VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

LEGAL RIGHTS SURVIVED

Leo J. Deveau is at it again — foisting his opinion on Mi’kmaw land rights as fact when the Supreme Court has said otherwise.

In the June 20 installment of his This Week in Nova Scotia History column, he purports to analyze the Mi’kmaw treaties made in 1760-61. Mr. Deveau states that at the Governor’s Farm Ceremony in Halifax on June 25, 1761, the Mi’kmaw chiefs “agreed that the Crown had exclusive right to control the land and thus extinguished all claims of Aboriginal title …” Later, he opines that “for institutions or government bodies to state (they reside on the) ‘unceded lands’ of the Mi’kmaw people is not

… correct.”

In their 1985 decision in R. v. Simon, the Supreme Court stated: “None of the Maritime treaties of the eighteenth century cedes land” (there are a series of treaties going back to Boston in 1725).

Mr. Deveau relies upon words in the treaties such as “submission” and the “sovereignty” of the Crown. These and similar terms appear in all the treaties in the Maritimes and have been argued by Crown lawyers in cases such as Donald Marshall as terminating Mi’kmaw rights, all to no avail.

Under the Constitution of Canada, the Mi’kmaq have legal rights that survived the acquisition of sovereignty by the Crown. All of Nova Scotia remains the “unceded” territory of the Mi’kmaw, no matter what Mr. Deveau might say.

Bruce H. Wildsmith, Q.C., retired professor of law and lawyer, Barss Corner

Thank you for printing my letter on June 16 regarding Leo Deveau’s June 6 column, in which I sought to correct his depiction of reported M’ikmaw attacks on European settlers in 1750 as “unprovoked.”

Did it hit a nerve? Mr. Deveau doubled down in his June 20 column. First, in a piece about the British founding of Halifax, he complains that Natal Day celebrations don’t feature enough Cornwallis content unless it’s “misinformed denigration.”

To which I reply: That Edward Cornwallis proclaimed laws incenting the scalping and murder of the Mi’ikmaq is a point of historical record. It’s hardly “misinformed,” and only feels “denigrating” to those who qualify advocating for mass murder as normal, good-guy stuff.

Second, most of a supposedly historical snapshot of 1761’s Burying the Hatchet Ceremony turns out to be a treatise on the legal meaning of “unceded” according to Leo J. Deveau, who asserts that the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 176061 gave the Crown exclusive rights to “control the land” and thus “extinguished all claims of Aboriginal title.”

Your readers deserve to know that this assertion is plain wrong and not as a matter of interpretation, but as legal and historical fact: Neither the M’ikmaq, nor the British Crown, nor the federal government, nor the provincial government, nor any higher court of this land, or any land, has ever landed with finality on that conclusion. M’ikmaqi and its peoples may have been made subject to a variety of British and Canadian laws, thanks in some part to the treaties and in larger part to violence and constitutional fiat, but their territories remain unceded. Allison Outhit, New Glasgow

DEVEAU DOUBLES DOWN TWISTED LOGIC

Allison Outhit’s June 16 letter, “Truth, then reconciliation,” hit the nail right on the head. The Mi’kmaq are often maligned by eurocentric historians such as Leo Deveau, which is why I stopped reading his columns long ago.

It seems such historians view the horrific actions that Europeans undertook during colonial times to wipe out the civilizations of the Americas as some sort of noble undertaking rather than the monstrous horror that it was.

I wrote the following some time ago and include it now as a friendly reminder that the Mi’kmaq were defending their land, not stealing a country, as the British were doing. (Also, one should keep in mind that the British in the 1600s and after 1707 used scalp proclamations to wipe out entire Indigenous populations in what today is New England.)

“The European practice of demonizing Native Americans can be traced back to shortly after their ancestors first began invading these shores. The resulting reams of scurrilous propaganda produced from these efforts depicts Natives to be among the most accomplished torturers and most efficient killing machines that ever existed. Consequently, one is left wondering how, in spite of being opposed by such able and ruthless enemies, the poor, ‘peaceful’ European colonists ever managed to steal two continents.

In view of the onslaught that they were facing, it should come as no surprise that the citizens of the American Nations, who were being butchered, robbed and dispossessed by invaders that were armed to the teeth with lethal weaponry, fought back heroically to preserve their freedom and the integrity of their countries. The twisted result of the before mentioned, in view of white supremacist racist attitudes prevailing, does not surprise either, but it does defy logical rational reasoning.

Because American Indians fought the brutal European invaders to preserve the territory and freedom that the Great Spirit had given them, the American Indian resisters were, and still are depicted by many as the villains. Thus, when a logical and reasonable person, with honesty contemplates the result, he/she cannot help but conclude that it is incredible in the extreme to find that in the overall scheme of things the American Indian victims are the villains, while the European bandits are the heroes. Such an outcome makes as much sense as would a murder victim’s family being ostracized and victimized because they caused discomfort for the murderer.”

Also, one should keep in mind that occasionally greed overcame the better judgment of British bounty hunters; thus they sometimes harvested scalps from their own people.

Daniel N. Paul,

Mi’kmaw elder, Halifax

CITADEL EXHIBIT SLANTS THE PAST

During the Victorian era, the iconic Halifax Citadel commanded the defence of the Royal Navy’s major base in North America.

The first of four citadels was built on high ground above Kjipuktuk/chebucto Harbour following the arrival of Col. Edward Cornwallis and 2,500 settlers to establish Halifax in 1749. Three more upgrades of the hilltop fortification would follow, with the most powerful and permanent Citadel completed in 1856.

For the rest of the 19th century, the Citadel would not only support British military interests, but from 1867 onward would serve as the young nation of Canada’s sentinel in peace and war. It ceased operation as a military installation in 1951 and was transferred to Parks Canada.

In May, Parks Canada opened its vaunted $5-million, 6,500-square-foot “Fortress Halifax: A City Shaped by Conflict” exhibit. It portrays the story of Halifax “from pre-establishment to today, and the role it played on the world stage through the lens of the four forts that have stood on Citadel Hill.”

The exhibit is an important contribution to understanding the history of Halifax and the province’s rich and sometime troubled past, including Indigenous-non-indigenous relations.

Parks Canada reports it worked closely with the Mi’kmaq and other local groups (not identified) to ensure “… the (exhibit) materials (texts and visuals) reflected the diverse histories and experiences of the people of Kjipuktuk (Halifax) and Nova Scotia.”

However, in viewing several text panels describing specific events of the troublesome 18th century — including the establishment of Halifax and Cornwallis’s role as governor — the question of historical context comes into play. In effect, does the narrative depicted in these panels portray a factual, balanced account of events of the period?

One example is the display panel entitled “A New Fortress in a Mi’kmaw Place” that reads: “Within a month of his arrival, Edward Cornwallis met with Mi’kmaq leaders. His initial orders were to continue an imperial friendship with the Mi’kmaq … but within months, Cornwallis was arguing ‘we ought never to make peace again.’ ”

What the records (primary sources) show is that in mid-august 1749 (following the settlers’ arrival in late June), Cornwallis renewed a peace and friendship treaty with Indigenous representatives from the St. Johns River and Chignecto areas. But within weeks, Mi’kmaw forces carried out raids at Canso, Beaubassin and Dartmouth that resulted in settler deaths. In late September, the Mi’kmaq, aided by their French ally, issued a letter that some historians have interpreted as a declaration of war.

Another example is the “Halifax Resisted” panel that states, in part: “The Mi’kmaq saw Halifax as a violation of an earlier treaty and fiercely resisted the new town. Gov Cornwallis reacted harshly, issuing a bounty on Mi’kmaw scalps — a dark legacy.”

Again, the records show there was no specific provision in the earlier 1725-26 treaties requiring the British to consult with the Mi’kmaq regarding “… settlements already made or lawfully to be made” on the Nova Scotia mainland (the French controlled Cape Breton). Also overlooked regarding the controversial October 1749 bounty proclamation is the part that reads, “…a reward of 10 Guineas for every Indian Mickmack taken (prisoner) or killed…” that indicated the bounty applied equally to taking of prisoners (a practice of all sides in the 18th century). As well, there is no reference to the Mi’kmaq and French “legacy” regarding settler deaths during the turbulent 1740s-1750s.

While many voices need to be heard and there are different interpretations of past events, it is important to limit emotion and to demonstrate verifiable facts and balance in public discourse of our shared history — the good and the not so good — as we advance Reconciliation.

All in all, the “Fortress Halifax: A City Shaped by Conflict” exhibit is worth a visit.

Len Canfield, Halifax