“No,Gary I should talk about stealing land and children from the federal & provincial governments.Issuing building permits without warning developers,Injunctions that go nowhere and with no public consultation or debate-that would be the brantford city council.Rah,Rah,Rah!!! “

One of the big mysteries of this whole farce is the whining and howling about the injunction (still an “interim” injunction at this point I believe). Allegedly, this was a racist prohibition on protesting. Now, the LAST thing I want to do is defend the parasitic tax feeders in City Hall and Superior Court, but lets get some basic facts right and debunk some cherished myths.

1. It was not a ban on protests; it was a ban on trespassing. Trespassing is already illegal under the criminal code so there was no real need for an injunction on top of an already superfluous bylaw. But, hey, this was and is all about the growth of bureaucracy and a long drawn out process of protecting political officials from legal liability, not protecting builders.

2. It was not racist. The bylaw as posted made specific mention of the HDI (again, for legal reasons), but this was no different than my saying “Nobody is allowed to come in my house without my permission, including guys named Albert”. Especially if I have been the victim of persistent harassment by a guy named Albert.

3. THE INJUNCTION WAS NOT ENFORCED! That’s right. A handful of token arrests were made, others were free to mosey on down to the cop station on their own good time (Floyd and Ruby, for example), but for the most part, “protesters” carried on much as before as policeman stood by cruisers sipping on Timmies. In the process, at least one firm has withdrawn a project and the potential for hundreds of jobs has been replaced by a lawsuit against the city. Others have stopped work or suffered costly delays.

4. The injunction has been a stunning and unilateral SUCCESS for protesters, organizers, litigators and native special interest groups. As pointed out above, its lack of enforcement has cost the city dearly, even if one leaves out the hefty legal fees, just as activists have hoped for. It has provided a windfall to a handful of law firms on both sides. It has made poor persecuted Floyd and Ruby into instant celebrities with a cult following.

If the city and its police had quietly, swiftly and efficiently treated the reclamationists as ordinary criminals two years ago, much of this could have been avoided. As it is, the so-called injunction couldn’t have turned out better for the aboriginal industry.

After all, the federal government has said it will only give money not land to settle valid Six Nations claims and the federal and provincial governments have both said they will not expropriate third party land to give to the Six Nations in settlement of any claim.

Six Nations activists know that so why are they demonstrating and stalling and stopping construction on third party land they know the Six Nations will not get?

Well think about this.

Canadian governments have said the Six Nations can use any money it gets in settlement of claims to buy land from willing sellers.

The govermnent has already offered $26 million to settle just one claim. The Six Nations wants more money and they will eventually get more as more claims are settled and they will be able to buy a lot of land with that settlement money.

If Six Nation protesters can stop development, it will frustrate developers, scare away investors and keep land values low.

In addition, if developers can't develop their land, they will likely want to sell it.

Step in the Six Nations and the cheaper the land, the more land the Six Nations can buy with its settlement money.

I has nothing to do with idealism.

It is basically a 3 pronged strategy of, cheapen the land, create willing sellers and buy more land.