Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[betsy]

Land Talks Resume

But why does it says this?

"The judge wants to know why police aren't evicting native protesters from Douglas Creek Estates as he ordered."

If it had been recognized that they have a legitimate claim on the land, and therefore no longer trespassing, why would the judge insist on this? I don't know much about law so this is confusing for me.

[Riverwind]

That quote is funny. How many people get to give their opinion in a negotiation which doesnt directly afftct them. Let alone sit in on them! Their names are not mentioned anywhere in regards to ownership or sale of the land

Anyone one living next to a piece of land that could be turned into a Indian Reserve has a right to know what is going on. If the native bands want privacy then they should simply ask for fee simple title and agree to abide by any municipal zoning regulations.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Re-read Temagami's last post - then do a search on " conflict of interest "

You cant trespass on your own land Betsy - that was the point i was trying to make in the most basic way i could with the following statement -

Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???

Clearly, the judge is in no position to make a fair decision concerning his own real estate holdings - he is never goign to rule against his own financial interest - he should have been removed from the case as soon it was relised he had a financial connection.

Another hypothetical situation - the police physically remove everyone from Kahenhstaton - in the process people are going to be hurt - then the government completes negotiations and the lands are returned officially, now what? We most likely will have victims of this court order ( that was illegally issued because of the huge grey area because the government, judiciary and police are not on the same page) making claims for personal damages. The governement chose to take the matter out of the courts and into negotiation. Same as other land claims accross the country the land should have had an the immediate freeze on the development upheld, followed by a feeze on any prosecution directly or indirectly involved with the land dispute. I have nothing but respect for the OPP's decision to back off until the governement finalises the deal they are negotiating with The Confederacy. I think the OPP realise, even if the judge doesnt, that acting in haste ( ie April 20 ) is the wrong thing to do, and they will wait for a negotiated settlement before taking action with people on the site.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

River - actually they dont, they are being included as a courtesy they are not in any stretch of the imagination a legal component of this minor slice of the land claim. But now they feel they are in a position to make demands in a negotiation they have no personal financial stake in. If they are ever in the position of being forced to deal with their own real estate because of the greater land claim - then im in full agreement they have a right to be at that table ( obviously ). I dont seriously think anybody will lose their homes over this, but maybe a buy-out procedure for those people who feel they need to move is another way to go.

Maybe the negotiations will touch on this over the summer?

[Riverwind]

But now they feel they are in a position to make demands in a negotiation they have no personal financial stake in.

Anyone owning property next to a property that could be turned into an indian reservation has a financial stake. Indian reservations in urban areas generally cause the property values to drop.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

I guess i should have added " legal rights " in there.

They have the same legal rights to speak as when Henco came in, which is to say none. I thought being allowed to be present at the negotiations, ( so as to directly inform the citizens near the development ) was a pretty nice thing for the Confederacy to agree to. Same as i have absolutley no say when they build a strip mall accross the road from my house, but i have the right to move. But Hey, if i disagree with the race of my new neighbours so much maybe it is time to move. And if you think property values go down becasue your new neighbours are a different race - That Sucks too

[gc1765]

Anyone one living next to a piece of land that could be turned into a Indian Reserve has a right to know what is going on.

If peope living next to a piece of land that could be turned into a reserve have the right to have a say in how that land is developed, then shouldn't Natives have a say in how land adjacent to their reserves are developed?

Aamjiwnaang Link 1

Link 2

[Riverwind]

Same as i have absolutely no say when they build a strip mall across the road from my house

You have the right to vote for the city council that approves the development. You even have the right to run in a election to become a city councillor or mayor. Non-natives have no equivalent right when it comes to development on reserve lands. That is one of the reasons why the entire concept of 'aboriginal' land title is just another form of apartheid.

And if you think property values go down because your new neighbours are a different race - That Sucks too

It has nothing to do with race - it is a problem that exists whenever there is an absentee landlord that does not live on the property in question. However, absentee landlords can be controlled by a democratically elected city council.

[Riverwind]

If peope living next to a piece of land that could be turned into a reserve have the right to have a say in how that land is developed, then shouldn't Natives have a say in how land adjacent to their reserves are developed?

I agree that natives should have a say in development next to their lands as well. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

[gc1765]

If peope living next to a piece of land that could be turned into a reserve have the right to have a say in how that land is developed, then shouldn't Natives have a say in how land adjacent to their reserves are developed?

I agree that natives should have a say in development next to their lands as well. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

Ok, fair enough.

[betsy]

They have the same legal rights to speak as when Henco came in, which is to say none. I thought being allowed to be present at the negotiations, ( so as to directly inform the citizens near the development ) was a pretty nice thing for the Confederacy to agree to. Same as i have absolutley no say when they build a strip mall accross the road from my house, but i have the right to move. But Hey, if i disagree with the race of my new neighbours so much maybe it is time to move. And if you think property values go down becasue your new neighbours are a different race - That Sucks too

Isn't this Citizens' Alliance the very same one mentioned in the Turtle News? The ones who sided with the natives?

"An estimated 60 Caledonia residents made their way to Toronto, on Aboriginal Solidarity Day, Wednesday, to vent months of tension and frustrations. Six Nations residents have been waiting more than 200 years for a resolution to its land issues. Spokeswoman, Janie Jamieson said “I would like to thank the Caledonia Citizens’ Alliance for taking a step towards uniting, with Six Nations, to push the government to resolve land claims. It is even more significant today, because they took our fight to the Premier (Dalton McGuinty) on Aboriginal Solidarity Day.” "

So how can this be about race again?

[betsy]

Re-read Temagami's last post - then do a search on " conflict of interest "

You cant trespass on your own land Betsy - that was the point i was trying to make in the most basic way i could with the following statement -

Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???

Clearly, the judge is in no position to make a fair decision concerning his own real estate holdings - he is never goign to rule against his own financial interest - he should have been removed from the case as soon it was relised he had a financial connection.

Another hypothetical situation - the police physically remove everyone from Kahenhstaton - in the process people are going to be hurt - then the government completes negotiations and the lands are returned officially, now what? We most likely will have victims of this court order ( that was illegally issued because of the huge grey area because the government, judiciary and police are not on the same page) making claims for personal damages. The governement chose to take the matter out of the courts and into negotiation. Same as other land claims accross the country the land should have had an the immediate freeze on the development upheld, followed by a feeze on any prosecution directly or indirectly involved with the land dispute. I have nothing but respect for the OPP's decision to back off until the governement finalises the deal they are negotiating with The Confederacy. I think the OPP realise, even if the judge doesnt, that acting in haste ( ie April 20 ) is the wrong thing to do, and they will wait for a negotiated settlement before taking action with people on the site.

The link you provided said:

"Meanwhile, Justice David Marshall, of the Ontario Superior Court, expects to adjourn a court appearance today for the commissioner of the OPP, the provincial and federal attorneys general and other parties interested in the dispute until July 5 at 11 a.m.

The judge wants to know why police aren't evicting native protesters from Douglas Creek Estates as he ordered

Meanwhile, Ontario's Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay met yesterday with Ontario chiefs, including Six Nations Chief David General, in Sioux Lookout, to work out guidelines to help provincial ministries consult natives on matters related to rights protected under the constitution and treaties."

-----------------------

So the OPP not acting could just be an unsure-ness on their part related to rights protected under the constitution and treatise...not to mention trying to avoid a repeat of any Oka or incident like that Indian protester that got shot. It was mentioned in other news that this last part was what most probably why McGuinty looked undecisive about acting out on the issue.

This last paragraph of the excerpt indicate that there is a confusion about guidelines.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

LOL - Oh Betsy! You really havnt been paying attention here!

Youre asking questions to which anybody involved in this thread as you have been should already know the answers to. Im smelling troll here....*grinz* but ill trudge on....

The Citizens Allliance are the one and the same mentioned in the Turtle Island News. They do not, i repeat do not support the interests of Six Nations. At least not for the time being. They chose to go to the Toronto Legislature to put pressure on the provincial governement to make a decision on the land claim. In the assertion that the government should take action in regards to the claim - the Occupiers of the site and the CCA are in complete agreement. Their individual ideals of the end result of negotiations are opposed.

Betsy - great post from June 21, 2006 - ( i had a wonderful Solidarity Day btw ) hopefully ive reduced the level of confusion you have.... in regards to the motives of the CCA visiting the legislature

A visit to the premier does not constitute racism - saying a person of another race moving into a home would lower its value - IS.

They have the same legal rights to speak as when Henco came in, which is to say none. I thought being allowed to be present at the negotiations, ( so as to directly inform the citizens near the development ) was a pretty nice thing for the Confederacy to agree to. Same as i have absolutley no say when they build a strip mall accross the road from my house, but i have the right to move. But Hey, if i disagree with the race of my new neighbours so much maybe it is time to move. And if you think property values go down becasue your new neighbours are a different race - That Sucks too

So how can this be about race again?

[betsy]

Take a look at this article.

Significant Progress Made In Caledonia Dispute

Land Purchase Clears Way For Six Nations-Federal-Provincial Negotiations;

Addresses Concerns of Developers

TORONTO, June 16 /CNW/ - The Ontario government has signed an agreement

in principle with Henco Industries for the province to purchase the Douglas

Creek Estates property in Caledonia. The land will be held in trust until the

issues of ownership and use are determined at the Haudenosaunee/Six

Nations-Canada-Ontario Main Negotiation Table, David Ramsay, Minister

Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs announced today.

The purchase agreement responds to the needs and concerns of the

developer and supports the Main Table's work to develop recommendations on the

Douglas Creek lands. The original development plan will not proceed and the

future use of the property will be decided at the main negotiation table with

consideration of all affected communities' interests.

http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2006/16/c9917.html

-------------------------

"The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are determined"

Therefore, the question of ownership is still in dispute. So the matter has not been settled yet. That's what it says here.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Now you are resorting to using points Riverwind made weeks ago. Not sure if youre recylcing others posts, simply didnt read them, or forgot.

"The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are determined"

Therefore, the question of ownership is still in dispute. So the matter has not been settled yet. That's what it says here.

Heres a link to my original response to Riverwinds original post.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=119122

Betsy - You are closing in on current events!, the post you shadowed from River was from June 24, 2006

This article is from June 30 ( Almost New! ) , but at least it adds to previous discussions regarding UN invlovement with Native Rights

United Nations Human Rights Council overrides Canada and Russia to approve native peoples declaration

One step closer for The Declaration to become law

Aboriginal leaders feel 'betrayed' by Ottawa

United Nations Human Rights Council overrides Canada and Russia to approve native peoples declaration

Lisa Schlein - Canadian Press

Hamilton Spectator

GENEVA (Jun 30, 2006)

[sISIS note: The following mainstream news article is provided for reference only, as an example of how mainstream media treats indigenous resistance to genocide. Mainstream media often presents biased and distorted information, lacking pertinent facts and/or context. Inclusion of this article on our site should not be considered an endorsement by SISIS.]

Over the objection of Canada and Russia, the new United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a declaration to protect the rights of indigenous peoples around the world, including their land claims and resources.

By a 30-2 vote yesterday, the council approved the declaration that says indigenous people should be free from discrimination and that they have a right "to consider themselves different and to be respected as such."

Only Canada and Russia voted against it. A dozen countries abstained and three were absent.

When the tally appeared on the electronic screen, the packed conference room erupted into applause. People wept and hugged each other and smiled broadly. Louise Arbour, the UN high commissioner for human rights and a former Supreme Court of Canada justice, joined in the standing ovation.

"I'm very excited," said Willie Littlechild, an aboriginal lawyer and Treaty Six international chief from Alberta. "I'm very, very delighted and encouraged by the signal the new Human Rights Council has given the world that they are serious about addressing indigenous issues as we go forward by adopting a declaration."

The declaration goes to the UN General Assembly for final adoption in the fall. The document is not legally binding. But governments and indigenous groups point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was also not a binding document, but over time it became customary law.

Indigenous groups had hoped the declaration would be approved by consensus but Canada asked for a vote.

For those who may be new to the discussion, here are the links to the declaration :

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - full version

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - plain language

[betsy]

Now you are resorting to using points Riverwind made weeks ago. Not sure if youre recylcing others posts, simply didnt read them, or forgot.

"The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are determined"

Therefore, the question of ownership is still in dispute. So the matter has not been settled yet. That's what it says here.

Heres a link to my original response to Riverwinds original post.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=119122

Betsy - You are closing in on current events!, the post you shadowed from River was from June 24, 2006

This article is from June 30 ( Almost New! ) , but at least it adds to previous discussions regarding UN invlovement with Native Rights

Yes, I missed that part of the discussion.

Nevertheless, can you please humor me. I've also read the Dec. Of Rights you've provided (plain language only).....and still I can't find anything that would suggest that the issue of ownership reagrding Douglas Creek had been resolved.

As I understand it, this Douglass Creek issue is about the government saying it had been sold by the Natives.

[betsy]

" The document is not legally binding. But governments and indigenous groups point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was also not a binding document, but over time it became customary law.

Indigenous groups had hoped the declaration would be approved by consensus but Canada asked for a vote."

Also I'd like to highlight this part of the article you provided above.

As for the involvment of the UN, sorry but I can't say it is something I hold in high esteem.....not because of this particular issue......but for who and what they are. As far as I'm concerned, they've got no credibility and should've been scrapped or ignored. But that is for another topic.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

As I indicated with the following statement :

This article is from June 30 ( Almost New! ) , but at least it adds to previous discussions regarding UN invlovement with Native Rights

The article regarding the UN vote provided was on a new topic but to clarify, the delaration is for the rights of ALL Indigenous peoples worldwide - not just Six Nations.

I guess you missed the introduction of new information.........

Nevertheless, can you please humor me. I've also read the Dec. Of Rights you've provided (plain language only).....and still I can't find anything that would suggest that the issue of ownership reagrding Douglas Creek had been resolved.

The question was answered in my reply to Riverwind. Heres the defintion of " In Trust " since you missed the inference the first and second times. Thirds the charm eh?

' In Trust '

Law.

(1) A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.

(2) The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.

(3) The property so held.

As for the involvment of the UN, sorry but I can't say it is something I hold in high esteem.....not because of this particular issue......but for who and what they are. As far as I'm concerned, they've got no credibility and should've been scrapped or ignored. But that is for another topic.

Your opinion regarding the UN quagmires you in a minority of global proportions. Which just doesnt surprise me *smirk*

How many countries support the declaration? yeah only 30..... additionally 15 countries were not present for the vote so most liklely the actual count would be higher.

[Charles Anthony]

We may discount the United Nations but we may still abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even if they created it.

If the United Nations declared that the Earth was indeed round, would we object because it came from THEIR mouths?

Some people may look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and say that it embodies truths that simply were never before declared officially by any organization.

[betsy]

I have no problem with human rights. I think we have an idea of what human rights are, especially in the west (although they may not be perfect), and we do not need to be told by a bunch of dictators and corrupt political leaders what it is.

If the UN is composed only of 5 countries namely: Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, Iran and Canada...and the first four named countries declared torturing political prisoners is not a violation of human rights and therefore acceptable, do we buy that just because majority of the votes say so? Anyway, that's for another topic.

My take is that there is nothing about the declaration that touches the issue of Douglas Creek at all...for the dispute is about the legality of ownership.

So why the UN declaration is brought in this particular issue of Douglas Creek is still a mystery to me....or perhaps I just fail to see the connection, hence I'm asking Enskat to explain it to me.

[betsy]

The question was answered in my reply to Riverwind. Heres the defintion of " In Trust " since you missed the inference the first and second times. Thirds the charm eh?

' In Trust '

Law.

(1) A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.

(2) The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.

(3) The property so held.

yes, in trust.....but the way it was explained in and the way I understand the article I've given above it was being held "in trust" for the benefit of the developers actually....until the matter of ownership is resolved.

The legality of ownership is still in dispute.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

I dont think so Betsy.

Henco have already attempted to wash their hands of the property by accepting 12 million from the Provincial Governement. Since they are the " seller " the land is not being held in trust for them - the two situations contradict themsleves - and so do you. Im not sure if this will impact the sale of the land, but a second archaeological survey has been conducted by Willam C. Noble, B.A., Phd., Professor Emeritus of McMaster University. He has completed his report and forwarded it to the Premier.

In the report he is quoted as saying :

" I was appalled at the extent of the damage undertaken there as a result of heavy machines and questionable archaeological techniques"

" indeed, in my 46 years in the profession, this was the worst ' Archaeological Rape Job ' Ive seen "

" The number of artifacts found here shows it to be a large village, which was probably occupied for a long time "

" it appears the entire tract was scraped clean well before any archaeological work was accomplished "

The quotes are taken from an article by Jim Windle " Evidence suggests an archaeolagical coverup" found in the Tekawennake newspaper. The website www.tekanews.com is down so i couldnt provide a direct link. A search on Google may provide verification.

Does anyone have a legal opinion as to Henco's rights being dimiinished because of the misrepresentation contained in the survey they originally submitted?

-------------

Betsy - Are you now comfortable commenting on my post regarding the UN vote? I realise it is a switch in topic - but this thread has taken some twists an turns LOL - as you remeber it orginated as a discussion of peoples education of Native studies in schools. I had hoped to get an idea if there were varying levels of education on the subject, in different areas of the country. but that was short lived.

This post of yours should truly astound any who read it :

Betsy said "

I have no problem with human rights. I think we have an idea of what human rights are, especially in the west (although they may not be perfect), and we do not need to be told by a bunch of dictators and corrupt political leaders what it is.

If the UN is composed only of 5 countries namely: Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, Iran and Canada...and the first four named countries declared torturing political prisoners is not a violation of human rights and therefore acceptable, do we buy that just because majority of the votes say so? Anyway, that's for another topic "

Despite all the information provided on this forum, i dont think you truly have digested any of the Native Rights or Land Claim issues. Further, you are displaying a lack of comprehension of resources provided. As clearly stated in my link to the UN vote - it passed 30 to 2 with 12 countries not present and 3 abstaining - brings my total to 47 countries. Not 5! LOL . The 47 Countries make up the new United Nations Human Rights Council, the total countries with UN membership totals 193. ( someone please correct me if this number is wrong )

Betsy - Ive tried to introduce new information to discuss. If you dont have anything new to bring to this topsy turvy thread then dont post.

Thanks

[betsy]

I dont think so Betsy.

Henco have already attempted to wash their hands of the property by accepting 12 million from the Provincial Governement. Since they are the " seller " the land is not being held in trust for them - the two situations contradict themsleves - and so do you.

Link please.

I base my understanding on the article which link I've posted, where-in it spelt it outright why the land was purchased by the government and held "in-trust".

“The purchase agreement responds to the needs and concerns of the

Developer”

http://www.cnw.ca/en/releases/archive/June2006/16/c9917.html

Anyway whether your opinion is true or not, it's hardly relevant....since ownership is still being disputed.

[betsy]

Despite all the information provided on this forum, i dont think you truly have digested any of the Native Rights or Land Claim issues. Further, you are displaying a lack of comprehension of resources provided. As clearly stated in my link to the UN vote - it passed 30 to 2 with 12 countries not present and 3 abstaining - brings my total to 47 countries. Not 5! LOL . The 47 Countries make up the new United Nations Human Rights Council, the total countries with UN membership totals 193. ( someone please correct me if this number is wrong )

Betsy - Ive tried to introduce new information to discuss.

But your new information (which is the UN Declaration of Rights I presume) is not relevant at all with this issue about Douglas Creek land in Caledonia.

[betsy]

Further, you are displaying a lack of comprehension of resources provided. As clearly stated in my link to the UN vote - it passed 30 to 2 with 12 countries not present and 3 abstaining - brings my total to 47 countries. Not 5! LOL . The 47 Countries make up the new United Nations Human Rights Council, the total countries with UN membership totals 193. ( someone please correct me if this number is wrong )

I have admitted that perhaps I fail to see the connection between this UN Declaration of Rights and Douglas Creek land dispute. Since obviously you are vastly more informed and seem to understand the intricacies of this matter, I had asked that you explain it that I may understand what I'm unable to comprehend.

Instead of dishing out little digs of insults, just explain it to me what this new UN Declaration has to do with the Douglas Creek Caledonia land dispute.

Resorting to personal insults, instead of answering the direct question is not only negative and unproductive....but it gives the impression that hurling insults is a way of deflecting when one cannot back up a claim.