repeating their same old tactics. Tim Letch, with shovel in hand, was in fact ready to start building on the tract. He and the Mayor were having a public "open house" to sell between 40 and 80 lots overlooking the Bay of Quinte: "Buy now! Hot right off the griddle. Cheap! Cheap! ['cause your title's no good!] Right on top of Mohawk land!" This put the Mohawks into a baaaad mood! "Are they kidding? We're going to stop any development. We're ready to stand up", said a seasoned veteran Rotiskenrakere. "They're playing psychological war games with us. You know what? They just declared war on us", said another. The Mohawks stopped all the traffic, except for the red and white media chopper that was flying overhead. They were there at the very time it happened, almost like it was coordinated. Were they expecting a sensational confrontation where the Mohawks were going to be roused and this would be shown worldwide? How could the army tell the news about this convoy and not tell us? By the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Canadian army has an obligations to protect us, not to attack us. One soldier almost ran over some of the people. The army was obviously attempting to provoke. The Mohawks started yelling at them excitedly to stop, "Get out of here". They knew d**n well by now that they can't run over us. Was this a set up to create a confrontational situation to declare martial law not only against the Mohawks but against whoever they please? Somebody has been told that they're going to make millions of dollars on this piece of land. It looked like someone has enough clout in Ottawa to remove Indian title and take our land with the backing of the military and police. Less than a year ago, there was military on the territory and in choppers, even landing at the airport in the Tyendinaga. That was last April 1. But the April fools are back again in November! Then soon after Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice announced that he is going to privatize all our lands. This is something they can't do. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is evidence of an oral treaty that was negotiated between Britain and many Indigenous nations. As the successor state, Canada is obliged to recognize and respect our sovereignty and land rights. Someone in Ottawa hasn't been doing their homework. It looks like they want to invite land speculators from all over the world to converge like vultures on our lands. So what happened? The Canadian government is now acting with their military and it is being done without Parliament being aware of it. We don't know where they are pretending to based the legality of their actions on. Is it being done by Prime Minister Stephen Harpers dictatorial cabinet? The army made the excuse that they had student drivers who merely took a wrong turn, straight into the disputed area. So why did they call the press? There's no such thing as a wrong turn. The road from Trenton to Deseronto is straight through Tyendinaga. One Mohawk man driving in from Kingston said he saw as many as 18 army trucks heading from Tyendinaga towards Kingston all bearing student driving placards. They needed an excuse to get the Mohawks to ambush some poor student drivers who were innocently passing by. They were hoping the Mohawks would attack them and then the soldiers could get out and shoot them. What do you think? Would they be sending student drivers through any non-native Canadian neighborhood? Why is it always open season on Indigenous people? Do they think we're "crash test" dummies? Heck! What if they were loaded with weapons and bombs hoping for a chance to use their armaments on the Mohawks? Shouldn't they know where they're going? These are the same guys that are being sent to Afghanistan and they're getting lost 30 miles from home! Are we to believe that? They ended up right at the Mohawk hot spot by accident! What a coincidence! Is this a declaration of war? Who are they trying to fool? Just yesterday Quebec Premier Jean Charest declared that Quebec is a nation. There is talk of Quebec claiming all of eastern Ontario as being part of Quebec, which is all Six Nations land. The only resistance they're getting are from Mohawks. Are they testing us to see how far they can push us? If we'll stand up for our rights? The fight between the English and the French continues on our land. Was this another test of our resolve to hang on to our sovereignty, our land and our possession? Harper seems to be using Bush's tactics on the Mohawks. Photocopy U.S. legislation and get the Canadian Parliament to rubber stamp it. Fool the public and convince them to go along with him. Send in young wet-behind-the-ears soldiers who didn't do too good in school, don't know what they're doing, can't read a map, pretend they made a mistake, and get the Indians to attack them. This justifies martial law on Indians and anybody else. Beware! Beware! Beware! There is no limit to what they can do once it's declared. Contact: janh@... Kahentinetha Horn MNN Mohawk Nation Newsposter: Thahoketoteh
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Nov 27, 2006 15:11:16 GMT -5
Ottawa must resolve Caledonia standoff Nov. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A\rticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163247918788&call_pageid=968256290204&StarSo\ urce=RSS <http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/\ Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163247918788&call_pageid=968256290204&StarS\ ource=RSS> When the architects of Confederation divvied up Canada's constitutional powers, they made the federal government responsible for "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." Their intent could not have been clearer. So it is inexcusable that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is not only letting Ontario shoulder most of the short-term costs and political heat for a long-simmering land-claim dispute in Caledonia, but also signalling that Ottawa is not solely responsible for sorting out a longer-term solution. The signs that Ottawa wants little to do with the Caledonia dispute are clear. First, federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice rudely stood up his Ontario counterpart David Ramsay on Halloween when Ramsay arrived at Prentice's Ottawa office for a scheduled meeting on the issue. Then, Prentice suggested the occupation by Six Nations protestors of a housing development south of Hamilton might not be exclusively a federal matter, because their claim to the land predates 1867, when Canada came into being. Such pettiness shows the lengths to which Ottawa will go to pass the buck on this politically sensitive issue. Rather than try to deny its legal duties, Ottawa should work with native leaders and Ontario to settle this dispute once and for all. That means accepting that Ottawa, not the province, is responsible for dealing with the underlying land claim and taking a lead role in negotiations. It also means paying a fair share of the $40 million Ontario has spent thus far to keep a volatile situation under control. The standoff in Caledonia began more than eight months ago, when Six Nations activists occupied the Douglas Creek Estates housing development, arguing the land is theirs. Their claim stems from the Haldimand Proclamation, which in 1784 granted the Six Nations a large tract of land on either side of the Grand River to reward them for their loyalty to the British during the American Revolution. They now hold only a fraction of their original grant as a result of surrenders and land transactions, for which they say they have not been properly compensated. Only one of the 29 claims they filed with the federal government between 1976 and 1984 has been settled. A legal case has been winding its way through the courts since 1994, although it is on hold during the current negotiations. Ontario has more than done its part to defuse this crisis, which has been marred by tension and violence between native and non-native residents. Provincial police have kept a careful watch over the situation from the start, although not without criticism from both sides. Ontario negotiators have been actively talking with native leaders to resolve the dispute. Queen's Park has also effectively removed the immediate cause of the protest by buying the disputed land and stopping development pending a decision on the land claim. But native protestors, angered by the tortuous proceedings, still refuse to leave the property and are digging in for the winter. Ottawa has had negotiators at the table from the start. But their political masters are undermining them by snubbing Ontario and playing games. It is time the federal government to set aside petty politics and negotiate in good faith. No one can afford for these talks to break down. Not Six Nations members, who have been waiting too long to have their grievances dealt with. Not Caledonia residents, who are the innocent victims of this standoff. And certainly not Ottawa, whose attitude risks turning Caledonia into a focal point for aboriginal anger across the country.
|
|