verbena-19

Haida Nation of British Columbia (Minister of Forestry) [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511. “There is a legal duty to consult and accommodate when there is a dispute over title to land”. It is a government-to-government negotiation.

R. v. Badger [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 at paragraph 41 at 2 S.C. Judgments. “It is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfill its promises”. The OPP stance is violating this. There is a buildup of cops. It looks like someone acting on behalf of Canada is planning to violate the law that land issues are supposed to be conducted on a government-to-government basis.

Justice McLaughlin says, “Injunctions are not the best way to go in a land title dispute. There is a duty to negotiate and to accommodate”. The Six Nations has been “talking”. We have been accommodating. We opened a road. There is traffic flowing through our land. Now Ontario and Canada have decided not to keep their promises.

Canada and Ontario may have forgotten that the court is moving into a “decolonization” direction. Is only the top level of the court aware of this? The lessons have not sunk in yet at the lower levels. They should go back to law school.

The Haldimand Proclamation is part of Britain’s fulfillment of their obligation to their allies, the Six Nations. There was an oral treaty between Six Nations and our British allies which cemented our alliance based on oral agreements. Haldimand is part of this agreement.

P. 26, Haida Nation. “Honorable” negotiations implies a legal duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and concluding an honorable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights”.

“The Crown, acting honorable, cannot cavalierly run rough shod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting those interests are being seriously violated in the process of treaty negotiation and proof”. It must respect that there is potential but yet unproven interests.

Where is the right coming from to attack us? It is old fashioned, archaic, colonial, violates domestic and international law. The Crown wants to pretend that our interests are unproven. They are very well proven. They cannot pretend they don’t have the legal duty to respect our interests. They have a legal duty to consult and accommodate us. Do the cops know what they are doing? Are you aware that if you violate us by running and trampling onto our territory, you will be violating recent Supreme Court decisions?

Haida paragraph 35: “But, when precisely, does the duty to consult arise? The foundation of the duty on the Crown’s honor and the goal of reconciliation suggests that the duty arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates the title that might adversely affect it”. There’s no doubt that the Crown knows very well that we have rights and title and they have to respect it.