HDI a 'sham': lawyer

 Feb 24 2009

Posted By EXPOSITOR STAFF

The long and winding road to stop natives from protesting at development sites in Brantford Superior Court on Monday.

Neal Smitheman, a lawyer representing the city, spent the day outlining the intricacies of case law, evidence and statements made in prior affidavits, in an attempt to get Justice Harrison Arrell to grant the city a second-stage, or interlocutory, injunction against protesters.

The new request follows a temporary injunction granted last June by Justice G. E. Taylor against protesters, including Ruby and Floyd Montour, Clive Garlow, Charlie Green, David Martin, Mary Green, Hazel Hill and Aaron Detlor. Also named is the Haudenosaunee Development Institute.

The city began its legal manoeuvring last year after a series of protests by natives brought work on area development sites to a standstill.

The June injunction was largely ignored by native protesters.

Smitheman listed 10 local development sites where there have been blockades, disputes and protests that have stalled or halted construction work.

He did not mince words when describing the actions of some Six Nations protesters not satisfied with government offers of cash.

"Certain members have taken it to the streets with jackboot diplomacy," Smitheman told the court.

He quoted from affidavits taken from people at some of the affected worksites that described intimidation, death threats, shoving, grabbing and even an instance of a native protester driving at a worker and striking him with a vehicle's side-view mirror.

Smitheman cited threats that "this is going to start a war," "there will be blood spilled before its over," and "100 warriors are on the way," as well as one machine operator who was told if he did not move "he'd be dead by the end of the day."

Smitheman also called into question the motives and actions of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute.

The HDI is attempting to assert itself as a "shadow municipality" by demanding developers and builders seek permission, pay thousands of dollars in upfront fees and ante up annual service charges before the HDI will grant "permission" to use the property for only a specified time, he said.

HDI is "effectively exercising a veto power they do not have in law," Smitheman said.

He referred to records detailing a prior cross-examination of Detlor, one of the named defendants, in connection with the workings of the HDI.

In answer to a question about HDI protocol and environmental standards, Detlor responded that there is none.

He said that the standards were not available. When pressed, Detlor said that environmental standards come from the Creator and need to be translated.

"It's a sham," Smitheman said. "The whole protocol, payments to the HDI ... is little more than a demand for protection money."

No permits have been issued and no archeological or environmental consultants have been retained, yet $15,000 in fees has been collected, Smitheman said.

"It's a form of extortion," he said. "If you don't pay and get permission, you'll get shut down."

Smitheman spent significant time referring the court to abundant case law from across the country, involving disputes, blockades, protests and obstructionism, some involving natives and some not.

"The city of Brantford is not trying to stifle freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Charter," Smitheman said. The city simply wants illegal and unlawful activity to stop, he said.

Protesters building barricades, wearing masks and military-style vests and sporting bear spray are not carrying on a "peaceful protest," he said.

The hearing resumes today.

Article ID# 1448174