Sunday, July 15, 2007

Haldimand "Clarification/Frustrated in Haldimand"

On June 13th, 2007 I wrote an article called "Frustrated in Haldimand", which was based in part on comments made by Janie Jamieson during an interview with the Canadian Press, and published in the Brantford Expositor. Janie Jamieson is the spokesperson for the protesters in Caledonia/Haldimand.

"CHINTA PUXLEY" a reporter for the "Canadian Press" stated in her original story "It doesn’t give me hope" published June 13th, 2007 the following;

"Over the course of the 15 month occupation, Six Nations protesters temporarily shut down a railway, blockaded the town’s main thoroughfare and "knocked out the community’s hydro", she added".

I had many comments posted regarding my story "Frustrated in Haldimand". One comment was stating that this certain reporter has been known to "twist words". My response to this individual was that if this reporter had twisted her words that I would expect this paper to apologize to Janie Jamieson. I also stated that I would update my article.

The following is an article from the Canadian Press published in the Brantford Expositor "SEVEN" days after the original story. "It doesn't give me Hope".


Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 07:00 - In a June 12 story about reaction to a federal proposal to revamp how land claims are handled, The Canadian Press reported that Six Nations protesters in Caledonia, Ont., had - among other things - "knocked out the community's electricity supply" during their ongoing occupation of a housing development on disputed land.

In an interview for the story, Six Nations spokeswoman Janie Jamieson said the occupiers successfully "had hydro stopped" as part of their ongoing protest.

Jamieson later said she was referring to the group's successful effort to prevent Ontario utility Hydro One from working along a section of disputed land, and not to an incident of vandalism that saw the town's power supply cut off temporarily

I personally believe that a "reporter has a duty" to it’s readers, among their duties is to report the "truth", to have "integrity", and if you have made a mistake to "apologize"!

I personally want to apologize to Janie Jamieson for any grief that I caused writing the original story "Frustrated in Haldimand".

I will also send this article to all the individuals that I sent the first one too, as this original article, is what "peeved me off", to write "Frustrated in Haldimand".


  1. Chinta Puxley is not a reporter for The Expositor. She works for Canadian Press. The Expositor and many other newspapers carried the story from the wire service.

  2. Thank you for that information, I will correct my article.


  3. I will make sure she sees your apology. Thanks.

  4. "g" It took me a while to confirm this one. I had called the editor at the Brantford Expositor, he never returned my calls.

    The Brantford Expositor archives all their stories after 7 days, so it took me a bit to get the story.

    I had expected an apology from CP, not just a "clarification".

  5. Donna, as I noted in my earlier post, it's most likely a "clarification" because I suspect they have Ms Jamieson on tape; the apology will never come because it doesn't have to.

  6. From CP:

    "It certainly won't deter anyone from setting up road and railway blockades planned for June 29 - the "day of action" declared by aboriginal leaders frustrated with the slow pace of land claims, Jamieson said.

    Over the course of the 15-month occupation, Six Nations protesters temporarily shut down a railway, blockaded the town's main thoroughfare and knocked out the community's hydro, she added."

    This is not a reference to "prevent Ontario utility Hydro One from working along a section of disputed land"

    Since natives controlled that area and prevented anyone from entering, it is clear that only they could be responsible for the vandalism. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that someone from Caledonia cut out the power to a large portion of Southern Ontario to implicate natives. It just isn't plausible.

    Furthermore, if this is not an assault to the community, why do they persist? Hydro has determined that this branch in their distribution system is necessary.

    They acquired all of the necessary permissions and right of ways, and they are being illegally prevented from carrying out their mandate.

    It isn't the government that prevents them from completing the task, but Hydro itself. Unlike the natives who are impeding the process, Hydro would be held accountable if someone was hurt or injured. Who poses this threat?

    The courts would judge Hydro liable if an employee was assaulted in the course of performing their assigned duties.

    Hydro management may not assign their people to complete their legal duties because management can or should be aware that doing so places their employees in jeopardy.

    This isn't something that natives concern themselves with, it's another example of two tiered justice.

    Hydro has all the permissions they require, and they should insist that the OPP protect their right to carry out their completely legal mandate.

    Anyone who stops them, hurts all Ontarians. If this hydro branch is not completed, and as long as it isn't completed, alternate transmission is required. This costs all of us who draw power from the grid.

    What gives anyone the right to drive up my hydro rates? Who says these natives aren't continuing to harass the community?

    It is the larger, provincial community they are assaulting at the moment and Janie Jamieson has no right to claim she and her allies do not continue to assault all of us.

    I don't believe her claim that she wasn't referring to shutting down hydro to southern Ontario, and I don't believe that her alternate claim about stopping hydro development is any reprieve.

    Why would she suggest that it's OK to run up my taxes? Back peddling.

  7. Thanks Jerry for your comment.

    We all have the right to our own opinion.

    But I do believe that we (you and I)also need to be very cautious, as we are not privy to all the information to make a qualified judgement.

  8. That’s a rational position Donna, we do need to collect the facts before we pass judgment.

    But we do it in a less than ideal environment, with the understanding that we may never get all the information. We must often do the best we can with what we can get. And again you're right, our decisions are often qualified.

    In this case, because the vandalism took place behind occupied territory, the facts speak for themselves.

    What's left in question? Janie attempted to retract her original statement by attacking the integrity of the reporter. Attacking others when you can’t stand behind your own accomplishments is a political tactic we see all too often. The anonymous attribute, “has been known to” in reference to Chinta, alludes to some unspoken misdeed, but identifies nothing. Her own credibility is called into question when Janie follows this path.

    I’m more concerned about the hydro corridor though. When can we expect the native community to speak with a common voice. This project was approved, stopped, and then given permission to proceed only to have that denied again by someone on the site.

    Janie Jamieson isn’t the only spokesperson for the protesters in Caledonia/Haldimand. This occupation has a life of its own. I suspect she no more controls the progress of the hydro corridor than the vandalism at the switching station, but I could be wrong.

    I’m not suggesting that she is personally responsible, but Janie may know who is responsible for the vandalism. She may have needed to retract her original statement or remain publicly associated with an illegal act of vandalism. I don’t know the legal implications of that.

    What Janie said is clear. She now can only contend that it isn’t what she intended. I suspect she didn’t catch herself in time during her conversation with Chinta.