Popularity Contests, Red Privileged, Social Capital, Activism Careerists, Celebrity Activism, are just some terms being used to define the frustrations of those within our grassroots circles who feel their voices are not being heard or valued when attempting to seek accountability. Yes even the circles we think are to be representative of humility and spirituality have hierarchy, positions of privilege and same toxicity we find with Government Indian Structures.
This rant is an attempt to stir the pot and create a dialogue as a result of some things that have spilled out on to social media recently and periodically when those of us on the bottom of the societal ladder are denied accountability from those on top and have to call things out publicly. While not to name names I only intend to create an awareness on the issue as we need to start a dialogue to help us unlearn such colonial behaviors controlling and hijacking our movements growth.
There has always been an attempt to neutralize our movement by the invader in which there will always be divisiveness within our grassroots organizing where we can guarantee colonial agent tactics will always be at play however; learned colonial behaviors has made it so that agents are not always needed to infiltrate such movements. Those leading our communities and movements and those put up on pedestals most times unknowingly do the job of the colonizer or are so programmed that they manipulate our values and teachings in such a way that pacifies the spirit of resistance which is even more dangerous then the agent as they are major “influencers” to our people.
In this social media era Facebook has become predominantly a tool that is used to organize our movements and to create awareness and mobilize the people as witnessed in the #IdleNoMore campaign that birthed a new generation of activist and organizing style; With this studies show that social media has been creating a type of mental disorder referred to as narcissism which is bleeding over into our movements. Social Media has created issues that intensifies ego and self gratification of instant activist credibility in our movements. This is akin to those who do not always know popular “fly by night healers” and give their trust up to them because they play the part but eventually end up getting hurt.
Social media has also created a sense of “slacktivism” and “virtue signaling” in which posting a hashtag or engaging in activist tourism; touring a camp for selfies gives one social capital and an image of being involved but only fills one’s ego at times. It’s easier to partake in social justice by posting a hashtag a selfie or showing support by saying you donated to a cause.
How often does the Youth Suicide Crisis get the same support and financial donations as some of these Celebrity Activist who are always visible on Social media popping up all over Turtle Island each week or constantly asking the people for financial help while sitting on healthy grants? Warriors are to provide and eat last no? Some have made pretty good careers off the back of our impoverished people donating to the cause. Go Fund Me Sovereignty is an oxymoron that has come to help define these “Warriors” with their perpetual handout. We need to be self sufficient not only in talk but practice and live it if we are to preach it to others no?
What is Social Capital? Social capital is defined by the value of your social networks. It informs the opportunities and resources you have access to, including who you know and what opportunities you can access. Social Capital is not always afforded to those on the bottom of the social totem pole where Popularity Clubs arise as a result. Those more visible and popular exploit their privilege to attain more resources not afforded to those in poverty and less popular just as in the capitalist world.
These Popularity Clubs and Movement Celebrities with their Fan Clubs enjoy the privilege to silence those who seek accountability and in turn discredit those with valid concerns who are not as popular. Many of us “nobody’s” have these stories.
Resistance Incorporated? We are now seeing those profiting off our collective movement and becoming a form of capitalist and benefiting individually or for their own individual cause and forgetting about the collective fight. Social capital should always be used to uplift folks not because we feel guilty, but because the work of liberation and genuine love for our fellow comrades involves reworking societal norms.
Support and Attention also needs to be redistributed to other individuals and causes if one is seeming to constantly benefit from support and donations of the people. Merchandise I noticed also is creating a BRAND for individuals and individual causes and I feel some activists are blurring the lines of BRANDS and an Authentic Movement.
Government Funding through Social Service Organizations and Programs also is a tool being used to pacify and hijack our movement. We need to be vigilant that Social Services Orgs and Programs are not in the business of social change but to perpetuate the status quo with the illusion that they are creating change. Social Service Organizations and Programs are implemented to create dependency on the System we are fighting the same System that creates much of our social ills. Being Funded by Governments and NGO’s compromises the integrity of our grassroots movements.
Many of us do have imperfections and myself do struggle also at times and take responsibility for any of my bullshit to be accountable whereas others however choose not to even address their own toxicity and hide behind their fan base. It is only by reemergence of our clan/family council fires within our communities where we can find true accountability when we need to call out certain concerns. Pan Indian Movements prevent this where anybody can come and go and where anybody can be uplifted without fully knowing who they are.
It is from my vision the we invoke and what I am working on to relight our CLAN COUNCIL FIRES in our own communities. This is where “call out culture” needs seek accountability rather then online but most times we need to do this publicly as those who hide behind their groupies are not being held accountable. Medicine and Warrior Societies and Grassroots Movements are not exempt from same colonial behaviors we see in the Band Office or Tribal Government Office.
The Indigenous Resistance Movement it seems is now a Fad and big business created by the Pan Indianism and Social Media that hijacked the true essence of our long history or resistance. We can see the same attack waged on Hip Hop Culture which started out as the voice of the grassroots and is now Celebrity Puppets controlled by the industry. Many activist and camps and groups who claim sovereignty also have side accounts where they get thousands of donations from private funders.
One of the biggest pieces of understanding social capital is that you may, at times, be unaware that you have it. Being unaware of your social capital may result in hierarchies in organizations that you may not notice.
The goal is to always step back and listen to folks who may be dealing with the harsh end of these hierarchies and uplift those in ways that are progressive to the work being done.
If you see yourself becoming the focus of a movement and you know folks who haven’t been given an opportunity to do an interview, facilitate a workshop, or organize a community meeting maybe it’s time to step back and allow others to be placed into that role.
If this hit a nerve and you consider me wrong well fine. I am just another everyday nobody not a part of the Popularity Clubs so this rant shouldnt matter to you and your cool kids club
(Above: 5 Week Blockade June 21 – July 28, 2019 of main entrance of Ontario’s assumed Awenda Provincial Park, Tiny Township. Hunting Grounds of Aisance Band not intended to be included in Penetanguishene Purchase, Crown Treaty 5)
“Brothers of the Western Nations, Sachems, Chiefs and Warriors; You have now been here for several days, during which time we have frequently met to renew and Strengthen our Engagements and you have made so many Promises of your Friendship and Attachment to the English that there now remains for us only to exchange the great Belt of the Covenant Chain that we may not forget our mutual Engagements.”
– Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, July 31, 1764
By: Kaikaikons, Atik Dodem (Johnny Hawk)
The Upper Canada Treaties between the British and Indigenous Nations in the 1790’s permitted the Crown to establish military bases using strategic waterways and trade routes within Indigenous Territories; Such Land Surrenders were only authorized after a founding Crown-Indigenous Constitutional Agreement was to be ratified. These initial treaties that help create the legal fiction that is Canada demonstrates how Crown Representatives have not always been honourable where Imperial Statutes and International Law continuously are negated in this Nation to Nation Relationship.
INTERNATIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Before discussing any specific historic and current injustices at the hands of Settler Governments we must first address the established Crown and Indigenous Relationship that permitted the Crown and its Subjects to be within Indigenous Lands. This Relationship affirmed by Imperial Statutes set out Constitutional Principals for Settler Governments in which they continuously are in violation. The attempt by Settler Courts such as the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse existing Imperial Statutes and International law are acts of misprision of treason and fraud (1) and complicity of genocide (2) that reneges upon the crown’s legally binding undertaking of protection towards Indigenous Nations as its allieswhereas these Settler Governments and its Courts continually negate the rule of law.
International Law regarding Indigenous Nations was first initiated by the Doctrine of Discovery where the so-called New World was gifted by a Papal Bull Inter Caetera (1493) for division among the Spanish and Portuguese. Non-Christian savages had no rights according to the papacy. Albeit this was later superseded by the Papal Bull Sublimis Deus (1537) which declares the Indigenous Peoples of the America’s to be rational beings with souls and asserted their right to liberty and property. (3)
In 1704 the case of the Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (4) Queen Anne’s Order in Council of 1704, 1740, 1773 (5)acknowledged the Sovereignty of Indigenous Nations in the British Colonies and established the principal of independent and impartial adjudication for Indian land claims throughout British North America. It began with a Royal Petition from the Mohegan Indians to Queen Anne. The Mohegan complained that they had made a treaty with the Colony of Connecticut that Connecticut had misinterpreted as a total surrender of the entirety of the Mohegan land to the Colony. Queen Anne obliged to appoint an independent and impartial adjudicator in lieu of the courts of the offending governments. This Special Court and Orders in Council has never been repealed and is an Imperial Statute with the same standing as the 1763 Royal Proclamation.
In 1754-63 Anishinabek War Chief Obwandiyag (Pontiac) launched a campaign against the British with a loose confederation of tribes from the Great Lakes Region, Illinois Country and Ohio Country who were dissatisfied with British policies following the French and Indian War. In 1763 King George III issued a Royal Proclamation on October 7, 1763. This was an acknowlegdement that “several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom we are connected.” (6) from the British recognized that outside the properly ceded colonies everything else belongs to the Indigenous Nations. The Proclamation explicitly states that Indigenous title has existed and continues to exist and that all land would be considered Indigenous land until ceded by treaty.
The Proclamation was directed to the Kings subjects yet it would have no authority if Peace was not secured in the Great Lakes region. Sir William Johnson the first Superintendent of Indian Affairs was charged with the task to secure such an alliance with Indigenous Nations. In July of 1764 he met with 2,000 Chiefs at Niagara Falls.The alliance was sealed by the use of Wampum Belts. The 1764 Treaty of Niagara confirmed and extended a nation-to-nation relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.
Anishinabek Scholar and Law Professor John Burrows asserts how the Royal Proclamation is in fact a Treaty as its is interwoven within the 1764 Niagara Treaty. This agreement at the start of the formal relationship between the British and First Nations, demonstrates the foundation of building constitutional principles of peace, friendship and respect, agreed to between the parties. (7) At the 1764 event the two-row wampum belt was used by Indigenous nations to reflect their understanding of the Royal Proclamation and the Treaty as one of peace, friendship, respect, and non-interference in one another’s internal affairs.
A statement found in Sir William Johnson’s Papers demonstrates the intentions of Crown Representatives from Day one which questions the validity of this Relationship and Agreements and Treaties. Before they met to negotiate and hear the terms (articles) of the proclamation and exchange Wampum @ Niagara 1764 Sir Williams Johnson records in his own words that the Plan is to Pacify & Ruin us.
THE BEAVER WARS AND BEAVER BOWL
The geographical area in question is what Settler Society now refers to as Simcoe County named after Upper Canada’s first Lieutenant Governer, John Graves Simcoe is located in the central portion of so called Southern Ontario. The first europeans to explore this area were the French who encountered the Wendat Nation and referred them to as the Huron; a French description of the style of hair the Wendat men wore. The Wendat a tribe of the Iroquoian Peoples have been known to be the original inhabitants of the area however archaeological evidence determined a Pre Iroquoian occupation dating back approximately as early as AD 1000.(8) is more characteristic of an Anishinabek Village.
The Amikwa “Beaver People” were Anishiabek Peoples and were one of the first recognized by Europeans in the 17th century. They inhabited the north shore of Lake Huron opposite the island of Manitoulin along the shores between Missisagi and French Rivers, and along Spanish River. They were a large, powerful group allied with the Nipissings.
In the 1630’s the Haudenasaune, the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca) began to push northward into this region in search of more lucrative hunting territories; This was known as the Beaver Wars. For two decades, the Five Nations plundered and destroyed Huron villages, and by 1650 the Huron had abandoned the territory. In the mid 1680’s the Ojibwa’s began attacking the Iroquois who, debilitated by disease and warfare retreated by 1701 to their lands south of the lower Great Lakes. Following this victory, increased numbers of Ojibwa people migrated south to occupy the territory bounded by Georgian Bay and Lake Huron on the north and west, and lakes Erie and Ontario to the south and east. (9)
The Haudenasaunee and Anishinabek would create Treaties to end Intertribal Warfare in a series of 5 Wampum Belts. (10) The Dish With One Spoon Wampum. (11) established an alliance between the Haundenasaunee and Anishinabek to share and protect their Territories known as the Beaver Bowl.This treaty made between the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee nations at Montréal in 1701 as part of the Great Peace of Montreal includes part of the current province of Ontario between the Great Lakes and extending east along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River up to the border with the current province of Quebec. (12)
Another Wampum Belt between the Anishinabek and Haudenasaunee that solidified their Alliance was the Ojibway Friendship Belt and the 5 Council Fire Belt which acknowledged Anishinabek Clan Territories referred to as Council Fires that stretched from the Credit River to Sault Ste Marie. The Reverend Peter Jones, who was a Mississauga Anishinaabe from the Credit River (now Toronto), recorded the following proceedings of a council between the Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee held Tuesday, 21st January, 1840. The following reveals as late as 1840, the Anishinaabeg and the Six Nations were still renewing the treaties between themselves and acknowledging Anishinabek Council Fire Clan Territories.
“That the Nahdooways made the road or path and pointed out the different council fires which were to be kept lighted. The first marks on the Wampum represented that a council fire should be kept burning at the Sault Ste Marie. The 2nd mark represented the Council fire at Manitoulin Island, where a beautiful White Fish was placed, who should watch the fire as long as the world stood. The 3rd Mark represents the Council fire placed on an island opposite Penetanguishene Bay on which was placed a Beaver to watch the fire. The 4th Mark represents the Council fire lighted up at the Narrows of Lake Simcoe at which place was put a White Rein Deer. To him the Rein Deer was committed the keeping of this Wampum talk. The 5th Mark represents the Council fire which was placed at this River Credit where a beautiful White headed Eagle was placed upon a very tall pine tree, in order to watch the Council fires and see if any ill winds blew upon the smoke of the Council fires.” (13)
The decedents of the Beaver Council Fire and Rein Deer Council Fire consists of today’s Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewa’s of Rama and Georgina Island in which their last Hereditary Chiefs representing the Clan System were Chiefs Aisance, Musquakie and Kinaybicoinini whose Clans match these Council Fires.Although Aisance’s Totem is Otter it is the same Clan as the Beaver; this parallel to how Yellowheads Totem is referred at times as Reindeer or Caribou.
The Aisance Band lived around Matchedash Bay on the southeast shore of Georgian Bay by the late eighteenth century. Their hunting grounds covered “the vast tract stretching from Colins Inlet, on the north -eastern shore of the Georgian Bay, to the northern limits of the land claimed by the Missisauga’s.”(14)Within this area the Band used the rich resources of the Beaver Valley and of the Nottawasaga River.
1798 PENETANGUISHENE HARBOUR PURCHASE: Crown Treaty Number 5
Upper Canada was the predecessor of modern-day Ontario it was created in 1791 by the division of the old Province of Quebec into Lower Canada in the east and Upper Canada in the west and by such Upper Canada Treaties as the 1798 Penetanguishene Harbor Purchase. In these Upper Canada Treaties there are three main problems: the description of the lands purchased were often vague; cessions from a specific group often covered lands used by others; and some groups surrendered lands to which they held no interests. (15)
The first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada was John Graves Simcoe and was anxious to secure land on Georgian Bay at the site of present-day Penetanguishene. He visited it in 1793 and following the receipt of a report from the surveyor A. Aitken he became very enthusiastic about the site as a harbour. He wanted to create a military establishment there in order to effect a British naval presence on Lake Huron. (16)
Oral Tradition as shared by former Leadership and Elders of the Beausoleil First Nation along with Ian Johnson; A Lawyer who spent many years as a researcher for the Band who has helped in the success of two major historic land claim settlements have always determined that this Treaty was only for Penetanguishene Harbour as understood by the signing Chiefs. This outstanding issue was the focus of a Claim being submitted to Canada’s Specific Claims Branch for negotiations which Canada rejected in 1997.
On May 19th, 1795 representatives of the “Chippewa Nation” signed a provisional agreement at York; This document indicated that if they received goods worth 100 pounds in Quebec currency they would cede the lands “from the head of Opetiquawising to Nottowaysague Bay including the harbour of Penetanguishene. (17)
“Keewaycamekeishcan: who used the Otter totem as his mark” (18) meaning “He went in place of somebody.” This man likely signed the tentative agreement in the absence of one of the chiefs.(19)The Government took no immediate action to fulfill the terms of the provisional agreement. While no money or goods were given no attempt was made to take possession of the lands.
Simcoe left the colony in July 1796 and in his absence Peter Russell became the Administer of the Province. Although a representative for Assance signed the tentative agreement of 1795 and he himself signed the Treaty of 1798 ceding their land stretching from Thunder Beach to both shores of Penetanguishene Bay
In November 1796 two chiefs from Lake Simcoe and the Matchedash region, “Keubegone onene, and Escence,” reminded Major Samuel Smith, Commander at York of promises which Simcoe made to them and felt they may have been deceived. “ Father I am sorry we are thrown away and that our Great Father Governor Simcoe should have a sweet mouth” (20)
The Penetanguishene Harbour Purchase, Crown Treaty 5 signed May 22, 1798 by “Chiefs, Warriors and People of the Chippeway Tribe and Nation of the Indians” ceded all that tract or space containing land and water, or parcel of ground covered with water, be the same land or water or both lying and being near or upon the Lake Huron, called Penetangushene, and butted and bounded as follow: Beginning at the head or South-Westernmost angle of a bay situated above certain French ruins, now lying on the east side of a small strait leading from the said bay into a larger Bay called Gloucester or Sturgeon Bay; the head or South-Westernmost angle of the said bay being called by the Indians Opetiguoyawsing; thence North 70° West to a bay of Lake Huron, called by the Indians Nottoway Sague Bay; thence following the shores of Lake Huron, according to the different courses and winding of the said Nottoway Sague Bay–Penetangushene Habour and Gloucester or Sturgeon Bay, sometimes called also Matchedash –to the place of beginning: containing all the land to the Northward of the said line running North 70° West and lying between it and the waters of Lake Huron, together with the Islands in the said Harbour of Penetangushene..(21)
“The description of the ceded territory was vague and the maps accompanying the treaty demonstrated the extent to which the surveyors were unfamiliar with the area.” (23)
“Band Members also speak on traditional hunting grounds south of Nottawasaga Bay in lands covered by the 1815 cession of Lands.”(24)
It his still of Chief Aisance family’s oral tradition that still holds that there were family hunting grounds within the area of today’s Thunder Beach
Throughout this period, Aboriginal lands were constantly described as “hunting grounds” in official documents and correspondence of the Indian Department. In light of this usage, did British colonial officials make any distinction between the “hunting grounds” and Aboriginal title in their policies and their practices of treaty-making? (25)
Francis Gore became Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada in 1806 and he believed that before the Penetanguishene Peninsula could be developed, the government would have to build a road leading to it from Lake Simcoe. In June 1811 he sent Williams Claus, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs to negotiate yet another provisional agreement with the Ojibwes of Lake Simcoe and Matchedash Bay. This Treaty was seeking the Ojibwe to cede 250,000 acres of land situated between Kempentfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe and Penetangusihene Bay on Lake Huron.
At this meeting of this tentative agreement Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs William Claus told the Chiefs “I do not consider that we have a right to take possession of the land until the deed of conveyance shall; be executed and there is no objection to you occupying the garden grounds at Penetanguishene Bay. (26)
Although the goods were sent from England the following summer, they were needed by the government for other purposes and therefore were not used to purchase the land. With the outbreak of war with the United States in 1812, the government believed it could no longer postpone creating a naval base in the area. Claus assured the Chiefs that although the government had sent troops “to open roads and form an establishment on Lake Huron,” it recognized that “all the Lands north of Lake Simcoe” were “still the property of the Indians.” (27)
Above: Georgian Bay Band Territories around 1849. 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty ceeded 50,000 acres of lands of Chippewas of Lake Huron and Simcoe in which these 1923 “Williams Treaty” Bands are not signatories or benefit from such compensation and annuities.
In November 1815, “Kinaybicoinini, Alsace and Musquckey, the principal Chiefs of the Chippewa Nation of Indians” signed a treaty agreeing to cede 250,000 acres which was the final ratification of the provisional agreement in June 1811. This Treaty however did not contain no reference to the blacksmith which these chiefs had requested in 1811; no mention was made of the promise Claus had made in that year that they could continue to use their gardens at Penetanguishene.
This is how substantial lands were misappropriated through this Treaty. The “Hunting Grounds” and “Gardens” were never defined only that through Oral Tradition that the 1798 Penetanguishene Purchase was only for the Harbour.
In the text of these treaties the language is obviously not that of the Chiefs which is problematic even though it says they understand the embodiment of the agreements by including such provision in these treaties as; “having first heard this instrument openly read and rehearsed in our own language and fully approved by ourselves and our Nation.” (28)
Even in the Settler Government Courts through Supreme Court rulings there are principles that require the understanding of both parties. The case is the rule in Nowegijick that “treaties and statutes dealing with Indians should be given a fair, large and liberal construction and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians, in the sense in which they would be naturally understood by the Indians.” Many decisions in Settler Courts set precedent that treaties constitute a unique type of agreement and attract special principles of interpretation should be liberally construed and ambiguities or doubtful expressions should be resolved in favour of the aboriginal signatories.(29)
It is absolutely inconceivable that these Chiefs would surrender so much land without thinking of their connection to the land, water, inherit rights, future generations and a place to call home.
RELIGHTING OF AMIK COUNCIL FIRE
In 2012 the Chippewa Tri Council of Beausoleil First Nation, Georgina Island and Rama descendent’s of the Council Fires of the Chippewas of so called Lake Huron and Simcoe represented by Aisance, Snake and Yellowhead accepted a settlement regarding the Coldwater Narrows Reserve.
In an action to oppose Canada’s Specific Claims Policy where Indigenous Peoples are made to by back stolen lands with compensation; funds which are created by the exploitation of Indigenous Territories in the first place and as a part of relighting these Clan Council Fires three men from Chimnissing so called Beausoleil First Nation set up an occupation in Coldwater on a Heritage Museum. This was also to oppose the First Nation as they are not the true authority to make such agreements as they are part of the colonial Indian Act system and representatives of the Crown since 1880 where the Indian Act section 72 replaced the Indian national hereditary governments with an elective system governed by the Indian Act.
The Occupation at the Heritage Site then moved into Ontario’s assumed Awenda Provincial Park. Within this Park is a Large Granite Stone that has the Markings of the three Clan Chiefs and Crown Representatives and dates that refer to time around the 1798 Penetang Purchase and is known as Council Rock. The Camp are was as a spiritual and peaceful occupation and a Cabin and Traditional Lodge were built and went unbothered by Park Staff for 7 years.
In 2018 another historic Land Claim Settlement was finalized regarding the Williams Treaty that included 7 First Nations. On June 21, 2019 on Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Day John Hawk blocked the main entrance of Awenda Provincial Park by felling large pine trees. He initiated this action for the same reasons as the previous Land Surrender or “Settlement” and also to attempt to reclaim these lands which were misappropriated in 1798 and 1815 Treaties fraudulently which are unsurrendered Indian Lands.
For 5 Weeks Hawk kept this blockade going until he was removed from the OPP. The Park Warden fabricated a complaint that Hawk was uttering threats. Hawk asserts he was only informing the warden on issue of the Ipperwash inquiry. This fabricated accusation is all the Park needed to send in the OPP to remove Hawk and his blockade. He was taken into another Township and held in custody for a day in a half and released on Bail. During this time the Park Staff removed the Cabin that was in a forested area that had been up for 7 years at a sacred area known as “council rock” which was never a disturbance.
With the 2018 Williams Treaty Settlement the 7 First Nation’s retained their hunting and fishing rights back to the traditional territory which were allegedly surrended in the 1923 Williams Treaty. This agreement reinstated such rights to the 13 Million Acres of traditional territory of the 7 First Nations. The removal of the Cabin by Ontario Parks is already in violation of infringing upon such rights as well as Canada’s own laws in Supreme Court decision R vs. Sundown which declares Indigenous Peoples right to erect cabins without permits on so called Crown land.
During this action Hawk also brought a compound bow as a symbol of Anishinabek Right to Harvest and Food Sovereignty within his peoples Traditional Hunting Grounds. The OPP confiscated the bow which also is an infringement on Indigenous inherit rights.
Hawk is currently within Ontario’s provincial court which started on August 22, 2019. He is not addressing the fabrication of the charge of uttering threats but has brought forth a Constitutional Challenge bringing forth evidence which is a position rarely used in Canada. The position Hawk is taking was successful in 5 other occasions with other Indigenous Activists. Hawk asserts he is upholding Constitutional and International Laws where the Ontario Provincial Courts, OPP and Indian Act Band Councils usurp the jurisdiction of Indigenous Clan Council Fires. In this challenge he is also questioning the Canadian Constitution which does not exist and is legal fiction.
FEDERAL MINISTERS IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
The Liberal Government Federal Minister’s; Minister of Indigenous-Crown Relations, Carolyn Bennett and Minister of Finance Bill Morneau both own property on lands in question.
Carolyn Bennett — who issued an apology for historic wrongdoing in November 2018 to seven First Nation signatories to the 1923 Williams Treaties owns a cottage on said lands in Tiny Township on Thunder Beach. These lands are part of the lands that were not to be included within the 1798 Penetanguishene Harbour Purchase and fraudulently surrendered by the 1815 Lake Simcoe Purchase and 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty.
The 2018 Williams Treaty Settlement does not clarify if these misappropriated unsurrendered Indian Lands in this issue of the Penetanguishene Harbour Purchase, Crown Treaty 5 were settled and lands surrenderd.
If Minister Bennett and Finance Minister Bill Morneau did not declare a conflict of interest in cabinet and government approval of the William’s Treaty settlement, they are guilty of an offence under Ethics and should be investigated by the RCMP. Bill Morneau for obvious reasons of the property they on misapproporated lands that needs to be properly dealt with.
In 2017 CBC learned Finance Minister Bill Morneau waited two years to disclose to Canada’s ethics watchdog of a private corporation; A villa in southern France that he and his wife own.
CONCLUSION: Violations of Constitutional and International Law by Canada
Pre Confederation Treaties, 1867 BNA Act, Indian Act, Numbered Treaties, 1931 Statute of Westminster and 1982 Constitution Act were not created in the Spirit of Peace and Non-Interference of the founding Constitutional 1764 Nation to Nation Law.
The British North America Act of 1867 was never a Constitution it was only a British Act of the Imperial Parliament where Canada never became the government of Canada. It became merely the central legislature of a united colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of aiding and advising the governor general as an agent of the imperial parliament. (30)
In 1931 the UK issued Statute of Westminster. It is where the Crown gave up authority within its Dominions. It gave legal recognition to the independence of the British Dominions recognizing that “the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial application.” As such, it acknowledged Canada’s legislative independence and sovereignty. This Statute without the consent of the Indigenous Nations is in direct violation of the 1764 Niagara Treaty where the Crown reneged on its legal duties to protect us as its allies from Settler Governments. This fact demonstrates the Crown as an ally to the Indigenous gives up its responsibility therefore reneges on such Treaties where all agreements are null and void and the so called Canadian Land Mass reverts back to the Indigenous.
In 1982 the so called “patriation” of the Constitution was only an amendment of the 1867 BNA Act now referred as the Constitution Act where in 1867 and 1982 was never ratified by the people. It is only a Parliamentary Act not created by and for the people.
Canada as a legal entity does not Exist. These are all Indigenous Lands where title and all benefits of the resources are that of the Indigenous Families/Clans and Confederacies of Great Turtle Island.
Hawk goes to Court for a Judicial Pre Trial for his Constitutional Challenge on December 16, 2019 in Midland ON.
The Governor and Company of Connecticut and Mohegan Indians (London: 1769; 5 Acts of the Privy Council of England , Colonial Series 218; (London: 1912); Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Plantations
Appendix Archival Legislation, Case Book of Constitutional Orders in Council, Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut, Order in Council (U.K) of 9 March 1704, Order In Council (U.K) 31 July 1740, Order In Council (U.K) 15 Jan 1773
A Dish with One Spoon: The Shared Hunting Grounds Agreement in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Valley Region”. Papers of the Twenty-eighth Algonquian Conference. 28: 210–227. Lytwyn, Victor P. (1997)
Peter S. Schmalz. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 126.
R. Surtees Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (1984) Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867
Peter S. Schmalz. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 126.
R. Surtees Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (1984) Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867
Indian Treaties and Surrenders: From 1680 to 1890 Vol. I pg. 16-17
Ibid. map inserted between p. 26 and p.27
A History of Christian Island and the Beausoleil Band, University of Western Ontario, (1990) Volume III pg. 22 (Interview with Doris Fisher, April 1989)
A Speech of Keubegone Onene and Escence to Major Smith, 25 November 1796, in The Russell Papers; The Correspondence of the Honourable Peter Russell with Allied Documents Relatives to His Administration of the Government of Upper Canada During the Official Term of Lieutenant-Goveror J.G Simcoe while on leave of Absence. Vol 1 1796-1797. ( Ontario Historical Society (1924), p.98
Indian Treaties and Surrenders: From 1680-1890, p. 15
A History of Christian Island and the Beausoleil Band, London On: Department of History, University of Western Ontario, (1990) Volume III pg. 26
A History of Christian Island and the Beausoleil Band, London On: Department of History, University of Western Ontario, 1990, Volume III Pg. 5 (Interview with Merle Assance Beadie, April 1989)
Morin, Jean-Pierre, “Concepts of Extinguishment in the Upper Canada Land Surrender Treaties, 1764–1862” (2010).
Proceedings of a Meeting with the Chippewa Indians of Matchedash and Lake Simcoe at Gwillembury, 8-9 June 1811, C.O.42,351, P.132 (mfm. Ontario Archives)
NAC, R.G.10,vOL.4, Indian Affairs, Lieutenant-Governor’s Office, Upper Canada, Correspondence, 1809-1814, William Claus to Edward Macmahon, 29 December 1814, pp. 1624-1625
Indian Treaties and Surrenders: From 1680-1890, p. 15
R. v. Sundown, 1999 CanLII 673 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 393, at para. 24; R. v. Badger, 1996 CanLII 236 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 771, at para. 78; R. v. Sioui, 1990 CanLII 103 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1025, at p. 1043; Simon v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 11 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 387, at p. 404. See also: J. [Sákéj] Youngblood Henderson, “Interpreting Sui Generis Treaties” (1997), 36 Alta. L. Rev. 46; L. I. Rotman, “Defining Parameters: Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights, and the Sparrow Justificatory Test” (1997), 36 Alta. L. Rev. 149.
Canada: A Country without a Constitution, A Factual Examination of the Constitutional Problem. Walter F Kuhl (1977)
Exerpt from HIDDEN FROM HISTORY: The Canadian Holocaust
Published by The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada, a public investigative body continuing the work of previous Tribunals into native residential schools:
The Justice in the Valley Coalition’s Inquiry into Crimes Against Aboriginal People, convened in Port Alberni, British Columbia on December 9, 1994, and The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities Tribunal into Canadian Residential Schools, held in Vancouver from June 12-14, 1998.
APPENDIX VI: Evidence of ongoing crimes against aboriginal children in British Columbia, including institutionalized pedophilia
In early November, 2000, the shocking appointment of Edward John, a suspected agent in the west coast child sex trade, to the BC provincial cabinet as Minister for Child and Family Services brought to light the extent of official protection for pedophiles in public office, and the systemic nature of this crime.
Termed “institutionalized pedophilia” by BC Supreme Court Justice Douglas Hogarth in his 1995 sentencing of Alberni residential school sex criminal Arthur Plint, the system to provide native children for sexual and sadistic purposes to powerful figures did not end with the closing of the last BC Indian residential school in 1984. Rather, it has become more covert and shielded from scrutiny by its operation through Indian reserves under the auspices of particular aboriginal leaders who apparently enjoy special protection from the federal government and senior judges in BC.
The first documented evidence of this native pedophile system appeared in April, 1994 when a native lawyer in Vancouver, Renate Auger, filed a writ in the BC Supreme Court which charged judges, lawyers, and officials of the Law Society with criminal acts including aiding and protecting pedophiles. Auger and her own lawyer, Jack Cram, claimed to have photographic evidence that at least two Supreme Court judges were engaged in pedophilia and were using their office to shelter other pedophiles who were preying on native children. Auger separately named the prestigious Vancouver Club as a major site for this criminal behaviour. (see Documents, Writ of Renate Auger dated 6 April, 1994, No. C941542).
Auger’s case was dismissed and she was quickly disbarred from the legal profession without any explanation or due process. While attempting to defend her, Renate’s lawyer, Jack Cram, was dragged from court by sheriffs, sedated against his will, and confined in a psychiatric hospital for over a week, during which time his office was ransacked and the evidence of judicial involvement in pedophilia disappeared. According to his former law partner, Elayne Crompton, “Jack was stomped on big time because he had the proof that could put away Supreme Court judges, and the powerful men they protect. This goes to the highest levels of power.” (Statement to Kevin Annett, Langley, BC, September 12, 1998)
Both Renate Auger and Jack Cram subsequently fled Vancouver under death threats, and they now live in hiding, respectively, in Saskatchewan and Princeton, British Columbia.
Separate accounts of a Vancouver Club-based native pedophile ring surfaced at the same time as Renate’s attempted lawsuit, in connection to the first public inquiry into Indian residential schools, in the fall of 1994 in Port Alberni, BC.
Justice in the Valley, a multi-racial coalition that organized this inquiry, documented for the first time testimonies of native survivors of the United Church residential school in Port Alberni during the latter part of 1994. In so doing, this coalition stumbled across evidence that present-day officials of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council are engaged with associates of Chief Edward John in drug trafficking on west coast Indian reserves, and in supplying native children to influential pedophiles at the aforementioned Vancouver Club.
According to two women elders of the local Tseshaht band, who gave their testimonies to members of the Justice in the Valley coalition on December 12, 1994, Edward John and Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council officers Ron Hamilton and Charlie Thompson have continually embezzled money from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the federal Department of Indian Affairs to finance an extensive drug trafficking and pedophile network.
“These Tribal Council guys are just like the mafia. They have a hell of a lot of protection from the RCMP and some pretty high-up judges. They deal the overseas narcotics that come in through the coastal reserves, and they use the same system to provide local kids for sex in Vancouver and Victoria. Our own Tseshaht band council chairman is a convicted child abuser who just got out of prison this year, but he resumed his position right away even though Indian Affairs regulations say that convicted felons aren’t allowed to serve on a band council. The government’s just looking the other way and letting these crooks run our reserves. We all live in terror of them because they can do whatever they want and no-one will ever touch them, even when they’re pimping our children to rich assholes at the Vancouver Club.” (Statement of “Sarah” to Kevin Annett and Krista Lynn, December 12, 1994, Port Alberni)
It isn’t only the government that “looks the other way” when it comes to pedophilia among native leaders. John Mayba, a non-native employee of the Nuu- Chah-Nulth Tribal Council’s child welfare department in Port Alberni, stated to his minister, Reverend Kevin Annett, in June of 1994,
“I never investigate allegations of sexual abuse when they point to chiefs or their families. Nobody wants to step on their toes. I’d lose my job if I ever checked out those complaints against the chiefs, and there are a lot of them.”
Nearly identical accounts of links between these very native officials and the Vancouver Club were shared by separate eyewitnesses during and after the Tribunal of the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM) in June, 1998 in Vancouver. Frank Martin and Helen Michel, Harriett Nahanee, and four other aboriginal eyewitnesses corroborated the testimony of the Tseshaht elders to Tribunal judges, and provided even more details of the pedophile network.
Nahanee, who lives on the Squamish Indian Reserve in North Vancouver, told
members of a downtown healing circle in September, 1998,
“I saw two children down the road put into a white stretch limosine one night last week. My son
followed it and it took them to the back door of the Vancouver Club. The girl was ten and the boy was maybe eight. They were well-dressed and had make-up on, like they were made to look older.”
According to Nahanee, an aboriginal reporter named Noel had obtained interviews with some of the children who left the Vancouver Club at about three a.m. “sometime in the fall of 1997”, but within minutes he was overpowered by unknown assailants and his tape recorder was stolen.
As described earlier in this report, these aboriginal testimonies have also been attested to by non-native journalists and investigators. One of them, Leo Knight, was a reporter with The North Shore News and works as a private investigator. He told Kevin Annett in April, 1999,
“All I can say is that you are definitely on the right track. This kiddy sex ring involves top judges and other people you wouldn’t believe if I told you all their names. But I’m not going to because I don’t want to get killed.”
Frank Martin, a member of Ed John’s Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, gave IHRAAM investigators the following statement in a closed videotaped interview on July 16, 1998 in Vancouver:
“Eddie John sponsors drug trafficking on northern reserves using Treaty Commission and Indian Affairs money. He’s the power up there. The only way for multinational corporations to make land deals is through him. But for Ed John to keep power he needs to manipulate drugs and the cops. He’s forced our family to surrender their trap lines to his family so that he could log off the land for his own timber company. Ed John even arranged to have my wife Helen’s cousin suffocated to get his trap line.
“When Helen and I complained about it, and about Ed John taking away our housing and giving it to his own relatives, at his Tribal Council meeting in Prince George in 1994, his private goon squad roughed us up. Eight of them surrounded our car and started beating us up. Cops like Jack Lasert of the RCMP just looked the other way and wouldn’t let us press charges.They were all working for Ed John.
“He’s behind the disappearance of ten virgin girls from Moricetown. They were brought down for prostitution to two houses in Seattle and Vancouver. Helen’s own nephew Phillip was kidnapped in the Alcan area and used in that pedophile ring. The Vancouver Club uses mostly little boys, since a majority of our leaders are faggots. Men like Edwin Newman and Cecil Reid from Bella Bella; they’re all pedophiles, and they all work for Ed John.”
Ed John’s political power is attested to by the legal counsel who act for him, like federal lawyer and APEC Inquiry legal counsel Marvin Storrow.
After an article reporting the allegations against John appeared in a small newspaper in Quesnel, BC in September, 1999, Marvin Storrow of Blake, Cassels and Graydon Law firm of Vancouver wrote to the newspaper and the article’s author, Kevin Annett, and threatened a lawsuit against them unless the story was retracted. Neither the newspaper, The Radical, nor Kevin Annett retracted the story, since it was based on public testimony. Annett demanded in writing that Storrow “cease from impeding a public inquiry into pedophilia in British Columbia”. Storrow then never followed through on his threat to sue on behalf of John.
The same Edward John, an unelected private citizen, was appointed by Premier Ujjal Dosanjh to the BC provincial cabinet as Minister for Child and Family Services on November 3, 2000, despite this evidence of John’s involvement in pedophilia and other crimes – evidence which Premier Dosanjh was well aware of when he appointed John. For both Dosanjh, as former Attorney-General for BC, and Ed John were subpoenaed by the IHRAAM Tribunal on May 22, 1998 to answer charges of crimes against native people, and both men refused to obey this U.N. Summons. When asked in writing to investigate the allegations against Ed John by the IHRAAM Tribunal on June 20, 1998, Dosanjh refused to launch such an inquiry into Ed John and the growing evidence of native-run pedophile rings in BC.
Dosanjh’s protection of a suspected agent in pedophilia, and his elevating him to the cabinet portfolio for children (!), seems to be a standard practice within Dosanjh’s former Ministry of the Attorney-General. Doug Stead, founder of Entrepreneurs Against Pedophiles, began to investigate the judicial and political protection offered known pedophiles in BC in 1994. Stead established that the BC Attorney-General’s Office under Ujjal Dosanjh continually and openly exonerated notorious pedophiles, like John Robin Sharpe, who publicly advocates legalizing child pornography, and Dr. William Gossich, who was charged with twenty-two counts of sexually molesting children in 1994 and yet never prosecuted.
“Gossich got off on the recommendation of a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney-General Dosanjh, Peter Leask. But Leask had just served as the defense lawyer for William Benest, a convicted pedophile. So we weren’t surprised when Leask exonerated Gossich.” (Statement of Doug Stead to Kevin Annett, New Westminster, BC, February 14, 1999).
In addition, the judge in the Gossich case, Justice William Esson, was accused by several Vancouver-area newspapers of “protecting” Gossich during his trial when Esson banned reporting of the case and allowed the facts of the twenty-two separate charges against him to remain concealed. Justice Esson was one of the judges named in Renate Auger’s lawsuit of the same year as a suspected accomplice in a Vancouver pedophile ring. (see The Province and The Vancouver Sun, Feb. 11, 1994, and The Royal City Record, Oct. 26, 1994).
Under revisions to the legal principles governing the International Criminal Court of the United Nations, crimes of sexual violence, rape, and pedophilia are now considered to constitute Crimes Against Humanity. These very crimes are continuing to be perpetrated in British Columbia at the highest levels of power, with informal protection from politicians, judges, police, and officials of churches and aboriginal organizations. And since, in classic colonial fashion, it is the Attorney-General’s office, and thereby the executive branch of the provincial government, which is responsible for laying criminal charges in British Columbia, instead of the police themselves, it is unlikely that the very department which is aiding and abetting pedophilia will investigate or prosecute itself, or those wealthy criminals it is protecting.
As in any closed society, justice in Canada must be imposed from without.
Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is seeking a judicial review of a ruling that ordered Canada to pay $40,000 to First Nations children who were taken from their homes on-reserve and put in care dating back to 2006.
The application was filed in Federal Court Friday. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found Canada guilty of willfully underfunding on-reserve child welfare and ordered each child be paid $40,000, a settlement that could amount to billions of dollars. Parents or guardians could also be eligible for payments.
The ruling followed the tribunal’s historic decision on Jan. 26, 2016 that first found Canada guilty of purposely discriminating against First Nations children. The government said in its appeal it wants the court to set aside the tribunal’s ruling for compensation or send it back to the tribunal to be reconsidered.
“Canada acknowledges the finding of systemic discrimination and does not oppose the general principle that compensation to First Nations individuals affected by a discriminatory funding model can be made in appropriate circumstances,” wrote Canada.
Cindy Blackstock says it’s another example of the government not owning up to its mistakes. “I think that is another sign that they are not accepting responsibility for their own behaviour,” said Blackstock, who is the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which first launched the complaint at the tribunal more than a decade ago along with the Assembly of First Nations.
It took the Trudeau government more than two years to act on the tribunal’s initial order to increase funding. A recent APTN News investigation found that 48 Indigenous children–mostly First Nations–connected to Indigenous child welfare agencies in Ontario died during that time. In fact, over a five-year period between 2013-2017, 72 Indigenous kids connected to child welfare died in northern Ontario, where three Indigenous agencies covering most of the territory were underfunded by the federal government approximately $400 million in that same period.
The number of deaths jumps to 102 Indigenous children when looking at the entire province between 2013 to 2017. Read More: Death as Expected: Inside a child welfare system where 102 Indigenous kids died over 5 years ‘Wilfully and recklessly’: Human rights tribunal awards compensation for First Nation children in care “What they need to do is comply with the order, stop fighting us in court and do the right thing for these kids and their families,” said Blackstock.
Indigenous Services Minister Seamus O’Regan said the government wants the tribunal stayed until after the election. “The recent ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is significant and raises important questions and considerations such as who is to be compensated and the role of the tribunal,” O’Regan said in a statement Friday. “In order to give us both clarity on the ruling and time to have these conversations with our partners, which are not possible during an election, we are seeking a judicial review and stay.
“We agree with many of the findings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal including the recognition of discrimination and mistreatment and the need for compensation,” he added. However, Blackstock questions why the feds are first asking for the tribunal’s order to be overturned. “Why even ask for that if you agree there should be compensation?” she said.
The Chiefs of Ontario, one of the interested parties in the proceedings at the tribunal, chastised the Liberals for the decision to appeal. “Canada says that it accepts there was discrimination against First Nations children and accepts that there should be compensation. But yet it also says this is not the appropriate forum to get that compensation,” said Grand Chief Joel Abram in a statement released Friday.
“Canada is saying we need to negotiate. We have been trying to negotiate about compensation for these children since 2016, and we never get responses. It is a frustrating situation, and meanwhile families are still waiting for justice.” Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has already said he wanted the order judicially reviewed, while both Green leader Elizabeth May and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said they would honour the tribunal’s order.
The Temagami First Nation is located on Bear Island in the heart of Lake Temagami. The island is the second largest in Lake Temagami after Temagami Island. Its community is known as Bear Island 1. Temagami First Nation (TFN) members are status Indians under the Indian Act that live on and off Bear Island.
The Teme-Augama Anishnabai have utilized the Temagami region for over 9,000 years. Lake Temagami was free of glacial ice at about 12,150 cal B.P. There is scientific evidence that the Three Pines site, located at Sand Point on the hub of Lake Temagami near Bear Island, could have been occupied after 7,500 B.P
The Teme-Augama Anishnabai built homes on Bear Island in the 1880s in addition to homes on their own family lands. In 1943, Bear Island was purchased by the Department of Indian Affairs from the Province of Ontario, for the sum of $3,000.00, in order to be designated as a permanent reserve.
The Teme-Augama Anishnabai refused to accept Bear Island as a reserve until they were denied housing subsidy funds in 1968 until it was agreed, under duress, that Bear Island would become an official Reserve in accordance with the Indian Act of Canada.
Official reserve status was granted in 1971 and the establishment of the Band Office occurred shortly after in the former Department of Lands and Forests building which had been constructed in approximately 1903.
In 1973, Chief Gary Potts of the Temagami Indian Band registered a land caution against The Crown, in Ontario, to stop development on the traditional territory of 10,000 square kilometres, which had been appropriated as Crown land. The Attorney-General of Ontario pursued legal action against the Band for this caution. While the Teme-Augama Anishnabai lost this court case in 1984, the Band proceeded with an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where in 1991 it was adjudicated that the Crown had breached its fiduciary obligations to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and adhered the Band to the 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty.
In 1988, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, Vince Kerrio, approved the expansion of the Red Squirrel logging road, directly through disputed territory. This prompted a series of roadblocks by the TAA in 1988-1989. Environmentalists and allies provided strong and continued public support.
In (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1984 ] , Ontario Court of Appeal 1989, Supreme Court of Canada 1991 there are major issues of Fraud.
The Union of Ontario Indians in this case intervened on behalf the Teme-Augama Anishnabai in doing so helped extinguish Teme-Augama Anishnabai Indigenous Title to their Territory.
This Case also justified the use of the Doctrine of Discovery. The Lawyers for the UOI and Teme-Augama Anishnabai did not include known evidence to back up their arguments such as Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut Order in Council (U.K) OF MARCH 1704, 1740, 1773 which orders any land disputes to be settled in a third party judiciary where Canada is not in a Conflict of Interest. A Constitutional Challenge was also not a position taken in this case in which Canada has no Constitution.
This Case set a precedent and is being used across Canada to extinguish Indigenous Title to other Territories of other Nations. This Case needs to be adressed for its major issues of Fraud. All those involved in this case on both sides are guilty of Fraud, Misprison of Treason and Complicity of Genocide via Constitutional and International law.
PAUL WILLIAMS was a Lawyer for the Union of Ontario Indians. This is a Magazine started in the 1980’s that he would write. In this magazine he wrote about Queen Anne’s Order in Council an Imperial Statute that requires any land disputes with Settler Govt and Indigenous need to be settled in an impartial third party judiciary. He knew this yet was a Lawyer for the UOI who was an intervener for the Bear Island Case where this case set a precedent to use Doctrine of Discovery despite this Rule of Law and is currently being used to extinguish Indigenous Lands, Title and Jurisdiction. He knew this Imperial Statute and was clearly writing about it but did not assert it in Bear Island Case. Lawyers for Chief Orgs such as the UOI are sellouts and not upholding the laws. What good is being educated in their system if you all SELLOUT?
Today the Union of Ontario Indians’ Restoration of Jurisdiction, it’s proposed Constitution, the Anishinabek Education System and individual Band Constitutions and First Nations Lands Management Act all fall under Canada’s Self Government Policy that further extinguishes our Inherent Rights, Title and Jurisdiction; demoting us as a 4th Level Government under Federal and Provincial jurisdiction under their fraudulent BNA Act/Constitution Act. Canada’s Bill C86 passed in December 2018 where for any issues that need community consent it is 25%+1 that means 5 people show up at a band meeting to vote on issues 3 ppl can decide or extinguish all and our future generations inherit rights
The Union of Ontario Indians is an Indian Act political organization representing 40 “First Nations” under Canada’s illegal Indian Act. The Union of Ontario Indians claims to be a secretariat for the “Anishinabek” Nation in which is incorporated under another Nations Law.
INDIGENOUS ACTIVIST CHALLENGES CONSTITUTION IN ONTARIO COURT
(MIDLAND ON) An Indigenous Activist, John Hawke from Chimnissing Anishinabek Territory (Beausoleil First Nation) will bring forth a notice of a Constituional Question to an Ontario Provincial Court on Thursday August 22, 2019.
Hawke initiated a 5 week Blockade at the main entrance of Ontario’s Awenda Provincial Park on June 21, 2019 and was arrested on July 26 for allegedly uttering threats to the Park Warden. Hawke says he was only warning the Park Warden about issues surrounding the Ipperwash Inquiry where an unarmed Indigenous Activist was shot by Ontario Provincial Police and how Government Officials played a role in sending in force.
“ I was informing the Warden of the circumstances of how the Commanding Officer of the OPP at Ipperwash Incident and the officer who killed Dudley George coincindetaly died right before they were to testify at the Ipperwash Inquiry in which they would’ve pointed the finger at certain Government Officials. I was warning the Park Warden to be careful on orders he may be given by his superiors in regards to the blockade and our right to the land.” say Hawke
Hawke and 5 other Community members of Beausoleil First Nation in 2012 constructed a log cabin in the park next to a large granite rock known as Council Rock which has Clan Markings which is linked to the 1798 Penetanguishene Purchase Crown Treaty number 5. Hawke’s actions have been to oppose land claim settlements that extinguish Indigenous Title to his Clan’s Traditional Territory and to create awarneess of the outstanding issue involving the 1798 Penetanguishene Purchase where Chippewas of Lake Simcoe and Huron only surrendered lands in Penetang Harbor to the Crown. Awenda Provincial Park currently sits in the lands in question.
“In these Land Claim Settlement Agreements we are to purchase back stolen lands with our compensation in which there is much Crown lands that can be handed back over to us without purchasing which is our lands anyways.” Says Hawke
The position that Hawke is taking is one that has been very rarely used in the country. Other Indigneous Activists have used this argument and had their charges withdrawn due the position they have taken on unsurrendered Indian Lands. Hawke will not be addressing the charge but on Constitutional and International Law objects to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ontario Provincial Court of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Indian Act Beausoleil Band Council in usurpation of jurisdiction of the Chippewa Clans of the Amik Council Fire by bringing up a Constitutional Question.
Hawke relies on a number of evidence to support his objection such as Mohegan Indians v Connecticut 1704; Attorney General v Bear Island Foundation 1984, Canada a Country without a Constitution: A Factual examination of the Constitutional Problem Walter F Kuhl Member or Parliament Jasper-Edison 1935, and the 1798 Preconfederation Crown Treaty number 5.
For More Information Contact
Johnny Hawke 705 345- 2490 email@example.com