Photo by J.P. Antonacci, Brant News
Demonstrators protest outside Brantford city hall on Monday night.
J.P. Antonacci
BRANT NEWS
Native protesters staged a round dance outside Brantford city hall on Monday night to demand a halt to development and better treatment from the city.
Locked doors and security guards kept several dozen protesters – the majority from the Mohawk Workers – from entering the building during a council meeting.
Mohawk Workers spokesperson Jason Bowman said he found the city’s decision to bar the protesters from council chambers “very troubling.”
“Meetings are supposed to be open to the public,” Bowman said outside city hall.
Bowman said the group wanted to address councillors and hear why they chose the “inhumane and bizarre tactic” of cutting off water service to Kanata Village, the disputed Mohawk Street site that currently serves as the Mohawk Workers’ headquarters.
The Workers did not formally ask to be on the meeting agenda, Bowman said.
“(Locking the doors) sends a message that they don’t want the public in here listening to what they’re talking about,” he said. “I don’t know if they’re afraid of the public.”
The group marched in a large circle and sang, waving signs and banners declaring the Mohawks to be the rightful owners of Kanata Village.
Bowman linked the protest with the national day of action in support of Idle No More. “This is a peaceful protest,” he said. “We’ve come here with serious grievances. They’re grievances shared by people all around the world and Brantford is really the belly of the beast.”
However, Mayor Chris Friel said the demonstration was merely the latest of Bowman’s “shenanigans” on behalf of the Mohawk Workers.
“I think it’s a remarkable disservice that Jason Bowman and the Kanata group are using Idle No More as a means of advancing their particular political mission,” Friel said.
Friel said “silliness” such as the protest detracted from the “very real needs” of the Six Nations community that the city’s liaison committee is trying to address in conjunction with the County of Brant and Six Nations elected council. The liaison committee met with MPs in Ottawa in December to push for increased federal involvement in land claims negotiations.
The mayor defended locking the doors of city hall during a public meeting. He said the city had received “a credible threat” that the Workers intended to disrupt Monday’s meeting.
“I for one am very passionate about the democratic process,” he said. “Those individuals would…come into our building and disrupt our council meeting and stop the democratic process.”
Friel said the Workers were told they were welcome to protest outside, but that they could not enter the building.
“Enough shenanigans from Jason Bowman and his ilk,” the mayor said. “None of us have the patience for it any more.”
The lockout prevented local businessman Scott Wood from attending Monday’s meeting as he had planned.
“I’m a little bit disappointed as a citizen,” Wood said. “I wanted to address the councillors directly, but I guess that’s not going to happen.”
Friel expressed regret that citizens unrelated to the protest were barred entry, but noted that some members of the public did enter and that the meeting was televised.
The Mohawk Workers contend that the city should honour the spirit of the Two Row Wampum by halting development on the “contested sites” of Tutela Heights and the Hardy Road area until land claims are resolved.
Before cutting off utilities to Kanata Village, the city had paid almost $50,000 in heat, hydro, water and telephone bills. The Workers assumed responsibility for the hydro bill last month, but the city has yet to turn on the water.
Gee, does Brantford have to open City Hall doors to Indian activists from outside of the City who have illegally taken over the City-owned Kanata site?
Should councilors have to be disrupted by Six Nations activists doing a round dance and waving signs and banners at a council meeting?
According to the article, “The Mohawk Workers contend that the city should honour the spirit of the Two Row Wampum”.
Let’s look at that.
The Two Row Wampum was an agreement the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois from what is now upper New York State U.S.A. made with Dutch colonists in North America in 1613. It was baciscally an agreement that the Dutch colonists and the Five Nations Iroquois would share land but live apart like two vessels sailing in parallel down a river and govern their territories separately.
After the British took over from the Dutch in 1664. the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois began making Covenant Chain agreements with the British around 1677. Those agreements were based on the Two Row Wampum concept to live apart and govern separately.
However, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois signed the Nanfan Treaty with the British in 1701. In that treaty, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois surrendered their beaver hunting grounds, which included land they said had conquerd and taken from other Indian bands, land in what is now the U.S.A. and land in what is now southwestern Ontario, to the British. In that 1701 Nanfan Treaty, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois said they “for ever quit claime” to that land.
After the American Revolution, Quebec Governor Haldimand purchased a huge tract of land in what is now southwestern Ontario and along Grand River from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians and they did “grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, and confirm” that land to the British Crown “forever” on May 22, 1784.
Quebec Governor Haldimand then issued an announcement on October 25, 1784 inviting the Mohawks and others of the Six Nations Indians to enter, occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River.
Governor Haldimand’s announcement was not a treaty or a deed for land from the Crown to the Six Nations. It was a license to occupy the Crown’s land along the Grand River and Crown courts have said so.
Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed, to land along the Grand River in 1793 but Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs would not accept the Simcoe Patent (deed) so the land along the Grand River remained the Crown’s land.
Essentially, according to the Two Row Wampum concept, the people of the Six Nations of the Grand River moved onto and are living on the Crown’s land or in the Crown’s vessel or ship and should be subject to the rules, laws and regulations of the Crown.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
2
By the way, if the water has been cut off to the Kanata site and if it has a ceiling sprinkler system in case of fire and if the toilets don’t work, maybe the Brantford Fire Department and the Brant County Health Unit should run inspections on the site and condemn the building for use if it doesn’t meet fire codes and health regulations.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Here is something that puzzles me about the Kanata site in Brantford.
It is my understanding, that Brantford got a patent (a deed) to that land in the early 1800s, possibly around 1830.
Brantford has not been occupying that site but in fact rented it to Six Nations people where for a while they had a small museum and an excellent example of a longhouse village. It was a terrific example of Six Nations culture and history.
It eventually closed but Brantford was willing to rent the site to another Six Nations group for a healing centre I believe.
However, before that could happen, the Mohawk Worker Six Nations activists illegally took over and occupied the Kanata site claiming it belonged to the Mohawks.
If the City of Brantford thinks it owns the Kanata site but the Mohawk Workers claim the Mohawks own the site, there is a dispute.
Rather that taking over disputed land illegally, why don’t the Mohawk Workers take their claim to the land to court, present their evidence to support their claim and get the dispute adjudicated and resolved?
If they win, so be it.
Why don’t the Mohawk Workers take the case to court? What are the Mohawk Workers afraid of?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
I just drove by Kanata this afternoon and there were many cars in their lots. Now if this group is called “Mohawk Workers” does that mean that they all took the day off work??
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
3
No, they work at Kanata organizing more protests and demonstations. That’s their job. lol
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Is there no statute of limitations that liberate us from guilt about actions of ancestors’ ancestors’ ancestors’ ancestors?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
3
I appreciate the history of the word “worker” and it may have been useful at one time but not today since there is a perception in some circles today that many natives do not work. “Mohawk Anarchists” name actually sounds better and it does reflect the actions of people squatting in Kanata.
If the group was in Kanata legally, I would stop by some time but not while this “little Caledonia” exists.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Watchesall, you’re right. The Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois were in North America before the explorers and colonists arrived from Europe. For centuries the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, the Cayuga and the Seneca lived in the Mohawk Valley and Finger Lakes region in what is now Upper New York State U.S.A. and some Five Nations Iroquois set up camps along the north shore of Lake Ontario.
The Tuscarora Indians lived in what is now North Carolina but moved north sometime between 1712 and 1722 to join Five Nations Iroquois in New York to form the confederacy we now know as the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy.
During the mid-1600s, the Five Nations Iroquois fought with and defeated the Mahican, the Susquehanna, the Erie, the Miami, the Illinois and other Indian bands to conquer a large area south of the Great Lakes as far west as what is now Chicago, Illinois to gain control of the fur trade with European settlers. The Five Nations Iroquois also entered what is now southwestern Ontario in the mid-1600s to kill, conquer and disperse the indigenous Neutral (Attawandaron), Petun (Tionontati) and Huron (Wendat, Wyandot or Wyandotte) Indians.
Later, in the mid-1690s, the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians drove the Five Nations Iroquois out of southwestern Ontario and various reports say they were gone by 1700.
A 2003 Indian Claims Commission report describes that history and says “By 1700, the Mississaugas had succeeded in expelling the Iroquois and taken control of the north shore of Lake Ontario. In that year, representatives of the Mississaugas and other Ojibwa groups travelled to Onondaga, the capital of the Iroquois Confederacy, with an offer of peace. In exchange for the Confederacy’s recognition of the Mississaugas’ territorial control, and an agreement to allow them direct access to English fur traders, the Mississaugas offered to cease hostilities. The offer of peace was accepted in June 1700, and as a result, the Mississaugas secured their control of the territory between Lake Huron and Lake Ontario”.
Source: Indian Claims Commission, 2003. Mississaugas of the New Credit, First Nation Inquiry, Toronto Purchase Claim, page 9.
In addition, a Wyandotte (Huron) Nation website presents excerpts from a history of Innisfil Township. That history says the Ojibwa chief William Yellowhead kept a wampum belt he would bring out when he “had occasion to remind representatives of the Six Nations of their defeat and cession of Southern Ontario”.
Regardless of the June 1700 agreement with the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians, twenty chiefs from the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois Confederacy signed or placed their marks (totems) on the Nanfan Treaty on July 19, 1701. In that treaty, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois surrendered their beaver hunting grounds to the British.
New York surveyor Samuel Clowes (Clows), who se name appears on the Nanfan Treaty, produced a map of the Nanfan Treaty area at the meeting in 1701,That map shows the Nanfan Treaty area included land in what is now the U.S.A. and land in what is now southwestern Ontario and, in that agreement, the chiefs said “we…surrender, deliver up and forever quit claime” to a huge tract of land, which they said they had conquered, to “our great Lord and Master the King of England” on condition the British would allow Five Nations people to hunt on that land “forever”.
Continued below
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Furthermore, in the 1701 Nanfan Treaty, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois said “wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake wholy to the Crown of England” and “wee have lived peaceably and quietly with the people of Albany our fellow subjects”.
Source” Nanfan Treaty, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, U. S. Serial Set, Number 4015 beginning at page 552.
Regardless of being in North America before Europeans, it seems Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois gave up the land in southern Ontario to the Mississauga Indians in June 1700 and then “forever quit claime” to the land in southwestern Ontario to the British and admitted they were subjects of the Crown as early as 1701according to the Nanfan Treaty. How else should people interpret the records?
And, why should the 1701 Nanfan Treaty be valid and apply on land in southwestern Ontario if the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois had already given control of that land to the Mississauga Indians a year earlier in June 1700?
Later, in 1763, King George III (the Crown) of Britain issued a Royal Proclamation. In the Royal Proclamation, the Crown defined Indian Territory in North America and the Crown reserved “Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion” over Indian Territory.
Source: Isaac et al v. Davey et al, 1974, Ontario Court of Appeal, Appendix “A”, Royal Proclamation. The 1763 Royal Proclamation is also available on the internet.
Depending upon the reference, between 24 and 40 Indian bands including the Six Nations Iroquois in northeastern North America agreed to the 1763 Royal Proclamation and its conditions according to the Treaty of Fort Niagara in 1764.
If the British Crown reserved “Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion” over Indian Territory in north America and Indians, including the Six Nations Iroquois, agreed, how should people interpret that?
After the American Revolution ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Quebec Governor Haldimand arranged to buy a huge tract of land in southwestern Ontario, including land along the Grand River, from the Mississauga Indians who had been given control of that land by the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois in June 1700. The Mississauga Indians agreed and they did “grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, and confirm” that land to the British Crown “forever” on May 22, 1784.
Source: Indian Treaties and Surrenders, 1891 (reprinted 1996) Queens Printer, Volume 1, item number 3, page 5
If, in June 1700, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois gave control of the and in southwestern Ontario to the Mississauga Indians and they did “grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, and confirm” that land to the British Crown “forever” on May 22, 1784, how should people interpret that?
Governor Haldimand later issued an announcement on October 25, 1784 in which he said Mohawks and others of the Six Nations from New York could “take possession” of a strip of land along the Grand River. To take possession means to occupy like a person who takes possession of an apartment someone else owns.
And Haldimand in his own hand writing said the “Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians” could occupy the land and said the land was “for them and others of the Six Nations” to occupy. It wasn’t just for the Mohawks.
Source: Photograph of original October 25, 1784 hand written Haldmand document: Reville, F. D., 1920 (reprinted 1982), History of the County of Brant, between pages 34 and 35.
The Mohawk Worker activists say the Kanata site land in Brantford is Mohawk land but, if Governor Haldimand said the Mohawks and “others of the six Nations” could occupy the land along the Grand River, how should people interpret that?
Continued below
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Also, in his own handwriting on the October 25, 1784 Haldimand document, Governor Haldimand said “Given under my hand and seal at arms, at the Castle of St Lewis at Quebec, this twenty-fifth day of October one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four”. Haldimand did not stamp the document with the Great Seal. The Haldimand document was not signed by any Six Nations person. It was not a treaty or a deed to land along the Grand River from the Crown to the Six Nations.
In fact, in the 1835 Jackson v. Wilkes court case, a King’s Bench justice said “We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Government before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that it has been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of the waste lands of the Crown could not be made in any other manner”. The justice also said the October 25, 1784 Haldimand instrument (document, announcement) was no more than a “mere license of occupation”.
Source: Jackson v. Wilkes, 1835; Upper Canada King’s Bench, (O.S. 142).
Furthermore, in the 1974 Isaac et al v. Davey et al, case, which was upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada, it was also made quite clear who owned the Haldimand tract when the judge said “Since I have concluded that the tract in question is vested in the Crown”.
Source: Isaac et al v. Davey et al, 1974, Ontario Court of Appeal.
John Graves Simcoe became the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada in 1791. Six Nations chiefs complained to Governor Simcoe about non native squatters on land along the Grand River so Simcoe investigated their concerns. Among other things, he found that Haldimand had mistakenly allowed Six Nations people to occupy land beyond the northern boundary of the land the British had actually purchased from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784.
To correct Haldimand’s mistakes, Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed, in 1793, which would have allowed them to occupy a strip of the Crown’s land six miles wide on each side of the Grand River from its mouth at Lake Erie to the northern boundary near Elora, Ontario of the land the British had actually purchased from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784.
Source: Isaac et al v. Davey et al, 1974, Ontario Court of Appeal, Appendix “C”, Simcoe Patent
The Simcoe Patent (deed) was a unilateral announcement from an agent of the Crown. It was not signed by any Six Nations person and it was not a treaty. It was basically a deed to land from the Governor.
And, for Governor Simcoe to have offered that patent (deed) for land along the Grand River, that land must have been the Crown’s land in 1793 supporting the contention that Haldimand’s announcement had been simply a license of occupation.
However, in an address to William Claus at Indian Affairs on November 24, 1796, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant said “it does not appear from this grant we are entitled to call these lands on the Grand River our own”. Brant also said “this Deed we could not accept”.
Source: Brant’s Address to William Claus: C. M. Johnston, C. M., 1964; The Valley of the Six Nations, Champlain Society, Publications, Printed Publications, page 82 and Johnston refers to P.R.O., C.O., 42, v. 321 pp.49-53
Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs did not accept and did not take hold of the Simcoe Patent (deed) because they didn’t like its conditions so the land along the Grand River remained Crown’s land.
If the land along the Grand River remained the Crown’s land, Six Nations people today should not be able to claim they own the land.
The Six Nations can claim money the Crown might owe the Six Nations, but should not be able to claim land the Six Nations did not own and which belonged to the Crown.
Maybe the Mohhawk Workers and othe Six Nations people can think about that history.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
daner, I have met quite a few people from the Six Nations of the Grand River including some of the Six Nations activists like Ruby and Floyd Montour and others. My former sister-in-law is in fact status Mohawk and we talk quite a lot.
In every case, the Six Nations people I have met have been friendly or at least tolerant and willing to listen. They are essentially good people.
Once in a while, I might tease or poke fun at some of the actions of the Six Nations activists. That does not mean I am biased against Six Nations people or other Indians as people. They are people like the rest of us with all of the strengths and flaws of the human race.
The Mohawk Workers and some other Six Nations people seem to think the Six Nations owned or owns and should have jurisdiction over the land along the Grand River. I simply disagree.
The documents and research seem to show otherwise. When the Five (Later Six) Nations Indians gave control of the land in southwestern Ontario to the Mississauga Indians in June 1700, when the Five (Later Six) Nations Indians surrendered their beaver hunting grounds, including land in soutwestern Ontario, to the British in 1701, when the 1763 Royal Proclamation says the Crown reserved “Sovereignty, Protection and Dominion” over Indian Territory in North America and Indians including the Six Nations Iroquois agreed according to the Treaty of Fort Niagara in 1764, when the Crown bought land along the Grand River from the Mississauga Indians on May 24, 1784, when the October 25, 1784 Haldimand announcement was not a treaty or a deed but a license of occupation, when Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs would not accept the 1793 Simcoe Patent, a deed to land along the Grand River, and the land remained the Crown’s land, I don’t think Six Nations people can claim they owned or now own the land along the Grand River.
When the British Crown obtained land from the Indians and when they “for ever quite claime” to that land or surrendered land “forever” to the Crown or agreed the Crown had “Sovereignty, Protection and Dominion” over land, it would have become the Crown’s land and the Crown would retain underlying title to that land.
When the Btish Crown obtained land. the Crown was not likley simply to give up the Crown’s land to others for their own as a separate sovereign nation or country.
It is highly unlikley the Crown would have relinguished underlying title to the land along the Grand River or given that land to the Six Nations as their own sovereign country. It is more likely the Crown allowed the Six Nations people to oocupy, not own, the Crown’s land along the Grand River and use it as a reward for the help the Six Nations provided during the American Revolution. There is nothing wrong with that. The land was set aside for the exclusive use of Six Nations people.
The Crown’s courts have basically said the Haldimand document was a license of occupation not a treaty or a deed to land along the Grand River from the Crown to the Six Nations and that the land along the Grand River is “vested in the Crown” and I’m sure the Crown’s courts know how the British system of land transfer worked and know what the documents from Crown officials represent.
As I have said before, the Six Nations can claim money the Crown owes the Six Nations but the Six Nations should not be able to claim land the Six Nations did not own and land that belonged to the Crown.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
CORRECTION: I’m sorry. There are few spelling errors in the comment above but I think people get the gist.
In addition, the Mississauga Indians surrendered land along the Grand River to the British Crown “forever” on May 22, 1784, not May 24.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
3
daner, I don’t think I have ever said anything racist about native Indians.
In fact, I like native Indian people. I actually admire their strength and stoic attitude. I think many have a connection to nature that many others don’t and I think most, like many people, are really pleasant.
I did poke a little fun at the Mohawk Worker activists when I said their job at the Kanata site was to organize more protests and demonstations but, if I’m wrong, what are they doing at the Kanata site if they aren’t organizing some more protests and demonstrations?
And, if, based on resarch and the documents, etc. I have read, I disagree when some Six Nations people claim the Six Nation owns the land along the Grand River, I don’t think that is racist.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Six Nations / Haudenosaunee are indigenous to southern Ontario and local archaeology shows that they have been here for at least 1000 years. They have also connected Iroquois people with the Mound Builders. In fact at Serpernt Mounds (Rice Lake site of the Mound Builders)There are also about 80 Cayuga buried along side the mounds that date back to 750BCE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
The Six Nations/Haudenosaunee may have been indigenous to some parts of southern Ontario but, after they were defeated by the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians in the late 1690s, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) gave control of the land in southern Ontario to the Mississauga Indians in June 1700.
Source: Indian Claims Commission, 2003. Mississaugas of the New Credit, First Nation Inquiry, Toronto Purchase Claim, page 9.
And Ojibwa chief Willian Yellowhead maintained a wampum belt to that effecr.
Then, on July 19, 1701, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) surrendered and “for ever quite claime” to land in the U.S.A. and land in southwestern Ontario to the British according to the Nanfan Treaty.
Source: Nanfan Treaty, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, U. S. Serial Set, Number 4015 beginning at page 552.
Then, in 1764, Indians including the Six Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee)signed the Treaty of Fort Niagara in which the Indians agreed with and accepted the 1763 Royal Proclamation in which King George III of Britain reserved “Sovereignty, Protection and Dominion” over Indian Territory in North America.
It seems regardless of whether the Six Nations/Haudenosaunee were indigenous to some land in southern Ontario, they gave up that land by agreement and treaty to others.
Eventually, the land in southern and southwestern and along the Grand River in Ontario became British territory and the Six Nations would not accept the Simcoe Patent (deed) in 1793 so the land along the Grand River remained the Crown’s land.
And Six Nations people today should not be able to claim land that belonged to the Crown.
The Six Nations can claim money but not land.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I would like to be pragmatic for a moment or two. Obviously there have been enormous violations of dignity and truth imposed upon First Nation residents. To deny that is foolish. Residential schools, our prison system and even the significant disparity between native and non native in terms of wealth and health care. Natives are dying about 10 to 15 years earlier then non natives.
First Nation Canadians were not given their franchise until 1958 yet thousands of First Nation Canadians died in two world wars and in Korea.
What is equally true is that Canada is facing a financial crisis. Both personal and government debt is spiraling out of control. We need to work together to address some of these issues. The answer is not just writing more cheques. I recently spent some time with New Credit First Nation residents. Tragically many residents have spent their 15 thousand dollar cheque and have nothing to show for it.
We need to acknowledge our past wrong doing. We need to work at finding answers for teen suicide on reserves, and the plague of diabetes and heart disease being experienced by First Nation Residents.
First Nation residents need to work with us. Obviously we can’t undo all of the wrongs, but hopefully if we work together we can help first nation residents to become full and equal members of the community.
The solution has to be more then writing billions of dollars worth of cheques. For I start I would like to suggest we give the Kanata village to Six Nations. It really is a worthless piece of property and developing an educational facility fits in with the War Museum, The Mohawk Institute, The Bell Homestead, and the Mohawk Chapel all of which are less the a mile from the Kanata Village.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
As I have pointed out, Quebec Governor Haldimand bought the land along the Grand River for the Crown from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784. The Six Nations would not accept the 1793 Simcoe Patent (deed) so the land along the Grand River remained the Crown’s land.
Later, when the Six Nations needed money, various groups of Six Nations chiefs on various occasions surrendered the use of varoius blocks and parcels of the Crown’s land along the Grand River back to the Crown for sale until finally the Six Nations ended up with the current reserve around 1850.
The City of Brantford got a patent (a deed) for the Kanata site land in the early 1800s.
Much later, the City of Brantford rented the Kanata site land to Six Nations people for a nominal fee of $1 per year, I believe, so they could set up a small museum and example of long house village on the site. When that eventually failed, the City of Brantford was willing to rent the Kanata site for a small fee to some other Six Nations people who wanted to start a healing center on that site.
Before that could happen however, the Mohawk Worker activists took over the Kanata site illegally claiming it was Mohawk land. They wouldn’t take their claim to court. They just took over and occupied the Kanata site illegally.
It might have been a good gesture for the City of Brantford to have given the Kanata site to the Six Nations but, at this point, I don’t think so.
At this point, it would simply be rewarding bad and illegal behaviour.
And who would the City give the land to, the Mohawks or the Six Nations?
And, if Brantford were simply to give the Kanata site to the Mohawks or the Six Nations what would then stop the Mohawk Workers or other Six Nations activists from illegally taking over and occupying more land in Brantford in an efort to obtain more land for free from the City?
And, if Brantford were to give the Kanata site to the Mohawks or the Six Nations, would that stop the claims the Six Nations has for money from the Crown or would they get the Kanata site and money and get rewarded twice?
It might have been a good gesture at one time to have given the Kanata site to the Six Nations but not now under the current circumstances and it should not be necessary to give the Kanata site land to the Mohawks or the Six Nations when the Six Nations cannot claim land that belonged to the Crown and when the Six Nations claims are about money, not land.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0