Re: Bay of Quinte Mohawks (Blockade)

If you haven't heard ....
see here,here, here, here, here, here, or a plethora of other sources I'm sure.

I was just looking something up for a paper I'm writing about Canada's Specific Land Claims policy and issues of gender using Caledonia as a case study when I came across a National Post 'article' relating to Caledonia a series of links later and I arrived at this.
While I'm sure it'll get readers like Lindsay frothing at the mouth in agreement with the article and disagreement with me (and maybe readers like Toby pissed that I'm delving into talking about school stuff on here again - ah yeah that's all my readers Teresa is out because it doesn't involve Eve) I had to take a moment to make a few jot notes for myself on this...

First of all, to be clear, I know little to nothing about the specifics of the land claim most relevant to the Bay of Quinte case apart from what I've read from a few news reports. I don't really have time to write something proper so here are some quotes and rants ....

The column concludes that:

The hope both in Ottawa and in provincial capitals has been that if they treat natives with kid gloves, that will defuse Aboriginal anger and encourage peaceful negotiations rather than standoffs.
Instead, the opposite has happened. One blockade has encouraged another and another, and so on.
Until governments cease negotiations on any land claim in which violence or blockades are used, Canadians can expect native protests to become increasingly disruptive.

Okay.... in a weird way, I sort of agree with parts of this post article. That is, I think that the state itself has shown many times that these "tactics" serve to get the government(s)' attention regarding particular land claims - many which have been backlogged in a is ridiculously convoluted and unjust....There are currently 900 unresolved Specific claims of approximately 1,300 claims submitted in Canada since 1970 that are in the system at one stage or another... [St. Germain & Sibbeston, 2006 - available here - NB: PDF!]

Looking at the situation in Caledonia, for example, federally appointed negotiator, Barbara McDougall's comments reflect this notion that the state is only compelled to act when 'drastic measures' are taken. In an interview with the CBC she stated:

"One of the things that that the Aboriginal people believe and I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion and that is until there is a protest. Until they put down a marker, they don’t get anywhere with the federal government or with the provincial government. Things drag on and on and once it gets off the front pages they worry that the negotiators and the political will go away." (McDougall, 2006)

A spokesperson for the occupation/reclamation site in Caledonia, Hazel Hill, made a similar comments in an interview saying:

"[…] it’s unfortunate that with our people that [the reclamation/occupation is] what it comes down to. Remember Oka, and like you said Ipperwash, it always takes something like that to get the government’s attention and listen to us as we continually sit passively and let the world go on." (Hill, 2006).

This column fails to acknowledge that for hundreds of years Indigenous peoples have used non-violent methods to negotiate with the state. In return the state has continually acted in a way that is disingenuous, discriminatory and unjust. When Indigenous peoples set up blockades (as in the case of Caledonia and Bay of Quinte) it is done as a means of stopping the development of disputed land. It seems simple enough, but, allowing "development" on disputed land has been at the core of both of these 'situations' and this is not really acknowledged here. MOREOVER, contrary to the thrust of this column, it is not as simple as peaceful negotiation or confrontation. As this is a position that assumes that the current system for dealing with Specific Land Claims is a 'peaceful' process and that 'justice' will be done if a few out-layers are dealt with (arrested, what have you) ....

Unless, here, we're defining peace as being equivalent to 'negative peace', I think that successful arguments have been made to demonstrate that the current process for handling Specific Land Claims against the Crown is inherently flawed and quite antithetical to a conceptualization of it being one which is 'peaceful'. A recent Senate Committee report co-authored by Gerry St. Germain and Nick Sibbeston opens with a quote that I think summed up some of my thoughts, here, quite succinctly and accessibly (!):

"Oka, Ipperwash, Caledonia. Blockades, masked warriors, police snipers. Why? Canada’s Failure to address and resolve the legitimate claims for First Nations. Imagine your new neighbour comes into your backyard and fences off half of it. Then he sells it to someone down the street. This new neighbour tells you he got a good deal but he won’t say how much he got. Then, he says that he’ll take care of the cash – on your behalf, of course. Maybe he even spends a little on himself. You complain. He denies he did anything wrong. What would you do? Go to the proper authorities? Turns out the authorities and their agencies work for him. Sue him? He tells you that none of the lawyers can work for you – he’s got every one in town working for him. When he finally lets a lawyer work for you – it turns out that he can afford five of them for every one you can afford. Finally he says: Okay, I’m willing to discuss it. But first you have to prove I did something wrong. Oh, and I get to be the judge of whether you’ve proved it. And, if you do prove it, I get to set the rules about how we’ll negotiate. I’ll decide when we’ve reached a deal and I’ll even determine how I’ll pay the settlement out to you. Oh, and I hope you’re in no rush because this is going to take about twenty to thirty years to settle. Sounds crazy? Welcome to the world of Indian Specific Claims. [. . .]"

Similarly, various UN bodies have stated time and time again, there are serious issues with both the federal Comprehensive Land Claims and Specific Land Claims policies. [A good summary of a number of these criticisms can be found, for one, in KAIROS' February 2007 submission to the UN committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination - PDF!!! - available here]

In terms of Specific Land Claims policy, which is relevant to this case, the state serves as judge, jury, and, oh wait, defendant ... The above Senate report contained, amongst a series of recommendations, a recommendation for the:

"establishment of an independent body, in full partnership with First Nations, with the mandate and the power to resolve Specific Claims within 5 years of their submission."

Righty-o. Great idea. You'd think that this sort of thing had been recommended before. Oh, wait is has. It's been put forth by government bodies no less than 18 times since 1950. Each time the 'consensus' has been ..... more studies need to be conducted before action can take place.

All this is to say, that this post article overlooks the series of "blockades" the Canadian state has set up for Indigenous peoples in Canada in its 'handling' of land claims. This column relies on the truth that: Indigenous peoples' blockades are against Canadian law. This ignores, however, a competing truth that: Canadian law, policies and operating procedures - particularly in the area of land claims - contravene (or at the very least are contradictory to the intent or letter of)treaty agreements, international law. Also, the state's attitude is discriminatory; it is one that continues to relegate Indigenous peoples in Canada to a status of 'wards of state'.

Frankly, in considering the current system and the state's prevailing attitude toward land claims and Indigenous peoples, I am not surprised nor sure I object to these "measures" ...

Columns such as this, perhaps (regrettably) inevitably, only present one narrative here.... One that privileges the legitimacy of the state even when it has been shown time and time again to not be acting in "good faith"....

Defaulting again to the Caledonian context, which I'm more familiar with, I think we should consider the commentary of the Haudenosaunee (or, Six Nations) Confederacy Chief (not to be mistaken for the band council chief!), Allen MacNaughton, who has stated:

We seek an accurate accounting of the use and investment of the funds held by the Crown on our behalf, and land transactions conducted by the Crown involving our lands. For nearly two hundred years our Chiefs have been asking for such accounting and justice. Generations of our elders have passed away with these matters unresolved. It is time to end the injustice.

Our faith in the Canadian people is strong, as we feel that the majority of Canadians also want to see justice on these matters. However, their elected representatives and public servants have failed to act effectively to address and resolve these matters. It is time to lift the cloud of denial and to wipe away the politics that darken the vision of the future. It is time we are heard clearly, and our cases should be addressed with utmost good faith and respect. We firmly believe that if we have respect and trust, we will find mutually agreeable solutions that will reflect our long-standing friendship.

While I want to have faith in Canadians, I'm not sure I do at this point. I want to have faith that people in this country will start to become more critically engaged (here, I most definitely include myself as needing to do so). This must include listening to the perspectives of Indigenous nations within Canada. The state is after all made up of people, people who are to represent 'us'. A first step might be putting pressure yourself on these people. We ought to demand, for one, that "development" be stopped on disputed lands until claims are processed in a manner that is just and without delay....


Related/Unrelated-ish - check this out.