Office of the Grand Chief

Mohawk Council of Kanesatake Office of the Grand Chief

August 3rd 2020

Addressing Misinformation about the Land Claims Process

She:kon sewakwe:kon,

I would like to address another source of disinformation being spread to community members, the topic being land claims and although the nature of it is less than positive, I’m glad that these questions are being raised so I may present MCK’s truth.

This is nothing new to our community as it’s been going on for decades with each successive council for as long as many here can remember.

The present round of negotiations was triggered by the council before me and under the Harper government, which at the time was forcing bands around the country to either start making progress at the negotiations or risk having Canada make a “take it or leave it offer” or, take Canada to court.

Our historical grievances have remained the same since 1865 when the Sulpicians began selling off large parts of our treaty promised territory. The treaty of Oswegatchie (1760) had promised that we would be kept on the lands we occupied in OUR just rights as well as our hunting grounds. Later that year the British conquered the French at Montreal which resulted in the articles of capitulation. Article 40 does state that: we should not be molested under any pretext.

Later that year we saw the treaty of Kahnawake which asserted the same promises, then the Royal proclamation 1763 that in part said: And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And furthermore: And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements. The proclamation is enshrined in section 25 of the constitution today.

Then the treaty of Niagara 1764 that asserted the same promises.

Up to present date, we see several Supreme Court decisions that have forced Canada to accept the wrongs they have asserted by denying the existence of Aboriginal title and rights, which the courts disagreed with Canada, such as; the Haida, Delgamuk, Tsilhqot’in decisions and others cases. This is why I say Canada deals with us under policy and not necessarily the law. Even the treaty of Oswegatchie 1760 was upheld by the Supreme court in 1994 as valid today.

1867 was a year that saw the passing of the British North American Act as well as the constitution and not long after that, the infamous Indian Act. Although our chiefs in 1969 rejected the act at a meeting with Federal official, Canada still maintained us under special custom of the act.

The Sulpician were the great manipulators of the time and lobbied the Governments then to acknowledge their legitimate claim of ownership of our land. In 1841 the ordinance of Montreal was supposed to assert that but failed to achieve its purpose, as today’s legal analysis says the ordinance had no cause or effect at extinguishing Aboriginal title. If the French King had intended that the Sulpicians should have title he would have had them hold it in “morte main” (dead hand) which was not the case.

In 1912, Chief Corinthe challenged the ownership of the Sulpician all the way to the privy council of England but was not permitted to bring up the treaties. So, the privy council heard half the arguments and ruled that the Sulpicians owned the land and could dispose of as they saw fit. But they also said that it was clear to the privy council that they were dealing with some form of trust and that we should bring this back to proper courts in this country to clear this up.

This brings up another front in our arguments that if a trust was the intent, which I believe is a strong possibility, the first rule of trust law is that the trustee may NOT enrich himself with the benefits of the beneficiary (us). So, the Sulpicians again are wrong as well as the feds for allowing this to happen.

Then there’s Cannon law of the Catholic Church where there is strong evidence that the priests could not own property either personally or collectively and I would go further as to accuse the church of waging an illegal holy war against Native Peoples in the Americas for the last 500 years.

International Law is also on our side. I spoke with some chiefs in B.C. in the presence of one of their lawyers who knew about International Law and I described how Treaty First Nations should take Canada to the international court for breach of contract. She asked why? I said that under International Law, Treaties are seen as valid contracts between Sovereign Nations and as such, we have every right to take these violations to The Hague Court. She thought it was a very interesting angle and wanted to know if we ever got this going to call her so she could help.

So you see that the Monarchy, the Federal Government and the priests have all built this house of cards based on arrogance, greed, racism and lies. What we need to do here, is bring this house of cards down once and for all.

In 1760 at Oswegatchie, Kanesatake’s chief Anayetah exchanged a Wampum Belt with the superintendent of Indian Affairs for the British Sir William Johnson, that made Kanesatake part of that Treaty, but what people often ignore is that Anayetah was Christian, but governed under his custom and not under the confederacy.

As a matter of fact, Kanesatake and Kahnawake governed under the alliance of what was called the 7 nations of lower Canada for more than 100 years but considered the confederacy as brothers and kept ties with them.

Examples of Sovereign Nations changing their governing systems over time include Russia, France, Hungary and others who governed under Kings and Queens but then chose democratic systems, but they never lost their sovereignty, so why should we because we chose to govern differently?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) states in Article 3: Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

It seems to me the best future for all Kanesatakero:non is that these two systems must find a way to work together without fear that we are giving something up, it’s after all what we make it, and not Canada’s interpretation of what we do, that matters and we might just become stronger for it.

I understand that my words will offend some, which is not my intention, but I know that many share this view and they must have someone to say it for them.

Its also my intention that through this letter my words will become part of the historical record of our community long after my days are over and that this letter will be read by future generations, so they will understand the truth of what I tried to do for our people, because the lies of today cannot.

______

Grand Chief Serge Otsi Simon