|
Jane
Mulkewich offers the following comments on the concerns
raised about why Larry Green has initiated legal action
as an individual rather than on behalf of his “people”.
AN
"INDIVIDUAL" ACTION
Many
of us are in this fight to save the valley, but many of
us are also equally concerned about issues of democracy,
and how well we are represented by our City Council. Many
of us refuse to give unfettered power to our elected representatives,
and like to take action as individuals, whether that action
is a vigil or a demonstration, or a court case. In August/September,
six individual Showstoppers stood up as individuals and
put their individual assets on the line in order to try
to make a legal point that would benefit us all collectively.
This legal action failed, in part because the judge said
that the matter was a political one, not a legal one.
In
general, the court system or legal system is set up to deal
with matters on an individual basis. On the other hand,
political matters are those that we deal with on a collective
basis. We make the laws collectively (politics) and enforce
the laws individually (legal or court system). In the case
of Larry Green, the "law" was made over three
hundred years ago (the 1701 Nanfan or Albany treaty), and
the injunction being sought is the enforcement of that law
or treaty. The treaty was signed between two groups of people
– representatives of Larry Green's ancestors, and
representatives of my ancestors (the British Crown).
Seven
generations of my ancestors up to myself in the present
day have benefited from that treaty... and I now exercise
my treaty rights as easily as I breathe, as I live and work
in Hamilton free of any disturbances. Larry Green is now
attempting to exercise his treaty rights, in the only way
that is legally possible, as an individual. A nation can
not pick up a rifle and go hunting, but an individual (Larry
Green or his descendants) can. A nation can make a law,
a treaty, or an agreement, but it is only an individual
who can exercise those rights. The Haudenosaunee or any
nation could negotiate with the city government or the provincial
government or the federal government and make a new agreement
or a new law, but there is no need when there is a perfectly
good 300-year-old agreement already in place.
I
have to admit that in one or two of those heated August
meetings, I voiced my own hesitations about the court case
in which six individuals were going forward, and there was
no collective legal entity for the Showstoppers. But I now
understand that it was the only way it could have been done.
And I think that our group, who enthusiastically raised
money to support the court case involving six individual
defendants, should not balk at the idea of raising money
to support the court case involving one defendant and his
descendants. The principles are the same.
|
