Back to the Index Page
Newer articles appear first. As of December, 2011, articles are now available in pdf format. You need Adobe reader to view these files. They are printer ready.
Imperial Minions, Transparent Rednecks and Dirty Drawers January 11, 2012
Horse Traders, Card Sharks and Broken Promises: The Contents of Treaty #3 A Detailed Analysis December 21, 2011
Tranquilizing the Indians: The Context of Treaty 3 An Historical Analysis November 23, 2011
The Keewatin Judgement: Give an Inch to Take a Mile October 20, 2011
On the Art of Stealing Human Rights, extracts from the speech delivered by Gerry Gambill in 1958 at a Human Rights Conference, Tobique Reserve (1958) September 25, 2011
Action Alert: Proof of Vaccine Experimentation on Aboriginal Newborns and Children in Canada Today August 22, 2011
Canadian Government Ultimatum on Native Land Claims: Sabre Rattling at Indigenous July 27, 2011
21 Years Since the Mohawk/Oka Crisis and Still Counting: Some Questions Just Never Go Away July 11, 2011
Our critique of the Keewatin Judgement leads to a closer look at Treaty 3 itself and the circumstances surrounding it, the context. We will look at the Content in Part Two.
What was going on before, during and immediately after the negotiations? What were the driving forces that moved the two parties together? What is significant about this particulr treaty aka the North-West Angle Treaty? Why did two Commissioners and the Lieutenant Governor quit just before the Treaty negotiations? One question leads to another and another.
Some people may be offended at the title. It came from Indian Affairs Treaty Commissioner Alexander Morris' official report to the Governor General.
Since Morris, being a lawyer trained by John A himself, often used other people's wording, the phrase may well have originated with Joseph Howe, then Secretary of State of Canada, "This treaty was one of great importance, as it not only tranquilized the large Indian population affected by it, but eventually shaped the terms of all the treaties, four, five, six and seven, which have since been made with the Indians of the North-West Territories--"
Morris, a boy from Perth, was parachuted into Manitoba in 1872 as a Justice. He soon replaced long-time Hudson' Bay Company man, Wemyss Simpson as Indian Commissioner for unknown reasons. Morris was lead negotiator for all five treaties and had a hand in modifying or amending Treaties 1 and 2. At the same time, he was Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, the NW Territories and Keewatin.
CORRECTION: The correct info from Morris 1874 report to Indian Affairs:
"In 1872, the Indians were found not to be ready for the making of a treaty and the subject was postponed. In the year 1873 a commission was issued to the Hon. Alexander Morris, then Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and the North-West Territories, Lieut.-Col. Provencher, who had in the interval been appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs in the place of Mr. Simpson, who had resigned, and Lindsay Russell Esq., but the latter being unable to act, Mr. Dawson, now M.P. for Algoma, was appointed Commissioner in his stead."
GENOCIDE AND COLONIAL POLICY
Definition of Genocide
The 1948 UN resolution defined Genocide in Article 2:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (See Part III, Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1927)
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The purveyors of the Colonial Policy were and are guilty on all 5 points.
There are some important differences between the Canadian and US methods used to subdue the Indigenous people of Turtle Island. The intended outcome remains the same one of genocide: Extermination (a) vs Civilization, (b & c), ie Assimilation through Conciliation. A refined form of psychological warfare was waged through the Treaties which covered the conciliation part while the residential schools (e) aka "child concentration camps" were responsible for the civilization part. The colonial agents wanted to pacify the Indians into submission. It was a diabolical and crafty blend of beguilement and coercion.
The US army massacred astronomical numbers of Indigenous men, women and children and then moved the survivors away from their ancestral homelands. The Canadians wanted to avoid open warfare and keep Indigenous people on reserves within their own territories. The reasons behind this strategy had much to do with the daunting northern climate. The British knew they would always need the help of Indigenous in these areas.
The circumstances surrounding the Treaties included a number of factors, among them infectious diseases, waging war with superior weapons and numbers, psychological warfare and the steady and growing influx of immigrants. The buffalo were slaughtered in great numbers so as to starve the Indians quite literally. This continued the colonial policy started as early as Champlain burning the Mohawks' corn 250 years before.
The British plan to move all Anishnaabek to Manitoulin Island was a failure. After the Manitoulin Treaty was signed in 1862, many Anishnaabek continued to disagree with it. An incident on the island kept the colonial entities anxious. It was just one example of dissent and resistance to the British land grab throughout Nishnaabe territory.
Uprisings of the Metis resistance movement occurred around the same time, the first in 1869-70. According to army man William Butler, "Early in the month of December, 1869, Mr. M'Dougall issued two proclamations from his post at Pembina, on the frontier: in one he declared himself Lieutenant-Governor of the territory which Her Majesty had transferred to Canada; and in the other he commissioned an officer of the Canadian militia, under the high-sounding title of "Conservator of the Peace," "to attack, arrest, disarm, and disperse armed men disturbing the public peace, and to assault, fire upon, and break into houses in which these armed men were to be found."
The second Metis uprising was put down by British/Canadian armed forces in 1885. The soldiers were quickly brought in on the new trains from Kingston. Louis Riel was hanged.
Indigenous people were pressured to participate in and sign the Treaties which meant surrendering their lands. The ever present threat of military force was most persuasive. Negotiators like the very slick Morris used a divide and conquer strategy of psychological warfare, creating hierarchy where before none had existed, pressuring Indigenous to meet the colonial timetable and pressuring them to accept all the colonial terms or else.
An Unending Hoard of Voracious Intruders
The rate of immigration was overwhelming to Indigenous people. It still is. What started with hundreds then thousands of fur traders and missionaries soon became an unending hoard of millions of land-hungry intruders and the speculators who follow them. The new colonists were often hostile, aggressive, hungry and frightened. They had an urgency about them. They needed to find food and shelter and often arrived completely unprepared. Indigenous people were becoming more alarmed each day as they saw the masses of strange people coming in like a swarm of bees.
"On the 13th instant (April) I had a visit from the Cree Chiefs, representing the Plain Crees from this to Carlton, accompanied by a few followers.
The object of their visit was to ascertain whether their lands had been sold or not, and what was the intention of the Canadian Government in relation to them. They referred to the epidemic that had raged throughout the past summer, and the subsequent starvation, the poverty of their country, the visible diminution of the buffalo, their sole support, ending by requesting certain presents at once, and that I should lay their case before Her Majesty's Representative at Fort Garry. Many stories have reached these Indians through various channels, ever since the transfer of the North-West Territories to the Dominion of Canada, and they were more anxious to hear from myself what had taken place."
Christie reassured the Cree Chiefs that their Treaty was coming and that "they should remain quiet and live at peace with all men" while thieves overran their territory and claimed it all including the trees and the water.
ENGLISH CUNNING: PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE IS PART OF WARFARE
In 1858, Morris made a speech to the colonial elite in Toronto. Recorded in his book, "Nova Britannia", he said speaking of Indigenous, "We are brothers, we will lift you up, we will teach you, if you will learn, the cunning of the white man."
One of the most horrific massacres of Indigenous by colonial soldiers took place at "a small and unarmed Cheyenne and Arapaho village", Sand Creek, (now Colorado) in November, 1864. The colonial mood was reflected in the rhetoric of genocidal threats towards Indigenous, published in the Rocky Mountain News in March, 1863, "They are a dissolute, vagabondish, brutal and ungrateful race, and ought to be wiped from the face of the earth."
The same paper reported in August, 1864, the time was at hand to "go for them, their lodges, squaws and all."
When a family of settlers was killed by Indians, the Governor issued an emergency proclamation authorizing the killing of any and all Indians. Former Methodist missionary, Colonel John Chivington then led 700 heavily armed soldiers in the early morning hours to Sand Creek. He already knew that most of the men were away hunting but he did not care.
Everyone in the camp was killed, man, woman and child. Many bodies were mutilated. Soldiers reports included such statements, "...The bodies were horribly cut up, skulls broken in a good many...I do not think I saw any but what was scalped; saw fingers cut off to get the rings off them...saw several bodies with privates cut off, women as well as men...I could not stand it...I heard one man say that he had cut a squaw's heart out and had it stuck up on a stick..."
Chivington then sent messages to the press boasting of his gory deeds. Word also reached every Indigenous far and wide. A Congressional inquiry was called but nothing was ever done. Later President Theodore Rossevelt said, the Sand Creek Massacre was "as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."
Religion
The Christian religion was used to justify horrible and cruel acts of genocide. It was also used to intimidate Indigenous people by making them think bad things were happening to them because they were not Christians. The sales pitch was that if they would accept Jesus, then their lives would be good. Many Anishnaabek did not fall for it but yet it was always chipping away at our sense of who we are.
While the Creationists and Evolutionists are often at odds, colonial interpretations of both theories supported a racist and genocidal policy. In his 1871 book, "The Descent of Man", Charles Darwin stated, "...at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."
It Was a Setup
In 1871, William Lee, Clerk of Privy Council wrote to Joseph Howe, then Secretary of State for the Provinces which included Indian Affairs at that time, "In anticipation of the movement of troops across the country lying between Thunder Bay and Manitoba, in 1870, agents were employed to visit the Indian Tribes along the route, to conciliate them by presents, and to assure them that while a peaceful right of way for troops and emigrants only was required, the Government would be prepared, at a convenient season, to compensate them for their friendly co-operation, and to cover by a Treaty any lands which they might be willing to part with and the Government deemed it politic to acquire.
These conciliatory measures were eminently successful, and the troops and employs of the Government passed to and fro without obstruction."
In other words, it was a setup. Their reports state that the Indigenous went to them to treat when it was really the other way around. The smooth talking "agents", minions of the Crown, were spreading false information which led to the Indigenous thinking it was only a "right of way" the Dominion Gov wanted.
Those Choo Choo Trains
Trains have long been romanticized into a childhood fantasy. Fortunate children of all ages have little train sets that are the envy of their friends.
The reality of the railroad pushing into the wilderness is another story. Trains stink and roar and rattle as they rush along their smelly tracks. People and creatures are at first terrified of these menacing iron monsters. There are many innocent casualties.
Yet to the colonial elitists the trains along with canals and roads, symbolized their conquest of Nature and the strength of their Empire. The early trains facilitated the mass slaughter of the buffalo as well as the quick transport of troops wherever they were required. The outcome of the second Red River Metis uprising might have been very different had the soldiers not arrived so quickly from Kingston.
SLAUGHTER of the BUFFALO
The wholesale SLAUGHTER of the BUFFALO at its peak during the 1870's led to mass starvation for Indigenous people. At the beginning of the 1800's, there were nearly 60 million American buffalo. When the slaughter got going in the 1870's with repeating rifles, the railroad and a new technology for tanning their hides, the numbers were reduced to near extinction.
Traders and trappers killed buffalo just for the hides and left the rest of the animal to rot. Indigenous people were angry and horrified at this. Hides were sold for about $2.00 to $3.50 each. During the winter of 1872-73, more than 1.5 million buffalo hides were sent on trains to New England! The bones were also sold for use in bone china, fertilizer, and in sugar processing. A ton of buffalo bones sold for about $8.00.
During the winter of 1883-84, an estimated 10% of the Plains Indigenous population died of malnutrition and disease. Augustus Jukes, a North West Mounted Police doctor described the conditions, "The disappearance of the buffalo has left them not only without food, but also without robes, moccasins and adequate tents or 'tepees' to shield them from the inclemency of the impending winter. Few of their lodges are of buffalo hide, the majority being of cotton only, and many of these in the most rotten and dilapidated condition... Their clothing for the most part was miserable and scanty in the extreme... It would indeed be difficult to exaggerate their extreme wretchedness and need, or the urgent necessity which exists from some prompt and sufficient provision being made for them by the government."
An estimated 31,000,000 buffalo were killed between the years of 1868 and 1881 with only 500 buffalo left by the year of 1885. Indigenous people all over Turtle Island were very aware of what was happening. Our ancestors felt unspeakable grief and anger. Many were literally "shell shocked".
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
The Saulteaux Ojibwe would be very fearfully aware of the strange and deadly sicknesses that sometimes hit their people. Smallpox was ravaging the NorthWest during 1870.
A century before, at the same time that George III was signing the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commanding general of British forces in North America, was trying to irradicate Indigenous in any way that he could. His letters are filled with venomous comments of genocidal intent.
Colonel Henry Bouquet at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was preparing to lead an expedition to relieve Fort Pitt. Amherst wrote to him in June, 1763: "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."
Bouquet agreed, "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself."
Amherst wrote in letters to Sir William Johnson Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, "... measures to be taken as would bring about the total extirpation of those indian nations...it would be happy for the provinces there was not an indian settlement within a thousand miles of them, and when they are properly punished, i care not how soon they move their habitations, for the inhabitants of the woods are the fittest companions for them, they being more nearly allied to the brute than to the human creation..."
Many Puritan settlers shared his views.
Since smallpox was so widespread at that time, it is impossible to know when Indigenous were deliberately infected as part of a military strategy or when Indigenous got sick from contact with the settlers. Smallpox was the worst of the infectious diseases, killing as many people as all other diseases combined. The list includes diphtheria, measles, mumps, scarlet fever, typhoid, malaria, yellow fever, influenza and tuberculosis.
Colonel Bouquet's famous line, "... every Tree is become an Indian," was his description of a contagion of fear among "the terrified Inhabitants," for whom the Indians were a part of the wildness they perceived around themselves. Indian warriors would not stand in ordered ranks; they fell back into the forests only to emerge again in renewed attack; their leaders defied British logic and proved effective against a string of British forts; these were the enemy that nearly succeeded in driving the British out, and became the target for British genocide.
By the time of the British Treaty of 1873 with the Saulteaux, Indigenous people all over Turtle Island had been decimated by contagious diseases. Everyone knew. The diseases killed the settlers too but not in such great and dramatic numbers. The devastation had shaken whole nations.
One author describes the effect on survivors as a form of PTSD and social collapse, "In their minds they had been overcome by evil. Everything they had believed in had failed. Their ancient world had collapsed Their medicines and their medicine men and women had proven useless. ...the missionaries now openly accused them of being agents of the devil himself and of having led their people into disaster."
Scarlet Fever
Against this backdrop, scarlet fever hit the Stone Fort Treaty One negotiations in 1871. Simpson casually reported on July 11, 1871, "Three deaths occurred among them to-day, and in all, eleven persons, chiefly children, have been carried off since our arrival, and there are, many more in a precarious state."
Think of it this way: Your people are gathered at an extremely important meeting. Suddenly several people die, including one of your children. Many more are so sick they are completely incapacitated, delirious and vomiting all over the place. Fear grips everyone. It makes it even harder for your spokespeople to think and speak. They cannot postpone the meetings anymore because the Commissioner says you will be blamed if negotiations fail.
Morris reports that Simpson was meeting "at the Lower Fort Garry, or Stone Fort, with the Indians of the Province, and certain adjacent timber districts, and with the Indians of the other districts at Manitoba Post, a Hudson's Bay fort, at the north end of Lake Manitoba", just two weeks later.
Scarlet fever is highly contagious through contact. It is also airborne and can remain in unwashed clothing and blankets indefinitely. In all his travels, Simpson himself could have carried the scarlet fever to the Anishnaabek.
Most people nowadays have no experience and little if any knowledge of scarlet fever aka scarlatina. The streptococcus bacteria is best known as strep throat.
These words were written by a doctor for an 1871 family medical guide:
"The most suddenly fatal cases under my care were those in which the disease commenced with inflammation of the membranes of the brain, and violent delirium, in which the dose of the poison seemed to be so great that the constitution was overpowered, and could not rally."
In June, 2011, over 500 cases of drug resistant scarlet fever were reported in Hong Kong. At least two children died. Some 9,000 cases have been detected in mainland China with pockets of the disease all over the world. WHO is monitoring the situation.
THE POLICIES AND REPORTS
There are piles of English records over centuries that clearly reveal the colonial intent and thinking. Some of them are hidden. Some are posted online. Church and State worked together relentlessly, one justifying the inhuman policies, the other administering them. The Dominion reports to Indian Affairs are generally written in a more subdued but coldly clinical language than some of the earlier documents that are more vociferous. The volume of material is so great that we put a set of quotations into a separate file. See Part III: Tranquilizing the Indians: The Ongoing Context Of The Colonial Thinking.
CONCLUSION
Our Nishnaabe ancestors were against the wall. In signing these Treaties, they knew full well that they were acquiescing to extreme conditions. It was very humiliating for the Chiefs and Spokespersons. Many proud people left in anger. The participants were only buying time so we could rebuild our communities and nations. If we had all stood on pride and died fighting on our feet, then there would be no one left "to live and fight another day". The colonial entities never thought we would persevere with such determination.
That the colonial elitists still dominate the world is a troubling fact. Yet their pre-eminence daily becomes more tottering in its rottenness as they try to expand and maintain their global reach. At the same time, more and more people realize our commonality of human interests, the need for peace and security born of respect, equality and sharing. These are not hollow words but action is required.
Kittoh
Notes and Sources
Oxford dictionary defines "conciliate" as 1. make calm and content; 2. mediate in a dispute.
http://www.archive.org/details/novabritanniaoro00morriala
"Nova Britannia; or, Our new Canadian dominion foreshadowed. Being a series of lectures, speeches and addresses" by Alexander Morris.
The Project Gutenberg EBook of
"The Treaties of Canada with The Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories" by Alexander Morris
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/indianaffairs/001074-119.03-e.php?page_id_nbr=145&PHPSESSID=kocp1m5gt4dl1rj81qnq10rrr1
Library and Archives Canada
Report Of The Indian Branch Of The Department Of The Secretary Of State For The Provinces.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Background
Resistance at Manitoulin:
http://biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?id_nbr=4508
As the decade of the 1850s passed, it became obvious that the original hopes for Manitoulin Island would not be met. Sir Francis Bond Head*’s notion of using the island as a reserve for all the bands in Upper Canada had been quickly abandoned, as few even from central and north central Upper Canada went to the island. Moreover, the lesser aim of using the government supported Indian community of Manitowaning, where the Church of England was active in educational and pastoral work, as a model for others to emulate had to be given up when the Indians gradually abandoned it to return to their traditional ways of hunting and fishing. With the failure of the Manitoulin Island experiment, Indian fears of white encroachment increased rapidly in the late 1850s and resulted in growing discontent. The signing in 1862 of the Manitoulin Treaty for the surrender of the island, which Ironside helped William McDougall* and William Spragge to negotiate by persuading the Indians around Manitowaning to support the government’s intentions, brought the situation to a head [see Jean-Baptiste Assiginack].
Anti-government feeling was particularly potent among the people in the eastern end of the island around Wikwemikong. The Indians of this flourishing, predominantly Roman Catholic settlement had felt betrayed by the 1862 treaty, which they saw as part of a design on the part of the government “to deprive them of their Island.” The chiefs at Wikwemikong had, with only two exceptions (who, it was claimed by some, were not representative or had been appointed illegally by Ironside), refused to sign the treaty. In December 1862, a few months after it was signed, a number of white families were expelled from Wikwemikong, along with some Indian families who disagreed with the majority there over the treaty; Chief Francis Tehkummeh, a signatory of the treaty, was forced to seek refuge with Ironside at Manitowaning. In July 1863 William Gibbard, fisheries commissioner for the Great Lakes, came to the island to arrest the chiefs responsible for the incidents. Encouraged by two Roman Catholic missionaries at Wikwemikong, Auguste Kohler and Jean-Pierre Choné, the Indians mounted a physical force and resisted; Gibbard withdrew with his force and a captive Indian who was charged for his involvement in the expulsion of a white family from an island off Manitoulin. The confrontation demonstrated the intensity of Indian feeling after the 1862 treaty. The deteriorating situation affected Ironside’s health, and in the midst of the excitement surrounding the incident he died suddenly on 14 July 1863, probably of a heart attack.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/15401/pg15401.txt
"The Great Lone Land: A Narrative of Travel and Adventure in the North-West of America" by W. F. Butler, 1872
Sand Creek Massacre
summarized from "American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World" by David Stannard
There are photos from the Chicago Inter-Ocean, one captions reads, "Big Foot lay in a sort of solitary dignity", wrote reporter Carl Smith. "He was shot through and through. A wandering photographer propped the old man up, and as he lay there defenseless his portrait was taken."
"Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race" by Thomas Dyer, 1980
http://www.dickshovel.com/lsa3.html Mt. Rushmore is a Shrine of HYPOCRISY!
"The Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin, 1871
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2300
Slaughter of the Buffalo
http://itbcbison.com/education/eduresource.php?id=79
http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP10CH2PA2LE.html
http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP10CH2PA4LE.html
EPIDEMIC DISEASES
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
Jeffrey Amherst and Smallpox Blankets
•"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June)
•"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June).
2. The depiction of Indians as wild beasts was quite common among early American leaders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. David E. Stannard writes: 'As is so often the case, it was New England's religious elite who made the point more graphically than anyone. Referring to some Indians who had given offense to the colonists, the Reverend Cotton Mather wrote: "Once you have but got the Track of those Ravenous howling Wolves, then pursue them vigourously; Turn not back till they are consumed… Beat them small as the Dust before the Wind." Lest this be regarded as mere rhetoric, empty of literal intent, consider that another of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, as late as 1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs "to hunt Indians as they do bears."' [American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (1992)), p. 241]
Yuuyaraq: the Way of the Human Being, with commentary, edited by Eric Madsen (Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska, College of Rural Alaska, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies (1991)), states that epidemics caused a form of post-traumatic stress disorder and social collapse.
Scarlet Fever - (thousands of hits on google)
http://historicaltidbits.blogspot.com/2010/02/scarlet-fever.html
1871 family medical guide:
The first symptoms of the disease [scarlet fever] are a sensation of chilliness, amounting in some cases to a rigor or shivering, accompanied with nausea, irritability of temper, and depression of spirits.
The prostration of strength in this form of the disease is always alarming, and should be counteracted by nourishing drinks or fluid food, as beef-tea, mutton-tea, chicken...
The amount of poison in the system seems, however, so great in many cases that it must prove fatal in despite of remedies; and none but the best constitutions can recover from the malignant form of this fever, which often destroys life on the third or fourth day.
The inflammation often extends from the throat to the ear by the internal passage behind the tonsils, and causes inflammation of the drum of the ear, which is destroyed, and with it the power of hearing."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000974.htm
Complications are rare with the right treatment, but can include:
•Acute rheumatic fever
•Bone or joint problems (osteomyelitis or arthritis)
•Ear infection (otitis media)
•Inflammation of a gland (adenitis) or abscess
•Kidney damage (glomerulonephritis)
•Liver damage (hepatitis)
•Meningitis
•Pneumonia
•Sinusitis
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=700375&publicationSubCategoryId=200
Mutated scarlet fever fuels Hong Kong outbreak June 27, 2011
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/foun/contents.htm
Epidemic diseases occasionally reached Fort Union. In December 1873 the wife and seven children of a civilian employee in the quartermaster department experienced an outbreak of scarletina (scarlet fever), resulting in a miscarriage for the woman and the death of three of the children, ages two, four, and six. The older children had a milder form of the disease, as Surgeon Moffatt reported, "the severity of the disease seemed almost in inverse ratio to the age of the patients." In fact, "in the oldest of the family aged 16 the affliction was so mild that it was not necessary to confine the patient to bed." The children who died, however, suffered rapid deterioration of the nervous system and expired within forty-eight to seventy-two hours. The surgeon declared that their "convulsion movements, constant tossing to and fro upon the bed, the throwing of the limbs about, and moaning with delirium were painful to witness." Moffatt speculated that the origin of the outbreak may have come from "associating a good deal with the Mexicans from the surrounding localities" where scarletina was reported to be present with "great fatality in their respective communities." A few other cases were reported at the post, none of which was fatal.
Another outbreak of scarletina occurred in March 1877. Royal Lackey, nine-year-old son of a civilian employee at the post, was the first case, reported on March 4, and his family was immediately quarantined. Royal's younger brother, Willie, age seven, died of the disease on March 19. Another boy at the post, son of Private and Mrs. Cunningham (first names and his regiment unknown), showed symptoms of scarlet fever on March 5, and the family was "at once isolated in one of the Hospital wards and their house thoroughly disinfected." No other cases were reported and there were no further fatalities from the disease. Surgeon Carvallo declared that "measures taken to prevent further cases of contagion were very successful in this instance and prove what can be done by vigilance."
http://www.questia.com/library/science-and-technology/health-and-medicine/diseases-and-disorders/scarlet-fever.jsp
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=80929300
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/scarlet-fever/DS00917
Over the past two months, since midAugust, many Nishnaabek scholars, historians and concerned people as well as lawyers, investment brokers, mining corporatists, academics, journalists and others have been poring over a tedious 400page legal document. Called the Keewatin Judgement KJ and written by Ontario Superior Court of Justice Judge, Mary Ann Sanderson, it addresses two questions in a civil trial, "Keewatin vs Minister of Natural Resources". The issue is the detrimental effects of logging on Indigenous hunting and fishing rights and activities. The Grassy Narrows Nishnaabek want to stop logging on their territory.
When the Judgement was first released, it was met with great praise and hope. AFN Chief Shawn "Alto" Atleo joined in a two-parrot harmony with Angus "Tenor" Toulouse, Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario, cooing and welcoming the decision.
The Plaintiffs are "Andrew Keewatin Jr. and Joseph William Fobister on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Grassy Narrows First Nation". That means everyone at Grassy Narrows is liable if the court rules against the Plaintiffs in this matter at any future time. This case is an apparent attempt to make the Crown, ie Canada/Ontario honour the Nishnaabe right to hunt and fish.
The Defendants are the (Ontario) Minister of Natural Resources and Abitibi Consolidated Inc. with the Attorney General of Canada as a Third Party.
We are by no means experts on legal documents but we were encouraged to look at the KJ, presumably to comment, and so we did. We are sorry to report that the jubilant claims to victory by the Plaintiffs and others are premature and likely quite hollow, in our view. The verdict will most likely be appealed by Ontario, dragging the whole matter out in the courts for more years to come. To what end?
The questions that end up being addressed by the Judge are way off the real issues of Indigenous rights and sovereignty, Treaty terms and even the viability of the Treaties.
Another Judge, Nancy "Secret Agent" Spies dictated the issues to be addressed, avoiding the real issues. Following her lead, "Assuming" Sanderson focuses in on the distinctions between Ontario and Canada and their relative jurisdictions. We view this as a diversion tactic and a waste of time. The Treaty in question makes it quite clear how to resolve their various and frequent disputes and squabbles. Treaty #3 includes this passage,
"Her Majesty further agrees with her said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by her Government of her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes, by her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government."
The Commissioners acted on behalf of the Crown, Treaty #3 being "between Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by her Commissioners, the Hon. Alexander Morris, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba and the North West Territories, Joseph Albert Norbert Provencher and Simon James Dawson, of the one part, and the Saulteaux tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians, inhabitants of the country within the limits hereinafter defined and described, by their Chiefs, chosen and named as hereinafter mentioned, of the other part".
The Crown can appoint or empower anyone SHE pleases through her Privy Councils in a minute and without your knowledge. That's why it's called "privy". This includes any Ontario government official. All elected and/or appointed officials whether federal, provincial, municipal or band council, take an OATH to the Crown. This presumes their ultimate allegiance is to the Crown. They never know what they might get asked to do.
The Crown is everywhere in Government in the top position of authority. It is, therefore, the Crown who must be taken to task and exposed for failure to "protect" the Indians as promised.
Madam "Assuming" Sanderson need not trouble her head about Question One:
"Does Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario have the authority within that part of the lands subject to Treaty 3 that were added to Ontario in 1912, to exercise the right to "take up" tracts of land for forestry, within the meaning of Treaty 3, so as to limit the rights of the Plaintiffs to hunt or fish as provided for in Treaty 3?"
or Question Two:
"If the answer to question/issue 1 is "no", does Ontario have the authority pursuant to the division of powers between Parliament and the legislatures under the Constitution Act, 1867 to justifiably infringe the rights of the Plaintiffs to hunt and fish as provided for in Treaty 3? [provided that the question of whether or not the particular statutes and statutory instruments at issue in this action in fact justifiably infrige the treaty rights shall not be determined and shall be reserved for the trial of the rest of this proceeding.]"
(Whew, that was one long sentence, written in legaleze to confound us ordinary folks and make us feel inferior and unable to deal with such topics. Should we leave it all to the experts?)
"Assuming" Sanderson answered "No" to both questions.
It is obvious to us with question one that "within the meaning of treaty 3", the Crown had every intention of taking up, ie taking over any land She wished and for whatever purpose She wanted in whatever capacity or hat She was wearing on any given day and crushing the lives of the Indigenous or "limiting their rights" as she saw/sees fit.
The absolute bottom line in reality is that the Crown has no just authority whatsoever but that is not what Sanderson is looking at.
In saying No to Question One, she has to go to Question Two. When she says No to Question Two, that creates an avalanche of protracted court action that could go on for many more years. Woopee for the lawyers and experts who make piles of money out of unending disputes and arguments over small points of colonial law.
It took Sanderson a year to prepare this document which will no doubt have its effects on the Nishnaabek of Grassy Narrows.
The question at the end of the day for the people of Grassy Narrows, is really this, "What about the blockades that have been effectively preventing clear cut logging on Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek land?" It's been a long haul and many are weary and ready to quit at the slightest encouragement. Some ask, "Should they trust the Crown to do the right thing?"
Grassy Narrows Anishnaabek may now be divided by arguments as to whether or not they should continue the blockades, escalate them or dismantle them. Lawyers take every opportunity to capitalize on disagreement. Sanderson's judgement inflames any divisions in the community that may exist. Meanwhile she resides in her posh home somewhere in the Toronto vicinity. She may even take a long winter vacation in some warm climes traveling by private jet or yacht or some such. Who knows she may get to have lunch with Queenie sometime.
Experts and Witnesses
$What's$ at $Stake?$
The judge, the lawyers and the experts involved in this case are well paid for their services. The number of lawyers involved is at least ten. The number of experts brought in by all parties is about six with frequent reference to other experts' papers and reports. These experts or academics are historians often with posh jobs at various universities. Their price for their time as experts in courtrooms is pretty steep, somewhere in the order of $300/hour or more.
It gets even worse. The well known activist, Kevin Annett works to expose the crimes of the Canadian government and the Churches who are responsible for the residential school atrocities. He says of one of the expert witnesses, John Milloy for the Plaintiffs, "he is an idiot, [Canada's] Official Say Nothing Expert". Annett knows well of whom he speaks. Milloy is a Director on Canada's Whitewash, the Truth and Rconciliation Commission TRC. (See Kevin's article and more on the "experts" in the endnotes.)
So then how is Milloy "helping" the Grassy Narrows Anishnaabek???
We still have to ask, where does the money come from to pay all these people?! The Ancestors were with us when we encountered yet another related long legal document.
In 2006, "Secret Agent" Spies ruled that MNR had to pay all the Plaintiffs' court costs regardless of the trial outcome. That makes the bill 100% going to you, the taxpayer which by the way includes Indigenous people too. This may be news to some but we Indigenous pay all kinds of taxes including income tax.
This judge also made another important ruling regarding the liability of the Plaintiffs in the event things in the end are ruled against them. The entire community of Grassy Narrows is on the line in this case. The judge stated, "...I am not prepared to add a term to the Representation Order that Grassy Narrows be jointly and severally liable with the plaintiffs for any award of costs that may be made against the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants". She also made it clear that this could be reversed in the future, "This order does not preclude the defendants from moving at a later date for an order that Grassy Narrows should be responsible for costs..."
Keep in mind, this is what Ontario and Abitibi were demanding the Judge "...should order that Grassy Narrows be jointly and severally liable with the plaintiffs for any award of costs that may be made against the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. Counsel for the MNR advised that the intention is to bind the assets of Grassy Narrows as an entity, not the assets of individual members...[They] argue that such an order is necessary in that it is really the Band Council that is in control of this action..."
In simple terms, the Superior Court Justice has the authority to steal the reserve right out from under an entire community of 1200 Indigenous people, Treaty or no Treaty.
As an example, anti uranium mining protests took place at the Robertsville mine site near Sharbot Lake in 2007 in unceded nonTreaty Nishnaabe Algonquin territory. The uranium developer, Frontenac Ventures Corporation (George White et al) sued the Algonquins and some individuals for $70million in damages for their loss of profits for a mine that hadn't even started. They had staked a claim and were about to begin drilling. Later they withdrew the case. However, there is reason to suspect that some private settlement was made whereby FVC got recompensed for their role in the protest theatrics which included scenes in the Kingston courthouse.
We weren't at the Keewatin trial so we dont' know what all went on. However, Sanderson only makes reference to ONE Nishnaabe witness. Where are all the Nishnaabe witnesses, the Elders who have the knowledge of their own history and lives??? OK, so the Plaintiffs have some friendly professors onside but it isn't the same thing. This trial went on in Toronto, 1500 kilometres from Grassy Narrows. Just how many Nishnaabe people were actually able to be in the courtroom?
Hunting and Fishing in Treaty 3
When examing intent we must look at words and more importantly, outcome. What is the result/reality today of the limitations on hunting and fishing rights. It definitely looks pretty grim. Everybody is aware of how industry and development are destroying the land, water and air and threatening the survival of animals on which we depend for hunting and fishing. Many people are looking to Indigenous people to save the world. We are acutely aware of our duty to protect the land for future generations. Everyone has a responsibility to do the Right Thing.
In its quest to Conquer Nature and the Indigenous people who dwell close to Nature, the colonial entities always had the intent to make farmers out of those wild Indians who roamed freely about the bush and depended on no one but their own skills. In Treaty 3 itself and the report on the Negotiations, for what it's worth, the word "fish" or "fishing" is mentioned 5 times; the word "hunt" or "hunting", 4 times while the word "farm" or "farming" is mentioned 14 times with numerous other references to it.
Here are some examples in the words of the Lead Negotiator/Commissioner Alexander Morris, "I have put into their hands the means of providing for themselves and their families... I think we should do everything to help you by giving you the means to grow some food... Some are farming, and I hope you will all do so."
Promises were made to supply farm implements, seed and livestock sometime in the future. Most of the territory of Treaty 3 is not suitable for farming. This was well known at the time of the Treaty making.
No wonder we describe the colonial strategy as "Assimilate or Die".
We must pause here and ask, Did Sanderson ever read Treaty 3??
In her review of the experts' credibility, she stated, "If it were intended to suggest that the Commissioners expected these Ojibway to forsake hunting and rely on agriculture after the Treaty was signed, I reject it." (KJ, p.141)
We quite simply disagree with her but what do we know? We have no lawyers here at the Eagle Watch. We look at outcome when considering intent. It looks to us like the Commissioners didn't give a damn if the Ojibway lived or died, their "commission" was clear to them to conciliate or pacify the Indians.
Honour of the Crown
Let's Assume Santa Claus is for Real
Justice "Assuming" Sanderson makes reference to the Honour of the Crown. She includes an entire section on it. She evidently believes in it.
In her comments on "Principles of Treaty Interpretation", Sanderson refers to Haida Nation, "...In making and applying treaties, the Crown must act with honour and integrity...It is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfill its promises (Badger). This promise is realized and sovereignty claims reconciled through the process of honourable negotiation. It is a corollary of s.35 that the Crown act honourably in defining the rights it guarantees and in reconciling them with other rights and interests."
It is evident to us that the Crown does not and never did have any Honour. There are endless examples to support this point of view. If you start from a false statement like, "the Crown has Honour", what happens then to the Truth??
Sanderson refers to another case, Secession of Quebec, "...Consistent with this long tradition of respect for minorities, which is at least as old as Canada itself, the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 included in s.35 explicit protection for existing Aboriginal and treaty rights...The "promise" of s.35, as it was termed in Sparrow, recognized not only the ancient occupation of land by Aboriginal peoples, but their contribution to the building of Canada and the special commitments made to them by successive governments. The protection of these rights...reflects an important underlying constitutional value."
We find this reference to be simply Lip Service. We know many of you are grabbing your barf bags now.
Mary Ann goes on and on. She states, "...in Mitchell...The sections of the Indian Act relating to the inalienability of Indian lands seek to give effect to this protection by interposing the Crown between the Indians and the market forces, which, if left unchecked, had the potential to erode Indian ownership of these reserve lands....An obligation arose to treat Aboriginal peoples fairly and honourably and to protect them from exploitation."
The problem here, as we see it, is that the Crown being an Oligarchy IS the "market forces". They are indeed "unchecked" and seeking to "erode Indian ownership of the reserves" themselves as we write. Patrick Brazeau, now a Canadian Senator, has repeatedly called for the elimination of the reserves, ie Indigenous communities. The Crown "protecting" Aboriginal rights is like the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.
For Sanderson, it would be next to impossible to seriously view our concerns. She says she's trying to get the Ojibwe perspective. However, she has a lifestyle and a powerful position to maintain, all based on exploitation and assimilation of Indigenous people. She knows very well she cannot go too far out on a limb no matter how she sympathizes with the Indigenous.
Contemporary and Historical Context
In a future article we will delve into the historical context of the Treaty making and the lack of contemporary context in the Keewatin Judgement. Where is the information concerning similar struggles of Indigenous communities facing logging and mining? Instead of endlessly interpreting treaties in courtrooms, how about reviewing and updating them?? Or even making some new Treaties involving real and sincere people and full public participation.
It's time to stop leaving it up to Ma Queenie and her Sugar Daddies. We need to get out of the victim mindset and free ourselves by dealing with the Truth. Walk the Truth, talk the Truth and then see the Truth. Live by Ancient Ways of Knowing.
Kittoh
Notes, Sources and Contact Info
Judges like Mary Ann Sanderson are not easily accessible. You can send her snail mail at:
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON M5H 2N5
Lawyers involved in the Keewatin Trial:
Robert J.N. Janes, Karey Brooks, Barbara Harvey for the Plaintiffs
Michael R. Stephenson, Christine Perruzza, Peter Lemmond for the Defendant Minister of Natural Resources
Christopher J. Matthews for the Defendant Abitibi Consolidated Inc.
Gary Penner, Michael McCullough, Barry Ennis for the Third Party.
Experts paid to expound at the Keewatin Trial:
1. Dr. Joan Lovisek, for the Plaintiffs, anthropologist and ethnohistorian, has her own business, Lovisek Research, acting as a consultant/expert/researcher. Her main clients are the Government, Department of Justice, Oceans and Fisheries, Indian Affairs, etc. and the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat (ONAS). Occasionally, she represents First Nations.
Joan A. Lovisek, Ph.D. M.E.S.
14965 25A Avenue
SURREY, BRITISH COLUMBIA. V4P 1N7
TEL: (604) 541-7921 FAX: (604) 541-9221
EMAIL: lovisek@telus.net
"Ph.D. (Anthropology/Ethnohistory)
McMaster University-1991
M.E.S. (Masters of Environmental Studies)
York University-1979
University of Toronto-1976 (Archaeology)
B.A. (Anthropology) York University-1974
over 20 years experience in First Nation issues. Most of her consulting contracts over the last ten years addressed treaty/aboriginal rights, land claims, aboriginal land use and loss of use, and federal/provincial government policy."
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/menzies/documents/lovisek.pdf
2. Dr. Alexander Von Gernet for Ontario or/and Canada
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/7802.0.html
University of Toronto at Mississauga
Alexander von Gernet, BA, MA, PhD (McGill)
Archaeology / Cultural Anthropology
(905) 569-4888 alex.vongernet[at]utoronto[dot]ca
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/author.aspx?id=15362&txID=3264
Alexander von Gernet is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Toronto at Mississauga where, for ten years, he has been teaching courses relating to Aboriginal studies. He is one of a few Canadian scholars who have published contributions in archaeology, ethnohistory, as well as oral historiography. His main interest is in reconstructing Aboriginal pasts by using various sources of evidence in methodological conjunction. He is in considerable demand as a consultant for both government and First Nations clients and has served as an academic advisor and expert witness in numerous Aboriginal litigations in Newfoundland, Québec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and New York State. He was one of the contributing authors of the Report of the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples and was the Editor-in-Chief of Ontario Archaeology. Professor von Gernet is currently writing a book on oral traditions as evidence in Aboriginal litigation.
3. Dr. J.P. Chartrand, for Ontario, senior consultant and partner of PRAXIS Research Associates (Ottawa), a firm specializing in applied anthropological research focussing on Aboriginal issues in Canada; formerly Adjunct Research Professor of the Sociology and Anthropology Department at Carleton University;
http://www1.carleton.ca/socanth/faculty/jean-philippe-chartrand/
Jean-Philippe ChartrandAdjunct Research Professor
Degrees: MA Carleton
Phone: (613)830-7198
Office: Praxis Research Associates Email: jp.praxis@rogers.com
The infamous Joan Holmes refers to Chartrand's writings in her reports to government. Holmes is in charge of verifying family histories for Algonquins seeking membership in bands involved in the AOO land claim. She also holds extensive files on Ongwehonweh people. It is said that she has a magic wand and can turn anyone into an Algonquin or a Mohawk. Since Holmes and Chartrand both work in Ottawa in the same line of work, it stands to reason that they would be well acquainted and may even work together at times.
4. Professor John Milloy, for Plaintiffs, Professor of Canadian Studies and History, Trent U
http://www.trentu.ca/history/publications_milloy.php
(705) 748-1011 x 6064
John works with Paula Sherman of the Ardoch Algonquins. Uh-oh!!!
JohnBoy is director of Research, Historical Records and Report Preparation with the TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. He also wrote a big bestseller about the residential schools that swallowed up thousands of Indigenous children to "civilize" them.
The well known and outspoken Kevin Annett has this to say about JohnBoy:
http://itccs.org/2011/03/04/john-milloy-is-a-big-fat-idiot-and-other-reflections-on-canadas-truth-and-reconciliation/
John Milloy is a Big, Fat Idiot – and other Reflections on Canada’s “Truth and Reconciliation”, March 04, 2011
...[he's the ]Official Say Nothing Expert since, let’s face it, there’s nothing messier and less Canadian than talk of the murder of children...he does have on his side the exalted Canadian academic tradition when it comes to Indians that I like to call No Name Research, of which Big John is a leading perpetrator.
Asked by an atypically daring journalist about children who died in Indian residential schools, Milloy replied glibly, “There’s some talk of graves here and there, but we’re leaving them pretty much undisturbed.”
Meanwhile, as we write, children's bones and other evidence are being found using GPS at the Mohawk Residential School at Ohsweken. Kevin Annett is spearheading this effort that is long overdue.
Write to Kevin Annett at
You can also receive A Weekly Update on the Mohawk Inquiry from The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS)
5. Professor Robert C. Vipond, for Canada on constitutions
http://www.ecommons.net/ccfpd/main51ef.phtml?city=to&show=to_vipond_biogr
He is a member of the CCFPD Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development.
Robert Vipond is Chair of the Department of Political Science and Director of the Centre for the Study of the United States at the University of Toronto.
http://www.ecommons.net/ccfpd/index.phtml
6. Professor Emeritus John Tupper (Jack) Saywell, for Ontario on federal and provincial relations
He died in April 2011. This is his obituary.
http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=16915
Professor John Saywell, a pioneering figure at York [University in Toronto], dies at 82
...[among his many claims to fame] Prof. Saywell consulted for USAID, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, the Harvard Institute for International Development and the governments of Ontario and Canada, among others. From 1974 to 1980, he was director of the York University Kenya Project in Nairobi.
[We are catching a scent of Maurice Strong here]
Privy Council and privy
Oxford Dictionary defines "privy" as "sharing in the knowledge of something secret"; "a toilet in a small shed outside a house". [here it's called an "outhouse". what do you call it?]
"Privy Council" is "a body of advisers appointed by a sovereign or a Governor General".
Put the two together and what do you get??
http://freegrassy.org/2011/08/01/grassy-trappers-win-major-legal-victory/#more-2399
Grassy trappers win major legal victory!
Grassy Narrows has won a major victory in their more than decade long battle to stop clearcut logging in their traditional territory. Grassy Narrows Chief and Council welcome the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to protect the rights promised to the Anishinaabe from interference by Ontario. Madam Justice Mary-Anne Sanderson’s decision, over 300 pages in length, finds that the Government of Ontario does not have the power to take away the rights in Treaty 3 by authorizing development including logging and mining.
Some excerpts from Keewatin v. Ontario (Minister Of Natural Resources), 2006 CanLII 35625 (ON SC)
http://www.canlii.com/eliisa/highlight.do?text=janes&language=en&searchTitle=Ontario+-+Superior+Court+of+Justice&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii35625/2006canlii35625.html
Motion for Advance Costs
[7] This motion, for an order that the MNR pay the costs of the plaintiffs of this action, in advance, in any event of the cause, on a partial indemnity scale, is vigorously opposed by both defendants. The resolution of this motion must be determined by an application of the legal test that the plaintiffs must meet, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band [2] to the evidence before me.
[8] For the reasons that follow, I order that the MNR pay the costs of the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis, in advance, and in any event of the cause, with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim as set out in paragraph 1(b) of the Amended Statement of Claim. The order is limited to the cost of determining the issue of the interpretation of the “taking-up” provision of Treaty 3 including, if necessary, the plaintiffs’ constitutional division of powers argument so that it can be decided whether or not the province of Ontario has the authority to take up the Keewatin Lands (as defined below) for forestry.
[10]...Paragraph 8 of the order will ensure that all decisions and findings made in this action will be binding upon Grassy Narrows, its Council and all of its members. The test as set out by Nordheimer J. in Ginter v. Gardon[3] for a representation order has been met and the order sought is appropriate.
Should the Grassy Narrows First Nation be jointly and severally liable for any costs ordered against the plaintiffs?
[11] The sole remaining issue is whether or not, as an additional term to the order sought, I should order that Grassy Narrows First Nation be jointly and severally liable for any costs ordered against the plaintiffs.
The Facts
[12] The facts relevant to this motion are not in dispute and are as follows.
[13] The plaintiffs are each members of the Grassy Narrows Trappers Council, a special interest group within the community, which acts as a support group for Grassy Narrows’ trappers. Andrew Keewatin and Joseph Fobister are two of the organization’s five elected “leaders”. The plaintiffs’ witness, Gabriel Fobister, is the president.
[14] The Trappers Council is composed of approximately 60 members and includes all registered Grassy Narrows trappers. As such, it represents approximately 5% of the community’s 1200 members.
[15] The Grassy Narrows Council is the elected leadership of the Grassy Narrows. It speaks for the community and makes decisions on behalf of the community as a whole. Grassy Narrows does not have an alternative Band leadership, such as a hereditary chief or band council.
[16] The Chief of Grassy Narrows filed an affidavit on these motions and deposed that the Band Council decided that the named plaintiffs in this action should be members who are or have been very active trappers, rather than the Band Council Chief and that they made this decision because it is the regular trappers whose way of life and livelihood is most directly affected by forestry activity.
[17] The Grassy Narrows Band Council Resolution No. 3050, dated January 24, 2006, resolved that the law firm of Cook Roberts is jointly retained by both the plaintiffs and the Grassy Narrows in this action to act as counsel and solicitors of record. It further resolves that Grassy Narrows has no objection to the plaintiffs acting as representative plaintiffs for the members of Grassy Narrows and that the law firm of Cook Roberts shall report to and take instructions on behalf of the First Nation through its Chief or Deputy Chief Councilor.
[18] The defendants do not take the position that Grassy Narrows must be formally added as a plaintiff to this action but do say that it is common practice in these types of actions that the Band, its Chief or a person of authority within the band be included as a party to the representative action. They argue that I should order that Grassy Narrows be jointly and severally liable with the plaintiffs for any award of costs that may be made against the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. Counsel for the MNR advised that the intention is to bind the assets of Grassy Narrows as an entity, not the assets of individual members. In this regard I note that the members of Grassy Narrows may include persons who are not Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act[4] and therefore not members of the Grassy Narrows Band. Abitibi proposes, in the alternative, that I order that Grassy Narrows shall be considered a party for the purposes of any request for costs made by the defendants in this proceeding.
[19] The defendants argue that such an order is necessary in that it is really the Band Council that is in control of this action and such an order will encourage both the plaintiffs and the Council to litigate the action in a disciplined and efficient manner and with a high level of accountability to Grassy Narrows’ members. They submit that the defendants should know from the outset who might be responsible for costs.
[32] For these reasons I am not prepared to add a term to the Representation Order that Grassy Narrows be jointly and severally liable with the plaintiffs for any award of costs that may be made against the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants or that Grassy Narrows be considered a party for the purposes of any request for costs made by the defendants in this proceeding.
[33] This order does not preclude the defendants from moving at a later date for an order that Grassy Narrows should be responsible for costs, if there is new evidence suggesting a proper basis for making such a request that has not been considered on this motion. Should that occur, the defendants must of course formally put Grassy Narrows on notice so that the issue can be fully argued.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/reports/
Superior Court of Justice
Annual Report 2008-2010
The Northwest Region is home to the Ojibway people. The area was opened to European settlement by the Northwest Company engaging in the fur trade. With the coming of the railway, shipping gained prominence. Western grain was transported by rail to the present location of Thunder Bay for shipment east on the Great Lakes. The region was settled by European immigrants and the forestry and mining industries flourished. More recently, Kenora, Fort Frances and Thunder Bay have developed as regional centres for education, medical care, tourism, and legal and commercial activity.
The distances between the main centres of the Northwest Region and the rest of the province are vast. For example, Thunder Bay is as far from Toronto – nearly 1,400 kilometres – as Toronto is from Fredericton, New Brunswick. Within the region, the judicial centres are also far apart: Thunder Bay is 335 kilometres from Fort Frances and 490 kilometres from Kenora. There is no resident judge in Fort Frances, while Kenora has one supernumerary judge. Both of these centres are served by judges circuiting from Thunder Bay. Travel between Thunder Bay and Fort Frances or Kenora is usually done by small aircraft, weather permitting. In addition, one judge from the Northwest is currently assigned to the Federal Government’s Specific Claims Tribunal, which was created to deal with certain aboriginal land claims in an efficient and effective manner.
For general telephone inquiries, call the Ministry of the Attorney General at: Tel: (416) 326-4263.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/contact.asp
Telephone toll free: 1-800-518-7901
Telephone Toronto: 416-326-2220
Toll-free numbers Fax: 416-326-4007
E-mail at attorneygeneral@ontario.ca
Mailing address:
Ministry of the Attorney General
McMurtry-Scott Building
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2S9
Here's a very pointed piece sent in by one of our readers, FYI. It is absolutely right on. The Truth so often hurts. Every dirty trick described here can be identified from the beginning of the Treaty negotiations right up to modern day land claims.
What many people don't get is that smart people get conned too. Or, you don't have to be simple to get manipulated and deceived.
See this link:
The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories. Toronto, 1880
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/tcnnd10h.htm
Kittoh
The art of denying Indians their human rights has been refined to a science. The following list of commonly used techniques will be helpful in "burglar-proofing" your reserves, and your rights.
GAIN THE INDIANS CO-OPERATION - It is much easier to steal someone's human rights if you can do it with his OWN co-operation. So..:
1. Make him a non-person. Human rights are for people. Convince Indians their ancestors were savages, that they were pagan, that Indians were drunkards. Make them wards of the government. Make a legal distinction, as in the Indian Act, between Indians and persons. Write history books that tell half the story.
2. Convince the Indian that he should be patient, that these things take time. Tell him that we are making progress, and that progress takes time.
3. Make him believe that things are being done for his own good. Tell him you're sure that after he has experienced your laws and actions that he will realise how good they have been.
4. Tell the Indian he has to take a little of the bad in order to enjoy the benefits you are conferring on him.
5. Get some Indian people to do the dirty work. There are always those who will act for you to the disadvantage of their own people. Just give them a little honor and praise. This is generally the function of band councils, chiefs, and advisory councils: they have little legal power, but can handle the tough decisions such as welfare, allocation of housing etc.
6. Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs.
7. Insist that the Indian "GOES THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS." Make the channels and the procedures so difficult that he won't bother to do anything. When he discovers what the proper channels are and becomes proficient at the procedures, change them.
8. Make the Indian believe that you are working hard for him, putting in much overtime and at a great sacrifice, and imply that he should be appreciative. This is the ultimate in skills in stealing human rights; when you obtain the thanks of your victim.
9. Allow a few individuals to "MAKE THE GRADE" and then point to them as examples. Say that the 'HARDWORKERS" AND THE "GOOD" Indians have made it, and that therefore it is a person's own fault if he doesn't succeed.
10. Appeal to the Indian's sense of fairness, and tell him that even though things are pretty bad it is not right for him to make strong protests. Keep the argument going on his form of protest and avoid talking about the real issue. refuse to deal with him while he is protesting. Take all the fire out of his efforts.
11. Encourage the Indian to take his case to court. This is very expensive, takes lots of time and energy and is very safe because laws are stacked against him. The court's ruling will defeat the Indian's cause, but makes him think he has obtained justice.
12. Make the Indian believe that things could be worse, and that instead of complaining about the loss of human rights, to be grateful for the rights we do have. In fact, convince him that to attempt to regain a right he has lost is likely to jepordize the rights that he still has.
13. Set yourself up as the protector of the Indian's human rights, and then you can choose to act only on those violations you wish to act upon. By getting successful on a few minor violations of human rights, you can point to these as examples of your devotion to his cause. The burglar who is also the doorman is the perfect combination.
14. Pretend that the reason for the loss of human rights is for some other reason that the person is an Indian. Tell him some of your best friends are Indians, and that his loss of rights is because of his housekeeping, his drinking, his clothing.
15. Make the situation more complicated than is necessary. Tell the Indian you will have to take a survey to find out how many other Indians are being discriminating against. Hire a group of professors to make a year-long research project.
16. Insist on unanimity. Let the Indian know that when all the Indians in Canada can make up their minds about just what they want as a group, then you will act. Play one group's special situation against another group's wishes. Select very limited alternatives, neither of which has much merit, and then tell the Indian that indeed he has a choice. Ask, for instance, if he could or would rather have council elections in June or December, instead of asking if he wants them at all.
17. Convince the Indian that the leaders who are the most beneficial and powerful are dangerous and not to be trusted. Or simply lock them up on some charge like driving with no lights. Or refuse to listen to the real leaders and spend much time with the weak ones. Keep the people split from their leaders by sowing rumour. Attempt to get the best leaders into high paying jobs where they have to keep quiet to keep their paycheck coming in.
18. Speak of the common good. Tell the Indian that you can't consider yourselves when there is a whole nation to think of. Tell him that he can't think only of himself. For instance, in regard to hunting rights, tell him we have to think of all the hunters, or the sporting good industry.
19. Remove rights so gradually that people don't realize what has happened until it is too late. Again, in regard to hunting rights, first restrict the geographical area where hunting is permitted, then cut the season to certain times of the year, then cut the limits down gradually, then insist on licensing, and then Indians will be on the same grounds as white sportsmen.
20. Rely on some reason and logic (your reason and logic) instead of rightness and morality. Give thousands of reasons for things, but do not get trapped into arguments about what is right.
21. Hold a conference on HUMAN RIGHTS, have everyone blow off steam and tension, and go home feeling things are well in hand.
This page updated January 14, 2012