The myths of Caledonia

[scribblet]

So here it is, now what after a year of anarchy and breach of law.

http://tinyurl.com/28ec7t

The myths of Caledonia

There's no legal basis to the Six Nations land claim; all they had was an occupancy permit

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

[White Doors]

6 nations Indians are really from the States. Maybe we should send them back?

[Catchme]

Sounds like John Hagopian is creating myths of his own, him and Tom Flannigan it appears are about the same.

Hagopian is skewing the facts and way and over simplification does this a great disservice.

One need only read this to know how full of smoke he is:

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.

To settle and to give lands is just that!

How nice and colonistic mentality rises to the fore again, trying to strip the FN of lands they were given to settle on.

Haldimand's signature will stand and correctly so. It was a proclamation action contained in the Order-in-Council of October 4, 1843.

.

There are 14 legal frameworks under discussion.

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

In 1999, 2000 and 2001, all three Parties – the Six Nations, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada – turned from active litigation and towards talks to find common ground upon which to proceed with some form of out-of-court resolution. Since 2004, the Government of Canada has been in exploratory discussions with the Six Nations’ elected Chief and Council and the Province of Ontario to address the claims.

This timeline reflects the tremendous complexity of the factual issues that must be addressed. There are already more than 70,000 pages of material dating from the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. A full response to the Six Nations’ allegations requires a comprehensive social, political, legal and economic history of southwestern Ontario from 1784 to the present.

[M.Dancer]

They were cheated and conned out of that land fair and square......

[scribblet]

In that case you'll be willing to give your home back now and go somewhere else?

It appears that the renegade Mohawks have no claim, after all, and I guess we should just forget the 70 charges mostly against native protesters, for assault, vandalism, obstructing roadways, uttering threats and the attempted murder of on Ontario Provincial Police Officer.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...21-06f3e5f9b14b

Members of the breakaway Mohawk group behind the occupation have at best a dim grasp of the facts, coupled with unrealistic expectations of the settlement they might receive. For instance, when the squatters insisted the disputed land had never been transferred from the band to the Crown, Ottawa produced documents showing that indeed it had. To this, the squatters countered that the transfer had been meant as a lease, only, rather than a surrender of title. But federal negotiators had notes of the 1844 transfer negotiations that showed clearly the Mohawks' ancestors meant to transfer title, and furthermore fully understood the difference between a sale and a lease of land. Now, the Mohawks are insisting all this is irrelevant, because their people's leaders at the time did not have the full backing of the community for the deal, so the transfer amounts to a theft of land perpetrated by the Crown and their own elders.

-snip-

Much of the stalemate, though, stems from the unwillingness of the three official sides in the dispute to enforce the rule of law. The squatters have no standing in law to demand anything. They have not been officially delegated by the Six Nations council to act in its stead (although the council has timidly refused to assert its jurisdiction over the squatters either). And there are at least three federal court orders demanding they be removed from the subdivision.

If Ottawa, Ontario or the Mohawk council had removed the squatters last spring, it would have ended their fanciful protest. By continuing to negotiate with these deluded dead-enders, the true parties to the dispute have fed the squatters' belief in their own distorted view of events.

Until someone removes the squatters and calls a halt to negotiations, the people of Caledonia will have to live with this potentially volatile situation on their doorsteps.

[Rue]

I would never simply insert an article but I am getting so sick and tired of the deliberate legal misrepresentations denying the aboriginal legal rights to the land claims I don't think I have the energy to constantly repeat the same things over and over to the same people who write in completing twisting the true legal issues.

Please read this article and I hope this puts this latest nonsense to rest:

"Land Claims and The Six Nations in Caledonia Ontario

By Graham Darling, University of Alberta LL.B.

Land Claim

To begin a recount of the recent events plaguing Caledonia, Ontario, it is helpful to start with some basic definitions. “A land claim is a formal statement submitted to the federal and/or provincial government in which an Aboriginal community most often asserts that the Crown has not lived up to its commitments or obligations with respect to Aboriginal or treaty rights pertaining to land."[1] There are two types of claims that are referred to as land claims; comprehensive and specific claims. Comprehensive claims arise where aboriginal land claims and aboriginal rights have not been covered by a treaty or other legal means.[2] “Comprehensive claims deal with the unfinished business of treaty making in Canada.” [3] A Specific claim is a grievance that relates to an existing treaty or government obligation.[4] Twenty modern treaties have been negotiated in Canada since 1973.[5] Specific claims arise when First Nations people believe the government has not held up its end of the bargain. More than 460 specific claims have been concluded across Canada.[6]

The Federal Government’s Constitutional Powers Concerning Aboriginals

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established that treaty-making with Aboriginal peoples was the sole responsibility of the Crown. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867,[7] grants the federal government legislative power over “Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.”[8] This legislative power however, does not give the government an automatic right over the “lands reserved for Indians”.[9] Instead, there is a complex surrender system.

Aboriginal peoples can only surrender their land to the federal Crown (not the provincial Crown or anyone else) but upon surrender full title of the land passes to the provincial government. However, this rule has been altered through different agreements. In the prairie provinces, reserve lands were retained as federal lands when the other public lands were transferred to the provinces. Aside from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland (which has no reserves), provincial / federal agreements grant the federal government the right to manage, sell, and lease surrendered reserve lands. [10] This means that the federal government plays an important role when Aboriginal lands are surrendered.

The Provincial Government’s Constitutional Powers Concerning Aboriginals

“The general rule is that provincial laws apply to Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.”[11] In other words, as long as the province has the constitutional authority to pass the law, the province can make the law “applicable to Indians and on Indian reserves”.

Because the federal government has the explicit power to pass laws concerning Aboriginal peoples, the provincial authority is usually limited to laws that apply generally to everyone in the province. If the provincial law appears to apply specifically to Aboriginal peoples or to limit Aboriginal rights, the province may be stepping on the federal government’s toes and the law may be challenged as outside of the province’s constitutional powers.

Overview of the Events in Caledonia Ontario

Henco Industries acquired a plot of land in Caledonia Ontario in 1992 with the intention of building a housing subdivision. In 1995, the Six Nations Confederacy filed a lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments asserting a historical land claim that includes the proposed development.[13] The land claim goes back to 1784 when the British Crown rewarded the Six Nations for its loyalty during the American Revolution by allowing them to “take possession of and settle” 385,000 hectares of land.[14] The land formed a strip almost 20 kilometers wide running alongside the Grand River. [15] The original grant was reduced in 1792 to 111,000 hectares and in subsequent years additional portions of the land were sold, surrendered, or taken away. The issue is figuring out what part of the land grant was properly surrendered by the Six Nations to the Crown for sale or lease, what portion was retained, and what portion was taken without the proper consent of the Six Nations Confederacy.

Henco industries began constructing homes on the land but on February 28, 2006, a group of Six Nations protesters moved onto the construction site and set up tents, a teepee, and a wooden building.[16] Despite an injunction ordering protesters off the site and a police raid conducted on April 20, 2006, Six Nations protesters remained on the site and erected barricades. Since the first protesters set up camp, there have been counter protests by Caledonian residents, more barricades built, barricades removed, and acts of violence and vandalism. QUOTE: The Six Nations want “meaningful negotiations to begin with the Department of Indian affairs” and want a hold put on development until their outstanding land claim is resolved.[17]END QUOTE Caledonia residents who do not support the Six Nations cause want to see order and stability in their town and are frustrated that the police and government are not resolving the dispute quickly.[18]

The Dispute in Caledonia: Provincial or Federal Responsibility

With most land transactions, the federal government does not have to be involved. Section 91(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the Province the power to legislate concerning property and civil rights within the province. This makes land transfers primarily a provincial concern. But a land claim that involves Aboriginal peoples or lands can engage both the provincial constitutional powers over property and the federal constitutional powers concerning Aboriginal people. In other words, both levels of government may potentially become involved.

When Henco industries registered the subdivision plan in July 2005, the province of Ontario guaranteed title to the property.[19] In April, Henco stated that they wanted to continue to build on the site and asserted that they "have a provincial guarantee of the title of ownership."[20] The provincial government is also responsible for policing within the province.[21] In the case of the dispute in Caledonia, policing the town and keeping the peace is a provincial concern.

In April 2006, a spokesperson for the Minister of Indian Affairs of Canada was quoted as saying that the Six Nations dispute “is not a land claims matter” and that the blockade “has nothing to do with the federal government.”[22] A March 24 press release from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada stated that Professor Michael Coyle will “undertake a fact-finding initiative related to the ongoing situation involving members of the Six Nations of the Grand River near Caledonia, Ontario.”[23] The press was able to read the confidential report and Mr. Coyle was cited as saying that the provincial and federal governments need to cooperate:

“Each takes the position that it is confident that if the Crown is liable for wrongdoing in relation to Six Nations' land claims, it is the other government that is legally responsible.” And

“It is difficult to see how the Crown will be able to reach a settlement of Six Nations' land claims unless Canada and Ontario can agree on a reasonable sharing between them.”[24]

On April 30, Former Ontario Premier David Peterson was appointed to assist with resolving the conflict. Negotiations between the provincial and federal governments and the Six Nations have been ongoing. On June 16, the Ontario government purchased the land from the developers to hold in trust until the dispute is resolved.[25] Though both the provincial and federal governments have been negotiating, Ontario Superior Court Justice David Marshall was not happy with the lack of action. On June 1, Justice Marshall said he would hold a case conference and compel the federal government to become involved in the dispute.[26] Following the issuance of orders demanding the removal of all protesters and barricades, Justice Marshall ordered that “the parties involved — including the provincial police, the attorney general of Ontario, First Nations leaders and developers” appear for a special court session to explain why his court orders were not being followed.[27]

On June 29, the provincial and federal governments as well as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy traditional government were reported to have resumed negotiating, but Justice Marshall was left wondering why the protesters had not been removed as he ordered.[28] The negotiations were expected to continue throughout the summer. [29] However, on August 8 Justice Marshall controversially ordered that all negotiations be suspended until the protesters ceased occupation of the construction site and that police should charge the Six Nations protesters for not complying with his earlier court injunction ordering them off the disputed land.[30] The Ontario government is appealing Justice Marshall’s decision. On August 25, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a stay on the injunction ordering the protesters off the land until hearing of the appeal, and allowed the negotiations to continue.[31]

Summary and Conclusions

As with most land claims, the Six Nations land dispute in Caledonia involves complex questions. Attempting to figure out what portion of the original land grant was surrendered or reclaimed by the Crown will involve looking at events over a century old. There are also questions of whether the Six Nations willingly transferred the land, whether the land was transferred by Six Nations leaders with authority to do so, and whether the proper procedures were followed. Moreover, if the land was properly transferred, did the Crown uphold its end of the bargain and discharge all of its obligations? These complex questions may explain the reluctance of government officials to get involved. What is clear is that the disputed land was at one time granted to the Six Nations and currently, someone else holds title. Further negotiations between the affected parties (including the provincial and federal governments) are necessary to begin unraveling this complicated issue."

It is absolutely intellectually dishonest to get on this post and slander the 6 Nations and suggest they have no legal claim.

[Live From China]

Please read this article and I hope this puts this latest nonsense to rest:

"Land Claims and The Six Nations in Caledonia Ontario

By Graham Darling, University of Alberta LL.B.

Why does this article put everything to rest? Why, when someone else presents a legal argument that doesn't favor the Six Nations, is it legal misrepresentation? Why is your argument accurate to the nth degree?

And I don't see any slander here.

[scribblet]

I would never simply insert an article but I am getting so sick and tired of the deliberate legal misrepresentations denying the aboriginal legal rights to the land claims I don't think I have the energy to constantly repeat the same things over and over to the same people who write in completing twisting the true legal issues.

You have no proof that it is a deliberate legal misrepresentation, the article is presenting the facts of what is happening. Simply because they don't buy into native harassment and intimidation doesn't mean they are not correct.

[Posit]

The guy that wrote the article is not a scholar, a historian or an avid reader of First Nations issues. He is lawyer with too much time on his hands that thought he would chime in on the on-going debate.

His legal representations are mere speculation and have no basis in legal reality. Take his point of the occupancy permit, for example. There was no concept of an occupancy permit at the time the British started to make settlements. If there had been you can bet that the original settlers would have to show their occupancy permits to the natives to prove there was a land cede first. Of course we all know that much of Ontario, and Canada is largely unceded territory.

This guy is getting way too much attention for just an limited opinion of the issues.

[Catchme]

I would never simply insert an article but I am getting so sick and tired of the deliberate legal misrepresentations denying the aboriginal legal rights to the land claims I don't think I have the energy to constantly repeat the same things over and over to the same people who write in completing twisting the true legal issues.

You have no proof that it is a deliberate legal misrepresentation, the article is presenting the facts of what is happening. Simply because they don't buy into native harassment and intimidation doesn't mean they are not correct.

Just reading i the Hamilton spectator article suggests that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, and no it did not presents FACTs on what is happening. It smeared and made erroneous claims.

[scribblet]

This guy is getting way too much attention for just an limited opinion of the issues.

Guess all people who write articles have too much time on their hands. - but actually Hagopian has written other articles and journals on native affairs.

Ottawa has allready told Six Nations they don't have a leg to stand on and this land claim would fail in court. (Globe and Mail back in January)

They also made their position clear in a Department of Justice report presented to Six Nations negotiators. Problem is if the truth isn't politically correct, people don't want to hear it.

Apparantly crime does pay in Ontario - http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004370.html

[Live From China]

The guy that wrote the article is not a scholar, a historian or an avid reader of First Nations issues. He is lawyer with too much time on his hands that thought he would chime in on the on-going debate.

The first sentence is irrelevant and apparently false anyway. The second sentence . . . ? I think this is just plain and simply made up. Sometimes this is known as a lie.

I'm with you, scriblett! Often the truth is politically incorrect.

[Riverwind]

Ottawa has already told Six Nations they don't have a leg to stand on and this land claim would fail in court. (Globe and Mail back in January)

Unfortunately, the current SCC tends to make up law as it goes on when it comes to aboriginals so the feds can't really afford to let it go to court.

Incidently, this a good example of how the legal system discriminates in favour of aboriginals. A group of white people would be entitled to nothing even if they could prove that their ancestors were defrauded by the government 150 years ago because of a principal called the doctrine of latches. This is a 'use or lose it' principal in law which requires someone who is wronged to enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time.

[sideshow]

Ottawa has already told Six Nations they don't have a leg to stand on and this land claim would fail in court. (Globe and Mail back in January)

Unfortunately, the current SCC tends to make up law as it goes on when it comes to aboriginals so the feds can't really afford to let it go to court.

Incidently, this a good example of how the legal system discriminates in favour of aboriginals. A group of white people would be entitled to nothing even if they could prove that their ancestors were defrauded by the government 150 years ago because of a principal called the doctrine of latches. This is a 'use or lose it' principal in law which requires someone who is wronged to enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time.

Good point. This whole land claim issue is sickening. The issue needs to be settled once for and all, country wide and then move on. How much more can society keep giving? And who should we all keep giving it to?

Settle the "debt", pass legislation to keep it that way, and stop with the handouts, special treatment, etc. If we are all to be members that are equal in society, then treat us all as equals. If there is a debt-pay it. And move on. That means EVERYONE pays taxes, no more handouts, etc.

I would rather see a lump sum payment to go towards aboriginal land claims that comes out of all of our pockets and finalize things, rather than bleed us all dry for another hundred years or so and still leave things unresolved.

[madmax]

Good point. This whole land claim issue is sickening. The issue needs to be settled once for and all, country wide and then move on.

Worked pretty good for Henco.

[madmax]

Double post deleted

[madmax]

Any posters here near Caledonia, Brantford or Hagersville ?

[Riverwind]

---

[White Doors]

Ottawa has already told Six Nations they don't have a leg to stand on and this land claim would fail in court. (Globe and Mail back in January)

Unfortunately, the current SCC tends to make up law as it goes on when it comes to aboriginals so the feds can't really afford to let it go to court.

Incidently, this a good example of how the legal system discriminates in favour of aboriginals. A group of white people would be entitled to nothing even if they could prove that their ancestors were defrauded by the government 150 years ago because of a principal called the doctrine of latches. This is a 'use or lose it' principal in law which requires someone who is wronged to enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time.

Good point. This whole land claim issue is sickening. The issue needs to be settled once for and all, country wide and then move on. How much more can society keep giving? And who should we all keep giving it to?

Settle the "debt", pass legislation to keep it that way, and stop with the handouts, special treatment, etc. If we are all to be members that are equal in society, then treat us all as equals. If there is a debt-pay it. And move on. That means EVERYONE pays taxes, no more handouts, etc.

I would rather see a lump sum payment to go towards aboriginal land claims that comes out of all of our pockets and finalize things, rather than bleed us all dry for another hundred years or so and still leave things unresolved.

Thank you! I am sick and tired of living under a racist constitution.

[madmax]

I would rather see a lump sum payment to go towards aboriginal land claims that comes out of all of our pockets and finalize things.

If we do this, should we pay them this time?

[Live From China]

One question I do have to ask is how much money has been put into caring for/acquiescing to the demands of the First Nations people of Canada. And how much additional money is this going to cost? What if some claims are simply proven to be invalid? And what if the money is simply not available?

[Posit]

The fair market value of the Six Nations land claim - 6 miles on each side of the Grand River from its source to its mouth - is over $100 billion. That doesn't include the government mis-managed trust accounts which come in at about $25 billion.

Surprise. Six Nations doesn't want the money (good for us eh?). They want the land back or equivalent land in return.

[Live From China]

Surprise. Six Nations doesn't want the money (good for us eh?). They want the land back or equivalent land in return.

Suppose their claims are ruled invalid by the courts?

Will they shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, we tried", or will they say, "Gee, I guess that's OK; afterall, we have already received millions, even billions in government money"?

[guyser]

The fair market value of the Six Nations land claim - 6 miles on each side of the Grand River from its source to its mouth - is over $100 billion. That doesn't include the government mis-managed trust accounts which come in at about $25 billion.

Surprise. Six Nations doesn't want the money (good for us eh?). They want the land back or equivalent land in return.

Why stop there...make it 200 billion , they can also have TOronto, provided of course that they pay the bills on it.

Like they will get anything near that, not even one 50th of that.

What about the people who own that land now? The buildings, the cottages....what do you propose for them?

[Posit]

Live from China asked the question.

Apparently they're not interested in evicting anyone - that's not part of the negotiations. What they do want however, is control of those lands with all Crown land handed back to them. They will manage and veto developments within their territory. Other vacant lands can be returned to them.

Sorry, the Toronto claim has already been made by the Mississauga and recognized by the federal government. They are presently in negotiations for compensation and or return of some other lands. In fact the government has already offered a good part of Kawartha Lakes in return.