|
December
23, 2003
THE RED HILL ABORIGINAL LEGAL ACTION
The Friends of Red Hill Valley website now includes numerous
documents on the legal action launched by Mohawk citizen
Larry Green to stop the construction of the expressway.
(See legal action).
Below you will find information on this legal action and
how you can support it, as well as a commentary on the “individual”
nature of this action.
A
Christmas Fundraising Effort
Diane Fields has produced colour copies of a certificate
that can be used to announce gift donations on behalf of
friends and family. The certificate was drawn and produced
by Keisha Quinn (age 13 and depicts the round house flying
the flag of the confederacy along with a flying squirrel,
white tailed deer, snapping turtle, tree frog (for April),
and other species along with the statement “A donation
has been made by: _____ on behalf of: ______ to protect
the Red Hill Valley for the future health and well-being
of us all!”
Diane
has produced 150 copies of the certificates in full colour
and will provide them free of charge to anyone wishing to
donate to the aboriginal legal action. If you wish to get
one or more of these there are two options. (1) Diane has
copies available for pick-up at her west Hamilton home.
Call her at (905) 528-6121. If you don’t get an answer,
try her cell phone at (905) 928-1655. (2) Alternatively,
you can go to the Friends of Red Hill Valley website (www.hwcn.org/link/forhv)
and download the PDF file and print your own copies of the
certificate. This can also be done from the Hamilton Indymedia
site at http://hamilton.indymedia.org/
. The donations can be sent to the “Red Hill Valley
Defence Fund” as described below.
Donate
to the Red Hill Valley Defence Fund
Lawyers working on the injunction of Mohawk citizen Larry
Green are seeking financial assistance to pursue the case
asserting his and his descendents Nanfan Treaty rights in
Red Hill Valley. The two lawyers, Murray Klippenstein and
Andrew Orkin, have committed their firms’ resources
to the case, but there is no doubt that the City will be
willing to spend enormous amounts of tax dollars to oppose
them. Accordingly, the lawyers indicate that they would
welcome any and all financial support from the public to
help cover the extensive costs of the legal steps required
to undertake this important environmental and treaty rights
case. The two law firms are working day and night to get
the case into court on an urgent basis. If you are interested
in supporting this legal action to oppose the construction
of the Red Hill Creek Expressway, cheques should be made
payable to "Red Hill Valley Defence Fund" and
may be mailed or delivered to: Andrew Orkin, Barrister and
Solicitor, 103 Glenfern Ave., Hamilton, ON L8P 2T9.
Lawyers
Explain Court Action
Murray Klippenstein and Andrew Orkin, the two lawyers representing
Larry Green, have published an extensive essay on the legal
basis of the court action they have launched. It was published
on the Forum page of the Hamilton Spectator in December
2003. The full text appears on the Friends of Red Hill Valley
website. The website now contains numerous documents on
the aboriginal legal action including:
- the
Notice of Action filed on November 25
- the
statement of Larry Green released on November 27
- the
media release announcing the November 27 media conference
- a
copy of the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 outlining the treaty
rights that forms the basis of the legal action
- a
copy of the map from the Nanfan Treaty showing the inclusion
of Red Hill Valley
- an
article by Jim Windle from the TEKA aboriginal newspaper
You
can examine these documents at www.hwcn.org/link/forhv .
We
also direct your attention to another (of many) examples
of the ongoing persecution of aboriginal people. Please
visit http://www.grahamdefense.org/position1.htm
An
“Individual” Action
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”.
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.
|
