OPP finally act

[kengs333]

...

Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333

[AngusThermopyle]

It's about time something was done. It's also a start but there's still a long way to go before the rabble is sorted out.

Of course the usual voices will be heard proclaiming the "unfairness" of this action. For myself I'm glad to see even this small demonstration of the rule of law being utilized.

[Topaz]

One thing the people of this community must think about is this. Until the legal rights of whoever owns the land in question, I would think it would be a good idea to stop ALL construction of housing, for IF it does proof that the Six Nation does own the property, then the owners of those homes will only own the house and not the land and then the Six Nation can make you pay leasing fees to them and don't say that won't happen because it happen in B.C. So until this issue is settled, which could take a year or more, I advise everyone to have patience!!

[guyser]

One thing the people of this community must think about is this. Until the legal rights of whoever owns the land in question, I would think it would be a good idea to stop ALL construction of housing,

That is one question I have never seen answered.

Why? Why would a developer want to build there and suffer through all of this. Damn ther eis money to be made elsewhere and with less headaches.

Why would any Town approve work or allow a permit to be issued? (Ok maybe this one is a case of "Here ya go, your permits and thanks for the cheque. " and as he walks out ...snicker snicker)

And why would any father want to build a house for his daughter knowing full well at anytime her safety can be compromised?

[jennie]

hey folks,

Here's a brief update that came from talking with somebody from Six

Nations who was watching as things happened today.

As many of you know, people from Six Nations have been trying to stop a

new development on Stirling St. (about a kilometer away from the DCE

reclamation site) in Caledonia. Last Thursday when some people from Six

Nations went to stop continued development on the site, a fight broke

out between one of the developers and some Six Nations youth. The

developer ending up in the hospital and some of the youth were injured

as well.

Since that time, a group of people from Six Nations (who are not

following the leadership of the Confederacy) have been occupying the

Stirling site. The Six Nations Confederacy was negotiating with the

developer before this issue blew up in the news, and has been trying to

get the protesters to leave the site. They have also distanced

themselves from the confrontation which took place.

(An investigation of facts will be done by the Confederacy.)

Today, police came to the site and arrested nine people who refused to

leave the development for "mischief". (One person was tasered.)

About a hundred or so people from

Six Nations observed the arrests from a distance. The police blocked

off Stirling St. at Argyle Road and kept Caledonians and the media away

from the site.

This is obviously something to keep following, but it is unclear to me

if things will escalate, or if the people who were arrested have

supporters that will continue their actions.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[guyser]

Last Thursday when some people from Six

Nations went to stop continued development on the site, a fight broke

out between one of the developers and some Six Nations youth. The

developer ending up in the hospital and some of the youth were injured

as well.

And that is the rub. Maybe some "friends" could explain that being in a house that is not yours is a problem. A fight broke out? How about the truth....the dev was attacked.

Since that time, a group of people from Six Nations (who are not

following the leadership of the Confederacy) have been occupying the

Stirling site. The Six Nations Confederacy was negotiating with the

developer before this issue blew up in the news, and has been trying to

get the protesters to leave the site.

Ah, the rogue parties were not following orders? And the SN knew that and also knew they had no rep nor standing? And they knew that any violence or outburts would only hurt their cases and cement resentment against any and all SN?

And all the did was "try" to get them to leave the site?

Blew it big time huh?

Why wouldnt they call the cops themselves , at the very least it shows that the SN want to play fair and not to muddy the waters. Simple phone call, get these men out of here, they are not part of this, hell, go back the developers and ask to jointly call in the cops.

It would have shown that everyone wants to play fair.

But no. They "asked" them to leave. Funny , I would have thought they might have gone to these rogues homes and not allowed entry.

[jennie]

That is one question I have never seen answered.

Why? Why would a developer want to build there and suffer through all of this. Damn ther eis money to be made elsewhere and with less headaches.

Why would any Town approve work or allow a permit to be issued? (Ok maybe this one is a case of "Here ya go, your permits and thanks for the cheque. " and as he walks out ...snicker snicker)

And why would any father want to build a house for his daughter knowing full well at anytime her safety can be compromised?

Those are excellent questions guyser.

Especially the one about why the town approves the permits, and the province too.

The Mayors up and down the Grand are getting together to put pressure on the province, because it gives the initial approvals.

It will be interesting. They have to stop doing it now at least, though there are probably more in the pipe already.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[jbg]

Six Nations "protesters" have been arrested at the Stiriling St. site:http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/251126

A country must never let the rule of law slip, however convenient at the time.

[jennie]

And that is the rub. Maybe some "friends" could explain that being in a house that is not yours is a problem.

A fight broke out? How about the truth....the dev was attacked.

Ah, the rogue parties were not following orders? And the SN knew that and also knew they had no rep nor standing? And they knew that any violence or outburts would only hurt their cases and cement resentment against any and all SN?

And all the did was "try" to get them to leave the site?

It was not as clearcut as being in someone's house: Six Nations occupied the building site early in the morning.

The OPP closed the site to the builders and crews. They got their tools, etc and left the site for the day. The Gualtieris came back later and went in the back way, avoiding the police. The Six Nations youth doing security on the site for the day saw someone go into one of the houses on the site and went to investigate.

We haven't yet heard the full story of what happened next but there were injuries on both sides.

At that time, the Confederacy's lawyer was talking to the developer, very close to an agreement and the agreement was announced the next day.

[kengs333]

...

Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333

[ScottSA]

Jennie is surreal. I'm sure the Nazis were only in Dachau to provide maid service, and the Kmer Rouge were only in the killing fields to help the Cambodian intelligencia learn to catch bullets. What startlingly outrageous fabrications. Just how stupid does she think people are?

[AngusThermopyle]

I'm sorry Jennie, you have me a little confused, so I'm afraid I have to ask you another question in order to dispell my confusion.

At various times you've refered to the people at this site as rogues, acting without Band sanction. You've said the Band has asked them to leave, but they wont.

An equal or greater amount of times you've stated that they were youths doing site security.

So this is what my confusion arises from. Were they "Rogues" or were they "youthfull site security? Or perhaps they were "Youthfull rogue sanctioned site security".

Hmmm, bit of a conundrum don't you think?

[jbg]

The Six Nations youth doing security on the site for the day saw someone go into one of the houses on the site and went to investigate.

We haven't yet heard the full story of what happened next but there were injuries on both sides.

I don't exactly know what a non-owner/renter is "doing security".

[M.Dancer]

If I was a developer or even a citizen there I would be armed lest some aboriginal security try some traditional trophy taking.

[jennie]

"Doing security on the site" -- you have got to be kidding... You yourself keep going on about "the facts" that are supposed to come out of the negotiations, which means that it hasn't been established whether this land actually belongs to the Six Nations. Until determined otherwise, this land belongs to the developer and any trespass upon it is a criminal act--which is why the "protesters" were finally arrested. So people who trespass on other people's property, and enter a building are not "doing security" rather are breaking and entering. A term that I'm sure most of the "protesters" are very familiar with...

The Haldimand Proclamation has been validated, though not all individual claims have been clarified yet. In the meantime, they have the legal right to be consulted about all development in the tract. Since the provincial and municipal governments have not consulted them, they are exercising their rights themselves to stop development until consultation takes place and an agreement is in place.

It is not all about land claims negotiations.

Some of it is about their legal right, according to the Supreme Court, to be consulted about land uses pending land claims settlements.

Six Nations were occupying the site and maintaining its security until an agreement was in place.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

I'm sorry Jennie, you have me a little confused, so I'm afraid I have to ask you another question in order to dispell my confusion.

At various times you've refered to the people at this site as rogues, acting without Band sanction. You've said the Band has asked them to leave, but they wont.

Yes you are confused because I never said those things, though it may have been said in something I posted.

First of all, the Confederacy Council (traditional government) is in charge of land issues, not the government's Band Council.

The Confederacy Council has asked them to leave the site, yes, AFTER an agreement was reached with the developer.

An equal or greater amount of times you've stated that they were youths doing site security.

Yes, during the initial occupation of the site, and while an agreement was being worked out they were site security.

However, after the agreement with the developer was signed some youth refused to leave the site when the Confederacy asked them to.

Your confusion is simply a matter of not knowing the sequence of events and apparently intentionally trying to confuse yourself in order to defame people.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[kengs333]

...

Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333

[jennie]

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. I think it is recognized that there was a Haldimand Proclimation that claimed that there was a Haldimand Tract, but there have also been land sales and surrenders that at the time they occurred were legal according to Canadian law. This is the same Canadian law that you elsewhere claim has to be abided by and respected. So leagally, I believe the land in question is still not under Six Nations jurisdiction, therefore any occupation or "site security" constitutes trespass. If negotiations establish things otherwise, then that's the way it is. But until that time Six Nations can't claim jurisdiction over the land because they think it belongs to them.

Also, in reading up more on the Haldimand Proclimation, Haldimand himself, and relations between the Six Nations and the British during the last years of the American Revolution, I'm getting increasingly skeptical about how concrete this Proclimation really was. Haldimand was certainly concerned about the true loyalty of the Six Nations, wasn't he? It was only after a considerable amount of bribery that he managed to secure their allegiance. Funny how some things never change.

So the law is to uphold the rights of the Six Nations, but the Six Nations doesn't feel bound to Canadian law if it doesn't suit them? I'm sure your kind of skullduggery was something that the British (and later Canada) had to constantly contend with, and I can't help but wonder if this in some way finally led to the political decisions that were made. Of course, in our pc society I'm sure that this is something that won't even be considered in any negotiations, because to assess any sort of blame to the Six Nations for their own predicament would be scandalous.

The validity of the Haldimand Proclamation has already been recognized by the feds in negotiations.

Given that, Six Nations has the right to be consulted on all development in the tract while it is in dispute - i.e., until the claims are resolved.

Beyond those legal details, I can't really respond to your speculations.

[AngusThermopyle]

intentionally trying to confuse yourself in order to defame people.

That is a huge assumption on your behalf, getting a little testy are we?

Look back over your posts, quite often you contradict yourself and then excuse it with a specious rationalization.

Now, you can answer this. How am I defaming anyone by asking you to clarify a point of what you have said? Perhaps you should learn the definition of "defame". Perhaps you would prefer that I continue with an unclear picture of what you are trying to say rather than ask you for clarification?

Perhaps you should grow up a little and learn how to engage in civil discourse before you flap your gums.

[ScottSA]

If I was a developer or even a citizen there I would be armed lest some aboriginal security try some traditional trophy taking.

After I stopped laughing I realized how outraged I should be by this "hate filled" rant.

[ScottSA]

Yes you are confused because I never said those things, though it may have been said in something I posted.

First of all, the Confederacy Council (traditional government) is in charge of land issues, not the government's Band Council.

The Confederacy Council has asked them to leave the site, yes, AFTER an agreement was reached with the developer.

Yes, during the initial occupation of the site, and while an agreement was being worked out they were site security.

However, after the agreement with the developer was signed some youth refused to leave the site when the Confederacy asked them to.

Your confusion is simply a matter of not knowing the sequence of events and apparently intentionally trying to confuse yourself in order to defame people.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify this:

"It was not as clearcut as being in someone's house: Six Nations occupied the building site early in the morning.

The OPP closed the site to the builders and crews. They got their tools, etc and left the site for the day. The Gualtieris came back later and went in the back way, avoiding the police. The Six Nations youth doing security on the site for the day saw someone go into one of the houses on the site and went to investigate. "

[kengs333]

...

Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333

[kengs333]

...

Edited December 29, 2007 by kengs333

[jennie]

Of course you can't respond, if you even tried to elaborate your theories they'd be systematically debunked, so better to stick with vague and evasive short answers, right?

I think you've already stated "The validity of the Haldimand Proclamation has already been recognized by the feds in negotiations" a number of times already, but it really doesn't address the facts that I raised.

Again, more skullduggery.

The validity of the Haldimand Proclamation has already been recognized by the feds in negotiations.

Given that, Six Nations has the right to be consulted on all development in the tract while it is in dispute - i.e., until the claims are resolved.

This is Canadian Constitutional law, Supreme Court of Canada 'skullduggery' ...

http://www.lawsonlundell.com/resources/TheCrownsDuty.pdf

Recent case law from the Supreme Court of Canada (Haida and Taku) has confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, and if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

They were not consulted, so they shut the developers down.

No one has been charged with trespassing.

They had a Constitutional right to be there, until the agreement was in place with the Confederacy.

I am sure I posted this link before ... several times.

The persistently sequential nature of discussion threads is a limitation on good communication.

Ideally, one would want to be able to more easily reference previous links.

Edited September 21, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Perhaps you'd like to clarify this:

"It was not as clearcut as being in someone's house: Six Nations occupied the building site early in the morning.

The OPP closed the site to the builders and crews. They got their tools, etc and left the site for the day. The Gualtieris came back later and went in the back way, avoiding the police. The Six Nations youth doing security on the site for the day saw someone go into one of the houses on the site and went to investigate. "

See above re Duty to Consult ... it explains them being there.