Acadian Descendant Resists Eviction, Lives in National Park Decades Later

A hand-painted sign marks the property claimed by Acadian
descendant, Jackie Vautour, within Kouchibouguac National Park
and warns against trespassing by government employees.

Over the last year, I have become increasingly aware of and disturbed by contemporary cases of legally sanctioned theft by means of expropriation, also known as eminent domain. These government expropriations (i.e. legalized invasions and occupations of private properties) have resulted in forced evictions and demolitions of family homes, businesses and even entire neighbourhoods throughout North America.

Recent cases of government-sponsored property rights abuses, such as that of Ontario farmer Frank Meyers, have garnered some national media attention, and sparked public outcry. But growing awareness of and opposition to the issue of expropriation has done little to curb its practice, or even to protect individual property owners against these instances of government aggression.

Government abuse of, and total disregard for property rights is by no means a new trend in North America, and has been occurring since the continent was first settled by Europeans. The expulsion of the Acadians, or the first Acadian deportation occurred in the mid-seventeen hundreds, when the French-speaking inhabitants (Acadians) of what is now the Canadian Maritimes and northern New England were forcibly relocated by the British Imperialists throughout the American colonies, with some deported to France.

 

The Acadians, a largely ungoverned people since their settling of the continent in the early 1600s, were victims of the imperial battle between the British and French governments for the North American continent.

A contemporary case of expropriation with startling echoes of the Acadian expulsion, sometimes referred to as the second Acadian deportation, has recently come to my attention.  In the late 1960s, the Canadian and New Brunswick governments began an expropriation campaign to make way for Kouchibouguac National Park. The expropriation would account for the displacement of about 250 families, largely farmers and fishermen, and mostly of Acadian descent.

Despite early resistance from those families whose property was being expropriated, most eventually took the $5000-$7000 offered by the government for their land, and reluctantly accepted the reality of relocation. Many even accepted employment with Parks Canada at the newly established national park.

One man and his family, however, refused to surrender their home and livelihood (the expropriation also entailed surrender of fishing rights) to the government.

Painting of the Vautour home being demolished.
By Rocky Vautour (Jackie's son)

For seven years, Jackie Vautour steadfastly refused to sell his land to the government. With the Vautours unwilling to leave, in 1976, they were forcibly evicted, and their home demolished by the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. Shortly thereafter, in 1977, Jackie Vautour, his wife and their children returned to the site of their home, where they took up residence in tents.

Jackie Vautour and his wife have remained at the site of their original home to this day. Over the course of several decades, the Vautours have lived in tents and other makeshift shelters. However, with little money, and their livelihood constantly threatened by the government (the Vautours have been arrested on several occasions for illegally fishing), their living environment has deteriorated in recent years.

Jackie Vautour and his wife, Yvonne.

Earlier this year, local businessmen donated a temporary shelter in the form of a mobile trailer, and the children of Jackie and Yvonne Vautour have started a fundraising campaign to raise money to buy or build a more permanent and safe structure for the Vautours to call home in the middle of Kouchibouguac National Park, where they have remained for more than thirty years, in bold defiance of government aggressors.

Jackie Vautour is a largely unsung hero, who has confidently and consistently asserted his right to his property. How successful might government expropriation campaigns continue to be if more property owners refused to surrender, not only by demanding their rights be respected by governments in courtrooms, but by exercising their property ownership in a very real way, by occupying and using their land in spite of an arbitrary legal framework that tells them they don’t own it?

For more information about the Vautour family's fundraising campaign, visit their Facebook page.

Click here to donate to the campaign.

Learn more about the second Acadian deportation, the Kouchibouguac expropriations, at www.returningthevoices.ca .

Canadian Military Resumes Armed Invasion of Farm

The Department of National Defence put in
place barricades, and moved in dumpsters to
the Meyers farm overnight.

The Department of National Defence (DND) has resumed its armed invasion of the Trenton, Ontario farm of 86-year-old Frank Meyers. Overnight, under the cover of darkness, the DND moved on to the farm, blocking Meyers' lane way access to his farm buildings, and moving in empty dumpsters, presumably in preparation for the demolition of the farm buildings.

The DND first attempted to take Meyers' farm and demolish the structures in January of this year, following the forced expropriation of the private property for the purpose of building a training facility for Joint Task Force 2, a highly secretive military "anti-terrorism" unit. The first attempt to take over Meyers' farm was blocked by an outpouring of public support for the elderly farmer, culminating in a peaceful occupation of the farm by supporters in the dead of winter.

Months have now passed since the DND was stood down by Meyers and his supporters, national media attention has died down and the voluntary round-the-clock monitoring of the property by occupiers became difficult to maintain. While some presumed silence on the part of the DND meant that they would accept temporary defeat, holding out on seizing the land until the elderly farmer dies, it seems the military was only waiting for the more favourable conditions of springtime to carry out their armed invasion.

Supporters of Meyers, communicating via their Facebook support page, are calling for a mass demonstration at the Meyers farm, 209 Meyers Creek Road, Trenton, Ontario, to block the demolition of the farm buildings. Online supporters of the farmer are using hashtag #SaveFranksFarm.

Neither Major Ronald Nelson, the man in charge of the demolition of the buildings, nor the Public Affairs Office of CFB Trenton could be reached for comment at the time of publication. Attempts continue to be made to reach officials at CFB Trenton. This article will be updated as information becomes available.

Read prior posts about the Meyers military expropriation here.

A Message to Military and Police Employees Re: Frank Meyers' Farm

This article was also published on The Art of Not Being Governed Blog.

On November 29, we learned that 85-year-old Ontario farmer Frank Meyers had finally caved to government threats, signing a contract to sell his farm to the Department of National Defence. I have spent much time, since then, considering my response to this news.

Read previous posts about the Frank Meyers' battle with the government here, here and here.

First, Frank Meyers' ultimate decision - to submit to the government's demand that he sell his farm - is not to be condemned. At the end of the day, Frank had to make the difficult decision, in order to preserve his own life, and to mitigate the harm done to himself and his family by the government through its agents; police officers, military members, court and elected officials.

Let me be clear. The contract that Frank Meyers signed with the Department of National Defence is not valid and must not be taken as a voluntary agreement. Frank Meyers signed the contract under duress, with the guns of the state pointed at him, his family and his farm. Meyers said, "They threatened me, that’s what it was. They told us if I didn’t take the money they wanted to give me they would go to court and I wouldn’t get half of what they offered me. That’s what they said."

Notwithstanding the clear lack of consent, I do not believe that the individuals responsible for the initial decision to expropriate the Meyers farm are at all likely to, in an unprecedented act of humanity, change their minds and leave Frank Meyers alone, either because they suddenly recognize and respect the need for consent or because they are moved by letters, e-mails and tweets of their "constituents".

Since I first wrote about the Meyers case, I have taken heat from other supporters of Frank for my condemnation of military members and police officers for their roles in the expropriation of the farm. Critics told me that military members, and police, both in general and those who have been involved in the Meyers eviction, probably don't agree with the government taking this action, and that they are just following orders. This is my message to government employees - police, military members, court officials, military contractors, etc. - like the ones described by many of my critics:

If it is true that you do not agree with the government's action to expropriate Frank's farm, then you must realize that it is not the government who is acting to steal Mr. Meyers property, but individuals, including yourself, whose actions make this theft possible. If, as it has been presented to me, it is not the enforcers and administrators of laws and government policies who want to carry out this theft, but a small group of immoral decision-makers, then why do not the good men and women who, I am told work for the government, refuse to carry out these immoral and criminal orders?

If you are a police officer who enforces the DND's claimed ownership of the Meyers farm, and would be prepared to arrest Frank Meyers or his guests as trespassers on his own farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a court employee who would work to support a process that would see Frank Meyers or his guests prosecuted as trespassers on the farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a member of the military who would work at the new Joint Task Force training facility to be built on the Meyers farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a military contractor, or a local resident who would work to build the new facility or to service it once built, you are a party to theft, and you are guilty of profiting from the proceeds of a criminal act.

I implore those "good" government employees, if they exist, to affirm their morality by refusing to act to support the theft of Frank Meyers' farm. While it may not sit well with you to admit, if you do not refuse to follow orders that support theft, then you are not a good person, as you would claim to be, but a thief and a criminal.

Peaceful Demonstrators Gather at Meyers Farm, Police Respond En Masse

A small but dedicated group gathered at the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers on Sunday November 17 to demonstrate in opposition to the Department of National Defence's attempt to expropriate the prime farmland in order to build a military training facility.

Does a No Trespassing sign constitute
ownership?

Organizers of the event had intended for today's demonstration to mark the beginning of a peaceful occupation of the portion of Meyers' farm and outbuilding, which had been scheduled to be demolished the following day (November 18).*

The Occupation for Peace, in opposition to the military's plans for Frank's farm, has been postponed, along with the DND's demolition plans. Frank received word from the military, Saturday, that work would not begin to convert his farm into a specialized military training facility until some time in December. It would stand to reason that the postponement of the demolition is directly related to activist plans to occupy the land. In an effort to avoid interactions with protestors, I would not be surprised to see the DND attempt to begin work without warning, and at a time close to the holidays, when activists are less capable of mobilizing (maybe between Christmas and the new year?).

While the peaceful demonstrators did not occupy the "disputed" property, more than a dozen police officers including one CN Rail officer (Sabo), four military police (McCann, Long, Frost, Currie) and several OPP officers (Steele, Gibson, et al.) arrived at Meyers' farm in a show of force and intimidation. While on scene, cruisers drove onto the undisputed private property of Frank Meyers, and officers roamed the property, despite constant reminders from demonstrators that the Meyers farm is private property, and that their presence was not welcomed.

When asked by a demonstrator about the purpose of the police presence at the peaceful gathering on the farm, Quinte West OPP officer Shelley Steele responded, "We are here to just try to keep the peace for you guys." At the peak of police presence, there were eight cruisers, and twelve to fifteen armed officers on scene, compared to fifteen to twenty peaceful, unarmed demonstrators.

The dedicated group of demonstrators on hand Sunday has vowed to return to occupy the "disputed" property in order to prevent the demolition of Frank's outbuildings, and ultimately the construction of a military training facility on his land, and say that they expect a large mobilization of supporters in the coming weeks in order to ensure a substantial number of peaceful occupiers.

For updates on the Meyers farm, and the Occupation for Peace, please like the Facebook page.

Related posts:

Trenton Farm to be Occupied for Peace...
Government Steals Land to Build Murderer Training Camp

*The government, in their infinite benevolence, will allow Meyers to maintain ownership of a small piece of property consisting of his house, as well as the farm's original homestead and a few outbuilding.

Trenton Ontario Farm to Be Occupied for Peace, In Defence Against Government Aggression

This is an update on the story of Ontario farmer Frank Meyers, which I wrote about last month.

Frank Meyers has extended an open invitation to his supporters
to come to his farm and stay for an indefinite period of time
in order to prevent the military from proceeding with its plan
to steal and re-purpose his farmland.

Since that time, when a senior military official, accompanied by two (presumably) armed OPP officers visited the home of the octogenarian farmer to inform him that, going forward, he would no longer be the owner of his farm, Frank's legal battle has not proceeded in his favour. Despite his many efforts to combat the expropriation of his farm through legal means, Mr. Meyers stands to see his farm, as he knows it, scraped away to make way for a state-of-the-art 400 hectare training facility for the highly classified Joint Task Force 2, any day now.

With earth already being moved on neighbouring farms also expropriated by the Department of National Defence for the military training facility, Frank Meyers and his supporters have had to come to the sobering realization that a government cannot be effectively challenged from within a system where it acts as its own judge, jury and executioner.

A frustrated Meyers, this afternoon, told Lisa Gibson, the administrator of the Facebook page 'Save Frank & Marjorie Meyers Farm',  "Do what you have to do to save my farm!" The farmer has extended an open invitation for his supporters to come to his farm, and to stay for an indefinite period of time, in order to prevent the military from proceeding with its plan to steal and re-purpose his farmland.

I am reminded of a line from The Philosophy of Liberty, by Ken Schoolland;

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you.

Frank Meyers is asking for our help to protect his property, and, by extension, his life and his liberty, from the forceful aggression of the government. Occupation organizer Lisa Gibson sees a very real threat to Frank Meyers' life in the theft of his farm. She says, "I have been in the death care sector for 22 years. I have seen first hand that when you take a person Frank's age and you take away their purpose in life, their reason for getting up in the morning, they die!"

This demonstration will be an occupation for peace, demanding that government agents stand down with their aggressive acts of theft, and their threats of violence and imprisonment against those who dare challenge them. Not only will this demonstration demand peace at home, by speaking out against expropriation of private property, but also peace around the world, by attempting to stop the Canadian government from building a training centre for military assassins on the site of the Meyers farm.

The Occupation for Peace will begin at the Meyers farm in Trenton this Sunday Morning, November 17, 2013 at 11:00 am. The address is listed below. Organizers are currently seeking donations of supplies for the occupation including items such as portable toilets, tables, coffee, food, etc. For updates on the occupation, and to coordinate with organizers, like the Facebook page.

Meyers Farm
209 Meyers Creek Road
Trenton, Ontario

Please help to make this Occupation for Peace one powerful enough to neutralize even the Canadian Military. Share with your friends!

BC Hells Angels Seek Judicial Arbitration with Rival Gang

Brian Hutchinson  reported, last week in the National Post, on a disturbing trend of systematic theft of private property by the state. There seems to be no end to the number of ways of which government employees can conceive to steal property by force, both threatened and enacted.

BC Hells Angels are seeking legal
remedy in a case of civil forfeiture.

Photo by Jason Payne/ Postmedia News

Similar to eminent domain, civil forfeiture is the "legal" process by which the state seizes private property which it deems to have been acquired from the results of unlawful activity, or is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity. Legislation authorizing civil forfeiture is in place in ten provinces and territories across Canada. At first pass, it doesn't seem like such a terrible concept - that criminals should be made to pay restitution to their victims, in an effort to make them whole again.

Of course, the state does not dispose of seized assets by returning stolen property to its rightful owner, or paying restitution to victims of crime. As reported by the National Post, "most civil forfeiture cases in Canada involve marijuana grow operations and drug transactions". The property seized in the majority of civil forfeiture cases in Canada involve only non-violent "crimes", which being committed, created not a single victim. Doesn't it seem counter-logical that a non-violent, victimless act, deemed esthetically and socially displeasing to legislators, should be met with theft?

British Columbia Provincial Justice Minister Suzanne Anton defends the practice of civil forfeiture, claiming that it reduces the incentive for individuals to commit illegal acts by taking away the proceeds resulting from such acts.

Civil forfeiture fails to deter criminality. Instead it increases the incentive of the state to act in a criminal manner, stealing private property. Seized property is sold off to fund various "crime prevention" bureaucracies, and in the case of British Columbia, proceeds of sold off assets are put right back into the civil forfeiture program. Theft funded by theft.

While the incentive exists for the state to continue to practice civil forfeiture against individuals, the same incentive does not often exist for victims of this legally sanctioned theft, to mount a challenge in court. The cost of challenging a civil forfeiture case is often as much as or greater than the value of the seized property, so victims just walk away. Such is not the case for the Hells Angels, who have challenged the seizure of three of their club houses by the BC government.

Isn't it ironic that the state is attempting to steal from a group which it identifies as a gang, and which it claims operates criminally with the use of violence and theft? Isn't it even more ironic that the de facto criminal gang, in this scenario, the Hells Angels, is challenging the transgressions of the de jure criminal gang, the state, by means of judicial arbitration?

So what should the Hells Angels do if they lose their appeal? There's only one "logical" thing to do in a "civil" society, and that is to seize the proceeds of the crime from the transgressors (the state), to get back what was theirs.

Government Steals Land to Build a Murderer Training Camp

Ontario farmer Frank Meyers
Photo by Cole Garside

Earlier this month, the Canadian government took the final steps in the process of what amounts to the "legal" theft of a parcel of land owned by 85-year-old Ontario farmer, Frank Meyers. The Department of National Defence, utilizing the legal doctrine of expropriation (also known as eminent domain) strongarmed the elderly farmer into unwillingly "selling" his property so that a 400 hectare training facility can be built for Joint Task Force 2, a specialized team of trained killers with the mission of "counter-terrorism".

To those of us who are soberly aware of the nature of the relationship between the state and its citizens (subjects), even the official definitions of expropriation and eminent domain - the legal power of the state to take private property for the public interest - screams THEFT! But let's take a moment to cut through the legalese to make it as clear as possible what eminent domain really means.

The word eminent has dictionary definitions including high in station, conspicuous and projecting. That is to say that something that is eminent is of greater stature, prominence, and likely power than other things surrounding it. The word domain is defined as a territory governed by a single ruler or government.

When the two words are paired, we get a term which basically means that the party of greater stature, prominence and power is the party with the right to rule over a territory in question. In other words, might makes right. And who, in the cases of Frank Meyers and countless others, is mightiest? You guessed it; the state.

In an interview with Maclean's Magazine, Meyers said, “In other countries, they’re crushing you with bullets and guns and ammunition and tanks and explosives. Not in Canada. It’s pencil and paper here, and then they’ve got control.”

It's true that throughout the legal process by which the government seized Meyers' property, not a single bullet was fired, nor did any tanks roll up his laneway. His son even told Maclean's that the Department of National Defence had been "fair" with his family. However, the entire process was made possible only by the government's ability to forcefully evict Mr. Meyers, through the use of violence, if necessary.

Who owns the land?

Had Frank Meyers' known that ignoring letters, phone calls, court summons, etc. from the government would result in no action from state agents attempting to cage him, forcefully evict him, or kill him, he surely would have felt significantly reduced pressure to comply with their requests for him to surrender his land. This is evidenced in the final show of force by the state, when a senior military officer showed up at the home of Mr. Meyers accompanied by two (presumably) armed Ontario Provincial Police officers to notify him that from that point forward, he had no right to set foot on what was once his own property.

The sentimental value of his farm, it seems, is far greater than any offer of monetary compensation presented to Mr. Meyers by the Canadian government. He has lived on the land for his entire life, and it has been in his family for generations. "It is difficult to know that you’re losing everything you’ve got," Meyers told McLeans.

There has been a lot of discussion lately in libertarian and anarchist circles surrounding the tactical implications of the defensive use of force against government agents. The question has been eloquently explored by Chris Cantwell in his article, When Should You Shoot The Mailman, and Larken Rose in his piece, When Should You Shoot a Cop.

When is it appropriate to use defensive force to defend your property against agents of the state? If you ask me, the case of Frank Meyers is a perfect example not only of a tactically justifiable, but perhaps also a morally imperative time for the use of defensive force. I consider that if I were in Meyers' position, near the end of my life, facing the prospect of having my most significant asset, my home for 85 years, and the site of some of my fondest memories and most life-enriching experiences stolen from me, there is not much I wouldn't be willing to do in order prevent such a tragedy. Top that with the knowledge that my stolen property would be used to train militarized killers to commit murder in all corners of the world against people I have never met, and who have never harmed me, and I am angry.

To those libertarians who advocate achieving change through legal means, and who advise submission to violent government aggressors in most all situations, I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Frank Meyers.