jennie

I am confused about that too, but Joe has never spoken as if he was present, only as if he was reporting what someone told him. That part is not clear. If he was there, why did he not intervene? The nephews had apparently run outside to get two by fours. The facts are all still hazy. What is clarified in this account, which is information given to Kahentinetha by Elders who were there, is that there is a question of who attacked who first. I would not be second guessing the results of the police investigation at this point. Sam Gualtieri is only now well enough to tell his story, and there is a suggestion today that there is another witness who has come forward.

And what of the developers in the meantime? They KNOW their titles are not clear because they checked. They won't go ahead without approval of Six Nations Confederacy. How long should the Confederacy make them wait? Until the government resolves the land claims? No ... the developers and the Confederacy are not putting business on hold waiting for the government. Extortion is a strong word ... a libellous word. It is a word the government would NOT use about this situation, because the Confederacy is doing the government a favour. The Confederacy is saving the province a lot of time and expense by implementing this strategy without provincial consultation. That is taxpayer money that is being saved, btw.

Answer is .... Who said who had to go back where? Wasn't me.

If Israelis have to go "back" to Europe, and Americans/Canadians also have to go "back" to Europe, do we then have to retrace our steps all the way back to the modern Tanzania? What about those indigenous people? Who told you you had to go back jbg? You musta p'd somebody off.

Depends how you like your 'muster'. One is a lonely number.

Yup ... and so do the Gaultieris. Let's assume that the true facts will all be known at some point, and not pre-judge ... hmm? There is reason to at least consider the possibility that the youth acted in defense of his 14 year old brother. Your "thugs and extortionists" melodrama is a bit over the top. Doing business with the people who have title is just business. The developers know their titles are not clear. They won't wait five years for the government to tell them that. That is the whole point of the Haudenosaunee asserting jurisdiction: Because with the government involved it will literally take forever. The Confederacy lawyer, Aaron Detlor, said he was "five minutes away from an agreement with the developer" when the altercation occurred on the far side of the site (a 1 min run). The Gaultieris had arrived back at the site, but did not go to the police tape, (yes they knew the OPP had closed the site) went around back of the site instead and went into the house from the back. The two site security Six Nations youth saw someone go into the house, and ran over to check. And a very ugly scene ensued.

Mr Gaultieri has to recover enough to identify the two youths, but I have not heard of an arrest yet. Absolutely. The provincial 'Crown' has abdicated its legal "Duty to Consult'. However, I don't think Six Nations or the developers are generally complaining about that. In a case like this, though, you'd think they'd be there.

I am not a politico, but to me this seems like a curious strategy to release this at this time. An inside look at Harper and his strategy Barbara Yaffe, The Vancouver Sun Published: Saturday, September 15, 2007 A word of warning to federal Liberals: The Harper Conservatives now possess a slick campaign capability that rivals former Ontario premier Bill Davis' once-invincible Big Blue Machine. The revelation comes by way of a new book, penned by a key player in Harper's rise to power, Calgary political scientist and author Tom Flanagan. The U.S.-born Flanagan was among a handful of insiders who learned alongside Harper himself the precise combination of careful strategy, alchemy and pixie dust required to win campaigns. He calls the process "domesticated civil war." His book reviews five years, from the autumn of 2001, as the Harperites fought two leadership races, in 2002 (Canadian Alliance leadership) and 2004 (Conservative party leadership), and two federal elections, in 2004 and 2006. Through most of that period Flanagan was Harper's chief campaign organizer. In Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, he analyses how he, Harper and a small group -- almost entirely male, from Alberta, B.C. and Ontario -- laid the groundwork for the Conservative brand to replace the Liberals as Canada's natural governing party. The account reveals how incredibly complex is the effort to coax voters to make an X in the right box in that ballot booth, and gives fresh insight into why Harper has become such a controlling, media averse politician. It also explains the relationship the PM currently has with certain political players. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...c2-d75abdcf88f2

Here is the other version. The women Elders are speaking now. There is no question that this was an ugly ugly scene. 16.09.2007 11:34:39: TWO SIX NATIONS YOUTH DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM FIVE THUGS ------------------------------------------------------- MNN. Sept. 15, 2007. On September 13th at around 4:00 pm. witnesses saw non-native men running out, picking up weapons and going back into the unfinished house. Inside they had ambushed two Indigenous youth. The kids‚ backs were against the wall. They have a right to self-defense. The two youth had gone into the house. One went one way and the other went in another direction. That's when the older Indigenous boy caught the non-native man beating his younger brother. The OPP had stopped construction that morning at 9:00 am. Meetings were going on between the Six Nations and the "Crown" that afternoon about the land. Stirling construction was illegally building houses on Six Nations land. It is worth noting that the Ontario Provincial Police were there throughout the incident "to maintain the peace". They had not verified that all workers had left or that the area was secure. They stood by and watched the non-native men go into the house with clubs. They did not help the two Indigenous youths who were being attacked inside. The OPP admitted, "We were caught off guard". Or they were using their discretion not to intervene! Apparently two Indigenous youth had entered the "empty" building and surprised the non-natives who were inside. It was the Gualtieri brothers, Sam and Joe, and their three nephews. They started to beat one of the youth, a very young teenager. The older youth walked in and found Sam Gualtieri had his young brother against the wall with a bar pressed across his throat, ready to kill him. He grabbed whatever he could find to save his young brother. Joe Gualtieri watched as his partner in crime Sam took a beating. These burly guys and their nephews were over confident. They had numbers, strength and weight on their side, while the kids were fighting for their lives. The Gualtieris said they were just checking on the "home" which was behind the Six Nations blockade. They stated they were merely "protecting each other" from the boys. Then the Gualtieri stated that the two boys invited them "to have a [schoolyard] fight". "When you enter into a fight willingly, it isn't an assault, is it?" What about when a fight is provoked? http://mohawknationnews.com/news/singlenew...&newsnr=529

geoffrey, I must say this is a disgusting statement.

With respect, Joe Gaultieri was not at the site and his iinitial reactions were based on whatever information he had at the time. In fact, no police officers were in a position to see the altercation. Six Nations was in control of the site, having shut it down early that day. The site was 'blockaded' with yellow caution tape and all builders, developers, etc. were OUTSIDE the tape as they had been prevented from entering the site that day. Negotiation went on between the developer and Six Nations Confederacy reps, at the tape, with police standing by. The youths doing security on the site apparently saw someone approach one of the houses at the far side of the site. They ran to make sure the house was not being vandalized, etc. as no one was supposed to be behind the tape. It was Mr Gaultieri and his nephews, who had come in the back way to avoid the barricade, and to avoid the police who would have told him he could not go on the site. The rest we do not know yet, except that Mr Gaultieri ordered the youth out of the house, physically tried to pull them out of the house and a scuffle ensued which ended with him unconscious from a blow to the head with a piece of wood. One of the Six Nations youths was only 14 years old, the other somewhat older. Mr Gaultieri's nephews were also armed with two by fours. It is a very unfortunate situation and we are glad Mr Gaultieri is now improving. He is anxious to identify his 'assailants and proceed with charges. The police were summoned when the altercation took place, but they did not observe ... did not "stand by watching" the altercation take place.

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/248180 More details. Mr Gaultieri is still in serious condition. I am glad to hear the CAT scan was ok. Another update: He seems to be recovering well. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/257135

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/248180 If this link is not good, I can get the text. There were several versions, but the ones from people who were at the site were consistent with this one. I think the Spec did a good job of getting to the facts of how it came about. They know how these things get analyzed. No one defends the severity of the attack on Mr Gaultieri. What happened inside is not known, but his injuries are extremely regrettable. The police are investigating in order to lay charges, the Confederacy is cooperating, and asking the youths to come forward. It is not clear what they were doing in the house, or what happened when Mr. Gaultieri came in, apparently ahead of his nephews. When I went to the site this afternoon, the police said everyone had left.

I am just adding some comments to this op-ed. We all pray for Mr. Gaultieri. edit ... update ... Mr Gaultieri's CAT scan shows no brain damage. I believe there is still protective swelling and thus loss of speech, but there is more reason now to hope that will be temporary and will improve as the swelling goes down. RE: Revenue Sharing (from above comments about "thugs" and "blackmail") The Government approved Assembly of First Nations elected Band Chiefs are developing policy to address revenue sharing: The AFN has entered an employee interchange agreement with Encana Corporation to assist in economic research. In addition to collecting information on major projects, those existing and planned, the AFN has also studied reports from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, Mapping the Road Ahead: Finding Common Ground on Resource Revenue Sharing; the Public Policy Forum report, Sharing the Benefits; the Parliamentary Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Sharing Canada’s Prosperity - A Hand Up, Not a Handout!; and the Senate Committee’s report on Negotiation or Confrontation: It’s Canada’s Choice. The reports are supportive of exploring and considering resource revenue sharing options. As such, revenue sharing is part of the 'consultation' that the province is required to do about uses of disputed land, but the government doesn't do any consultation: The Crown in Right of Ontario has abdicated its Duty to Consult on this issue. Six Nations Confederacy has stepped up and is dealing with the land uses directly with the developers, municipalities, etc. It costs money to develop plans and implement review processes. Expenses must be covered. Small builders in the immediate area, trying to deny and delay the inevitable are the ones now running into trouble. The Mayors of the municipalities are organizing likely to put pressure on the Premier, so this will get very interesting. But why would McGuinty, or anyone, complain about a consultation process already in place with no effort on his part and no taxpayers' money involved?

Lots of people have read those documents, Riverwind. It is the legality of the various documents that is the subject of the negotiations, and most people cannot judge that just by reading them. The only thing that matters is which of those documents the government chooses to produce as valid evidence in the end. To date, they have produced no evidence of surrender of the Plank Road Tract (reclamation site), though they make a verbal claim that it was surrendered. They asked for six months to do the research, though the surrender document itself is easily available. It appears, therefore, they do not consider that document by itself to be sufficient, perhaps due to evidence that Six Nations has provided, including Council minutes recording their decisions. Assuming that a document contains the final answers is a risky business. For example, if a document stated that Joseph Brant authorized a land sale or surrender, you must ask 'Where is the document authorizing Joseph Brant to do so on behalf of the entire Confederacy for this particular property in this particular time period?' Re: "violence" The act of violence was extremely regrettable and was not condoned by the Confederacy. The Confederacy negotiator on the site was about 5 minutes away from an agreement with the developer when the incident happened out of their sight. The youths reacted badly and the builder was seriously injured. In fairness, I will also say that it appears that the builder saw the youths in the house, which bothered him. However, instead of approaching police and Confederacy leadership who were right there everywhere, he and his crew went behind the house where the police would not see them go in, and confronted them upstairs in the house. We all pray for Mr Gaultierri's complete recovery, and for justice. "extortion" Since last January when the Women Titleholders asserted rights in the Haldimand Tract, the Confederacy has been overwhelmed by developers coming to them for 'approval' of their projects in the tract. Some developers searched their titles all the way back, and acknowledged that there was no document of transfer from Six Nations to the Crown. The word quickly spread: "They are right. Our titles are not clear." And they want to do business ... now. To deal with the developers 'go-ahead' needs, the Confederacy Council has set up a Green Plan and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute to review and approve applications, asserting jurisdiction over development in their traditional territory, and no one has yet said "No", not that it would matter. This is all very consistent with land use planning and revenue sharing agreements made through treaties. They have a legal interest in the land, and a right to revenues from the land. In this case revenues are development fees. In some cases it's logging, mining, fishing, rights etc. Here the industry is rampant land development, leapfrogging the 'oopsyoumissedit-greenbelt'. Six Nations Confederacy's Green Plan is harsh about development on greenfield, especially on their current perimeter (Caledonia, Brantford). The Six Nations Confederacy Council has worked with conservation authorities, PIRGs and other environmental and citizens' groups who have approached them with their concerns about specific projects (eg Waterloo moraine). It takes a hell of a load off the province for 'consulting' or negotiating through all that with every developer. (Can you say ... never happen!) Yes it anticipates certain 'settlements' such as the right to revenue sharing (already established in treaties elsewhere). This is a go-forward now with economic development, which is linked to provincial while continuing to negotiate past debts and land. It saves a lot of time and frustration for all of us: They are just doing it. The big developers 'get it' because they respect land title. The local shoestring operators are in denial about that, and not prepared for unexpected expenses. I think the province owes them some help. However, I think extortion is a bit extreme, when Six Nations interests in the land are well known and other modern treaties include such provisions. And Dalton is ducking the issue, not saying no, maybe even said 'yes' about "the HDI". hmm. And Tory would say he'd have to speak to them firmly about that, from his Premier's chair. And Howard Hampton is sensibly hiring James Bartleman to lead fair consultations about land uses ... in his dreams of being elected Premier. Somebody better do something. There are 6 blockades in Ontario because Ontario refuses to consult about (unwelcome) provincially authorized land uses, despite their SCoC obligation to do so. Ipperwash, Caledonia, Sharbot Lake, Grassy Narrows, Tyendinaga, Big Trout Lake: All blockaded for lack of provincial consultation. hmm

The Six Nations Confederacy has responded to the current situation in Caledonia, Ontario where a group of the reserves residents chose to occupy the site of a housing project. Thursday, one of the town’s contractors that has been building two homes on the site for his daughters was severely beaten. There are two different versions however, as to just what took place that caused the beating to begin with. One version says Co-workers say the builder was trying to chase about a dozen youths off the property yesterday when he was hit with a piece of wood. But the occupiers say they were attacked and they defended themselves. The incident took place as a representative from the Confederacy was already trying to work out a deal with the developer. Today, Mohawk Chief Allen McNaughton, lead negotiator for the Six Nations Confederacy at maintable talks, strongly denounced the actions of those who were involved in the attack saying “The Confederacy sends its regrets to Mr. Gualtieri (GUL'-ter-ree) and family. The actions of a few protesters are not condoned or supported by the Confederacy.” McNaughton also said that the residents from Six Nations that went to the site were never asked to go there by his council. In the meantime, a deal has been reached with the developer of the project for demonstrators to leave the property and McNaughton said that any residents who were still at the site were there on their own. He said “The incident is being fully investigated by our people and we have been in contact with the police. It’s also expected that they will be meeting with them this evening. Chief McNaughton also asked for everyone to remain calm after it was heard that there may be demonstrations held by Caledonia residents. Mr. Gualtieri (GUL'-ter-ree) remains in hospital in serious condition.

It's not lost riverwind ... it's right where we all found it ... the privileges afforded to us by infrastructure and economy that is dependent on stolen land, stolen resources and stolen money.

I found it interesting that the Canadian Ambassador in his comments said that Canada will continue to uphold its own laws and its human rights obligations via other UN documents, because: 1) Canadian governments do NOT uphold Canadian constitutional law since they fail to consult with First Nations before approving uses of their traditional and treaty lands, causing confrontation and conflict, and 2) If Canada upholds all of its human rights obligations via UN documents, then Canada is already committed to upholding the elements of the Declaration on Indigenous Rights because it is constructed of clauses from existing human rights documents. There are no new human rights in the Declaration: It is simply a restatement of human rights we all have.

http://raven.kisikew.org/pdf/SCReport_070831.pdf Final text of the Declaration, with late African changes highlighted. Canada's late changes were extensive but did not make it into discussion. None of the opposing countries had an Indigenous person speak, agreeing that their State domestic laws and ways were better. Canada, US, NZ AUS objections made it clear that it is about protection of the government and land and resources by the military, and their right to legislatively determine Indigenous Affairs. Therein lies the problem: Self-determination means making your own decisions for your community.

I believe the province is writing the cheque for the historic wooden bridge ... the one the town was too ... unh ... cheap(?) to put new boards on so it could be used ... Six Nations private entrance to town. We have stated publicly that we have significant concerns with the wording of provisions of the Declaration such as those on: lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, member States and third parties. These are ALL issues of self-determination, and Harper refuses to let go. All over the world, Indigenous people are engaged in deadly battles for survival, as resource extraction plumbs the world's wildernesses, leaving behind environmental devastation and destruction of Indigenous economies. It really is no different here. For example, in Article 26, the document states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." This could be used by Aboriginal groups to challenge and re-open historic and present day treaties and to support claims that have already been dealt with. Hey ... if the courts deem that the legal thing to do, the government's 'position' means sh*t. That's the problem I have with Harper's opposition points: They are all open to interpretation by the courts, which is as it should be, and it is NOT his job to presuppose that or try to control or prevent that. He can't anyway. The Supreme Court takes into account UN directions, in Canadian contexts I believe. Look at the points ... "intellectual property" wtf? Harper wants to retain ownership of their brains? Similarly, some of the provisions dealing with the concept of free, prior and informed consent are too restrictive. Provisions such as Article 19 imply that the State cannot act without the consent of indigenous peoples even when such actions are matters of general policy affecting both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. YA WELL HARPER IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED ... You have a plethora of blockades all across the country, ALL because the State failed to even CONSULT as required by CANADIAN law. So, having failed to achieve any solution, the situation now is ... you have to have consent. The Declaration has already been put into effect, but it is under Canadian law. If the government fails to consult, they stop the development, mining, logging, etc. Despite Canada joining efforts with like-minded States that have a large indigenous population, our concerns with the current text were not addressed. "like-minded" second generation colonial countries.

These are Six Nations positions, same as the government has positions. The evidence is on the negotiating table. The government's evidence is pretty sparse to date. It is hard to keep up with this stuff. The government tells us nothing.

It was interesting to hear Beverly Jacobs speak after the UN session. She is a Haudenosaunee woman from Six Nations on the Grand. She said it will be important to bring the Declaration back to the negotiations table where the negotiators are currently trying to limit the discussions to Canadian domestic law, ignoring Canada's international human rights agreements. I doubt it will be forgotten.

The UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly this morning. 143 in favour, 4 opposed (likely Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Russia) 11 abstentions.

It seems to me that your complaints are about other CANADIANS having MORE rights than you. Well, as posit has said before, there is nothing that says Aboriginal people are Canadian citizens, so ask your government about that, and about 'equal rights for all Canadians': As not-quite-Canadians, Aboriginal peoples rights, land and children have been abused. Also, as I have said, these are not 'extra' rights. They are simply the same rights that we all have, except that the rights of Aboriginal peoples have not been respected, in fact have been specifically and intentionally violated in the past. Your comment "the right to claim further property from right under the feet of others" ... is a concern you should take up with your provincial government, since the integrity of the property deeds they issue to you is their responsibility. If they issued deeds for land taken without due process, to land without clear title, it is their responsibility to address your concerns. Your comment is petty, sniping, feigning ignorance. We all know the land was often taken illegally, and we all know there must be restitution: repatriation of land and compensation for loss of use. It is the law in Canada, regardless of Declaration or no Declaration. Get used to it. EUROPE has signed on to the Declaration, so you can do the research to find out if you are Indigenous.

The fact that he keeps them coralled away from the press says it all.