Author
|
Topic: Bob Lovelace and KI 6 Free From Jail!!!
|
|
livewire
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14991
|
posted 28 May 2008 10:22 PM
Court frees 7 Ont. aboriginals protesting mineral explorationJordana Huber, Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=55f7d9b6-ec6e-4ee0-94fe-79879af08747 TORONTO - An Ontario Appeal court Wednesday reduced the six-month jail sentences of seven aboriginal protesters incarcerated over disputes with mining companies to time served. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) Chief Donny Morris, along with five other community members, spent 68 days in jail for contempt of court after disobeying an order allowing Platinex Inc. to explore on their traditional territory. Another protester, Robert Lovelace of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, was found guilty in February of being in contempt of court for staging protests at a potential uranium-mining site of Frontenac Ventures Corporation. "I feel like justice is on our side," said Lovelace after being released from custody. "I am hoping from this exercise the government will want to engage in a meaningful discussion and a meaningful consultation." A lawyer for the province said the government supported the release of all seven protesters while the lawyer for Platinex and Frontenac Ventures supported the release of the six aboriginal leaders from KI. Last Friday, pending the outcome of their appeal, the group known as the KI 6 were released from jail after Platinex agreed not to enter an area near Big Trout Lake, 600 kilometres north of Thunder Bay, for mining exploration until May 29. In turn, the group agreed to abide by a court injunction instructing them to not interfere with Platinex exploration for the same period. Neal Smitheman, a lawyer for Platinex and Frontenac Ventures said it is "most unlikely" Platinex will resume drilling once the deadline expires. He told the court his clients were not the villains, but victims who held mining claims in good standing. "This is not our fight," he said. "The duty to consult is not something that can be delegated to a company such a Frontenac. The duty to consult is owed by the province to First Nations." Lawyer Chris Reid, who represents both the KI 6 and Lovelace, said Wednesday's ruling does not change his clients' opposition to exploration. "We still have to deal with the issue that led to these people being in jail, which is reform to the mining law so the communities, particular First Nations have the ability to protect environmentally sensitive lands from exploration and mining," Reid said. "That has to change or people are going to be going to jail in the future." Reid said his clients will be back in court next week on a second round of contempt charges and could be sent back to jail. © Canwest News Service 2008
From: Name depends on who wins the land claims ;) | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 31 May 2008 01:05 PM
A rare victory: Court releases Lovelace and KI Six Judy Rebick writes about their release, and the solidarity action of the past week. quote: The calm determination of Bob Lovelace and the KI Six, and the heroism of their communities who were totally traumatized by the loss of their leaders and the attacks on their communities inspired extraordinarily broad support. At a rally of more than 1,000 people on Monday May 26 to welcome the communities, Chief Donny Morris of KI said, “I realize from all the support we have been getting how this is not just an Indian issue, it is an issue for all the people of Ontario. And I am all right with that. We are getting as much or more support for outside First Nations communities.” The alliance between the communities and supporters was unprecedented both at the local and provincial level. In Ardoch, non-Indigenous people have not only been speaking out in support of Bob Lovelace but have been raising money to support him and his community. In Thunder Bay, as well, there is a broad support committee. In Toronto, we started organizing a campaign at the beginning of April and by the end of May we had a network of students, unions, church, anti-poverty, international solidarity and of course environmental groups working full out. Not since the 1980s have I seen an issue where every single individual and organization put so much work and money into the effort. We managed to raise thousands of dollars in two weeks to bring 50 community members from KI, a remote community 600 kilometers north of Thunder Bay to Toronto for a rally and four day sleepover.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joey Ramone
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15102
|
posted 07 July 2008 07:11 PM
It is indeed an important victory, but lots still to be done, especially in Ardoch where the province continues to refuse to negotiate with the Ardoch Algonquins outside of the broader Algonquin land claim negotiations, which have been going on for 17 years and have produced nothing besides fatter wallets for lawyers, conslutants and various collaborators. Ardoch cannot participate in the land claims process unless they agree to give up their traditional form of government and accept that, as a "non-status" community (not registered under the apartheid Indian Act,)they are second class Algonquins. Ontario also refuses to negotiate unless the Algonquins accept, in advance, that there will be exploratory drilling for uranium on their land. The only thing Ontario will consult on is exactly where the drill holes will be and how much cash the Algonquins will get for their land. Of course the province also offers loads of cash for First Nations to participate in these sleazy sham 'consultations', so they have plenty of well paid, self-proclaimed "Algonquin representatives" and their lawyers and conslutants to cut a deal with. They will then, together, announce that the good Algonquins will agree to a cash for land deal, while only those bad radicals from Ardoch refuse to play ball. It is very likely that Ardoch will be forced to use direct action again soon to protect their land.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 07 July 2008 07:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: It's a total vindication.
Not exactly. quote: The appellants did not contest the motion for contempt. They admitted that they had not complied with the two court orders. The appellants restricted their evidence and submissions to the issue of sentence.The sole issue on the appeal is whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were fit sentences. As appellants’ counsel acknowledged at the sentencing hearing, the nature of the appellants’ conduct in repeatedly disobeying the interim and interlocutory injunctions came extremely close to criminal contempt. The AAFN did not appeal either the interim or the interlocutory injunctions granted by Thomson J. and Cunningham A.S.C.J.C. It is thus not for this court to address the merits of either order. In my view, and with great respect to a judge trying conscientiously to resolve a difficult, bordering on intractable problem, the sentences he imposed are too harsh. I say this for several reasons. First, in his reasons the motion judge focused exclusively on punishment and deterrence, both specific and general. He said nothing about promoting reformation and rehabilitation of leaders of a First Nation community. Second, the motion judge failed to refer to the mitigating factors that were present in this case. Importantly, both Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman were first offenders. Until the events giving rise to their protest and blockade, they had led lives characterized by leadership in their community, including leadership in demonstrating respect for Canadian law. Both candidly conceded their contempt. In addition, some account should have been taken of the way in which the protest and blockade were conducted. The appellants’ conduct was peaceful, with no violence and no damage to property. Moreover, there should have been recognition of the limited purpose of the appellants’ conduct. The purpose was not a “no entry” purpose, whereby non-Algonquins could not set foot on the disputed property. Rather, the purpose was to prevent mining exploration on lands which were, and still are, subject to land claim negotiations with the Governments of Canada and Ontario. All of these factors ought to have been considered by the motion judge when fashioning appropriate sanctions for their acts of contempt. In summary, the appellants’ character and circumstances, their actual conduct, and the difficult legal context within which it occurred, should have counted as significant mitigation when sentences were imposed on them. The third reason for concluding that the sentences imposed on the appellants were too harsh is that they are considerably more severe than the sentences imposed in other protest/blockade cases. Fourth, I observe that, by the time of the sentencing hearing on February 15, 2008, the Shabot contemnors and Chief Perry of the AAFN had purged their contempt by undertaking not to continue their protest and blockade activities. Only Mr. Lovelace and Chief Sherman remained. It appeared that a process initiated with care, sensitivity and fairness by the motion judge in the autumn of 2007 was bearing fruit. In my view, continued adherence to the conciliatory values that drove that autumn process suggested a more moderate sentence for the only two contemnors still not complying with the earlier court orders. On February 15, 2008, in light of the progress already made, much of it with the encouragement and assistance of the motion judge, there was no need to bring down the hammer of long jail sentences and very substantial fines. Nor, at this juncture, would I order any custodial sentence. That is not to say that incarceration is always out of place in civil contempt cases. In some cases, including potentially this case down the road, incarceration and substantial fines may be necessary. However, it would be wrong to cross this bridge now for these first offenders in a situation that cries out for dedicated negotiation among Ontario, the AAFN and Frontenac with a view to reconciliation of the competing interests.
It should be noted that the motions judge "struck AAFN’s statement of defence in the action brought by Frontenac and ordered that “no other motions or applications to this court may be made by them until their contempt has been purged.” "The appellants do not appeal the component of the order striking their pleadings and restricting their future access to the courts while their contempt continues."So all that actually happened was a milder sentence. And as for the more serious case, the KI First Nations case: quote: At the commencement of the appeal hearing, counsel for the respondent, Platinex Inc., informed the court that it would not be opposing the appeal because “the appellants have spent enough time in jail, the matter will ultimately be settled only through negotiation, and no good purpose would be served by keeping the appellants in jail any longer.”The court heard brief submissions from the other parties which did not contradict the respondent’s position. The court delivered a short endorsement saying that it accepted the respondent’s position.
[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joey Ramone
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15102
|
posted 08 July 2008 06:37 AM
It was the Chief and 4 councillors, plus one band member who's not a councilor. About 1/2 of the band council. As serious as their sentences were, from the perspective of the KI 6 the Ardoch sentences were worse because they included very stiff fines, totalling $50,000, which would have the effect of bankrupting the community and the individual leaders of the community. As a community without a reserve or Indian Act status, the Ardoch Algonquins have no source of revenue and no legal protection for their meagre personal and communal assets. Also, the 5 male members of the KI 6 were held in the same jail in Thunder Bay where they had de facto political prisoner status with access to phones, an outside courtyard, books, unlimited visitors etc... Bob Lovelace was held in harsh maximum security conditions, limited to shared (with 50 other inmates) use a pay-phone, denied access to books and the prison library, denied access to the exercise facilities and court-yard, limited to 2 visits per week, frenquently dumped in solitary "for his protection" etc...As a "status" band, KI has links to large, government funded First Nation lobby organizations such as the AFN and Nishnawbe Aski Nation to advocate on their behalf. By comparison, the non-status Algonquins are invisible, powerless and virtually without allies, apart from KI and the grass-roots movement that has grown around them. In fact, at least one large government funded First Nation organization in Ontario which claims to represent the Anishnabek Nation (including the Algonquins) actually lobbied other First Nations, evironmental organizations NOT to support Ardoch because they are non-status and therefore "not legitimate". Slimy, slimy, but the kind of treatment "non-status" First Nation communities frequently get from the heavily funded Indian Act lobby groups. This is not to say that Ardoch members have endured "worse" punishment than KI. Both communities have suffered a lot for the stand they've taken for the right to say "no" to mining and they have established a firm alliance with each other. It's not very useful to say that one community's treatment has been "worse" than the other's.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 30 July 2008 05:58 PM
From an account of the arguments before the Court of Appeal last June: quote: Ontario government lawyer Malliha Wilson, who supported release of the seven appellants, conceded under questioning by the judges that the six-month sentences bore no relation to the "couple of weeks" applied to previous first-time offenders in the context of political protest. The judges zeroed in on the contrast between Wilson's statement that the government sees itself a conciliator and the position taken in January by Owen Young, the government lawyer at the sentencing hearing for the KI Six, who called for "a financial penalty that hurts." "The word 'hurts' and the word 'reconciliation' are polar opposites," Justice James MacPherson pointed out.
Prophetic words, indeed!That same Ontario government lawyer, Owen Young, whose arguments to the sentencing judge last January were the "polar opposite" of reconciliation, has now been hired as counsel to the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission! "Commission head Justice Harry LaForme has defended his decision to hire Young as his legal counsel, saying the lawyer's comments are unfairly being taken out of context, and that Young has defended aboriginal people for much of his career."
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 31 July 2008 06:18 AM
quote: The appeals court didn't release its decision until July 7. Justice James MacPherson wrote that the sentences were set aside because they were too harsh, and identified a number of problems that led to the dispute, in particular: " The use of incarceration as the first response to breach of the injunction ''dramatically marginalizes the significance of aboriginal law and aboriginal rights.'' " If a requested injunction intends to create a protest-free zone for ''contentious private activity,'' the court must be very careful to ensure that the Crown has ''fully and faithfully'' discharged its duty to consult. " The Ontario Mining Act, ''a remarkably sweeping law'' allowing anyone with a prospector's license to stake a claim on Crown land with no regard to aboriginal claims or interests, created the problem that lies at the heart of the case. The exploration company's actions are legal under the act, but ''the appellants' response, although in contempt of two court orders, is grounded, at a minimum, in a respectable interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and several recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.'' What MacPherson didn't say was that it took hundreds of thousands of dollars for KI and the Ardoch Algonquins to defend themselves. For almost two years, government lawyer Owen Young was steadfast in his defense of the mining act, a position that changed only when the matter was before the appeal court and Young had departed (paradoxically, to take the position of chief counsel for Judge Harry Laforme's Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools).
Source
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 31 July 2008 12:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: ...you can't blame a government attorney for agruing that a specific law should be upheld and enforced.
Then you certainly can't blame a Cabinet minister for arguing that, either. And if you did, you would have to blame Young's client, Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.The knock against Young was not so much that he argued for upholding the Mining Act as that he had argued for harsh, punitive measures that were totally disproportionate and counterproductive - so much so that MacPherson J.A. specifically remarked on it in court (see above). Of course, by the time the case got to the Court of Appeal Young was no longer on the case, and his replacement counsel agreed with the submissions of the mining company's lawyer that "the appellants have spent enough time in jail, the matter will ultimately be settled only through negotiation, and no good purpose would be served by keeping the appellants in jail any longer." The appointment of Young as counsel to the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a slap in the face to the FNs and seriously damages whatever credibility the Commission might otherwise have had. And that's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of The Assembly of First Nations, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the National Residential Schools Survivors Society. It's preposterous to suggest that such a position lets Michael Bryant or any other guilty politician "off the hook."
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 August 2008 03:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by Joey Ramone: Here's an interesting comment on how the former allies of Bob Lovelace and the Ardoch Algonquins have been coopted,...
Yeah, we babblers saw this coming more than six months ago. quote: Ummmm, it's every lawyer's job to follow his or her client's orders, which is why they constantly "seek instructions" from the client.
That's incorrect. A lawyer is an officer of the court as well as an agent of her client. If her client tells her to do things which are unlawful or disrespectful or unprofessional or unethical etc., she is dutybound (sometimes legally, sometimes professionally) to tell her client "no way". Why are you defending Owen Young and saying that you're not defending Owen Young? [ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 01 August 2008 03:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by Joey Ramone: Are we not permitted to say that sometimes the AFN and other large government funded Aboriginal organizations are wrong, especially when the decision by those organizations to focus their attacks on the government's lawyers instead of on their political masters is not supported by KI or Ardoch?
How do you know that? quote: Am I allowed to point out that one such organization, the Union of Ontario Indians, not only refused to support the Ardoch Algonquins after Bob Lovelace was jailed, they actually lobbied NGOs NOT to support the Ardoch Algonquins on the grounds that they are "non-status" and therefore not a "legitimate" FN community?
Sure, you can point that out, but as far as I know the Union of Ontario Indians is not one of the organizations objecting to Owen Young's appointment. So what's your point?If you want to tell The Assembly of First Nations, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the National Residential Schools Survivors Society that they ought to shut up and accept the appointment of Owen Young, and instead vote NDP in the next provincial election, to get rid of the real bad guys, then I suspect many FN's would take offence. Lawyers take instructions from their clients, but they ought not to let those instructions override their own conscience. When that happens, most lawyers will refuse the instructions and terminate the retainer, if necessary. By the same token, lawyers practising in a particular area of law often choose to habitually act on one "side" or the other. For example there are many family law lawyers who only accept work from women; many litigation lawyers accept work exclusively on behalf of plaintiffs, not defendants (and vice versa); labour lawyers, and indeed entire firms, are pretty well universally tagged as "management-side" or "labour-side" and they almost never cross over. But you already know all this. The point is that lawyers develop reputations, for good or ill, in part on the basis of the clients they represent. It's disingenuous to suggest that every lawyer can represent everybody equally well, and it's insulting to tell FN's that their concerns about Young's reputation as a hardass anti-native-rights lawyer (however recently he may have acquired it) are unjustified because of some abstract, a priori rule that says lawyers are legal automatons who just do what their clients tell them to do. BTW, Joey, please go back to this post and remove the long URL pointing to the Globe and Mail. It is causing sidescroll. I posted right after it to provide a shorter link that complies with babble policy. Thanks. [ 01 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 October 2008 05:40 PM
Harry LaForme has resigned as Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.He wanted dictatorial control over the Commission, and met resistance from the other two commissioners, who wanted decisions to be made by majority rule among the three of them. LaForme will not be missed. Hopefully his departure will be the start of a process that will see Owen Young replaced as Commission counsel. Meanwhile, one of LaForme's last acts as Commissioner was to fire the Executive Director of the Commission - an experienced official from the AFN - and replace him with a non-aboriginal government bureaucrat who has treaty status through marriage: quote: Aboriginal groups are concerned that a federal government bureaucrat who is not aboriginal has been chosen to be the new executive director of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission.Aideen Nabigon, who has worked for the federal government on issues arising from the legacy of Indian residential schools, has replaced Bob Watts, former chief of staff to the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. Watts, who was seconded from the assembly to work as interim executive director, said this week that he was surprised that he received a letter last month saying the commission was activating the termination clause in his contract. "I'm really at a loss to figure out what's going on except it's quite likely they're not honouring the job offer they made me," he said. "I've put my heart and soul into this process and made commitments to survivors across the country that I was going to work hard for their benefit and not having that opportunity is tough." While Nabigon has treaty status, Watts is from the Mohawk and Ojibway Nations in Ontario. He was directly involved in negotiating the residential schools settlement for the assembly. Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said this week that he is worried that the federal government is behind the change in staff and that the appointment is another example of the federal interference in the commission. - CBC
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|