The pending court action by the Six Nations elected council became inevitable once Brantford city council decided to pursue an injunction against aboriginal protesters.
However, it's asking a lot of the court system to help resolve the land claim issues that have sparked the protests in Brantford and elsewhere in the Haldimand Tract.
We fail to see how any judge could rule in favour of or against the natives without first considering the mountain of evidence of deeds, proclamations and other material buttressing Six Nations land claims.
Six Nations elected council is seeking declaratory relief against an injunction successfully sought by the city to end native protests that have stalled development at various construction sites.
The Six Nations declaratory relief motion is designed to achieve early resolution of a legal problem, specifically, in this case, to stop development on disputed lands if the city has not consulted properly with Six Nations.
It's simple enough for a judge to rule that protesters should not be allowed to disrupt developers who hold legal title to their land as happened with the city's injunction.
But by asking the justice system to rule on the validity of aboriginal land claims, you're essentially seeking the same scrutiny and effort as the negotiations over the native occupation in Caledonia, which has failed to produce a resolution despite more than two years of talks.
Still, moving the dispute to the courts could be viewed in both positive and negative terms.
On the one hand, moving the battle to the courtroom holds the possibility that it will not be fought in the streets and on construction sites. That could mean development will continue without the threat of confrontation.
Conversely, the Six Nations move represents an aggressive response to the city's decision to get an injunction against protesters, which was itself an aggressive tactic.
In this light, the pending Six Nations court challenge can be seen as an escalation of the conflict.
Ultimately, it's hard to view any dispute between neighbours that moves to the courts in a positive way.
For a conflict that is more than 200 years old, the courts do not hold the promise of a speedy resolution.
Say, for example, the court rules in favour of Six Nations and stops developers. The city or the developer would obviously appeal. Then, you might as well start using years to measure the court case.
Not to mention the money to fight it.
And if any court ruling is favourable to the city, is that any guarantee that protesters' activities will cease?
If Canada and Six Nations are to be viewed as two distinct nations -- and that's the premise for land claims talks between the federal government and Six Nations representatives -- courts are rarely an effective method to resolve disputes between states.
For proof, we need only witness the ineffectiveness of the mechanisms used to resolve trade conflicts between the U. S. and Canada as part of NAFTA, even though the trade deal was designed specifically with a court-like process to address these issues.
Eventually, political solutions become necessary.
The courts could well hold the ultimate solution to land claims conflicts, but for right now they look like another front in an ongoing battle.