On September 18, Ishgooda wrote:

Khwe Frosty Deere,

I have recently returned from a week in Quebec staying on Kahnasatake and Wendake. I was shown a copy of the community laws enacted by the government councils which permitted the SQ to come onto the reserve to enforce the Quebec provincial laws. This in effect creates a municipality, rather than a sovereign nation. Wendake has a similar situation - and the people, from what I was told, did not agree to this. Would any care to jump into this discusion below?

Respectfully,

Ishgooda

She:kon,

I'm from Kanesatake and I'd like to get in on this discussion (if that's ok), specifically in relation to the so-called community laws imposed there. I'm forwarding a couple of items that deal with this subject and which may give you additional insight. The issue at the heart of all this in Kanesatake is a casino. I look forward to your views on this.

Kanatiio...

1)

The people in my community are currently faced with a proposed casino gambling operation.

The management company, Excelsior Casino Management Group, which was hired by the band council (our version of tribal councils), held "workshops" to inform the people of the benefits of such a project. We met with Russ Pratt, a representative of that company to find out more. It is interesting to note that, according to him, there are no down sides to such a project.

It is evident to us, however, that casino gambling in Onkwehonwe territory is the latest vehicle for outsiders, using "the strongest among us" to exploit our rights.

A referendum was held in our community and here are the results as provided by the band council. Now, the company rep had told us they would need an indication of strong community support before they went to the lenders for the startup capital.

According to the band council. 1400 people were eligible to vote in the casino referendum. Of that number, 444 people (32% of the eligible voters) did participate. Of the 444 voters, 288 people support the casino proposal. This represents 65% of those who voted, but only 20% of the total population of Kanesatake. 156 people (35% of those who participated, 11% of the total population) voted against the casino project.

Can we assume that the remaining 68% of the population, those who did not participate, oppose the project, and/or consider the referendum to be invalid?

Following our meeting with Excelsior, we made our position concerning the casino gambling project known publicly. Here's a copy of that letter.

June 25, 1995

She:kon,

We hope this letter finds you in good mind, body and spirit. On the evening of June 13, 1995 we met with you so that you could provide us with explanations and information on your proposed gambling operation in Kanesatake. You began your pitch to us by telling us we are part of a sovereign nation and that, as a sovereign nation, we have sovereign rights, one of which is the right to "have casino gaming in Kanesatake."

You then went on to tell us that we are "domestically dependent nations" and that we will only achieve "true sovereignty" when we have enough money to buy it. This clearly demonstrates that you know nothing about the Rotinonsionni (People of the Longhouse), our way of life, our culture or our philosophy. Money isn't everything. We will not put a price tag on our autonomy (sovereignty) as you would ask us to.

Your requirement to negotiate regulatory approval is unacceptable. You say that we have no choice but to do this. You say, "we've got to deal with the legalities from both the federal and provincial governments...to gain the right to have casino gaming in Kanesatake."

Your position is that Canada has jurisdiction over gaming under the Criminal Code, and that Canada has given some jurisdiction over gambling to the provinces. You also told us the lenders won't provide the $150 million required to develop gambling in Kanesatake unless outside governments allow it to operate.

The Canadian constitution and Quebec civil code are foreign laws which apply to their citizens only. By approaching them on behalf of the people who endorse your gambling operation, you will be conceding that their laws are paramount. Individuals who give you a mandate to negotiate regulatory approval, on their behalf, will be giving explicit recognition that they are subject to Canadian law. If they are willing to sell their sovereignty and enfranchise themselves, that is their choice to make.

We will not approve of your seeking permission from Canada and Quebec. We have never recognized Canada's and Quebec's claims to jurisdiction over our territory or people. If you persist in seeking "regulatory approval", your rhetoric about our being sovereign is nothing more than lip service.

Your involvement in the internal affairs of our community and nation is ambiguous. During the course of our meeting, you made statements that were contradictory. When asked, you assured us that negotiations for regulatory approval would be separate from land rights, political and other jurisdictional issues. But, when we pressed you further, you admitted that Excelsior would be connected to the land rights negotiations albeit indirectly. This too is unacceptable.

You also agreed to the request, which we made verbally and in writing, that you provide us additional documentation for our review. You assured us our request could be accommodated easily. We have yet to see these documents and you have failed to keep your word.

Your intention to seek community approval without providing impact studies puts us in the position of buying a pig in a poke. Finally, your vague assurances that possible negative impacts (gambling addiction, prostitution, drugs, organized crime) will not be a problem, do nothing to instill confidence.

All of these factors cause us to view your gambling proposal, and your referendum, with skepticism and suspicion. No outsider has ever come to our territory to help us or do what's best for us out of a sense of altruism. While it is true your gambling operation may generate a lot of money, we are not convinced this will lead to "true" sovereignty or self-sufficiency. On the contrary, our autonomy will be compromised for your personal gain, and the gain of Canada and Quebec over the Mohawk Nation.

We therefore will not endorse your project. We will not grant you, the band council, or any other individual or entity, any mandate whatsoever to act, or speak, on behalf of the Rotinonsionni on this, or any other matter which affects the integrity of the Mohawk Nation and our Mohawk Nation lands.

In closing, we have chosen to make our position known widely, rather than participate in your referendum.

Nia:wen,

2)

OPEN LETTER

October 27, 1995

Kanesatake Band Council
681 Ste-Philomene
Kanesatake, QC
0N 1E0

She:kon,

I have reviewed the "community laws" you are proposing to the "majority" of the community members. These laws abrogate and derogate from the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Mohawks of Kanesatake, despite your feeble assertion that they do not. In fact, these "laws" lead the community towards municipal status in keeping with the Canadian government's policy on self-government.

You explicitly adopt Canadian and Quebec law. In so doing, you're also adopting their system of governance under their laws. But then this is consistent with who you are. Your band council system is a creation of the Canadian government which was imposed on our people, sometimes violently. You have no choice but to serve your masters in Ottawa and Quebec.

You say the latest draft reflects the input of the majority of community members who participated in your workshops. How many people actively, and legitimately, participated in your workshops? Is the concept of majority-rule one that is inherent in Mohawk ways, or in those of Canadian society?

For that matter, isn't this process similar to those in the recent elections and casino referendum? Are they not all destined to "succeed" due to the way you set them up? Is this the Mohawk way? Can you legitimately claim to represent the community as a whole? The answer is no. You merely represent the minority who have seen fit to assimilate by participating in your processes.

You indicate also that you have indeed surrendered the vast majority of our traditional territory. The concessions you make are staggering and, once again, attempt to "Canadianize" our community. These by-laws are being distributed to the community with a two-week turnaround period. Is this really enough time for people to grasp their meaning? Have you painted the big picture so that people can clearly, for themselves, see how all the pieces of your self-government puzzle fit together?

There are other examples of your concessions. I have reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) you signed with Canada. I am also familiar with Excelsior Casino Management's pre-condition of negotiating regulatory approval prior to building your proposed casino in the community.

In all your dealings, you have been consistent in your concessions to the Canadian and Quebec governments. The legalese cannot camouflage the selling out of your sovereignty for the sake of personal gain.

Did the community have the opportunity to review the "land claims" negotiating positions throughout the process? Is the community even aware of the issues and positions you have taken? How do you think people will react once they realize what you're doing? Do you think they'll follow you on your path to assimilation? Some may because they've been blinded by the prospect of money. You have not only surrendered territory, but you are helping the Canadian and Quebec governments in their attempts to secure the jurisdiction they never legally had over our territory and people -- all this without proper political or moral authority.

I've heard that you are trying to negotiate a treaty with Canada. But Canada will not negotiate a treaty with its local administrative arm. You claim that you are asserting your inherent right to self-determination. But the band council system is a creation of a foreign government. The band council system was imposed on our people by Canadian law. You have authority only in that foreign system.

It is interesting to note that the depiction of the Two-Dog belt on your letterhead is done so as to hide the Christian religion's cross at the centre of the belt. We know you are using this belt to bolster your position in land claim negotiations, and to legitimize yourselves as a community government. But it is known that this belt represents the agreement between the Sulpicians and the christianized Mohawks who accepted to relocate here from Montreal in 1721. It is also understood that this agreement runs counter to the relationship articulated in the Kaswentah (Two-Row Wampum Treaty Belt).

I also know that you, along with the band councils of Kahnawake and Akwesasne, are participating in the "Canada-Mohawk Roundtable". I view your involvement in this process as an attempt to create a "new Confederacy" -- one that would be subservient to the Canadian, Ontario and Quebec governments. But this would be a counterfeit Confederacy, one born of Canadian law and government. One that would have absolutely no connection to the original people of this land. You may dress it up in fancy "Indian" clothing, but there is nothing Onkwehonwe in what you are trying to build.

All Kanienkehaka have the right to really examine what you are proposing and to look at it for what it is, a vehicle towards assimilation -- how to become Canadian in every sense of the word. As Kanienkehaka, we exist as a distinct people. We have our own language, culture and territory. We have our own government and our own law. We don't need what you are offering and we don't want it.

As citizens of the Kanienkehaka, we have steadfastly refused to recognize the legitimacy of your band council system, and of your Canadian government within our territory. We reiterate our position that we, the citizens of the Kanienkehaka (Mohawk Nation) are not bound by anything you do which concedes and/or sells out our sovereignty. Canada and band councils are in a conflict of interest situation as these negotiations are internal in nature -- they are not on a nation-to-nation basis.

I do not support your attempts to consolidate the powers of the Canadian or Quebec governments on our territory or our people. If others in the community wish to assimilate into Canadian society, that is their choice. But you have been negligent in your responsibility to provide all the information to the community. I remind you that your negotiations will have no legitimacy, no bearing on the territory and/or citizens of the Kanienkehaka.

The original treaties you often cite to justify your actions were negotiated and entered into by the only legitimate representatives of the Kanienkehaka. I speak, of course, of the traditional government of the Kanienkehaka and the Rotinonsionni. Only the condoled Rotiiane can negotiate on a nation-to-nation basis with foreign governments, no one else. There is no one on your council who is a condoled Roiane. On that basis alone, you are not empowered to act on behalf of the Kanienkehaka.

If you are at all sincere in your attempts to understand Kanienkehaka sovereignty and all it represents, I suggest you enter into serious and honest discussions with the Council of the Kanienkehaka. To do otherwise -- to continue on the path you have chosen -- will lead you, as well as those who choose to follow you, to assimilation.

Nia:wen,