Some “historical context” about imaginary Caledonia land claims and treaty rights

Posted on March 19, 2010 | 1 Comment

UPDATED – Does Six Nations actually own the Haldimand Tract and the Douglas Creek Estates as native protesters allege? Do native people have the right to break the law during a land claim dispute?

This post was inspired by a comment I received from a reader who objected to my article about the upcoming Anti-Racism Rally organized by Merlyn Kinrade & CANACE scheduled for this coming Sunday March 21/10 at 2pm at the Caledonia Lions Hall. 

Here is his comment and my response:

michael jacko// March 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm

there’s no historical context in this article e.g. treaty histories

VoC REPLY:

1. Six Nations has no treaties with Canada that allow native thugs to attack and intimidate Canadian citizens as an alternative to using the courts to settle their grievances.

2. The issue of ownership of the Haldimand Tract was decided in 1974 by the Court of Appeal in the case of Isaac v. Davey, which decision was cited by two separate Superior Court judges in ordering injunctions to end Haldimand Tract occupations since 2006 — one in Cayuga and one in Hagersville:

  • 1536412 Ontario Ltd. v. HCCC, HDI, Ruby & Floyd Montour, Hazel Hill 
    (Cayuga occupation, May-June 2008) [LINK]
  • John Voortman & Associates v. HMF
    (Hagersville occupation, April 2009) [LINK]

a. Both judges said the two recognized bodies of Six Nations have made NO claim for ownership or possession of the Haldimand Tract, and even if they did, the claim would fail. The ONLY claim that Six Nations might have is for economic damages. b. The judge in the Cayuga case said the Nanfan treaty only applies to hunting rights. It does not exempt native people from the law.

c. The judge in the Hagersville case ruled that the Haudenosaunee Men’s Fire was engaged in Extortion and Intimidation.

d. Both judges ruled that native people are not exempt from the law. They are subject to the same rule of law that protects all citizens – native and non-native.

The federal government has said very clearly that the Douglas Creek Estates is not a valid claim since at least as early as January 2007.
 

3. An independent researcher – Joan Holmes – (who testified at the Ipperwash Inquiry) conducted an exhaustive review of the history and evidence of Six Nations’ claims in Brantford for the City of Brantford injunction hearing against native protesters and came to this conclusion:

Conclusion

10. After reviewing the Johnston Response and the additional archival documents referred to and appended to this Supplemental Report, I maintain my opinion that the historical documents cited above dating from the 1840s indicate that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council expressed their intention to reserve particular lands for their exclusive use and surrendered the remainder for sale. As indicated in the report on the Council of 18 December 1844 and reiterated in the_petitions of 2 August 1845 and 18 February 1846, they agreed to surrender for sale the lands in the Martin and Johnson Sett ements, the Oxbow tract, and the Eagle’s Nest tract, with the exception of a 200-acre block variously described as being in the vicinity of the Mohawk mission or school. 

  • Joan Holmes, Jan 19/09 & Feb 02/09: Holmes Reports on the City of Brantford’s Injunction Motion [PDF, 38p]
Sixty years ago or so it was legal to sell your house and stipulate that the new owner not sell it to Jews. It was also illegal for Natives to hire lawyers to fight land claims cases. In 2003 the Supreme Court ruled that the fed/prov government had a duty to consult with native people regarding land subject to unproven claims.

Times change, laws change, values change. This isn’t the 1600’s – this is Canada in 2010. Get used to it. If native extremists can use the cell phones, pick-up trucks, and refrigerators of today, and can quote Supreme Court decisions on the ‘duty to consult’ they can get used to obeying today’s laws. If native protesters can quote the law they can obey the law. If they don’t like the law, then they can go to court or lobby/protest peacefully just like the rest of us.

My constitutional right to be free of violence and intimidation and to be treated equally before the law is NOT subject to the whims of native gangsters or politically-correct policing policies.

How’s that for some historical context?

Regards, Mark

Last Update: Sept 21/10

References:

Disclosure: Mark Vandermaas was an original founding member of Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality along with Mr. Kinrade. He left CANACE on Feb 22/10 to found the Caledonia Victims Project.  

Mark Vandermaas, Founder/Editor
VoiceofCanada.ca
info@voiceofcanada.ca

This entry was posted in 1. VoC's MOST IMPORTANT POST, Aboriginal policy, Caledonia - Haldimand Land Claim, CANACE, Land Claim Industry, Legal actions & rulings, MUST SEE, Native Protests - Caledonia, Native Protests - Cayuga, Native Protests - Hagersville, One Law for All!, Planet Earth calling, Racial Justice, Racial Policing, Racial Profiling, Six Nations. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Some “historical context” about imaginary Caledonia land claims and treaty rights

  1. Pingback: Haldimand Tract land claim myth should provide sober second thought re aboriginal sovereignty negotiations with anarchist proxies | Caledonia Victims Project