Québec__Reconnus coupables en septembre dernier d'avoir abattu un orignal au moment où la chasse était prohibée,en septembre 1995,quatre Hurons-Wendat voient leur pourvoi être acceuilli par la Cour supérieur,qui les acquitte. Le juge Francois Tremblay,de la Cour supérieure,donne raison aux quatres autochtones en rappelant qu'une loi provincial ne peu venir à l'encontre du traité de Murray et des lois fédérales.Même l'entente intervenue entre le conseil de la nation-wendat et le gouvernement du Québec ne peut le faire. Il ressort du jugement que les plaidoiries ont été orientées différemment en Cour supérieure agissant en appel.L'essence des prétentions des autochtones, note le juge Tremblay, était que l'entente en question ne peut s'appliquer car l'orignal a été abattu par les quatre autochtones dans le cadre d'un rite religieux selon les traditions établies et reconnues par le traité de Murray. L'orignal devait servir à un festin comme on en organise trois ou quatres fois par année.Seulement trois ou quatre orignaux par année sont donc en cause.D'ailleur,note le tribunal,la procureur général du Québec a reconnu que cette activité s'inscrit dans un rituel religieux visé à titre de coutume au sens du traité de Murray. L'entente avec le gouvernement,en effet, spécifie que si l'entente s'appliquait aux quatre autochtones,ils subiraient un préjudice à leur droit constitutionnel puisqu'elle nierait une coutume et des droits existants ancestraux ou issus d'un traité,notamment le traité de Murray de 1760 des Hurons-Wendat.Le traité accorde aux Hurons le droit d'exercer leurs coutumes et leur religion sur le territoire du parc Jacques Cartier.Une loi provincial ou une entente avec le Québec ne saurait affecter ce droit,réitère le juge Tremblay. En résumé,conclut,le tribunal,le juge de première instance n'a pas tenu compte du fait que le provincial n'avait pas juridiction en vertu de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 parce que cela touchait à l'"indianité".De plus,l'entente entre Québec et les Hurons comporte elle-même la réserve selon laquelle elle ne peut porter atteinte aux droits des Hurons en vertu du traité de Murray.Le juge de première instance a omis d'analyser la portée de cette réserve et,tranche le juge Tremblay,"cette seule omission constitue une erreur de droit qui permet à la Cour supérieure d'intervenir".(Le Soleil 26/01/01). 4 Hurons acquittés d'avoir tué un orignal. La Cour Supérieure acquitte les quatres Hurons traditionalistes qui avait été condamnés à l'amende,en septembre,pour avoir illégalement chassé et abattu un orignal dans la réserve faunique des Laurentides,le 2 septembre 1995,et pour avoir entravé le travail des agents de la faune en leur bloquant la route. Michel Savard,Yves Savard,Michel Gros-Louis et Marc Sioui ont,dans cette affaire,soutenu avoir abattu l'animal en vue d'un festin qui devait avoir lieu 15 jours plus tard,dans un cadre traditionnelle et religieux.Une allégation non contestée par le ministère de la justice. Le débat tournait principalement autour de l'application,ou non,de l'entente intervenue en février 1995 entre le gouvernement du Québec et le conseil de la nation huronne-wendate et en application de la loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faune.Cette entente permettait aux Hurons de chasser le gibier dans la réserve faunique des Laurentides du 6 octobre au 13 octobre,à l'occasion d'une semaine culturelle. Application Le juge de première instance avait conclu que cette entente s'appliquait,puisque,selon lui,elle répondait à la ligne de conduite tracée par la cour Suprême du Canada,dans l'arrêt Marshall,lequel fait devoir aux gouvernements de réglementer l'exercice des droits résultant des traités,dont celui de Murray,de 1760,aux fins d' assurer la conservation de la faune et l'équité dans son exploitation. En appel de cette décision,le juge Francois Tremblay,de la Cour Supérieure,est d'opinion contraire. Dans la mesure ou les quatres Hurons ont exercé cette activité dans un cadre rituel religieux,il reproche au juge de première instance d'avoir commis une erreur en droit en omettant d'analyser la portée de l'article 10 de cette entente,laquelle dit expressément "qu'elle ne peut porter atteinte aux droits des Hurons en vertu du traité de Murray".L'entente,donc,selon le magistrat,ne peut s'appliquer dans cette affaire,car si c'était le cas,les quatres Hurons subiraient un préjudice constitutionnel,puisqu'elle nieraient l'exercice d'un droit ou d'une coutume issus de traités,dont celui de Murray. Juridiction Le juge Tremblay énonce également que le gouvernement du Québec n'avait pas juridiction en vertu de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867,puisque cette entente touchait à "l'indianité". Il rappelle que les provinces,sauf pour les questions de ressources et de sécurité,ne peuvent pas légiférer sur les affaires indiennes.L'essentiel de "l'indianité" relève de la compétence du fédéral et cela englobe les droits ancestraux des indiens."Les lois cencées éteindre ces droits outrepassent la compétence législative des provinces",écrit le juge Tremblay.(Journal du Québec 26/01/01). HURON TRADITIONALISTS ACQUITTED OF HUNTING MOOSE OUT OF SEASON. By:Dan Rosenburg. Having been found guilty and fined last September for killing a moose out of season and allegedly interfering with game wardens in the Parc des Laurentides wildlife reserve back in 1995,four Huron traditionalists were acquitted of all charges in Quebec Superior Court last week. Judge Francois Tremblay ruled in favour of the four Hurons - Michel Savard,yves Savard,Michel Gros-Louis and Marc Sioui-reminding the gallery that provincial law and new ententes cannot override the Murray Treaty of 1760 and federal laws. "Needless to say,we are very happy over this great victory,"said Agondachia Association spokesperson Annette Vincent on behalf of the four defendants. The four men testified that they killed the animal to use its meat in a traditional and religious feast that was to have been held 15 days later.This explanation was not contested by the justice Ministry. The debate centred around the fact that the provincial government and the Huron-Wendate nation had reached an agreement in February 1995 enabling the Hurons to hunt on the wildlife reserve for a one week period only,from October 6-13.The Huron traditionalists,howere,argued that the Band Council had no mandate to bargain away their rights. In his decision on the traditionalists'appeal,Judge Tremblay cited several errors commited by the judge who had originally ruled on the matter,saying that he had caused the Hurons "a constitutional prejudice because he would have prevented them from exercising their treaty right or custom". Judge Tremblay added that the provincial government has no jurisdiction on the matter,by virtue of the Constitutional Law of 1867 which refers to "Nativism". He said provinces can only legislate on Indian affairs when it comes to a matter of "resources and safety.Ancestral rights surpass the legislative competence of the provinces,"he concluded. KAHNAWAKE EASTERN DOOR.VOL.10 NO.2.FEBRUARY 2,2001 "Hunting consistent with spiritual beliefs"-B.C. lawyer By:Dan Rosenberg The article entitled "Huron traditionalists fined for killing a moose" that appeared in the Octcber 13 edition of the Eastern Door drew the attention of many readers,including British Columbia lawyer Janice Switlo. In that story,four members of the Wendake Longhouse were found guilty of killing a moose in 1995 by a Quebec Provincial Court judge after resisting orders from conservation officers.The four,who were fined 2,075 apiece,were planning to appeal the decision. Switlo explains that she defended two similar cases in Western Canada recently with a certain degree of success.In her defence,she cited hunting as a religious right (section 2a of the Constitution) rather than as an inherent Aboriginal right (section 35). "The criticial difference between a section 35 Constitutional argument is that the Supreme Court permits infringement of religious rights as framed in section 35 Aboriginal rights,"Switlo informs. "However,section 2a religious rights cannot be infringed upon,except in extremely limited circumstances such as the safety of a person...Which does not apply in these cases.Such circumstances do not,for example,include conservation purposes." Switlo says that " any attempt to infringe upon a religious right will impact a large segment of Canadians who will vehemently oppose any such efforts that would then be open to be applied to their religious practices.So it's a real powder keg for the federal government. Switlo provides examples:"Longhouse hunters were stopped by conservation officers and detained for an hour while the officers consulted their head office.While they were trying to decide what to do,a large bull moose came and stood on the road next to them. "The hunters wasted no time and shot the moose right in front of the officers.The officers then helped them load the moose and the hunters were on their way.No charges were laid. "Furthermore,a B.C. park recently was discreetly closed to permit Aboriginal hunting for religious purposes.And Aboriginal peoples in the U.S. are having success with exercising their religious hunting rights under the equivalent U.S.constitution provision that mirrors Canada's section 2a." Switlo has a recommendation for traditional Aboriginal people who are hunting consistent with their spiritual beliefs and practices,where they intend to provide a portion of the meat from any part of the animals for tribal spiritual gatherings. "If a wildlife officer interferes whit this by attempting to,or by taking possession of,the animals, firearms or vehicles for evidence or investigative purposes,the wildlife officer should be informed of the following. "In addition to interfering with your Aboriginal hunting rights protected under section 35,he is unjustifiably interfering with your fundamental freedom of religion protected under section 2a of the Constitution.This freedom is protected by international covenant adhered to by Canada and all levels of its courts,particularly the Supreme Court." According to Switlo,Natives hassled in this manner should "demand that the wildlife officer cease and desist from his injurious behaviour,failling which you will sue him." Switlo says she personally will make herself available to assist the victim with his defence and will file a Class Action suit against the provincial and federal governments "for their horrendous behaviour.Above all,she advises,"Do not abandon your rights by pleading guilty." Interested parties can reach Switlo for more information at (604) 767-6224. The Eastern Door vol.9.no.44.December 1,2000 SLICK WILLIE SLIMES PELTIER By:Ross Montour The picture:Clinton shmoozing with staff,dignitaries and the about to be coronated Goerge W.Bush in the Blue Room of the White House.The colour commentator discusses the weather,how much Slick Willie loved being President of the U.S. along with a slew of other useless information,all designed to prime the viewer to feel the awe of the inauguration. Meanwhile,elsewhere,sitting in the depth of a small sweat lodge,sits Leonard Peltier.That sweat lodge is tucked,not on some little out of the way bluff on the grassy plains of the Dakotas,but within the somber gray walls of the federal maximum security prison at Leavenworth Kansas. Sources in Kansas say that at the time of Clinton's rapidly approaching departure,Peltier did not yet have confirmed Knowledge that there was no clemency for him.One might easily presume that he was in fact receiving the word from a higher source within the close walls of the sweat lodge. One can only guess at the drama going on within the mind of the man.As the list of people granted clemency grew full with the names of former cronies of the outgoing President,it must have grown clear to Peltier that his destiny was to remain locked away within his prison cell. One wonders more so ,at wath goes on in the mind of the one man who could have made a difference in bringing closure to this sad chapter in the history of American history,all with a simple stroke of a pen.One wonders what kind of man he is,that he has the gall to pardon his cocaine dealing brother along with yet more of his cronies,yet denies Peltier's plea for clemency. Peltier does not receive clemency,yet a woman convicted of conspiracy to bomb the U.S. Capital building in retaliation of the US' involvement in Grenada are freed.Clinton did throw a bone to Native Americans by freeing former Navajo Nation Chairman,Peter McDonald. McDonald served nearly ten years of a 14-year sentence for bribery and conspiracy to overthrow the Navajo Nation government.The conviction for conspiracy came as a result of McDonald's involvement in inciting a riot at Window Rock during 1989 only a few months after being removed from office.That riot killed two of his own people. The message here would seem to be that a man who conducted a 'war' against his own people is worthy of executive clemency,yet one whose life consisted of fighting for his people is not.Just to give an example in contrast between how Native people look at things differently than others,consider that despite McDonald's actions,the Navajo Nation argued for his clemency on the basis of sovereignty.The US government did not have jurisdiction to convict McDonald on the conspiracy charge on Navajo lands. A fuller examination of the list of those who did receive clemency only adds to the anger and dismay of Peltier's supporters all over the world.Here follows a brief list:Clinton's brother not only was granted clemency.Big brother Bill went so far as to erase his criminal record also affording Whitewater business partner Susan McDougal. Two hours before leaving office,Clinton spared two former Cabinet confidants - ex-CIA director John Duetch and ex-housing chief Henry Cisneros.Duetch had been discussing a possible plea deal with Justice prosecutors to settle allegation he mishandled classified government information when the pardon circumvented the legal process. Duetch was not alone in being spared the due course of American 'justice'.Former Arizona governor Fife Symington also received a pardon that effectively ended prosecutors efforts to restore criminal charges against him.Symington,a Republican convicted on six counts of wire fraud and who later overturned that conviction on appeal,said,"I'm humbled and gratified." No doubt! The list goes on!A pardon for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich who fled to Switzerland in the 1980s to escape federal charges of financial fraud,taxevation and racketeering.The Swiss refuse to extradite Rich. Here's a good one:Former Chicago area Rep.Melvin J.Reynolds,sent to prison for engaging in bank fraud and campaign violations,and oh yes,having sex with an underage campaign worker!For those who think that the issue with Peltier was a matter of the killing of law enforcement officers and 'the need to send a message to the bad guys',contemplate this next one. Susan Rosenberg,a 70s 'activist' who was sentenced to 58 years in prison for her participation in the bungled 1981 Brink's armored car robbery that left two policeman and a security guard dead in Riceland County,N.Y. A press release issued after Clinton's departure from office told of how Clinton and his staff "laboured over the pardons some intensely personal,others more traditional for several hours in his final days.They settled on a list in the wee hours Saturday,but the president asked to sleep on it before signing the orders." The release went on to talk about McDougal,the former business partner who went to prison rather than give testimony against the president,sought by Whitewater prosecutors."I am so grateful," she cooed."There are tears streaming down my face right now.I don't think I stopped crying since I saw the announcement." The kicker is that McDougal's pardon came just one day after the Whitewater investigation was closed down under a deal in which Clinton gave up his law license and admitted making false testimony under oath about Monica Lewinsky in return for prosecutors agreeing not to indict him after leaving office! It doesn't take a bumbling Columbo to figure,wonder out loud,about just how much Clinton was influenced by the FBI in his own sweetheart deal.The law enforcement agency which has had the goods on every American president going back to the hey-day of good ol' J.Edgar Hoover wasn't shy about using inside dirt against Presidents from F.D. Roosevelt to Kennedy and on.This same FBI had sent Clinton a clear signal when it became clear that he was considering Peltier's plea."Ah,Excuse me ma'am...if I could just have another moment of your time...I wuz just wonderin' about sumpthin..." KAHNAWAKE EASTERN DOOR .VOL.10 NO.1.JANUARY 26,2001. Battle over Kansas casino continues Reprinted from Smoke Signals. The Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma's hotly contested bid to open a casino in Kansas remained in legal limbo with a tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued.But the tribe might eventurally prevail thanks to the support of Representative Dennis Moore (R-Kan) , who earlier in February , introduced a bill to advance the tribe's economic development interest.Still , the latest ruling represents the continuation of a battle the tribe has fought for over 100 years.Like a number of other tribes , the tribe once held lands in Kansas and Ohio as the result of treaties signed in the 1800s.The tribe eventually ceded those lands , moved to Oklahoma , and was the subject of termination legislation in the 1950s.Tribal members challenged termination, however, and Congress reaffirmed their status as a federally recognized tribe in 1978.In addition , the tribe received a nearly $3 million judgment award for lands it ceded in Ohio.Of that amount , a 1994 law said $100,000 should be used to purchase lands which the Department of Interior would then take into trust for the tribe.In 1996 , former Secretary Bruce Babbitt agree to do just that and took a 1/2-acre parcel of land in downtown Kansas City , Kansas , 200 miles away from the tribe's Oklahoma reservation , into trust for gaming purposes. Kahnawake Eastern Door.Vol.10 No.6.March 2,2001 |