The myths of Caledonia

[Riverwind]

The LAW ISN'T changed. So are you going to comply with it or are you going to claim an exemption? That is the issue. Who cares if the law can be changed? The point is, it IS the law today and tomorrow.

The law is the law but you have to prove your case in court. There has been no court decision on the Haldimand tract. If there ever was a decision that gave SN a $100 billion settlement then you can bet that the law would be changed. That is why SN is much better off finding a symbolic settlement that is not going to raise the ire of 30 million people.

As to you assertion that the government holds documents concerning the sale of the lands you are wrong. All our government has said is that they think it was contained in the documents but have so far failed to meet that burden of proof.

That is your opinion - not the opinion of any court. You cannot claim that you have the 'law' on your side unless you have a court that agrees with your opinion.

I can see where that mentality comes from. What shocks me is that people like you still think the same way.

What shocks me is there are people who believe they should be entitled to something simply because of their race/DNA/ancestry. As I noted in the previous post - SN people such as yourself are no different from the feudal lords in Europe who claimed they should have special rights because of who their ancestors were. They claimed it was their 'inheritance' just like you do.

I also pointed that anyone other than aboriginals would have ZERO rights in a situation like this because too much time has passed. You should be grateful the courts and politicians are even considering the SN case. They are only doing because SN is aboriginal. So don't waste time whining about double standards. The only double standards that exist are ones that benefit SN and screw the rest of the population.

[Posit]

This is a LEGAL issue not a race issue. You have certainly tried to make it a race issue and that puts you clearly in the camps with the White Supremacists that do the same thing, Mark.

[Posit]

"I also pointed that anyone other than aboriginals would have ZERO rights in a situation like this because too much time has passed.

If this were true then Canada could not exist since the British North America Act was way past its time.

[Riverwind]

If this were true then Canada could not exist since the British North America Act was way past its time.

Nonsense. The doctrine of laches is a well established legal principal that requires people who are wronged to seek a remedy in the courts within a reasonable period of time. This is especially true if the delay was prejudicial to third parties (i.e. landholders who purchased property in good faith). The doctrine of laches is like the statute of limitations applied to civil suits. The courts would likely rule that 150 years is definitely too long for anyone other than aboriginals. However, our court system the court usually does not apply the doctrine to cases involving aboriginal claims. A clear double standard.

Before 1841, SN were spread out in a number of areas around the Haldimand Tract. The 1841 sale required SN people to move to the area near their current reserve. The leaders at the time consented to this move. This implies the 1841 sale was accepted as a legitimate translation. If it was not they should have protested at that time. That is why the doctrine of laches should apply in this case.

Yet another example of how aboriginal claims get preferential treatment in the courts is the SCC decision to accept oral tradition as evidence. This is a ridiculous move that undermines one of the important principals in the justice system. Only aboriginals are allow to ask the court to accept their word without any other supporting evidence.

This is a LEGAL issue not a race issue. You have certainly tried to make it a race issue and that puts you clearly in the camps with the White Supremacists that do the same thing, Mark.

I love it when someone demanding special treatment because of their DNA tries to call others racist. I would love to see an end to all racism in the country. However, that will never happen as long as aboriginals insist on been given special treatment because their ancestors immigrated to North America 10,000 years before the rest of us.

I probably should make it clear that I think the SN issue should be negotiated and that handing over significant pieces of land needs to be part of the final settlement. I also know that some people from SN have a more realistic understanding about what settlements are politically possible. I only start talking about changing the laws/constitution when faced with SN hot heads that actually believe that they deserve $100 billion in compensation or start ranting about how Canada does not exist.

[na85]

The Canadian government IS NOT the Crown, nor is the Province of Ontario.

Nice try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown#Oth...onwealth_Realms

[Rue]

"Laws don't have to be broken - they can be changed."

Of course I agree with the above.

"We live in a democracy which means 50%+1 of the voters can strip all of the aboriginal rights provisions out of the constitution if they wanted to."

With due respect you are legally wrong. You can't delete aboriginal legal rights with a 50% + 1 vote, more to the point all provincial governments, the federal government, our Supreme Court and the legal community in general would not allow it. Regardless of what side of the debate lawyers may be on, we all agree that

if we ignore legitimate aboriginal rights, we lose any credibility to uphold any other laws.

"Simplying placing a limit on liabilities for past injustices is sufficient."

I don't think its simple, but your point about the legal system having a limit to what it can accommodate is logical. Can't argue with logic. Ultimately the question the legal system will have to address and the aboriginal leaders and everyone else is very well aware if is what are reasonable limits to what can be compensated. The question is what is a reasonable limit. I think you relaly do need to read some leading aboriginal leaders and lawyers to understand they are well aware of the limits and with due respect in the negotiation positions I have seen presented in many claims, they have been quite reasonable-a lot more reasonable then I would be if I was them.

"You could make the moral case for a symbolic redress of past wrongs that does not impose undue hardship on people who were not responsible for the wrong."

Again we may be on opposite sides of the debate but I agree with the above comment and quite frankly I think most aboriginals do.

"However, demanding $100 billion in compensation or land equivalent goes way beyond a symbolic redress. It is really simply greed. "

Well I think the number you have come up with is inaccurate to say the least and something some angry white guys came up with to simplify the aboriginal position to make it easy for them to understand and deal with in a black and white bad versus good WWE wrestling match way.

Here is the point-any number tossed about in negotiations is just a number. Those of us who negotiate know a number is not a fixed point -its fluid and its subject to change during negotiation. Come on you have played poker enough times to know that.

In the end and there will be an end to this, the number of points agreed upon will not be the above number which was deliberately picked to inflame and make aboriginals look unreasonable.

Let me tell you what my friends who are lawyers negotiating on behalf of the feds say-aboriginals aint stupid and that is precisely the issue-they aint stupid-this attempt to demonize them or make them sound unreasonable may resonate on this post with people with preconceived notions that aboriginals are not entitled to anything-but in the real world people know the aboriginal legal arguements are based on solid precedent and are not pie in the sky.

This doomsday scenario that they want to destroy Canada and put you in the poorhouse-come on get a grip.

[Riverwind]

Well I think the number you have come up with is inaccurate to say the least and something some angry white guys came up with to simplify the aboriginal position to make it easy for them to understand and deal with in a black and white bad versus good WWE wrestling match way.

It was a SN supporter that came up with the $100 billion number. Other SN supporters have come up with $1.5 trillion as a number.

I would love to hear from SN supporters who understand the political realities of the situtation and are willing to accept a compromise. However, not many of them bother to post on this board.

[Mad_Michael]

Experience has taught me to be skeptical when people claim to know the absolute truth about a native land disputes.

That being said, regardless of the merits of the case, it is an albatross that is going to drag McGuinty's government down in November for sheer incompetance (amongst a dozen other issues I'm sure, but this one issue screams incompetance on so many levels its hard to count).

The only thing uglier than a native blockade is the desperate actions and vulgar words of those who oppose them. By pictures on the TV, I'd consider Caledonia to be one place I'd never want to live - those people make me embarrassed to be white.

[madmax]

The only thing uglier than a native blockade is the desperate actions and vulgar words of those who oppose them. By pictures on the TV, I'd consider Caledonia to be one place I'd never want to live - those people make me embarrassed to be white.

You don't know what it is like unless you live there. Those people you see on TV aren't from Caledonia. It is a guy from Richmond Hill who has no job and wants to make a name for himself and make money off his website by creating rallies and bringing in some likeminded individuals and taking over the Caledonia problems. Only they get to go home at the end of the march.

People in Caledonia have caused no troubles, but their frustrations are real and need to be addressed.

Only the turkeys make the news.

McGuintys biggest mistake has been to show how quickly one can make a sweetheart deal with Henco and then do nothing afterwards.

[madmax]

Settling a land claim is screwing millions of people? The people of Caledonia would love to see this settled sooner not later.

Depends on what you mean by 'settling the claim'. Some people in SN have much more modest demands which probably could be settled without much harm. However, the claim made on this thread is $100 billion or land equivalent.

I don't know of any six nations claim for $100 billion. I don't know anyone involved mentioning this figure. I didn't see this figure in the Spectator article. So if this figure came from some partizan website or such then, take it for what it is. If you have a valid source for this figure, I would be interested in seeing it. If it is in this thread, I am sorry I missed it.

[Riverwind]

If it is in this thread, I am sorry I missed it.

My comments in this thread were in response to Posit who posted the $100 billion number.

[Rue]

"The doctrine of laches is a well established legal principal that requires people who are wronged to seek a remedy in the courts within a reasonable period of time.".... "The courts would likely rule that 150 years is definitely too long for anyone other than aboriginals. However, our court system the court usually does not apply the doctrine to cases involving aboriginal claims. A clear double standard."

The above comment is silly. The reason why the doctrine of laches does not apply to aboriginal claims is precisely because they are continuous and uniterupte-it has nothing to do with double standards or special treatment for aboriginals it has to do with the nature of the fact that rights to aboriginal land claims are NOT rights to private property but rights conveyed in a different manner and based on a different time line.

"The 1841 sale required SN people to move to the area near their current reserve. The leaders at the time consented to this move. This implies the 1841 sale was accepted as a legitimate translation. If it was not they should have protested at that time. That is why the doctrine of laches should apply in this case."

The above is not true at all. Can we once and for all understand the basis for the current land claim and nto selectively edit out those historic facts which don't conform to this preconceived and absurd notion that if aboriginals ask for their rights to be respected and honoured that makes them racist.

Back in 1874, with the Haldimand Deed, The British Crown gave land rights as a “reward” to the Six Nations for their military service, and support of the Crown during the American Revolutionary wars. It is somewhat ironic in that the British were arrogant enough to feel the land they were giving to the aboriginals like a cookie to a dog for wagging its tail, was never their land to start with.

The point is when people discuss aboriginal land claims they start with the racist assumption that the land belonged to the Crown to start with. Not withstanding the above, if we start off with the racist assumption it was oirginally crown land, even using this racist assumption, it was still given to the aboriginals. In fact a tract of land 6 miles from either side of the Grand River, from its source to its termination at Lake Erie was what was given to the 6 Nations.

The actual land description was and I quote; “upon the Banks of the River commonly called Ours [Ouse] or Grand River. running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that Purpose Six Miles deep from each Side of the River beginning at Lake Erie, & extending in that Proportion to the Head of the said River, which them & their Posterity are to enjoy for ever."[1] This tract of land is approx. 385,000 hectares (3800 km²).”

Now you know the lovely expression “Indian Giver” well in this case use the word “Caucasian-Giver” because in 1792, the British reduced the size of the land grant to 1,110 km² or 111,000 hectares.

The British were good at that sort of thing-offering you something and then taking part or all of it back.

It is also true in 1796, the 6 Nations allowed their Chief at the time, Joseph Brant to sell off some of the land.

Then it was in 1825, the Crown decided to approach the Six Nations because they wanted to develop what was then called Plank Road and today is Highway 6.

At that time, the 6 Nations consented to leasing ahalf a mile of land on each side for the road. This was a lease. That meant title to ownership of this land never was never given by the nations to the Crown.

In 1840 the government recommended that a reserve of 8,000 hectares be established on the south side of the Grand River and the rest sold or leased and on January 18, 1841, if you believe the Crown’s version of events, the 6 Nations simply agreed to surrender for sale all the lands outside those set aside for a reserve, based on an understanding the government would sell the land and invest the money for them. What makes this version by the Crown absolutely dishonest is the fact that on both Feb. 4, 1841 and July 7, 1841 in fact the 6 nations are on public record as having petitioned against the surrender of the land and made it clear they would never have agreed to anything other then a lease.

It is also a public record and fact that in 1843, the 6 Naions petitioned the Crown stating they needed 22,000-hectares of land for a reserve and wanted to keep and lease a tier of lots on each side of Plank Road (Highway 6) as well as sother tracts of land in the Haldimand area.

It is also a fact in 1844 a document was signed by fourty-seven 6 Nations Chiefs that is in dispute as to whether it authorized the sale of land to build Plank Road or whether it only allowed a lease. It is absurd to think after the 6 Nations continually petitioned not to surrender the land, they would suddenly for no reason, sell it.

So surprise, surprise, In 1845, the Crown unilateraly sells Plank Road and its surrounding land to third parties. So get the record straight. The Crown took land it gave the 6 nations as a gift back with no explanation. Then they also decided they wanted more land so they ignore petitions by the 6 Nations stating the 6 Nations would not surrender it only lease it, and presto bango out comes a deed showing 47 of the 6 Nation Chiefs allegedly surrendering the land when the document did not say that and was clearly signed with ambiguous words that led the 6 Nations Chiefs to believe they were simply leasing not selling the land.

The Crown then illegally sold land they knew did not belong to them. Read your history, The land was taken away by the Crown using disception and misrepresentation not good faith consent and negotiations.

Then in 1848, the very land now in dispute was sold to George Marlot Ryckman for 57 pounds, 10 shillings. That is public record because there is a Crown deed documenting that.

Next in 1850 the Crown decides to pass a proclamation redefining the reserve lands as19,000 hectares. Of course the 6 Nations agreed with that, what other choice did they have at that point? Then it is in 1924 pursuant to the Indian Act a federal statute, the federal government imposed an elected government on the reserve.

We then know in 1992, Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land for a development it named Douglas Creek Estates. We then know in 1995, the Six Nations sued the federal and provincial governments over the land. We also know in 2005 the subdivision plan for Douglas Creek Estates was registered with title to the property guaranteed by the province of Ontario.

So if we appreciate facts and not fantasy or fiction, we then know the 6 Nation Claims dispute has been continuous, never interupted and in fact the cause of action for its 1995 claim relates to an incident in 1992 placing it well within the appropriate time limits for suing even if you applied the doctrine of laches which does not apply to aboriginal claims because its based on the assumption the land title was legitimately conveyed in the first place which is never the case with aboriginal claims.

This continuous prattle that aboriginals are racist because they want their legal rights honoured is patently nonsensical. Aboriginals did not make the racist assumption that land in Canada belonged to a foreign monarch, Caucasians from Britain did. That is the racist assumption.

But of course for some of us Caucasians admitting we live in a legal system based on fiction is hard. Admitting our legal system is based on illegal theft of land to start with, aint easy for some of us to grasp.

Excuse me if I understand why aboriginals laugh at me when I keep mentioning the concept crown land.

Everytime I go home I think, golly gee wiz I get to say I own a home because I work for a bank and of course once that bank sucks me dry I get to say the house is mind provided I keep in mind the land it is on belongs to Prince Willy.

[madmax]

We then know in 1992, Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land for a development it named Douglas Creek Estates. We then know in 1995, the Six Nations sued the federal and provincial governments over the land. We also know in 2005 the subdivision plan for Douglas Creek Estates was registered with title to the property guaranteed by the province of Ontario.

Great Deal for Henco.

McGuinty confirmed that the provincial government paid $15.8 million to Henco Industries when it bought the land to put it into trust until the dispute is resolved.

An additional $4 million went to builders who had begun construction on the land in question, raising the amount paid for the site to $20.9 million, McGuinty said.

[August1991]

Charges have been laid against a man in connection with a tense police standoff at city hall Saturday.

James Patrick Benson, 27, was charged following a four-hour showdown involving cops, in which a man claimed to be armed with a gun and a bomb while holed up in the municipal building's lobby.

Insp. Luch Berti said the showdown was staged over distress with a recent court ruling, with the incident beginning during a rally calling for the legalization of pot was being held near city hall.

"He knew the media would be there, he knew the police would be there, so he exercised some judgement to get some exposure," said Berti.

"He was upset and he was trying to get his voice heard -- unfortunately, he went to an outrageous criminal length."

Calgary Sun

Why such a quick resolution in one case, but not the other?

Why haven't similar charges been layed in the Caledonia case?

[Posit]

There have been charges laid and people arrested in Caledonia. for the petty crimes committed during some heated exchanges. However the occupation of the land in Caledonia is not illegal. Natives are there with the permission of the provincial government.

Further to Rue's historical statement, it is public record that the British began selling off land on either side of the Plank road at least 6 months before the Six Nations Chiefs were supposed to have signed the deal. This is a clear indication that a fraud took place.

[Riverwind]

Further to Rue's historical statement, it is public record that the British began selling off land on either side of the Plank road at least 6 months before the Six Nations Chiefs were supposed to have signed the deal. This is a clear indication that a fraud took place.

150 years ago - it should not be our problem today. No one other than aboriginals would be allowed to justify actions today based on alleged wrong doings 150 years ago.

[Posit]

150 years ago IS a problem today simply because Canada prevented natives from protesting by statute. It has only been the last 40 years or so that land claims could be dealt with. And as the government began to lose case after case in court they again have tried to manipulate the issues by requiring natives to apply to the Specific Land Claims process - where the government is judge and jury. Seeing again that even when they controlled the situation they stood to lose their cases, the government decided to use stall tactics. Negotiation is a relatively newcomer to the process and only because natives have exercised their rights (read Charter of Rights and Freedoms) to occupy and reclaim the lands in dispute.

It is up to our government to negotiate in good faith and find a resolution hat corrects the illegal actions they have taken and returns lands back to the natives. The problem isn't 150 years old. It is only about 20 years old - the time since land claims research began and the processes to recognize and adjudicate the claims came into effect.

[g_bambino]

There have been charges laid and people arrested in Caledonia. for the petty crimes committed during some heated exchanges. However the occupation of the land in Caledonia is not illegal. Natives are there with the permission of the provincial government.

That is the case now, after the Crown purchased the land from the previous owner and allowed the SN protesters to occupy the site. Prior to this the lot, and what sat on it, was private property and the occupation was indeed illegal.

Further to Rue's historical statement, it is public record that the British began selling off land on either side of the Plank road at least 6 months before the Six Nations Chiefs were supposed to have signed the deal. This is a clear indication that a fraud took place.

Unfortunately, it, if it is indeed true, is not a clear indication of anything. If it was, the whole case would have been settled months ago.

[Posit]

"Prior to this the lot, and what sat on it, was private property and the occupation was indeed illegal."

This is where you are wrong. This is a fence line dispute and in any fence line dispute the remedy is to first apply to the municipalities Fence Line Viewer Committee and failing that take it to court. In civil disputes the first thing that must be established is who the owners are and whether or not there was ever an agreement to move the fence line.

The negotiators are still stuck on who the owners are. Once that is established it will be easier to determine how it will be resolved.

However, the original occupation and the continued residency on the lands in question is not "illegal" as you say. It is one party to the dispute simply exercising their right to occupy and use the lands they believe is theirs.

As to Henco....they knew well in advance (they were warned by Six Nations) during the Development Review process that the land was under claim. They choose to ignore that notice but in the end by the government paying them off they won either way - they really had nothing to lose.....

[g_bambino]

"Prior to this the lot, and what sat on it, was private property and the occupation was indeed illegal."

This is where you are wrong. This is a fence line dispute and in any fence line dispute the remedy is to first apply to the municipalities Fence Line Viewer Committee and failing that take it to court. In civil disputes the first thing that must be established is who the owners are and whether or not there was ever an agreement to move the fence line.

The negotiators are still stuck on who the owners are. Once that is established it will be easier to determine how it will be resolved.

The current owner is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II - the site was purchased from the previous owners by the Ontario government. I imagine you mean that negotiators are stuck on who the Queen should return the lands to, if at all.

However, the original occupation and the continued residency on the lands in question is not "illegal" as you say. It is one party to the dispute simply exercising their right to occupy and use the lands they believe is theirs.

These particular protesters have a "right" to occupy and use lands they believe is theirs? Why are they allowed to skip the Fence Line Viewer Committee and court and go straight to occupation? Where is this special right spelled out?

As to Henco....they knew well in advance (they were warned by Six Nations) during the Development Review process that the land was under claim. They choose to ignore that notice but in the end by the government paying them off they won either way - they really had nothing to lose.....

Perhaps. If Henco knew there was a possibility their property would be claimed by SN, then I'm sure they knew they'd be compensated for their loss by SN or otherwise. Regardless, at that time they were the purchasers of the land and held legal title to it. In most situations one cannot simply walk in and take over if one disputes another's title to property - in other situations this is considered an act of aggression. However, this particular case seems to be somehow exempt.

[Posit]

"These particular protesters have a "right" to occupy and use lands they believe is theirs? Why are they allowed to skip the Fence Line Viewer Committee and court and go straight to occupation? Where is this special right spelled out?"

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies that the Royal Proclamation is still in effect. The ownership is in question simply because Six Nations claims to have proof that the land was never ceded and only leased. They have plenty of documentation to back that up. As well, the federal government has admitted that they do not have documentation to the contrary and that their assertion that the land was ceded comes from " a number of sources" to wit they have not yet provided to the negotiating committee.

Henco never held "clear" title to the lands. The land claim to the plot is an impediment that the local and provincial governments should have heeded. And so the Confederacy was within their rights both under the Charter and under federal statute to repossess the lands. That is common law. And the province can't purchase something that was leased, so in essence all they are able to do (and did do) was to purchase Henco's "interest" in the lands - a pay off to have Henco "go away".

The fence viewers are by passed because municipalities and provinces don't hold jurisdiction over native issues. Only the federal government has a say in the dispute. Further the government has decided that the courts are not the way to settle these matters (since it is likely they will lose most of them) and so they prefer negotiation where they can have a chance to improve the settlement above and beyond what a court might order. Nevertheless, the reclamation of lands in question lit a fire under the federal government to negotiate. Since native occupation prevents further development, the government is under pressure by developers and citizens to settle these claims once and for all. Too bad the government is still bargaining in bad faith. I forsee a long and tumultuous decade coming our way.....

[Ontario Lawyer]

The Myths of Caledonia
by John S. Hagopian

[This is the article that was originally published in the Hamilton Spectator on February 24, 2007, page A13.  In response to several criticisms of the article from readers of the Spectator, I published a rebuttal which appears on the website of the History News Network, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/38374.]

     The current impasse in Caledonia between Six Nations Indians 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 politicalluy-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 mid-nineteenth 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 short of Lake Erie, and the St. Clair River in 1615 A.D. when the French Recollets missionaries entered Ontario.  Caledonia is within this tract.  The Attiwandaron were themselves an Iroquois tribe, but were not among the Iroquois tribes that formed the Five Nations Confederacy in about 1459 A.D.  Those tribes were the Seneca, Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Oneida, who were at that time living in the Finger Lakes region of northern New York State.  The Confederacy was formed ostensibly to end the wars that had long been fought among those five tribes. The Tuscarora Indians joned the Confederacy in about 1713 to form the Six Nations Confederacy.  

     The Iroquois tribes of the Confederacy were often hostile to Iroquois tribes that were not part of the Confederacy.  In 1651, the Confederacy conquered and displaced the Attiwandarons, and the survivors were taken captive or fled southward to join other tribes in what later became the United States of America.  Thus, it was by conquest that the Six Nations acquired the Attiwandaron's land; the Six Nations were not the aboriginal occupants.  Any compensation paid today by the Ontario government for those lands is tantamount to a reward to the descendants of the marauding warriors and murderous thieves who conquired the actual aboriginal occupants.

     The Six Nations were also not the occupants of the Caledonia lands at the time that the Britisn declared sovereignty over southern Ontario.  Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (such as the Delgamuukw case) suggest that occupancy at such time can give rise to a claim of aboriginal title, providing it is exclusive occupancy that endures continuously until an aboriginal land claim is asserted.  British sovereignty over what is now southern Ontario was declared in King George's Proclamation of 1763, and was reinforced by the Quebec Act of 1774.  The Six Nations did not occupy southern Ontario at these times either.  After conquering the Attiwandaron Indians in 1651, the Iroquois Confederacy returned by the early eighteenth century to what are now American locations.  They had been driven out of southern Ontario in 1696 by the united forces of the Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Potawatomis Indians.  The Mississauga Indians later moved into southern Ontario and occupied the Grand River tract until 1784.   

     Most of the Iroquois Confederacy had supported Britain during the American Revolutionary War, and by the terms of the Treaty of Paris, the Finger Lakes homeland of the Iroquois was surrendered by Britain to America.  Thus, the Iroquois needed a new home, and Britain provided compensatory lands for them along the Grand River in 1784.  The lands were provided in an occupancy permit during the pleasure of the Crown.  No ownership rights could be given to the Six Nations because King George's Proclamation of 1763 clarified that Indians on British lands were not sovereign and could not own lands; the only rights they could be given were occupancy rights.  Thus, the Six Nations did not occupy the Caledonia lands at the time sovereignty was declared by Britain; neither did they occupy those lands exclusively or continuously, as several other tribes had filled the void.

     The third myth is that the Six Nations are the peaceable, innocent victims of exploitation by European colonizers.  The reality is that the Confederacy perpetrated many wars against other Indian tribes.  The Mohawk were particularly savage in war.  The word "Mohawk" means "man-eater" in the language of the Narraganset Indians; they practiced ritual cannibalism for centuries, as did others in the Confederacy.  Their wars were motivated by a desire to exploit the resources of neighbouring lands, to steal plunder, to take captives who would be incorporated into the Confederacy to enhance their numbers, and to monopolize commerce with European traders who offered guns, ammunition, axes, cloth and other manufactured goods in exchange for furs of trapped animals, mainly beaver.  

     The list of Iroquois conquests in lengthy. They fought and displaced the Algonquin Indians on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City in the early 1600s. The 1620s the Mohawk attacked the Mahican Indians in New York State to gain control of the trade with the Dutch at Albany.  In the 1640s, the Five Nations attacked the Huron Indians near Georgian Bay to gain control of their trade with the French.  The Jesuit priests Gabriel Lalemont and Jean de Brebeuf were tortured and killed during this raid by the Confederacy.  Also conquered and displaced were the Tionontatehronon Indians in 1649, the Erie Nation during 1654-1657, the Susquehannock in the 1670s, and the Illinois and Miami Indians in 1680.  By this time, the Five Nations were the most powerful Indian confederacy in North America.

     They continued their wars into the 18th century, fighting in Georgia and South Carolina against the Catawha and Cherokee Indians for 50 years. The Confederacy initiated war with tribes located virtually all around them, seizing land, resources, booty, and captives at every turn. In short, there was nothing innocent about the Iroquois Confederacy.

     As for the Confederacy's "exploitation" by European colonizers, the loss of their New York state homeland was justified given their participation in the Revolutionary War against the Americans. The loss of their other lands in America and in Canada was justified, given that the Confederacy had stolen these lands from other tribes by conquest.

     The fourth myth is that the Six Nations received a deed of land from Governor Haldimand of Quebec in 1784 that gave the Confederacy ownership of all lands lying 9.66 kilometres on either side of the entire length of the Grand River.  I published an academic article in a Canadian history journal titled Histoire Sociale/Social History in 1997 that debunks this myth, and presents the full context of the Six Nations land rights in the 18th century. After the British defeated the French in the "French and Indian War," Britain took control of the lands that up to 1763 had been controlled by the French. King George's Proclamation of 1763 served as the constitution for these newly claimed lands. It established Quebec as a British colony, and asserted British sovereignty over what is now Ontario.

   The Proclamation of 1763 recognized the rights of natives to continue to occupy lands in Ontario, but they had very limited land rights. Natives were not sovereign over their lands; they did not own their lands; they could not sell their lands; and they could surrender the lands only to the federal Crown. The proclamation still endures today, as it was entrenched in Canada's Constitution Act,1982.

     Haldimand issued his proclamation in 1784 in this legal context. He authorized the Six Nations to "settle upon" the lands along the Grand River. There was no mention of aboriginal sovereignty, fee simple title, or anything resembling ownership rights.  Haldimand had been directed by British officials to give lands to the Six Nations to occupy, as they had been promised this in return for their participation with Britain in the war against America. It was an occupancy permit at the pleasure of the Crown. It could be withdrawn at any time, without compensation to the Indians. The Crown had obtained a surrender of a large tract of southern Ontario lands from the Mississauga Indians earlier in that year. Part of these lands formed the Grand River tract allotted to the Six Nations. The surrender from the Mississauga extinguished all claims to aboriginal title that any native group could have asserted to these lands.

     Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada assert that subsection 35(1) of Canada's Constitution Act , 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's natives. However, the Six Nations have no aboriginal or treaty rights, as they have no aboriginal status in Ontario, and since they have not entered into treaties in respect of the Grand River lands. Haldimand's occupancy permit was not a treaty, as it was signed only by Haldimand.  As the Six Nations held only an occupancy permit before 1982, therefore the only right that the Constitution would have recognized was a right to occupancy after 1982. Thus, the constitutional rights that have been afforded to some natives by virtue of the constitution are not applicable to the Six Nations.

     Further, most of the lands Haldimand allotted to the Six Nations have since been alienated by the Six Nations to the Crown. All that remains is the formal reserve south of Brantford that was created in the mid-19th century.  The Six Nations have more substantial rights in regard to lands comprising that reserve, as the Indian Act provides that compensation must be given for any lands expropriated from it by the federal Crown. But the lands under dispute in Caledonia are not part of that reserve.

     The natives complain that the lands in question are a former native burial ground, but that argument has no legal force. Even if it had legal force, another problem arises. Given the history of the area, it can be argued that the dead are not from the Six Nations tribes alone. Even if it could be determined whose dead are buried there, does this not suggest that compensation must be given pro rata to all surviving tribes who have descendants buried at the site?

     It must be remembered that up to 1982, it was very easy to extinguish aboriginal title and native land rights in Canada. A legislature needed only to enact a statute stating that the aboriginal rights in a particular place were being extinguished. No compensation needed to be given. Further, once a reserve is created, aboriginal title is extinguished, as reserve rights are substantially different from aboriginal rights.

     Thus, the dealings in Grand River lands up to 1982 left no portion of Grand River lands eligible for a claim of aboriginal title, which would have attracted the special rights and protections afforded by virtue of subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.   No native band had the status to assert aboriginal title over these lands in light of the history of occupancy and the legal transactions. Thus the claims of the Six Nations for ownership, sovereignty, self-government or compensation are on a much different basis than the claims of other native groups elsewhere in Canada.

     Discussions in the media and among the public are tainted by the general sentiment that "the Indians have been treated badly," as if all Indians have been treated the same, and are equally deserving, and have identical histories, and have identical legal claims.    A full understanding of law and especially of history is required in order to arrive at a just resolution to native land disputes.

     As for the Six Nations assertions concerning their ancient burial ground, I think most informed observers would be surprised by what they find buried in the past.

[Dougie93]

Except, you don't have the British Army anymore to enforce any of that, Canada has dismantled its army, so the Six Nations are too much of an adversary for Canada to impose its willupon.  Too bad so sad, King George, but Canadians are too bourgeois to kill and die for the British Crown naow.

[Dougie93]

It's the NDPindian Grievance Farming Litigation Complex, and it's a brilliant strategy, because Canada is totally defenseless in the face of it, information warfare for the win, Tecumseh.

The Indians can bring Canada to its knees, by lawfare alone.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Ontario Lawyer said:

The Myths of Caledonia
by John S. Hagopian

Quite an interesting read. it puts into perspective the usual whiny tropes about the poor, innocent, gentle, land-loving natives living in the garden of Eden until the evil, warmongering whites appeared to slaughter them.

Caledonia was a disgraceful example of the spineless, hand-wringing, bleeding heart Liberal 'leadership' on this issue. McGuinty basically ordered the OPP to keep their hands off the natives no matter what they did, and instead punish anyone who protested against what they were doing. Justin Trudeau is of exactly the same mindset, unfortunately.