I did explain it in my speech. If a native truly believes he owns the land, he may demonstrate this ownership publicly.
However, my letters to the Inquiry stated that no where in Colour of Right is it legitimate to committ criminal offenses while demonstrating for ownership of the property.
It is interesting to note that in the violence of the takeover of the base and the park the police put in approximately 28 charges against the violent acts of natives. Only one charge stood, the native driving the car at the OPP the night Dudley George was shot. All the rest were dropped under colour of right.
This included running into army vehicles with a bus and bulldozer, vandalizing buildings on the base. Refusing to let Emergency vehicles onto the site, smashing into police cars and trying to run police down with a bus. Other acts of aggression on the base were arson and pointing weapons at officers.
Some of these offenses were completely ignored and the natives were not charged at all. On the west beach during this land claim, the Crown Attorney decided right at the beginning that the natives had overwhelming evidence they owned the land.
For some reason this Crown Attorney chose to be Judge and Jury and would not let the police charge anyone because the offense would be dropped under Colour of Right. We suffered for seven years because this Crown Attorney precluded the court's decision on who owned the land, and as you know the end result was the residents' land was legally surrendered.
My reason for attending the Inquiry was to have someone show me legally how Colour of Right allowed criminal offenses to be ignored??? No one answered this question for me. My last letter requested that Colour of Right should not be legitimized by any level of government or the police, to allow natives to committ criminal offenses on the land or in communities adjacent to the claimed land.
Until this is addressed the courts, government and police will use Colour of Right as an excuse to NOT address native issues of Violence.