Six Nations - Brantford injunction: And so ... Brantford takes the next step to confrontation ***************************************************

Judge bars natives from Brantford development sites ... June 02, 2008 By Paul Legall Click here to view the Brantford Injunction BRANTFORD - A judge has prohibited native protesters from demonstrating at construction sites to prevent what he described “irreparable harm” to the City of Brantford. Superior Justice Gerald Taylor imposed the prohibition this week as an interim measure while the city is waiting for the court to rule on a permanent injunction against the protesters, who have been disrupting work at five construction site for at least two months. “In my view, irreparable harm will be suffered by the City of Brantford if it is not permitted to control development on lands within its jurisdiction,” Taylor wrote in a judgement dated today. In his ruling he named, several known protesters, the native-run Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), its legal adviser Aaron Detlor and HDI employee Hazel Hill. Until the injunction application is heard, all these parties are prohibited from “blocking, interfering or in any way obstructing development (on the five properties)...including blocking access to development sites, standing in front of machinery/equipment...or in any way threatening or intimidating workers at development sites.” In his ruling the judge accepted the city’s evidence that the developers were lawful owners of the land and they obtained all the required development permits from the city of Brantford. He rejected a motion from Detlor’s lawyer asking him to strike City of Brantford bylaws that were passed last month to prohibit native protests at development sites in the city. plegall@thespec.com 905-526-3385 ??? “In my view, irreparable harm will be suffered by the City of Brantford if it is not permitted to control development on lands within its jurisdiction,” Taylor wrote in a judgement dated today.

The Supreme Court has said otherwise. NO DEVELOPMENT until 'the Crown' consults with Aboriginal Peoples like Six Nations, and accommodates their Constitutional rights ON THAT LAND, in Canadian law.

Six Nations rights do not come from Canadian law and are not limited to Canadian law. Indigenous Peoples have their own laws. However, in our Constitution, Canada "recognizes and affirms" the "existing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights". Aboriginal rights exist because their civilizations were here when Europeans arrived. Treaty rights exist because our governments negotiated with Indigenous Nations for our use of their land. The treaties allow us to live on the land we call Canada "...to a plough's depth". I am confident, as in BC, that the Supreme Court would find that Ontario has not fulfilled its 'duty to consult' before issuing any development approvals. The Government of BC had to reverse its sale of land, and consult. The Government of Canada had to take some properties off the market, and consult. An agreement is required before development proceeds. An agreement amounts to "a say in development and a share in revenues". Six Nations is well prepared to address the necessary consultation process. It is absolutely disgusting to me that instead of carrying out its Crown responsibilities in a peaceful manner, Ontario evades and hides and creates disputes like this instead of resolving them. If Ontario was doing its job, none of this injunction or army or barring people from their legal right to protest would be necessary. However, in our system I do understand the value of the courts in laying down tracks in these matters. The consistency of the court's decisions is needed to put limits on political power, to limit the ability of new governments to make whatever changes they want (e.g., to benefit their benefactors). I think it is absolutely necessary for our governments to have direction from the courts to guide their negotiations with Indigenous Nations, for both fairness and efficiency. I speak only from my own perspective as a non-aboriginal Canadian. It concerns me that our governments don't step up to the plate, acknowledge and get on with it. At the same time, I understand the tracks that have to be laid down for future generations, to show the paths we have taken and why: Indisputable sources, in our society, amounts to written law and ruling. These are commonly 'owned' principals, broadly supported and communicated widely and thus they become known. In particular, the Appellate Court of Ontario, and the Supreme Court of Canada seem humanly trustworthy, though not omniscient. The provincial courts, however, seem to vary considerably in quality, sometimes in the same court on different 'days', and I find the same for the Superior Court of Ontario. It's an automatic appeal in those courts, like a preliminary hearing. The jp's just don't have the background or knowledge to rule on Constitutional issues generally. In addition, they are remarkably open about their bias toward protecting the financial well-being of certain parts of the community, because they live there and have financial interests in the outcomes themselves. In the Henco injunction against Haudenosaunee Six Nations people, Justice T. David Marshall in Haldimand County ruled that 'no one was available' to replace him who didn't also 'own land' in the Haldimand Tract, the land in dispute. In a Tyendinaga bail hearing in Napanee, a judge said "And the people of Deseronto have to be protected from these protests of developments." Uh ... duh ... A judge cannot prevent lawful protests. (Where do they find these people? nevermind) And now the Brantford Judge also thinks it is his duty to protect the municipality and its people. Not so. His job is to uphold the law ... ALL of the law ... NOT to interpret the law in terms of what he perceives is best for Brantford. The higher courts - Appellate Court and Supreme Courts - have a very important educational function for Canadians, and I welcome that. Really ... there is a part of being Canadian that is 'not worrying about what ain't yer problem' (have another beer instead, eh? ... hehehe). And until it is law, or affects us directly in some way, we don't pay attention. Governments and politics and their bureaucracies we avoid as much as we can, unless they're in our mailbox. But if its law and in the newspapers we grumble and get on with it, 'nothin' we can do about it now!' Canadians generally trust the law to work in our best interests. The question these days is "Which interests?" Money-making? Community-making? Is anybody asking us about our priorities? Because I believe we are being forced to face the harder questions: Do we want to live? How do we want to live? Do we want to keep running on this treadmill making money that goes more and more up the spiral into fewer and fewer pockets, none of them ours, while our earth, water and air become the effluence of affluence? Our monument to ... what? Do we want to continue to live in our own polluted nests, polluting and sprawling ever further out onto greenfield that ... oops! ... just may already contain an old leaky toxic dump from the 1950's when there were NO RULES at all. Sprawl a little further and run into Toronto's gem of a new landfill ... to accommodate about a thousand truckloads a week or more, for twenty years or so. It's full. The earth has a "FULL" sign on it ... Full of our garbage. We can't keep throwing our garbage around, poisoning our water, earth, air.

It's time for a change of vision and direction, because the indisputable fact is ... Canada's economy is not sustainable.

Our future generations will owe a debt of gratitude to Indigenous Peoples like Haudenosaunee Six Nations Grand River and the Mohawks of Tyendinaga, KI, Ardoch, Grassy Narrows, Ipperwash, Oka .... They are holding our governments to account and standing up for the land, and we all stand to benefit in the future. I think about that as they struggle against our governments' indecision and short attention span for anything that won't get them re-elected. I think about it as Indigenous Peoples struggle through our courts to preserve the land for future generations. I think we don't yet fully appreciate that they are on the front line of protection of the land that has to sustain us all.