Six Nations: "They've started a war!"

[cloudy]

I'll try to answer these

Why did the Six Nations wait 200 years to do something about this?

The land was leased to the gov't way back then, not sold. The reaction now is because the gov't sold land that didn't belong to them (it was only leased) to Henco, the developers who started building houses on the property. That's what caused the reaction.

Why do the Six Nations seem to have their own set of rules, even though they live in Ontario, which is in Canada?

I don't understand this question. If you'd rephrase it for me, I'll certainly try to answer it for you.

Many Native Canadians are Lawyers and political leaders, where are they in all this mess?

Most of them are in unity with the Six Nations, however, you have to remember that Six Nations is just one group of natives, in particular, Mohawks. While the other bands may not be stepping in at the moment, believe me, they're ready to....even traditional enemies like the Ojibway are on standby, since this issue will have repercussions for everyone.

I am not pointing fingers just asking questions. I don't know enough about any of the situations to voice an opinion, thats why Im asking questions, to understand the situation more clearly.

BTW Cloudy, I was up in your neck of the woods last week. I was hoping to find the Museum we spoke of before on the way down the HWY but didnt know the exact name. We must get together for a tea, coffee, something stronger? lol

Thinking of you!
C

Sounds good.

(Bruce County Museum)

 

[CharleyH]

(Bruce County Museum)

LOL - I bet I am one of the few people who actually knows where this is. Good to see you pranicng around, girl.

 

[cloudy]

LOL - I bet I am one of the few people who actually knows where this is. Good to see you pranicng around, girl.

good to see you too, love.

 

[supahstoopid]

Isn't a title search required before anybody can sell land? Such a search would lead back to the lease or rental of the land by the Native American owners, which would kill the sale.

Actually, aboriginal land title agreements are not that cut and dry in Canada. The precedent for land title agreements is based on the 1973 Calder Case. However, in that case the supreme court found no finding of present-day aboriginal title. However, the Federal government states that based it is based on this finding that Aboriginal Land title exists (whereas it as voted 4-3 against). All current and proceeding claims are based on a precedent that was never made. Just a few legal facts to chew on

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Actually, aboriginal land title agreements are not that cut and dry in Canada. The precedent for land title agreements is based on the 1973 Calder Case. However, in that case the supreme court found no finding of present-day aboriginal title. However, the Federal government states that based it is based on this finding that Aboriginal Land title exists (whereas it as voted 4-3 against). All current and proceeding claims are based on a precedent that was never made. Just a few legal facts to chew on

I can understand that there might be a problem in searches of transfers of title among Native Americans. Such transfers might have been by conquest or as a dowry or a sale or a gift. However, when a white person or group or the Canadian government acquired the land, whether through peace treaty or through purchase or lease, there should be documents recording that. A title search should lead back to those documents, and that would show whether the transfer was by lease or sale or other means

 

[cloudy]

I can understand that there might be a problem in searches of transfers of title among Native Americans. Such transfers might have been by conquest or as a dowry or a sale or a gift. However, when a white person or group or the Canadian government acquired the land, whether through peace treaty or through purchase or lease, there should be documents recording that. A title search should lead back to those documents, and that would show whether the transfer was by lease or sale or other means

There are documents held by Six Nations that clearly show the land was leased, not sold.

That's what the uproar is all about.

btw - it wasn't ever given or sold before white folks showed up. Different concept of ownership entirely. Nope, no "dowry," either.

 

[SensualCealy]

Cloudy, is that the museum on #6 as you come down from Tobermory? If it is, I know exactly where it is and damn it, I should have stopped! (should have dropped you an email ahead of time!)

"Why do the Six Nations seem to have their own set of rules, even though they live in Ontario, which is in Canada? "

It seems in many cases, when something like Caledonia or the Dudley George incident occurs, things that are done by Native support groups are over looked or not as harshly penalized for things they do. Is it because they are of a different background they want to stay within the 'politically correct' line so there isnt anything said about discrimination?
I guess what I feel I see reflects the fact that the Native Affairs Minister isnt doing his job.
If he/she was, there wouldnt be the stand offs and incidental shootings taking place at all.

When you think back, all the land of Canada and the US was owned by the Native Americans. Canada and the US as a government should have had to ask to purchase the land from the begining for any developements from day one!
But no its the ignorant 'White folk' that took the land instead of coming to an agreement to share the land.
My 2cents for all its worth.
C

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, is that the museum on #6 as you come down from Tobermory? If it is, I know exactly where it is and damn it, I should have stopped! (should have dropped you an email ahead of time!)

"Why do the Six Nations seem to have their own set of rules, even though they live in Ontario, which is in Canada? "

It seems in many cases, when something like Caledonia or the Dudley George incident occurs, things that are done by Native support groups are over looked or not as harshly penalized for things they do. Is it because they are of a different background they want to stay within the 'politically correct' line so there isnt anything said about discrimination?
I guess what I feel I see reflects the fact that the Native Affairs Minister isnt doing his job.
If he/she was, there wouldnt be the stand offs and incidental shootings taking place at all.

When you think back, all the land of Canada and the US was owned by the Native Americans. Canada and the US as a government should have had to ask to purchase the land from the begining for any developements from day one!
But no its the ignorant 'White folk' that took the land instead of coming to an agreement to share the land.
My 2cents for all its worth.
C

No, it's right off #21 in Southampton.

I think one of the reasons that we're viewed as having our own rules is there's an organization (funded by the gov't, ironically) called Aboriginal Legal Services. Their sole purpose is to literally walk people that have trouble with the law through the legal system, and to see to it that they're treated fairly.

I saw some of the worst discrimination I've ever seen in a court system up in Oshawa. I won't go into details here, but I was absolutely astonished. If something like that had happened in the states, the ACLU would have had a field day, believe me. That's why there's a need for ALS. They have advocates, who aren't lawyers, then they also have a whole team of lawyers who take on cases as they need to.

So, it's not really that they have a different set of rules to follow, it's that they, in many cases, are among the few who actually have adequate representation.

 

[SensualCealy]

Thanks for the info Cloudy, and for setting things straight.

I had the HWY's mixed up, 6 goes from Espanola to South Baymouth, then it turns into 21. I still think its the one that I saw the signs for coming down from Sudbury.

Drop me a line and let me know how things are going with the situation down south. Is the little one on his way yet?
C

 

[O'Mac]

Sorry, cloudy, but as much as I respect our First Nation brethren and their wishes for aboriginal land reform and reclamation, I do have to stand up and remark that some points in your posts are both inaccurate and misleading. Unfortunately the knee-jerk reactionists have taken your biased acounts hook, line, and sinker.

Firstly, despite the fact that the land development company (Henco) itself is bascially an innocent bystander in the whole debate, native protesters have vandalised Henco property, stolen various legal documents (including Canadian Tax documentation-a VERY illegal move on their part), and have harassed Henco workers and executives since the stand-off began.

Also, about 15 years ago when the actual sale of the land was approved for Henco, why was there no appeal from the Band Council? As far as I have read, there has never been any evidence to suggest that the land in question has ever been the site of former Native habitation and no archaelogical dig has been petitioned for by the Band until recent events has put them in the national spotlight. I find the timing for the Native standoff to be extremely odd. This is an issue that could have been worked out years ago, but strangely, action has only been taken now that a private business is involved.

I suggest readers of this thread use their own initiative and try to understand the story from more than one person's account. But hey, that's just me thinking logically.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Sorry, cloudy, but as much as I respect our First Nation brethren and their wishes for aboriginal land reform and reclamation, I do have to stand up and remark that some points in your posts are both inaccurate and misleading. Unfortunately the knee-jerk reactionists have taken your biased acounts hook, line, and sinker.

Firstly, despite the fact that the land development company (Henco) itself is bascially an innocent bystander in the whole debate, native protesters have vandalised Henco property, stolen various legal documents (including Canadian Tax documentation-a VERY illegal move on their part), and have harassed Henco workers and executives since the stand-off began.

Also, about 15 years ago when the actual sale of the land was approved for Henco, why was there no appeal from the Band Council? As far as I have read, there has never been any evidence to suggest that the land in question has ever been the site of former Native habitation and no archaelogical dig has been petitioned for by the Band until recent events has put them in the national spotlight. I find the timing for the Native standoff to be extremely odd. This is an issue that could have been worked out years ago, but strangely, action has only been taken now that a private business is involved.

I suggest readers of this thread use their own initiative and try to understand the story from more than one person's account. But hey, that's just me thinking logically.

Henco might be a victim here also, but if they are, it is of the chicanery of the Canadian government. Or, they might be part of the whole illegal transaction, getting a profit from the sale to them and the buy back, with the government trying to put a veneer of honesty on the rotten deal. If Henco is a land developer, they should know enough to do a title search before buying land, and that search would have disclosed the true ownership. The fact that they have been the victim of criminal activity changes nothing.

A Native American tribe or nation is similar to a sovereign government within Canada, or spread across the US Canadian boundary. The fact that there is nobody living on the tribal lands has nothing to do with their ownership. It is owned by the Six Nations, not by any individual. They may or may not have complained at the the original, illegal, sale, but either way, the ownership was not changed.

 

[O'Mac]

Henco might be a victim here also, but if they are, it is of the chicanery of the Canadian government. Or, they might be part of the whole illegal transaction, getting a profit from the sale to them and the buy back, with the government trying to put a veneer of honesty on the rotten deal. If Henco is a land developer, they should know enough to do a title search before buying land, and that search would have disclosed the true ownership. The fact that they have been the victim of criminal activity changes nothing.

A Native American tribe or nation is similar to a sovereign government within Canada, or spread across the US Canadian boundary. The fact that there is nobody living on the tribal lands has nothing to do with their ownership. It is owned by the Six Nations, not by any individual. They may or may not have complained at the the original, illegal, sale, but either way, the ownership was not changed.

Interestingly, you've expressed absolutely no sympathy for Henco and have even gone so far as to suggest they are part of some shady dealings with the government over this whole affair. I'm afraid that the fact that they have been victims of criminal activity DOES CHANGE EVERYTHING.

Before this all happened, the Native protesters had quite a bit of my support, simply because with regards to land claims, I feel the aboriginals should always have the benefit of the doubt with regards to property disputes. Now though, it's hard to stand up for a group that has unfairly targeted a private business and it's employees for events completely out of their control. I think it's more than a little hypocritical to poor sympathy on one group and scorn on another in this instance.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Interestingly, you've expressed absolutely no sympathy for Henco and have even gone so far as to suggest they are part of some shady dealings with the government over this whole affair. I'm afraid that the fact that they have been victims of criminal activity DOES CHANGE EVERYTHING.

Before this all happened, the Native protesters had quite a bit of my support, simply because with regards to land claims, I feel the aboriginals should always have the benefit of the doubt with regards to property disputes. Now though, it's hard to stand up for a group that has unfairly targeted a private business and it's employees for events completely out of their control. I think it's more than a little hypocritical to poor sympathy on one group and scorn on another in this instance.

I will assume that Cloudy did her research before she said this:
There are documents held by Six Nations that clearly show the land was leased, not sold.

That's what the uproar is all about.

btw - it wasn't ever given or sold before white folks showed up. Different concept of ownership entirely. Nope, no "dowry," either.

If the Six Nations has these documents, they will also be a mattter of public record. If Henco is a land development company, they will know enough to do a title search before buying land, and they would have run across these records. That should have, right away, told them the Canadian government was trying to sell somethng they didn't own, and the deal should have been off right away.

That means that either Henco is inept or they are a party to a big, illegal land grab, and probably the latter. Either way, I have a hard time feeling sympathy toward them, at least regarding this transaction.

As for the vandalism and other illegal activities targeting Henco, they might have some sympathy. Vigilante activity, even when you are in the right, is not a good idea. Even so, those illegal activities were retaliation for what Henco did or ineptly failed to do.

 

[O'Mac]

I will assume that Cloudy did her research before she said this:
There are documents held by Six Nations that clearly show the land was leased, not sold.

That's what the uproar is all about.

btw - it wasn't ever given or sold before white folks showed up. Different concept of ownership entirely. Nope, no "dowry," either.

That's a pretty big assumption. Are you going to take her word over any other just because it's convenient to? From what the media has told me thus far, the issue is that the Band has NO documentation to support their claim. If there is documentation, the Supreme Court would have settled this issue long ago.

If the Six Nations has these documents, they will also be a mattter of public record. If Henco is a land development company, they will know enough to do a title search before buying land, and they would have run across these records. That should have, right away, told them the Canadian government was trying to sell somethng they didn't own, and the deal should have been off right away.

Again, this is speculation on your part. Yes, "if" there was documentation it would be public record. Now, because no-one has seen this documentation, it doesn't give a lot of evidence of it existing at all.

That means that either Henco is inept or they are a party to a big, illegal land grab, and probably the latter. Either way, I have a hard time feeling sympathy toward them, at least regarding this transaction.

As for the vandalism and other illegal activities targeting Henco, they might have some sympathy. Vigilante activity, even when you are in the right, is not a good idea. Even so, those illegal activities were retaliation for what Henco did or ineptly failed to do.

I wonder how you would feel if your construction company was targeted by vandals who have a valid dispute not with you, but with a business associate. If the situation is a straight-forward as some would have us believe, than it would be totally reasonable to simply have the land transferred back to the Band and return Henco their money plus a significant sum for getting the whole deal messed up in the first place. Of course, the Band itself should be paying for damages to Henco property and it's staff. Because the situation is not as cut and dry as that, the government (which is representing Ontarian taxpayers) has no choice but to scrutinize all information brough forward.