Over the past two weeks I have received many calls and e-mails from a variety of perspectives and people, in reference to the injunction the City of Brantford is seeking in court. I have read with great interest the opinion and comments printed in The Expositor. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to consider what I did and said, and I want to say thank you; I welcome all opinion and every chance for dialogue.
Given the significance of recent events and their implications for all of us, I felt it important to offer some insight into the current situation and propose a 'go-forward' position for our consideration. I hope here to clear up any lingering misunderstandings, and allow all energies to be directed to finding a solution for the current crisis.
We all know what happened. For many months now, the business of our city has been dominated by issues arising from the unresolved land claims of the Haudenosaunee, with the occupations and work stoppages associated with the pursuit of those claims, and with the effect this has on our local economy. These issues have brought major development in the city to a halt, strained relations between Brantford and our neighbours, and fostered a climate of fear in our community.
This is a very regrettable situation, and I personally regret that certain statements of mine have turned the focus away from potential solutions to these important issues and instead made my actions the centre of attention.
I want to be clear that I believe that the injunction was wrong. We didn't fully consider the implications of naming "John Doe, Jane Doe, and Persons Unknown" in our court motion. John and Jane Doe made it clear how they felt about being so named by arriving in great numbers in Victoria Square and on Fen Ridge Court.
I take responsibility for considering too late the implications and effects of my vote in favour of the injunction. I acted in good faith, and I believe my colleagues on council did likewise. I sincerely regret giving the impression that anyone welcomed the potential for violence that an aggressive approach to the crisis has brought. I firmly believe that none of us wish for a violent outcome to this conflict, and I apologize unreservedly to the rest of council for suggesting otherwise.
It was the hope of all of us, myself included, that an injunction would bring a speedy end to the protests. After the request for the injunction was filed, and in light of the reaction to it, I became convinced that this was not going to happen. It became clear to me that I should have acted with my conscience, and that initiating a process of dialogue, negotiation and conflict resolution would be a more productive route to take.
In the time of escalating tensions two weeks ago, I took the advice and sought understanding from First Nations people and others on what the best course of action should be to overcome these tensions. Overwhelmingly, I was told that what we really need is a lasting peace, a focused and permanent resolution to what has effectively become an ongoing state of war with our neighbour.
I believe that this war arises out of violation of treaty and over a claim to territory. The actions of the Haudenosaunee -- in occupying territory, in stopping development, in making threats of further action -- suggest that they are motivated in this conflict by a deep and historic sense of injury. Our response to their actions is consistent with a sense that we too are injured.
I would not presume to say whose injury is worse, and do not mean to pronounce on the validity of any claim. I have listened to both sides, and to the mothers of families, white and native, who depend on the income from construction and the building trades.
At this point, I believe that a universal moratorium on development would cause more harm than good, for all parties. This suggestion originated from the provincial negotiator. I believe that my call for a freeze had a positive effect, if only to demonstrate to the Haudenosaunee that there is an opportunity for dialogue and peace.
I firmly believe that a strategy of respectful and meaningful dialogue and consultation is more productive of good relations between people. We need that strategy now more than ever. Faced with the potential for more political action, here and elsewhere along the Grand River Valley, and in light of impending economic hardship and job losses in a tottering economy, we cannot afford to delay.
To end this war, to prevent it from widening, our only aim should be to see the areas of conflict between our people resolved as quickly as possible, and our only purpose should be to secure a just and lasting peace. Here, peace and prosperity are firmly linked, and I believe they are in our future.
I can offer no easy fix or quick solution to get us there.
I am not yet certain how we can resolve or redress what has occurred in the past, and I am deeply troubled by the future prospects of those who might go to jail, suffer economic hardship, lose businesses or their jobs if the current situation goes on much longer.
I can only promise more struggle and long hours of sincere listening and consideration of every point of view and opinion. I dedicate myself to that work because peace between our people is worth the effort. People in Six Nations are willing to talk to us. In that, I think there is much reason to hope.
James Calnan Ward 4 councillor
Brantford