Native protests are not about land, lawyers for the city told Superior Court on Thursday. Instead, they are all about money.
Neal Smitheman of Fasken, Martineau, DuMoulin said all indications to this point are that land isn't really the issue.
"The land is never going back to the Haudenosaunee and, if it's not going back for whatever reason, there's no need to consult. There's nothing to preserve. There is no claim for land from the province."
Smitheman's comments came as legal arguments continue in a case where natives are demanding a judge quash Brantford's two anti-protesting bylaws. The bylaws, passed in 2007 are aimed at prohibiting protests at area development sites and forbidding the Haudenosaunee Development Institute from exacting its own set of fees from developers.
Smitheman said that 30 native claims before the specific claims branch are only for financial compensation for land lost.
"The feds have taken the position they have no duty to consult because there's no land to return. It's all with respect to money."
As such, Smitheman said the Six Nations natives have no right to determine how land is going to be used by private property owners.
He also argued that natives can't claim to be protesting as a charter right.
"It's not a protest to say you must pay and comply or we will shut you down. It's an assertion of sovereignty. That's not protesting."
Smitheman said any violence or threat of violence as a form of self-expression isn't protected under law.
Earlier in the week, lawyers for the HDI and other natives named in the city's request for an injunction against protesters, argued that the requested injunction and the city's bylaws are diminishing core native rights.
"How can these bylaws that prohibit blockades and the establishment of an illegal regulatory system and prohibit demands for money, how can those bylaws impugn the instinctual and core value of Indians?" asked Smitheman.
"It would be a shocking proposition for anyone to suggest that the core of 'Indian-ness' involves these kinds of activities."
Brantford has almost finished its case arguing against the native claims that the bylaws are unconstitutional, racist and were passed illegally.
On Friday, lawyers for native defendants will have a short opportunity to rebut those arguments and final points also will be made in the case of Brantford's interlocutory, or second-stage, injunction.
The facts then will be left with Justice Harrison Arrell for a decision on both aspects.