Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[jdobbin]

Certainly if the government negotiators had your attitude about letting those settlers living on the tract hang out to dry, we might very well be offering them eviction over citizenship. Fortunately, our peaceful nature, our agreement with the Crown to extend the Peace to subjects of the Crown under the Covanent Chain and our humanity towards people in a precarious circumstance propel us to search for a solution. After all is said and done we are still neighbours.....

It is very doubtful anyone's getting evicted despite your claims to the contrary. You'll just have to accept that. Nor are they likely to be clamoring for a lesser form of citizenship in the Six Nations.

I think you probably speak for no one but yourself and that's fine. However, it isn't going to change the fact that the claim is disputed and that negotiations have been going on since the 1990s.

You can peacefully protest one subdivision but the land in question are enormous and you can't be everywhere all the time. Homes will be built, roads constructed and municipal, provincial and federal government operations going on unfettered. 500,000 people will eventually be 600,000 people. And they will call themselves Canadians and will not be moving anywhere.

[granny]

We're not discussing land claims. We're discussing the safety and settlement of Canadians living on our lands. The government has already acknowledged our title to the lands and it now must deal with the problem of all the illegal and invalid deeds that non-natives hold within the tract.

The gov't argues that Six Nations legally surrendered the Grand River lands a long time ago. Furthermore, even if those lands were acquired unfairly means those lands are not treaty lands since they were a 'gift' by the crown to Six Nations. i.e. the Grand River lands are not the traditional territory of Six Nations - Six Nations people are just another group of settlers on those lands. So when you talk about booting settlers off Six Nations lands you must be referring to yourself - correct?

As I understand what Tsi said, he said "the government has already acknowledged our title to the lands". Thus while the government may have initially argued that the surrender was valid, it appears that they now accept that it was not valid, so the title to the Haldimand Tract is Six Nations'.

I think it is not accurate to say they were "just another group of settlers". The land was granted by the Queen via a royal proclamation ... the Haldimand Proclamation.

[jdobbin]

As I understand what Tsi said, he said "the government has already acknowledged our title to the lands". Thus while the government may have initially argued that the surrender was valid, it appears that they now accept that it was not valid, so the title to the Haldimand Tract is Six Nations'.

I think it is not accurate to say they were "just another group of settlers". The land was granted by the Queen via a royal proclamation ... the Haldimand Proclamation.

This, of course, is under dispute. In the mean time, 500,000 people are not about to be evicted out of their present homes.

[Riverwind]

As I understand what Tsi said, he said "the government has already acknowledged our title to the lands". Thus while the government may have initially argued that the surrender was valid, it appears that they now accept that it was not valid, so the title to the Haldimand Tract is Six Nations'.

Saga, you need to get your fact right:

This is the federal gov't position as of April 2006:

As outlined in its Statement of Defence, the Government of Canada’s position is that the Six Nations validly surrendered all the lands that are not now part of the reserve; that the Six Nations received full and fair compensation for the lands they surrendered; and, that if there is any liability, the liability related to breaches that pre-date Confederation rests with the Province of Ontario.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2006/snjsbk_e.html

[granny]

Certainly if the government negotiators had your attitude about letting those settlers living on the tract hang out to dry, we might very well be offering them eviction over citizenship. Fortunately, our peaceful nature, our agreement with the Crown to extend the Peace to subjects of the Crown under the Covanent Chain and our humanity towards people in a precarious circumstance propel us to search for a solution. After all is said and done we are still neighbours.....

It is very doubtful anyone's getting evicted despite your claims to the contrary. You'll just have to accept that. Nor are they likely to be clamoring for a lesser form of citizenship in the Six Nations.

I think you probably speak for no one but yourself and that's fine. However, it isn't going to change the fact that the claim is disputed and that negotiations have been going on since the 1990s.

You can peacefully protest one subdivision but the land in question are enormous and you can't be everywhere all the time. Homes will be built, roads constructed and municipal, provincial and federal government operations going on unfettered. 500,000 people will eventually be 600,000 people. And they will call themselves Canadians and will not be moving anywhere.

I have read that a subdivision, a pipeline and a wind farm development in the Haldimand Tract have been put on hold. Word is getting out that Six Nations has title. Developers would have to be pretty stupid to go ahead at this time, and in the process of government approvals for their projects, I think they will be informed of the risk, since the government itself knows they have ceded title to the Haldimand Tract to Six Nations.

Also, I just read in Enskat's thread that it has been revealed that the developers in Caledonia falsified their archaelogical report ... they scraped the land clean of artifacts before the study was done. I hope that message gets out too ... pretty creepy behaviour, and a crime of course, and unfortunately all too common.

Of course, the large indigenous settlement that was there for a very long time left deeper artifacts too, which are being studied now.

[jdobbin]

I have read that a subdivision, a pipeline and a wind farm development in the Haldimand Tract have been put on hold. Word is getting out that Six Nations has title. Developers would have to be pretty stupid to go ahead at this time, and in the process of government approvals for their projects, I think they will be informed of the risk, since the government itself knows they have ceded title to the Haldimand Tract to Six Nations.

Also, I just read in Enskat's thread that it has been revealed that the developers in Caledonia falsified their archaelogical report ... they scraped the land clean of artifacts before the study was done. I hope that message gets out too ... pretty creepy behaviour, and a crime of course, and unfortunately all too common.

Of course, the large indigenous settlement that was there for a very long time left deeper artifacts too, which are being studied now.

There are hundreds of other projects going on of home renovations, road construction.

Are you suggesting that all non-Natives will be evicted from Canada?

[jdobbin]

Certainly if the government negotiators had your attitude about letting those settlers living on the tract hang out to dry, we might very well be offering them eviction over citizenship. Fortunately, our peaceful nature, our agreement with the Crown to extend the Peace to subjects of the Crown under the Covanent Chain and our humanity towards people in a precarious circumstance propel us to search for a solution. After all is said and done we are still neighbours.....

Is this how Six Nations have peaceful protest?

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/peaceful/myth1.html

[jdobbin]

Please address these other concerns: Who actually speaks for the Six Nations and why all the firings?

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/peaceful/myths.html

[granny]

As I understand what Tsi said, he said "the government has already acknowledged our title to the lands". Thus while the government may have initially argued that the surrender was valid, it appears that they now accept that it was not valid, so the title to the Haldimand Tract is Six Nations'.

Saga, you need to get your fact right:

This is the federal gov't position as of April 2006:

As outlined in its Statement of Defence, the Government of Canada’s position is that the Six Nations validly surrendered all the lands that are not now part of the reserve; that the Six Nations received full and fair compensation for the lands they surrendered; and, that if there is any liability, the liability related to breaches that pre-date Confederation rests with the Province of Ontario.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2006/snjsbk_e.html

Negotiations have been in progress since April. There have been developments. Tsi is sharing with you that in negotiations, the Haudenosaunee title to the Haldimand Tract has been recognized.

[jdobbin]

Negotiations have been in progress since April. There have been developments. Tsi is sharing with you that in negotiations, the Haudenosaunee title to the Haldimand Tract has been recognized.

I have asked the moderator to determine whether you are one of the banned posters from earlier on.

[SickandTired]

Also, I just read in Enskat's thread that it has been revealed that the developers in Caledonia falsified their archaelogical report ... they scraped the land clean of artifacts before the study was done. I hope that message gets out too ... pretty creepy behaviour, and a crime of course, and unfortunately all too common.

Of course, the large indigenous settlement that was there for a very long time left deeper artifacts too, which are being studied now.

granny (aka saga) - your statement is false. The developers Henco did not falsify any archaelogical report. They did not scrape the land clean before the study was done.

The Henning’s (developers) have nothing to do with the original survey. The Archaeological Company that did the original survey worked for the Government of Ontario and reported directly to them. Henco as the developer only had to pay for the survey and they got a copy and a blessing to proceed. Once the Government clears the land for development after reviewing the Archaeological Survey Report, Henco is free to proceed. If there is any proven deficiencies in the original work and therefore blame, it is with the original Archaeological Company for not doing a proper survey (which I do not believe). Anyways, trying to villainize the Henning’s in this is WRONG and cheap petty politics.

Again, it is NOT Henco’s archaeological survey. It is the Government’s of Ontario survey. Henco is neither responsible nor accountable for the survey work and they have no control over it. Have a listen…

http://mfile.akamai.com/21069/wma/ondemand...11_15-56-57.wma

If there were any deficiencies in the original work, it would be a matter between the licensed Archaeological Survey Company, the Government of Ontario and probably with the Ontario Archaeological Society.

To undertake any kind archaeological field work in Ontario, the Ontario Heritage Act requires that a person hold a valid archaeological licence [under Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, section 48(1)], issued by the Province of Ontario.

Having a licence puts some obligations on the licence holder. He or she must report on research findings to the Province [section 65 (1)] in accordance with reporting requirements stipulated in the Act and ministry guidelines. Licence holders are also required to report all new sites found during the field work. New sites that are found are added to the Archaeological Sites Database.

More on Archaeoligical regulations can be read here…http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/culdiv/heritage/archplan.htm

[Riverwind]

Negotiations have been in progress since April. There have been developments. Tsi is sharing with you that in negotiations, the Haudenosaunee title to the Haldimand Tract has been recognized.

I know that is false. The gov't (especially a conservative gov't) would never reverse its position on such an important issue because of a few protests.

[granny]

Certainly if the government negotiators had your attitude about letting those settlers living on the tract hang out to dry, we might very well be offering them eviction over citizenship. Fortunately, our peaceful nature, our agreement with the Crown to extend the Peace to subjects of the Crown under the Covanent Chain and our humanity towards people in a precarious circumstance propel us to search for a solution. After all is said and done we are still neighbours.....

Is this how Six Nations have peaceful protest?

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/peaceful/myth1.html

The vehicles burned were their own, and were used as temporary blockades on roads, rail, etc. . All of this happened in ONE DAY, the day following the OPP raid when they erected the blockades to prevent further attacks.

wakeupcall is a tabloid style site with a personal agenda. I would not trust their news reports unless it is a link to the original source: They have falsified a news reports in the past by adding their own line to implicate someone from Six Nations incorrectly.

[granny]

Negotiations have been in progress since April. There have been developments. Tsi is sharing with you that in negotiations, the Haudenosaunee title to the Haldimand Tract has been recognized.

I know that is false. The gov't (especially a conservative gov't) would never reverse its position on such an important issue because of a few protests.

It is not because of the protests. It is because the land surrenders are not valid. Like the surrender for Toronto, it does not contain a valid description of the property, etc. The surrenders were very sloppy!

But of course the government is NOT going to go in to negotiations saying that! What you are reading on their site is just their initial negotiating position.

Apparently they have progressed beyond that... but since negotiations are ongoing, there is no public announcement yet. However, developers are getting the message, and the Haudenosaunee are certainly all aware of this development!

[Riverwind]

Apparently they have progressed beyond that... but since negotiations are ongoing, there is no public announcement yet. However, developers are getting the message.

How would you know anything about what was said behind closed doors? The gov't may have made some ambiguious statements intended to facilitate peaceful talks with the Six Nations people but that is a long way from 'acknowledging that they have title'. The Six Nations is _not_ going to get most of the land it claims back. If necessary the gov't will throw some cash at them to buy silence and will likely include some currently unowned crown land for symbolic purposes.

[SickandTired]

The governments position in 1995 in their Statement of Defence was this...

HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROADS LANDS

111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender.

112 In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under that Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844.

Douglas Creek (the current occupation) is part of this Plank Road Tract of land that was entered as a claim in 1995 (by the elected Band Council).

You can read the entire Government Statement of Defence to all the claims made by Six Nations here...

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...FileNo40695.pdf

I doubt if burning some cars and tires and beating up some camermen would drastically change the governments position as granny (aka saga) would like to believe...

[sagaagain]

Apparently they have progressed beyond that... but since negotiations are ongoing, there is no public announcement yet. However, developers are getting the message.

How would you know anything about what was said behind closed doors? The gov't may have made some ambiguious statements intended to facilitate peaceful talks with the Six Nations people but that is a long way from 'acknowledging that they have title'. The Six Nations is _not_ going to get most of the land it claims back. If necessary the gov't will throw some cash at them to buy silence and will likely include some currently unowned crown land for symbolic purposes.

You underestimate their persistence and their preparedness.

I know you do not like me blowing your biased arguments out of the water ... but somebody has to inject some reality here!

...And how would you know what I know...

From recent comments here on other boards, it is clear that negotiations are progressing quickly, and that compensation for settled lands within the Haldimand Tract is a sticky point ... which suggests that title is already established... as does the report that developers are putting projects on hold.

[sagaagain]

The governments position in 1995 in their Statement of Defence was this...

HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROADS LANDS

111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender.

112 In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under that Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844.

Douglas Creek (the current occupation) is part of this Plank Road Tract of land that was entered as a claim in 1995 (by the elected Band Council).

You can read the entire Government Statement of Defence to all the claims made by Six Nations here...

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...FileNo40695.pdf

I doubt if burning some cars and tires and beating up some camermen would drastically change the governments position as granny (aka saga) would like to believe...

They are not negotiating the 1995 claim. That was a Band Council claim for money. They are negotiating a new comprehensive claim to the entire Haldimand Tract, and self governance too. The government is not as cocky as it was in 1995 because there are new precedents in International law about what constitutes 'unlawful surrender'. For example, a surrender without a proper description of the land is unlawful; A surrender without the consent of the people is unlawful; Lands encroached are still legally theirs, etc.

The protest only brought the government to the table. It is the law that is changing the government's position.

[Riverwind]

there are new precedents in International law about what constitutes 'unlawful surrender'. For example, a surrender without a proper description of the land is unlawful; A surrender without the consent of the people is unlawful; Lands encroached are still legally theirs, etc.

International law also has a precident to allow peoples to break away from sovereign states when they clearly express their will in a referendum. So even if the Six Nations is successful in asserting its sovereignty over the land it will not be able to hold onto the land because the voting power of 500,000 or so people will always prevail over the voting power of 20,000 or so.

[sagaagain]

there are new precedents in International law about what constitutes 'unlawful surrender'. For example, a surrender without a proper description of the land is unlawful; A surrender without the consent of the people is unlawful; Lands encroached are still legally theirs, etc.

International law also has a precident to allow peoples to break away from sovereign states when they clearly express their will in a referendum. So even if the Six Nations is successful in asserting its sovereignty over the land it will not be able to hold onto the land because the voting power of 500,000 or so people will always prevail over the voting power of 20,000 or so.

I think you misunderstand ... Six Nations wants the land, not the people or the buildings. If the government compensates properly for occupied land, there will be no issue. However, judging by the position that SN is currently taking - that they will govern those areas - it appears that the government is trying to bluff its way out of compensating properly and Six Nations is clearly calling their bluff.

At least that is my take on it.

Quit banning me and you might learn more!!

[Riverwind]

I think you misunderstand ... Six Nations wants the land, not the people or the buildings. If the government compensates properly for occupied land, there will be no issue.

The land is currently occupied by non-aboriginal people which means, under international law, the country that they choose to belong to has sovereignty over those lands. Those 500,000 people are not going to move and they are not going join the Six Nations state. The Six Nations can huff and puff all they want about sovereignty but they cannot change the cold hard facts of population distribution.

The Six Nations will likely be able to negotiate cash compensation and some face saving grants of land but it will be a cold day in hell before tax money paid by the 200,000 residents of Kitchener-Waterloo will go into the Six Nation bands coffers.

[SickandTired]

They are not negotiating the 1995 claim. That was a Band Council claim for money. They are negotiating a new comprehensive claim to the entire Haldimand Tract, and self governance too. The government is not as cocky as it was in 1995 because there are new precedents in International law about what constitutes 'unlawful surrender'. For example, a surrender without a proper description of the land is unlawful; A surrender without the consent of the people is unlawful; Lands encroached are still legally theirs, etc.

The protest only brought the government to the table. It is the law that is changing the government's position.

1st-there is no evidence that has been forwarded that the surrender of the land (Grand River Tract) did not have a proper description in the governments statement of defence or anything I have seen that has been provided since then. In fact, if that is the yardstick to measure by, the original surrender of the entire tract by the Mississauga to the Crown was most definitely faulty as the land had not even been surveyed at the time of the original surrender. Therefore, the land is not Six Nations and they should leave and give it back to the Mississauga. That is the problem with the logic being espoused that no land can be surrendered to the Crown, but we want the land that the Mississauga surrendered as it is ours.

2nd, there is also evidence that the Grand River lands were surrendered with the consent of the people. This accused theft did not happen overnight. It was a matter that was debated for a number of years by Six Nations in the 1840's.

[sagaagain]

They are not negotiating the 1995 claim. That was a Band Council claim for money. They are negotiating a new comprehensive claim to the entire Haldimand Tract, and self governance too. The government is not as cocky as it was in 1995 because there are new precedents in International law about what constitutes 'unlawful surrender'. For example, a surrender without a proper description of the land is unlawful; A surrender without the consent of the people is unlawful; Lands encroached are still legally theirs, etc.

The protest only brought the government to the table. It is the law that is changing the government's position.

1st-there is no evidence that has been forwarded that the surrender of the land (Grand River Tract) did not have a proper description in the governments statement of defence or anything I have seen that has been provided since then. In fact, if that is the yardstick to measure by, the original surrender of the entire tract by the Mississauga to the Crown was most definitely faulty as the land had not even been surveyed at the time of the original surrender. Therefore, the land is not Six Nations and they should leave and give it back to the Mississauga. That is the problem with the logic being espoused that no land can be surrendered to the Crown, but we want the land that the Mississauga surrendered as it is ours.

2nd, there is also evidence that the Grand River lands were surrendered with the consent of the people. This accused theft did not happen overnight. It was a matter that was debated for a number of years by Six Nations in the 1840's.

There is no evidence outside of the negotiations where the evidence is being presented, obviously. However, some evidence is leaking out, it appears.

The 1841 surrender most definitely did not have the consent of the people. They consented to lease the land to the government to build the Plank Road, not sell it, and their protest of the 1841 surrender began in 1842.

There are guidelines in international law now that stipulate the characteristics a surrender must have in order to be valid today. Land description is one of them.

The Mississaugas were fully compensated for their lands at the time, at the going rate, and retain no claim there.

You can rail against the fates S&T ... but you'll only get a headache!

[SickandTired]

There is no evidence outside of the negotiations where the evidence is being presented, obviously. However, some evidence is leaking out, it appears.

Says you...

The 1841 surrender most definitely did not have the consent of the people. They consented to lease the land to the government to build the Plank Road, not sell it, and their protest of the 1841 surrender began in 1842.

The governments position is clear. They originally agreed to lease the land from Six Nations. Then leases were refused by Sir Head. The land question lingered until Six Nations agreed to select their protected reserve lands which excluded the Plank Road lands (including Douglas Creek Estates).

There are guidelines in international law now that stipulate the characteristics a surrender must have in order to be valid today. Land description is one of them.

The Mississaugas were fully compensated for their lands at the time, at the going rate, and retain no claim there.

You can rail against the fates S&T ... but you'll only get a headache!

There is clear evidence that the surrender of the lands by the Mississauga were not clear. The land was not surveyed before the surrender was signed - so by your definition (and some mysterious International Law that is not referenced), the Mississauga land surrender is invalid. Can't have it both ways...

From: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ (THAYENDANEGEA - Joseph Brant) "According to the original Haldimand grant, a tract of approximately two million acres, from the source to the mouth of the river and six miles deep on each side, had been given to the loyalist Six Nations Indians. Later the government claimed that a mistake had been made in the original grant in that the northern portion had never been bought from the Mississaugas and the king accordingly could not grant what he had not bought."

...and from the same site for (TEKARIHOGEN - John Brant)"They were especially anxious about the northern half of their prospective property which had a flaw in its title, this part of the tract not having been bought from its original Mississauga Ojibwa owners before Governor Haldimand made his grant – an error easily explained by the lack of proper surveys and by the general ignorance of the country in 1784. The Six Nations had always expected and hoped that a legal purchase would eventually be made for them that would set this error straight."

Anyone who wants to review evidence of Six Nations land surrenders should read MILLER v. THE KING

[1950] 1 D.L.R. 513 (also reporter: [1950] S.C.R. 168)

Supreme Court of Canada, Kerwin, Taschereau, Rand, Kellock and Locke JJ., 5 December 1949

http://library.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol05/298.html

It includes: By para. 13 of the petition of right, it is alleged that on February 5, 1798, Captnin Joseph Brant, acting under a power of attorney from certain chiefs of what were then the Five Nations Indians, in pursuance of arrangements made with the Government of Upper Canada, executed a formal surrender to the Crown of "the lands to be sold". When asked for particulars as to the nature of the deed of surrender, the suppliants delivered a copy of the grant which disclosed that the request advanced on behalf of the Five Nations Indians was that the surrender of 352,707 acres of land be accepted for the sole purpose of enabling His Majesty to grant the lands to certain named purchasers for the consideration stated in a schedule to the document.

My head is clear, but thanks for the concern...

[jdobbin]

The vehicles burned were their own, and were used as temporary blockades on roads, rail, etc. . All of this happened in ONE DAY, the day following the OPP raid when they erected the blockades to prevent further attacks.

wakeupcall is a tabloid style site with a personal agenda. I would not trust their news reports unless it is a link to the original source: They have falsified a news reports in the past by adding their own line to implicate someone from Six Nations incorrectly.

Some of their sources were linked to other wesbites. One of those sites asked who the real leadership of the Six Nations was. And why all the firings if they are united?