Clever Clogs
Posts: 622 
January 28th, 2007, 07:12 AM
Dateline: Thursday, January 18, 2007
by Heidi Schneider
Although the federal government plans to sell land outside Montreal back to the farmers booted from their properties in the sixties, the Kanesatake Mohawk Nation is asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to recognize its rights to the same land.
In mid-December, Harper announced that the government would sell 11,000 acres of land back to the farmers from whom it was expropriated in 1969 to build the Mirabel Airport, located just outside of Montreal. The same month, the Kanesatake Mohawk Nation filed a claim with the federal government to the land, part of the Seigneury of Lake of Two Mountains.
"We are only at the discussions level right now... there is a lot of back and forth on whether it's going to be compensated [financially] or how we're going to go about it," Grand Chief Clarence Simon said.
François-Nicholas Asselin, Director of Communications for Transport Canada in Quebec, said that the federal government is looking at the Kanesatake Mohawk Nation's concerns.
"There is an obligation to consult with the Mohawks. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he will consult [with them]," Asselin said.
"We're hoping everyone will negotiate honestly and positively."
"The government made a promise that they would sell land back to the farmers that were expropriated and who are renting [land]. The government is just keeping that promise," he added.
According to Simon, no timeline has been set for the start of negotiations, because no decision has been reached on the formal review of the Nation's claims.
"There's still a lot of work to be done. We're hoping that everyone will negotiate honestly and positively. It's not a question of expropriation — we need this recognition," Simon said.
The Kanesatake Mohawk Nation has been fighting for the land for 34 years, filing their first land claim for Seigneury in 1972. Their presence on the Seigneury of Lake of Two Mountains dates back to the 1700s.
"I just hope that we get what we want. We've been very humane about it — we're not talking about expropriation, just about proper compensation," Simon said.
However, a spokesperson for Indian Affairs Canada described the historical fact base as "extensive and complex."
"Canada and the First Nations have worked closely in compiling the historical fact base necessary for the review of the Seigneury claim," the spokesperson said. "Canada cannot comment on the acceptability of the claim for negotiation before it completes its review of the claim."
When asked about plans for the Seigneury land should it come under Mohawk control, Simon suggested that the land could help remedy the development problems plaguing Kanesatake.
"We're lacking the economic development here. We'd need to bring in people from the outside for businesses," he said.
Although the mayor of Mirabel has been pushing for the land to be converted into an industrial park, Simon stressed the need to thoroughly examine the environmental impact of this or any other endeavour. "There's land here to be used, we should use it," he said, adding that, "A lot of work has already been done in terms of environmental studies... we're advancing slowly but surel
Isnt this just sweet give back land that doesnt belong to you in the first place
I wonder how this could work out ?
Kanesatake Mohawk Nation fights for Mirabel land
Feds promised to sell land back to farmers but Mohawks say they were there first.
I wonder how this could work out ?
Kanesatake Mohawk Nation fights for Mirabel land
Feds promised to sell land back to farmers but Mohawks say they were there first.
Dateline: Thursday, January 18, 2007
by Heidi Schneider
Although the federal government plans to sell land outside Montreal back to the farmers booted from their properties in the sixties, the Kanesatake Mohawk Nation is asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to recognize its rights to the same land.
In mid-December, Harper announced that the government would sell 11,000 acres of land back to the farmers from whom it was expropriated in 1969 to build the Mirabel Airport, located just outside of Montreal. The same month, the Kanesatake Mohawk Nation filed a claim with the federal government to the land, part of the Seigneury of Lake of Two Mountains.
"We are only at the discussions level right now... there is a lot of back and forth on whether it's going to be compensated [financially] or how we're going to go about it," Grand Chief Clarence Simon said.
François-Nicholas Asselin, Director of Communications for Transport Canada in Quebec, said that the federal government is looking at the Kanesatake Mohawk Nation's concerns.
"There is an obligation to consult with the Mohawks. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he will consult [with them]," Asselin said.
"We're hoping everyone will negotiate honestly and positively.""The government made a promise that they would sell land back to the farmers that were expropriated and who are renting [land]. The government is just keeping that promise," he added.
According to Simon, no timeline has been set for the start of negotiations, because no decision has been reached on the formal review of the Nation's claims.
"There's still a lot of work to be done. We're hoping that everyone will negotiate honestly and positively. It's not a question of expropriation — we need this recognition," Simon said.
The Kanesatake Mohawk Nation has been fighting for the land for 34 years, filing their first land claim for Seigneury in 1972. Their presence on the Seigneury of Lake of Two Mountains dates back to the 1700s.
"I just hope that we get what we want. We've been very humane about it — we're not talking about expropriation, just about proper compensation," Simon said.
However, a spokesperson for Indian Affairs Canada described the historical fact base as "extensive and complex."
"Canada and the First Nations have worked closely in compiling the historical fact base necessary for the review of the Seigneury claim," the spokesperson said. "Canada cannot comment on the acceptability of the claim for negotiation before it completes its review of the claim."
When asked about plans for the Seigneury land should it come under Mohawk control, Simon suggested that the land could help remedy the development problems plaguing Kanesatake.
"We're lacking the economic development here. We'd need to bring in people from the outside for businesses," he said.
Although the mayor of Mirabel has been pushing for the land to be converted into an industrial park, Simon stressed the need to thoroughly examine the environmental impact of this or any other endeavour. "There's land here to be used, we should use it," he said, adding that, "A lot of work has already been done in terms of environmental studies... we're advancing slowly but surel
January 28th, 2007, 07:28 AM
This goes back way further then 2006. This complaint dates back to 1763.
BACKGROUND(3)
The Kanesatake Mohawk community(4) located west of Montreal, at Oka, Quebec, came to national prominence during what has become known as the “Oka Crisis” of the summer of 1990. Many considered that conflict an acute manifestation of long-standing land claim grievances involving that community.(5) A summary overview of the relevant history will serve to provide context for Bill S-24.
A. 1717 to 1945: Pattern of Conflict Emerges
The Kanesatake Mohawk land claim has been described as “perhaps the most difficult Indian claim which the Canadian government inherited from pre-Confederation administrations.”(6) The unique circumstances of Kanesatake Mohawks with respect to their land base can be traced to the 1717 grant of the Seigneurie du Lac des Deux-Montagnes (the Seigneury) to the Sulpician Order by the French Crown.(7) Conditions of the grant included the establishment of a mission within the Seigneury for the indigenous population in the region; the settlement, created in 1721, included Iroquois (Mohawks) among the Aboriginal inhabitants. The record shows frequent conflict between the Sulpicians and the Mohawks over ownership of Seigneury lands, beginning at least as early as 1763. The sale of parcels of those lands to private interests over Mohawk objections was a particular, ongoing source of frustration. Neither an 1841 Lower Canada statute confirming the Sulpicians’ title to the land, nor a 1912 Privy Council decision(
ruling that the legislation had placed that title beyond question,(9) put an end to the conflict.
You can read more here...
http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/P.../371/s24-e.htm
This goes back way further then 2006. This complaint dates back to 1763.
BACKGROUND(3)
The Kanesatake Mohawk community(4) located west of Montreal, at Oka, Quebec, came to national prominence during what has become known as the “Oka Crisis” of the summer of 1990. Many considered that conflict an acute manifestation of long-standing land claim grievances involving that community.(5) A summary overview of the relevant history will serve to provide context for Bill S-24.
A. 1717 to 1945: Pattern of Conflict Emerges
The Kanesatake Mohawk land claim has been described as “perhaps the most difficult Indian claim which the Canadian government inherited from pre-Confederation administrations.”(6) The unique circumstances of Kanesatake Mohawks with respect to their land base can be traced to the 1717 grant of the Seigneurie du Lac des Deux-Montagnes (the Seigneury) to the Sulpician Order by the French Crown.(7) Conditions of the grant included the establishment of a mission within the Seigneury for the indigenous population in the region; the settlement, created in 1721, included Iroquois (Mohawks) among the Aboriginal inhabitants. The record shows frequent conflict between the Sulpicians and the Mohawks over ownership of Seigneury lands, beginning at least as early as 1763. The sale of parcels of those lands to private interests over Mohawk objections was a particular, ongoing source of frustration. Neither an 1841 Lower Canada statute confirming the Sulpicians’ title to the land, nor a 1912 Privy Council decision(
ruling that the legislation had placed that title beyond question,(9) put an end to the conflict.You can read more here...
http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/P.../371/s24-e.htm
January 28th, 2007, 07:40 AM
Another fraudulent land claimThe following letter is kind of long. I sent it to the local band council to expose yet another fraudulent land claim that is underway right on my doorstep. Pnone, fax, email what you think of this deal they're working on. (cc me a copy, thanks).
Kahentinetha Horn
P.O. Box 991
Kahnawake of Mohawk Territory
(Quebec, Canada) J0L 1B0
Kahentinetha2@yahoo.com
Dec. 1, 2005
REGISTERED MAIL
Grand Chief and Band Councillors
Mohawk Council of Kahnawake
Box 720, Kahnawake Mohawk Territory
(Quebec) J0L 1B0 communications@mck.ca
Phone 450-632-7500 Fax 450-638-5958
She:kon
SEIGNEURY OF SAULT ST. LOUIS ‘CLAIM’
We were alarmed to learn at the November 29, 2005, Band Meeting that you are going to finalize the negotiations to settle the colonial government’s claims to part of our sovereign Kanion’ke:haka territory referred to as the “Seigneury of Sault St. Louis”. As a Woman Titleholder of Kanion’ke:haka/Mohawk land and a concerned member of the community of Kahnawake, I am exercising my duty to ask the following questions. I would appreciate your addressing my. The false basis for the “settlement” you’ve agreed to is destructive and unbelievable!
Reason for urgency. Why are you and your puppet masters, the Canadian and Quebec governments, suddenly so anxious for the Mohawks of Kahnawake to settle this at this time? It’s not a local community issue. It’s a nation issue. You appear to be pushing for a settlement within one year after 10 years of ‘quiet’ negotiations. This sounds similar to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne’s strategy of carrying on secret negotiations with New York State for 22 years. Then suddenly they pressured the people to finalize a claim for millions of acres within a month. Why is a one-year decision deadline being stuck around our necks? There is no decision needed. The land is ours. Give it back.
Fallacy of basic premise. According to a Mohawk Council of Kahnawake brochure, the Seigneury claim is based on a 1680 land grant to the Jesuits by the French Crown. To begin it’s impossible for anyone to get Mohawk land. Where’s the evidence of French ownership of land our ancestors inhabited since time immemorial? What is there to settle with Canada or anybody? The settlers are illegally on our land. What we the land owners have to settle are the terms for them to stay or leave.
Cities on our lands and other false presumptions. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake is presuming another fallacy. That it was okay for the Jesuits to invite us onto our own lands to work for them and become good Christians! How outrageous! According to the map in the brochure there are six cities on the Seigneury territory – Chateauguay, St. Constant, Ste. Catherine, Delson, Candiac and LaPrairie. We should remove these colonial names on our territories and revert back to the original Mohawk names of these towns. The claim does not mention our other vast territories, including Tiotiake – aka the island of Montreal, St. Isidore, St. Remi, and other parts extending south to the Mohawk River Valley, the Finger Lakes, west to the Ohio, northerly to Lake Superior and back to Lake St. Louis. (Nanfan Treaty). These illegal inhabitants on our lands have no say on the land issue and certainly cannot deal with you.
Lies and speculations. Everybody knows this land belongs to us. The idea that this land was given to us by King Louis XIV is ridiculous. How did he ever come to own it? Just because a lie is on a piece of paper doesn’t make it true. Nor can it be the basis of a legitimate settlement. We need to know what you’re really up to. We hear that certain individuals in Kahnawake are buying up land within and around the ‘claim’ in question. There is speculation that a new wider deeper St. Lawrence Seaway channel will be built around the south of Kahnawake, turning our community into an island. A steel plant is also planned. We can look forward to pollution that Akwesasne has suffered from, or even worse, chronic flooding and other conditions that will make our community uninhabitable. We hear you’re making plans to set aside lands for us to settle in the northern Laurentians and near Sherbrooke, easterly towards Quebec City, in Algonquin territory. We have no right to move onto the lands of other Indigenous nations. Sounds like the old "Indian removal policy" is not dead. This move is meant to cut our roots from our land so we can’t fight for it.
Two Row Wampum Agreement is our basic relationship with the settlers. It all started with alliances for "peace and trade" with the Dutch, English and French. They agreed to stay in their ship with their laws, customs, languages and ways and whatever land they brought with them, which is nothing. We agreed to stay in our canoe with our law, ways, culture and title to all our land. We can only deal nation-to-nation on the basis of our constitution and this agreement. It was understood by all that we would never give up any of our land or become part of the colonial state.
Women titleholders. Our constitution, the Kaianereh’ko:wa/Great Law, provides that the women are the "progenitors of the soil", the holders of the land for the coming generations. Yet men are illegally negotiating the swindling of our lands that belong to the women. Only we women can decide this issue. International law is clear. Giving up land and sovereignty can only happen through the informed consent of a clear majority of the constitutional people, not the followers of the illegally imposed Indian Act. They have become Canadians of Mohawk ancestry and have relinquished their claims to Mohawk nation lands. Louis XIV could not give us what was already ours.
Mohawk title reconfirmed. The Mohawks could never be serfs. When the Jesuits started kicking us off our lands, some became Christians to survive. Even in 1701, the Great Peace of Montreal was a "peace" treaty, not a land surrender! Throughout we asserted our rights to our land. The Jesuits had no right to give our ‘seigneury’ land to French settlers. In 1762 British General Gage reconfirmed Mohawk title.
In 1763 the Royal Proclamation took the same line. The Crown forbade colonial governors from making grants or purchases of Indian lands all over North America. There was a lot of chicanery but this did not change the law or the basic principle.
Nation-to-nation. The BNA Act was passed on July 1, 1867. Sections 109 and 132 respected our constitution-to-constitution relationship and the process for making treaties to surrender our land (if we so chose. We could not because of our own laws). The mistakes made by the colonizers are somewhat understandable. They did not have the same connection and respect for their lands. On the other hand, we simply cannot give away or sell our land. Section 91(24) proclaimed that the new Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians". The way this has been interpreted contradicted their constitution. Parliament only had jurisdiction to make treaties with us, that’s all. We never surrendered anything to anybody. We were and continue to be governed by our own constitution, the Kaianereh’ko:wa/Great Law.
Indian Act is genocide. The Indian Act of 1876 declared we were not "persons". Canada has yet to admit that it was founded on systematic genocide. Indigenous customs and cultural practices were criminalized. Our children were taken away and killed in residential schools. Traditional governments were outlawed. Violating our sovereignty Canada illegally forced the Indian Act band council system on us in 1889 against the will and wishes of all but 7 people. The goal of the Indian Act is to carry out the “final solution”, to exterminate us in order to steal our lands and resources. They violated the rule of law and breached Section 109 of their constitution. At that time the colonizers may have been so barbarous that they did not understand the rule of law. However, since that time international discussions have made it very clear that the appropriation of the assets of other nations is simply illegal. Why should Canada be exempt from international standards – especially when Canada has promised to meet them? It hasn’t.
Federal/provincial/local entities have no constitutional jurisdiction over Indians. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake does not own the Seigneury land as it claims in its brochure and its 1988 declaration. Neither Canadian nor Quebec law applies. We have always been governed by our own laws that are based on decisions by consensus. If these foreign governments want to correct these injustices, they must deal directly with the true Mohawk Nation government. They cannot deal with their unconstitutional band council.
Negotiations should be put on hold. "Existing aboriginal rights" under the Kaianereh’ko:wa and the Canadian constitution provide that Indigenous jurisdiction and sovereignty supersede that of Canada and its provinces. The only duty that Canada and Quebec have is to return the lands they are squatting on. They never negotiated a valid treaty authorizing their appropriation to our land.
It appears the band council politicians are holding back critical information from the People. The band council presumes another fallacy that the land was taken away physically but not legally! This is double talk! Once again Mohawk Nation people are being tricked into thinking there’s nothing they can do about it.
Is Canada afraid of France? If so, that’s not our problem. France was initially involved with the people of Kahnawake. Then the French were defeated by the English. Now Canada doesn’t want to go that far back because it would confirm the Mohawks never gave up anything. Remember, when the British conquered the French, they couldn’t take anything from them because they had nothing. They can’t take anything from us because we can’t give it up and we had everything.
Mohawks never subject to anybody. Another fallacy is the idea that the Mohawk of Kahnawake ever became British subjects or Canadian citizens. This is a figment of Canada’s imagination. Sir William Johnson, the first Superintendent of Indian Affairs and the Crown’s representative in North America, knew how things stood. In 1767, five years after the conquest of the French, he wrote to Earl Shelburne, "One who would call the Six Nations our subject needs a good army at his back". Nothing changed with the American Revolution. In 1767 Governor Simcoe wrote that the Indians consider their nations as "entirely independent". In 1796 the Attorney General of Canada noted that "The Six Nations do not acknowledge the sovereignty of the King. They call themselves allies". Even today Canada would rather pay a little money because they don’t want to run into political flack with France. France has no documents that support Canada’s position.
This proposed settlement is a fraud. They start out, "Well, the land is gone", and "Here’s a few cents". They don’t want to admit proprietary rights. Are they really relying on Ontario matrimonial common law? What do we have in common with Ontario refugees? Is there any limit to Canada’s willingness to violate constitutional law?
The Seigneury Sault Louis claim is fraudulent, treasonable and unconstitutional because the land was never surrendered by the sovereign Kanion’ke:haka/Mohawk.
How about a little factual history. Historically, we Mohawks were always on our land under our own constitution. That’s why they’re afraid to look into their archives. Their own authorities said Indians in general were independent. Our ancestors always challenged everyone who tried to mess with us. We constantly stuck to our position that we have "prior interests" to our land and resources that Canada and its provinces must respect. See Section 109 of Canada’s constitution.
In the 1920’s the Six Nations tried to challenge the Indian Act. The Canadian courts tightened their ranks. They refuse to answer any questions about its illegality. Section 132 of their constitution provides that Indigenous people may surrender their land and extinguish their sovereignty through a treaty. No valid treaties were ever concluded where Indigenous people knowingly gave up their land or surrendered their sovereignty.
These negotiations are a legal impossibility. It is constitutionally impossible for the federal and provincial government to legally negotiate such a deal with its own band councils. Their own constitution set out a nation-to-nation relationship.
Parliament in passing the Indian Act treasonably superseded their constitution and placed themself above the law. Any business conducted under the Indian Act is null and void. The Kanion’ke:haka filed motions in the Supreme Court of Canada and U.S. Supreme Court and in the federal, state and provincial courts addressing this issue. As well, we have filed petitions to the U.S. President and the Governor General of Canada. We simply ask whether Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Section 109 of the Canadian constitution still stand. The answer can only be “yes”. They know they have no jurisdiction over us and that none of our lands were ever validly surrendered.
What are the lawyers getting? The Seigneury fraud is being worked out mostly between the lawyers of both Canada and the band council. They all cooperate with the judiciary. Our experience with the courts indicates that the judiciary implements the Indigenous genocide. We have not been told how much the lawyers are getting. If it’s anything like the proposed Akwesasne settlement with New York State, the lawyers stand to take at least 15% of the money. The Indians, except for a few ‘sell-outs’, will get very little benefits.
The band council’s job is to carry out municipal jobs like collecting garbage, looking after sewer and water, catching dogs and making sure that people take their leftovers to the recycling depot. They have no say about the constitutional, national and international positions of the Indigenous sovereign people.
An expose on fraudulent land claims. Ganiengeh, another Mohawk community, provided the following comments:
Expropriation vs. Extinguishment. “Extinguishment of Indian titles is usually the taking of territory by non-native occupiers. If the colonists create an inconsistency in the Indian land they are taking, then the colonists deem that such a grant extinguishes Indian title”.
Our ownership of our land is acknowledged by all parties. The other party is trying to put limitations on our ownership. The Seignuery land claim cannot be settled by monetary remedy. The band council says that other lands will be given to us so that our land can be turned over to the non-native settlers. Since they have nothing to give, are they going to give us a chunk of England? The band council says that this settlement will have no effect on our ownership of the remainder of our territory. They are ignorant. This fraudulent settlement will be used to extinguish our Nation’s title to all our land, like they were going to do in Akwesasne. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
THE LAWS THAT BIND. The laws being used are those of an ecclesiastical corporation, whose mission is to further religion or administration of property held for religious uses to justify their doctrine of occupation. Blacks law dictionary/Pg 343.
The Jesuit ecclesiastical corporation was formed under the Papal Doctrine, also referred to as the Doctrine of Discovery. They made up a meaning of “Indian title” as being “[tribes] occupying land hav[ing] no sovereign title but a mere right to use it”. It’s a complete scam. Canada is part of the international community that upholds human rights. Yet it blatantly practices this illegal concept of occupancy and uses the Doctrine of Discovery as the basis of their theft of our land and resources as well as their campaign of Indigenous genocide. It’s in complete violation of our constitution and their own.
Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act 1982 states that ‘existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed’. They purport that this takes aboriginal rights from common to constitutional law. Ill-informed band councilors and their supporters wrongly believe that this protects native rights and titles. It violates Sections 109 and 132 of the BNA Act 1867. Actually this makes the extinguishment of native rights possible. Instead of respecting the relationship of equality between Indigenous nations and Canada that was worked out in the BNA Act, the federal government sets up Band council mouthpieces to speak for us and sign away our rights and lands. This is all to violate the rights of the constitutionally recognized Indigenous people.
In 1995 the United States Supreme Court gave the federal government the right to expropriate Indian land without giving any compensation (Mancari). The federal government assumed ‘plenary’ or complete power, which completely disregards the U.S. Constitution.
Extinguishment requires legal procedures to be followed [land claims] where one party to the dispute sits in judgment. Both ‘legal’ theories place Indigenous people at an illegal disadvantage. A neutral third party sitting in judgment is a basic principle of the rule of law. Both Canada and the U.S. have developed doctrines and policies to get around this and justify the theft of lands from Indian people.
“The continued implementing of extinguishment policies constitutes a very serious threat to indigenous societies. It is another relic of colonialism. Extinguishment is used to ensure state domination of indigenous peoples and to sever their ancestral ties to their own territories”. Sambo 1993:31
The entire Mohawk Nation should be up in arms over this land swindle. Canada portrays this as a private land transaction, in violation of international law and basic human rights. Today indigenous peoples worldwide are either repossessing or having lands restored to them. Yet in Canada and the United States native people are being forced to relinquish title to their lands and resources in return for the privilege of staying alive. The only sovereign rights that native people have is to sell their land. Band council representatives either know this is happening and are being enticed by personal profit, or they haven’t the slightest clue about what’s going on.
More inconsistencies. The council says they are not going to take money but receive ‘other’ (nation’s) lands. This is inconsistent with our own laws and relationships with other Indigenous nations. Canada cannot give us another nation’s land. It will be used against us as making false representations and committing theft. The band council is acting in a way that is illegitimate and inconsistent with the laws of the Mohawk Nation, who are the true sovereign nationalist government under the Great Law. Such inconsistencies with any of our laws, history and legal positions from time immemorial will threaten our title to all our lands, possessions and existence.
Something's gotta be done. We need answers to our questions and concerns about what Canada and its band councilors are up to. We have to assert our Indigenous sovereignty which is protected under constitutional law, subject to international law and the rule of law. Our land is already ours. Only we have a right to negotiate our relationship with the settlers living thereon. Please provide us with a swift answer.
Nia:wen
Kahentinetha Horn
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news...news/news3.php
Another fraudulent land claimThe following letter is kind of long. I sent it to the local band council to expose yet another fraudulent land claim that is underway right on my doorstep. Pnone, fax, email what you think of this deal they're working on. (cc me a copy, thanks).
Kahentinetha Horn
P.O. Box 991
Kahnawake of Mohawk Territory
(Quebec, Canada) J0L 1B0
Kahentinetha2@yahoo.com
Dec. 1, 2005
REGISTERED MAIL
Grand Chief and Band Councillors
Mohawk Council of Kahnawake
Box 720, Kahnawake Mohawk Territory
(Quebec) J0L 1B0 communications@mck.ca
Phone 450-632-7500 Fax 450-638-5958
She:kon
SEIGNEURY OF SAULT ST. LOUIS ‘CLAIM’
We were alarmed to learn at the November 29, 2005, Band Meeting that you are going to finalize the negotiations to settle the colonial government’s claims to part of our sovereign Kanion’ke:haka territory referred to as the “Seigneury of Sault St. Louis”. As a Woman Titleholder of Kanion’ke:haka/Mohawk land and a concerned member of the community of Kahnawake, I am exercising my duty to ask the following questions. I would appreciate your addressing my. The false basis for the “settlement” you’ve agreed to is destructive and unbelievable!
Reason for urgency. Why are you and your puppet masters, the Canadian and Quebec governments, suddenly so anxious for the Mohawks of Kahnawake to settle this at this time? It’s not a local community issue. It’s a nation issue. You appear to be pushing for a settlement within one year after 10 years of ‘quiet’ negotiations. This sounds similar to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne’s strategy of carrying on secret negotiations with New York State for 22 years. Then suddenly they pressured the people to finalize a claim for millions of acres within a month. Why is a one-year decision deadline being stuck around our necks? There is no decision needed. The land is ours. Give it back.
Fallacy of basic premise. According to a Mohawk Council of Kahnawake brochure, the Seigneury claim is based on a 1680 land grant to the Jesuits by the French Crown. To begin it’s impossible for anyone to get Mohawk land. Where’s the evidence of French ownership of land our ancestors inhabited since time immemorial? What is there to settle with Canada or anybody? The settlers are illegally on our land. What we the land owners have to settle are the terms for them to stay or leave.
Cities on our lands and other false presumptions. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake is presuming another fallacy. That it was okay for the Jesuits to invite us onto our own lands to work for them and become good Christians! How outrageous! According to the map in the brochure there are six cities on the Seigneury territory – Chateauguay, St. Constant, Ste. Catherine, Delson, Candiac and LaPrairie. We should remove these colonial names on our territories and revert back to the original Mohawk names of these towns. The claim does not mention our other vast territories, including Tiotiake – aka the island of Montreal, St. Isidore, St. Remi, and other parts extending south to the Mohawk River Valley, the Finger Lakes, west to the Ohio, northerly to Lake Superior and back to Lake St. Louis. (Nanfan Treaty). These illegal inhabitants on our lands have no say on the land issue and certainly cannot deal with you.
Lies and speculations. Everybody knows this land belongs to us. The idea that this land was given to us by King Louis XIV is ridiculous. How did he ever come to own it? Just because a lie is on a piece of paper doesn’t make it true. Nor can it be the basis of a legitimate settlement. We need to know what you’re really up to. We hear that certain individuals in Kahnawake are buying up land within and around the ‘claim’ in question. There is speculation that a new wider deeper St. Lawrence Seaway channel will be built around the south of Kahnawake, turning our community into an island. A steel plant is also planned. We can look forward to pollution that Akwesasne has suffered from, or even worse, chronic flooding and other conditions that will make our community uninhabitable. We hear you’re making plans to set aside lands for us to settle in the northern Laurentians and near Sherbrooke, easterly towards Quebec City, in Algonquin territory. We have no right to move onto the lands of other Indigenous nations. Sounds like the old "Indian removal policy" is not dead. This move is meant to cut our roots from our land so we can’t fight for it.
Two Row Wampum Agreement is our basic relationship with the settlers. It all started with alliances for "peace and trade" with the Dutch, English and French. They agreed to stay in their ship with their laws, customs, languages and ways and whatever land they brought with them, which is nothing. We agreed to stay in our canoe with our law, ways, culture and title to all our land. We can only deal nation-to-nation on the basis of our constitution and this agreement. It was understood by all that we would never give up any of our land or become part of the colonial state.
Women titleholders. Our constitution, the Kaianereh’ko:wa/Great Law, provides that the women are the "progenitors of the soil", the holders of the land for the coming generations. Yet men are illegally negotiating the swindling of our lands that belong to the women. Only we women can decide this issue. International law is clear. Giving up land and sovereignty can only happen through the informed consent of a clear majority of the constitutional people, not the followers of the illegally imposed Indian Act. They have become Canadians of Mohawk ancestry and have relinquished their claims to Mohawk nation lands. Louis XIV could not give us what was already ours.
Mohawk title reconfirmed. The Mohawks could never be serfs. When the Jesuits started kicking us off our lands, some became Christians to survive. Even in 1701, the Great Peace of Montreal was a "peace" treaty, not a land surrender! Throughout we asserted our rights to our land. The Jesuits had no right to give our ‘seigneury’ land to French settlers. In 1762 British General Gage reconfirmed Mohawk title.
In 1763 the Royal Proclamation took the same line. The Crown forbade colonial governors from making grants or purchases of Indian lands all over North America. There was a lot of chicanery but this did not change the law or the basic principle.
Nation-to-nation. The BNA Act was passed on July 1, 1867. Sections 109 and 132 respected our constitution-to-constitution relationship and the process for making treaties to surrender our land (if we so chose. We could not because of our own laws). The mistakes made by the colonizers are somewhat understandable. They did not have the same connection and respect for their lands. On the other hand, we simply cannot give away or sell our land. Section 91(24) proclaimed that the new Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians". The way this has been interpreted contradicted their constitution. Parliament only had jurisdiction to make treaties with us, that’s all. We never surrendered anything to anybody. We were and continue to be governed by our own constitution, the Kaianereh’ko:wa/Great Law.
Indian Act is genocide. The Indian Act of 1876 declared we were not "persons". Canada has yet to admit that it was founded on systematic genocide. Indigenous customs and cultural practices were criminalized. Our children were taken away and killed in residential schools. Traditional governments were outlawed. Violating our sovereignty Canada illegally forced the Indian Act band council system on us in 1889 against the will and wishes of all but 7 people. The goal of the Indian Act is to carry out the “final solution”, to exterminate us in order to steal our lands and resources. They violated the rule of law and breached Section 109 of their constitution. At that time the colonizers may have been so barbarous that they did not understand the rule of law. However, since that time international discussions have made it very clear that the appropriation of the assets of other nations is simply illegal. Why should Canada be exempt from international standards – especially when Canada has promised to meet them? It hasn’t.
Federal/provincial/local entities have no constitutional jurisdiction over Indians. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake does not own the Seigneury land as it claims in its brochure and its 1988 declaration. Neither Canadian nor Quebec law applies. We have always been governed by our own laws that are based on decisions by consensus. If these foreign governments want to correct these injustices, they must deal directly with the true Mohawk Nation government. They cannot deal with their unconstitutional band council.
Negotiations should be put on hold. "Existing aboriginal rights" under the Kaianereh’ko:wa and the Canadian constitution provide that Indigenous jurisdiction and sovereignty supersede that of Canada and its provinces. The only duty that Canada and Quebec have is to return the lands they are squatting on. They never negotiated a valid treaty authorizing their appropriation to our land.
It appears the band council politicians are holding back critical information from the People. The band council presumes another fallacy that the land was taken away physically but not legally! This is double talk! Once again Mohawk Nation people are being tricked into thinking there’s nothing they can do about it.
Is Canada afraid of France? If so, that’s not our problem. France was initially involved with the people of Kahnawake. Then the French were defeated by the English. Now Canada doesn’t want to go that far back because it would confirm the Mohawks never gave up anything. Remember, when the British conquered the French, they couldn’t take anything from them because they had nothing. They can’t take anything from us because we can’t give it up and we had everything.
Mohawks never subject to anybody. Another fallacy is the idea that the Mohawk of Kahnawake ever became British subjects or Canadian citizens. This is a figment of Canada’s imagination. Sir William Johnson, the first Superintendent of Indian Affairs and the Crown’s representative in North America, knew how things stood. In 1767, five years after the conquest of the French, he wrote to Earl Shelburne, "One who would call the Six Nations our subject needs a good army at his back". Nothing changed with the American Revolution. In 1767 Governor Simcoe wrote that the Indians consider their nations as "entirely independent". In 1796 the Attorney General of Canada noted that "The Six Nations do not acknowledge the sovereignty of the King. They call themselves allies". Even today Canada would rather pay a little money because they don’t want to run into political flack with France. France has no documents that support Canada’s position.
This proposed settlement is a fraud. They start out, "Well, the land is gone", and "Here’s a few cents". They don’t want to admit proprietary rights. Are they really relying on Ontario matrimonial common law? What do we have in common with Ontario refugees? Is there any limit to Canada’s willingness to violate constitutional law?
The Seigneury Sault Louis claim is fraudulent, treasonable and unconstitutional because the land was never surrendered by the sovereign Kanion’ke:haka/Mohawk.
How about a little factual history. Historically, we Mohawks were always on our land under our own constitution. That’s why they’re afraid to look into their archives. Their own authorities said Indians in general were independent. Our ancestors always challenged everyone who tried to mess with us. We constantly stuck to our position that we have "prior interests" to our land and resources that Canada and its provinces must respect. See Section 109 of Canada’s constitution.
In the 1920’s the Six Nations tried to challenge the Indian Act. The Canadian courts tightened their ranks. They refuse to answer any questions about its illegality. Section 132 of their constitution provides that Indigenous people may surrender their land and extinguish their sovereignty through a treaty. No valid treaties were ever concluded where Indigenous people knowingly gave up their land or surrendered their sovereignty.
These negotiations are a legal impossibility. It is constitutionally impossible for the federal and provincial government to legally negotiate such a deal with its own band councils. Their own constitution set out a nation-to-nation relationship.
Parliament in passing the Indian Act treasonably superseded their constitution and placed themself above the law. Any business conducted under the Indian Act is null and void. The Kanion’ke:haka filed motions in the Supreme Court of Canada and U.S. Supreme Court and in the federal, state and provincial courts addressing this issue. As well, we have filed petitions to the U.S. President and the Governor General of Canada. We simply ask whether Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Section 109 of the Canadian constitution still stand. The answer can only be “yes”. They know they have no jurisdiction over us and that none of our lands were ever validly surrendered.
What are the lawyers getting? The Seigneury fraud is being worked out mostly between the lawyers of both Canada and the band council. They all cooperate with the judiciary. Our experience with the courts indicates that the judiciary implements the Indigenous genocide. We have not been told how much the lawyers are getting. If it’s anything like the proposed Akwesasne settlement with New York State, the lawyers stand to take at least 15% of the money. The Indians, except for a few ‘sell-outs’, will get very little benefits.
The band council’s job is to carry out municipal jobs like collecting garbage, looking after sewer and water, catching dogs and making sure that people take their leftovers to the recycling depot. They have no say about the constitutional, national and international positions of the Indigenous sovereign people.
An expose on fraudulent land claims. Ganiengeh, another Mohawk community, provided the following comments:
Expropriation vs. Extinguishment. “Extinguishment of Indian titles is usually the taking of territory by non-native occupiers. If the colonists create an inconsistency in the Indian land they are taking, then the colonists deem that such a grant extinguishes Indian title”.
Our ownership of our land is acknowledged by all parties. The other party is trying to put limitations on our ownership. The Seignuery land claim cannot be settled by monetary remedy. The band council says that other lands will be given to us so that our land can be turned over to the non-native settlers. Since they have nothing to give, are they going to give us a chunk of England? The band council says that this settlement will have no effect on our ownership of the remainder of our territory. They are ignorant. This fraudulent settlement will be used to extinguish our Nation’s title to all our land, like they were going to do in Akwesasne. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
THE LAWS THAT BIND. The laws being used are those of an ecclesiastical corporation, whose mission is to further religion or administration of property held for religious uses to justify their doctrine of occupation. Blacks law dictionary/Pg 343.
The Jesuit ecclesiastical corporation was formed under the Papal Doctrine, also referred to as the Doctrine of Discovery. They made up a meaning of “Indian title” as being “[tribes] occupying land hav[ing] no sovereign title but a mere right to use it”. It’s a complete scam. Canada is part of the international community that upholds human rights. Yet it blatantly practices this illegal concept of occupancy and uses the Doctrine of Discovery as the basis of their theft of our land and resources as well as their campaign of Indigenous genocide. It’s in complete violation of our constitution and their own.
Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act 1982 states that ‘existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed’. They purport that this takes aboriginal rights from common to constitutional law. Ill-informed band councilors and their supporters wrongly believe that this protects native rights and titles. It violates Sections 109 and 132 of the BNA Act 1867. Actually this makes the extinguishment of native rights possible. Instead of respecting the relationship of equality between Indigenous nations and Canada that was worked out in the BNA Act, the federal government sets up Band council mouthpieces to speak for us and sign away our rights and lands. This is all to violate the rights of the constitutionally recognized Indigenous people.
In 1995 the United States Supreme Court gave the federal government the right to expropriate Indian land without giving any compensation (Mancari). The federal government assumed ‘plenary’ or complete power, which completely disregards the U.S. Constitution.
Extinguishment requires legal procedures to be followed [land claims] where one party to the dispute sits in judgment. Both ‘legal’ theories place Indigenous people at an illegal disadvantage. A neutral third party sitting in judgment is a basic principle of the rule of law. Both Canada and the U.S. have developed doctrines and policies to get around this and justify the theft of lands from Indian people.
“The continued implementing of extinguishment policies constitutes a very serious threat to indigenous societies. It is another relic of colonialism. Extinguishment is used to ensure state domination of indigenous peoples and to sever their ancestral ties to their own territories”. Sambo 1993:31
The entire Mohawk Nation should be up in arms over this land swindle. Canada portrays this as a private land transaction, in violation of international law and basic human rights. Today indigenous peoples worldwide are either repossessing or having lands restored to them. Yet in Canada and the United States native people are being forced to relinquish title to their lands and resources in return for the privilege of staying alive. The only sovereign rights that native people have is to sell their land. Band council representatives either know this is happening and are being enticed by personal profit, or they haven’t the slightest clue about what’s going on.
More inconsistencies. The council says they are not going to take money but receive ‘other’ (nation’s) lands. This is inconsistent with our own laws and relationships with other Indigenous nations. Canada cannot give us another nation’s land. It will be used against us as making false representations and committing theft. The band council is acting in a way that is illegitimate and inconsistent with the laws of the Mohawk Nation, who are the true sovereign nationalist government under the Great Law. Such inconsistencies with any of our laws, history and legal positions from time immemorial will threaten our title to all our lands, possessions and existence.
Something's gotta be done. We need answers to our questions and concerns about what Canada and its band councilors are up to. We have to assert our Indigenous sovereignty which is protected under constitutional law, subject to international law and the rule of law. Our land is already ours. Only we have a right to negotiate our relationship with the settlers living thereon. Please provide us with a swift answer.
Nia:wen
Kahentinetha Horn
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news...news/news3.php
January 28th, 2007, 08:18 AM
Their presence dates back to way beyond memory, well before the 1700's, although it was the Conferderacy of the Haudenosaunee, there original land claims involved the Church's use of the land that was to be held in trust for the Mohawks. That trust was violated when the Church sold lands and the funds were never forworded to the Mohawk, but steered to the Church.
As the Church was granted trust by the Governement of the time, and after the Jesuit's were expelled, their control of the lands was transferred to the Roman Catholic Church, who continued the practice of selling land contested by the Mohawk, and their control was under continued support of the Commonwealth. Therefore the Commonwealth must inherit the sins of their fathers, as they fully endorced the continued missappropriation of Native territory, without the consent of the Mohawk.
So the claim is older then 34 years and their presence dates further back then the 1700's.
Quoting temperance
Yes and no.
Thank you
Is this true
The Kanesatake Mohawk Nation has been fighting for the land for 34 years, filing their first land claim for Seigneury in 1972. Their presence on the Seigneury of Lake of Two Mountains dates back to the 1700s
Is this true
The Kanesatake Mohawk Nation has been fighting for the land for 34 years, filing their first land claim for Seigneury in 1972. Their presence on the Seigneury of Lake of Two Mountains dates back to the 1700s
Their presence dates back to way beyond memory, well before the 1700's, although it was the Conferderacy of the Haudenosaunee, there original land claims involved the Church's use of the land that was to be held in trust for the Mohawks. That trust was violated when the Church sold lands and the funds were never forworded to the Mohawk, but steered to the Church.
As the Church was granted trust by the Governement of the time, and after the Jesuit's were expelled, their control of the lands was transferred to the Roman Catholic Church, who continued the practice of selling land contested by the Mohawk, and their control was under continued support of the Commonwealth. Therefore the Commonwealth must inherit the sins of their fathers, as they fully endorced the continued missappropriation of Native territory, without the consent of the Mohawk.
So the claim is older then 34 years and their presence dates further back then the 1700's.
