HURRAH for HARPER ... ... hunh?
This is my take on the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, about to pass the UN General Assembly this week, no thanks to Canada.
HURRAH for HARPER's dogmatic
(if politically dense) honesty
(if politically dense) honesty
He has exposed to the UN and the world
Canada's true intentions toward Aboriginal people.
Canada's true intentions toward Aboriginal people.
I have been following the progress of the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada's Liberals worked on it over 20 years at the UN, to make sure it would be agreeable with Canada's laws (most of which they failed to implement over the same 20 years since the Constitution ... so they are not lily-white either).
Since Stephen Harper took over, he has made quite a fuss about the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, not only voting against it in the UN Human Rights Committee (It passed anyway.), but actively undermining last year's vote in the UN General Assembly, delaying it to this year: Canada lobbied some African Nations to join other opposed African Nations to cause the delay. "Bad faith" is the way Canada's behaviour has been described:
"The wording is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our Constitution Act, previous Supreme Court decisions, the National Defence Act and policies under which we negotiate treaties."
In fact, documents released to Amnesty International under the Access to Information Act show that the government fought the declaration despite advice from its own officials in Foreign Affairs, Indian Affairs and National Defence, all of them urging its support.
...
"It's a crime against indigenous people globally, and it's a crime against indigenous people in Canada," he told a news conference today in New York.
This, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper "is trying to dictate to developing nations what they should do. Indigenous people in Canada must be going through hell." (yup)
...
While the U.S., Australia and New Zealand have also expressed concerns, Canada has become "the prominent opponent to the declaration," says Les Malezer, chairman of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus. The group co-ordinates input at the UN from seven global regions.
Critics ranging from the national Assembly of First Nations to Amnesty International say Ottawa has never fully explained its related concerns.
They stress that the declaration is a non-binding document that is specifically required to be interpreted in balance with other laws, standards and the rights of non-native citizens.
"Their argument that it undermines treaties and agreements ... is just not correct," says Malezer. "I think they're making it up. It's not a legal opinion."
The Canadian government not only supported but was a leader of the process toward drafting the declaration before the Liberals were defeated in January 2006, Malezer said from New York. The Liberals pushed for clarifications – especially on land and resource issues – but were clear proponents, he added.
Ottawa's position under the Conservatives changed so drastically that by June 2006, only Canada and Russia voted against the declaration at the UN Human Rights Council.
"Clearly it was a political flip," says Malezer. "And that's just bad behaviour. It's not good faith. It's not about human rights."
Ole Simel, of Kenya, suspects the real root of opposition can be traced to the lucrative timber, minerals and other deposits that lie on or beneath disputed lands.
Jennifer Preston, program co-ordinator with the Quaker aboriginal affairs committee, has watched the process unfold for the last six years.
"I think a lot of states were deeply disappointed by Canada's behaviour," she said from Toronto. "I think they expect better from Canada at the UN.
"The fact that Canada chose to team up with the Russian Federation and Colombia on this – it's not what one would hope for on a human rights issue."
.................The second vote in the UN General Assembly in NY is now scheduled for this Thursday, September 13. Last week, a delegation of 51 African Nations submitted proposed changes negotiated with them by the countries sponsoring the Declaration. The Indigenous Forum reviewed the proposed changes, the most significant being about 'territorial integrity', and announced on Thursday that they approved the changes. This agreement will allow the Declaration to pass in the UN General Assembly this Thursday, despite Canada's overt lead in the opposition, along with the US, New Zealand, Australia, Russia and a few others.
Here is the final document with the African changes highlighted.
(Canada's proposals (on the sidebar) were not admitted to these final discussions.)
http://raven.kisikew.org/pdf/SCReport_070831.pdf
I think that is worth celebrating, because it gives more strength to our own laws. Especially worth celebrating is the fact that the UN is royally ticked at Canada and will be scrutinizing every move from now on, we hope. And the rest of the world now knows more about the state of Canada's relations with its Indigenous Peoples too. We need that spotlight to put pressure on our governments to meet their legal obligations and liabilities, and pay attention to the environmental messages too. (See 'Ontario blockades' below.)
The Declaration has been seen and portrayed as bestowing "special rights". This criticism is also made of our Constitution and Charter. They are fairly consistent with the UN Declaration, and that makes Harper's position rather precarious, since it is clear that he disagrees with our Constitution and Charter. He has said so - "I prefer the old Bill of Rights." - but they are still the law in court.
The truth is there are no 'special rights' nor even any new human rights in the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights. The UN Declaration was developed by searching other UN documents and covenants for Human Rights conventions relevant to Indigenous Peoples. That would be all human rights, of course. So the Declaration is derived from human rights that we all have, put together in a document focusing on Indigenous Peoples only to highlight the fact that these are Human Rights for All: No Exceptions.
Control of land use is the main issue of course (and resource industries ... and war industries ... but I digress), and autonomous control over land and governance. These are all laws and policies on Canada's books - land settlement, self-governance - but we are slower than roadkill at implementing them, to the point where it is severely interfering with economic development of Indigenous communities.
The immediate problem is, while Aboriginal people are waiting for the federal government to 'get around to' their land claim, federal, provincial and municipal governments are madly giving out permits for mining, logging, greenfield sprawl development, anything to get the land into third party interests. They have a federal 'policy' (not a law) that land with third party interests cannot be 'returned to the Band'.
At the same time, there is a Supreme Court Constitutional ruling that "the Crown has a duty to consult and, where necessary, accommodate" the interests of Aboriginal peoples regarding uses of their traditional and treaty lands. These may be lands in negotiation, under claim or otherwise in dispute. There are over 1000 land claims still waiting for settlement, and more to come. About 450 have been settled in 30 years. (This speed may improve with adjudication by the new Tribunal.)
All four Aboriginal blockades right now in Ontario are due to governments failing to carry out the Crown's "Duty to Consult" about the uses governments have approved and imposed on them that are just unacceptable to the Aboriginal people's interests:
Since June 28, 2007 Sharbot Lake, Algonquin blockade against uranium drilling, with the support of neighbouring landowners whose land is staked for drilling too. Injunction now in effect, OPP tactical amassing, and ART and MELT Aboriginal units for negotiating. Tension mounting as everyone wonders whether the OPP will try to remove them.
Interesting case, the Shabot and Ardoch Algonquins because they have never signed a treaty, never surrendered themselves nor ceded any bit of land, have never acquired 'Indian status' cards and have never taken any government funds as a First Nation. Their 'treaty', thus, is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which states that any land not ceded to the Crown remains 'Indian territory'.
I just heard today that the Mining Act requires permission of the 'natives', so I am not sure why the Judge granted the injunction against them. The OPP are being cautious so far, and they have 'discretion' in carrying out the injunction. Up to 200 local landowners with their dayglo anti-uranium t-shirts are camped outside the blockade (because anybody going in and out can now be arrested). The landowners are starting a tax revolt, and they say "If the OPP take the Algonquins out, WE are going in!" (gotta love those baby boomers!
) Some of these owners have some fairly exclusive 'homes in the hills', retired people or people who commute to Ottawa. It is cottage and retirement country: Not a crowd the government will want to mess with too much, and they do not want uranium mining.Since February 28, 2006 Caledonia, Six Nations blockade against sprawl development threatening to envelope the Grand River Valley and farmland of Haldimand County, leapfrogging over the government's 'greenbelt' around the end of Lake Ontario. My friends from the Six Nations Confederacy have shut down about half a dozen developers on the greenfields who failed to consult with them, and other developers have voluntarily come to them for agreements. They have been in negotiation on their 29 land claims with the government for over a year since the blockade went up after the brutal but failed OPP raid. The government is only now considering maybe thinking about talking about stopping some development on Crown Land, at least. Some local people recently have approached the Six Nations Confederacy Council for help in shutting down a local landfill expansion. What is already there is already leaking toxins into the Grand River.
Six Nations land claims are up to 30 years old, with minimal progress until the blockade. The land initially reclaimed was intended to stay farmland, bordering the current Six Nations reserve. They have never complained loudly until the towns (Brantford, Caledonia) began encroaching on their actual reserve borders, building on what they knew to be their land, leased to the towns but never paid. Six Nations monitors air quality and theirs is much better than surrounding areas because they have kept a lot of their trees, including some of the most northerly Carolinian forest.
Since June, 2002 Grassy Narrows, Anishinabe blockade against clearcut logging, aerial spraying and monoculture replanting that has poisoned the water and land and air and wildlife and the community itself. I love this one: They have been blockading for FIVE YEARS, and they finally got a meeting with the province next week about the logging licenses.
In 2002, two Grassy Narrows 16 year olds felled a tree across the logging road and they and their friends (unarmed) made the loggers stand down, because they simply couldn't get by. Gradually the whole community joined the high school students and they have been there ever since, for five years, blockading a remote road where nobody but the loggers go ... or used to go.
And finally a meeting.
Since April 20 2007 Tyendinaga, Mohawk blockade against a waterfront condo development and a quarry on land already deemed in government negotiation to be unceded Mohawk title, and still in negotiation for settlement. When they blockaded the quarry, they found it had also been used to bury highway refuse ... pavement ... with toxins now leaking into the groundwater.
These are all instances of evasion of Constitutional Law
by the governments of Canada and Ontario who act for 'the Crown'.
They are also all legitimate environmental concerns.
by the governments of Canada and Ontario who act for 'the Crown'.
They are also all legitimate environmental concerns.
So that's my soapbox. Now you know why I do this stuff ... because they are right, and they have rights, and we need their help to stop the environmental destruction still permitted by our governments, in my opinion. :)
These headlines tell the story of Canada's week at the UN:
(Oh, and by the way, for my U.S. family, since George W has Stephen to do his loud and dirty work, he has only had to keep his head down on this issue, and the US abstained from the last vote, I believe.)
It only gives me pleasure to see these headlines slamming Canada, because I think it is the beginning of a better day. Harper has ticked people off to the point where they have the courage to stand their ground, and I think that is a good thing. We can't do it for them: We can only support them.
Canada bruised in rights fight
Canoe.ca, Canada - Sep 7, 2007
By CP OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed ...
Canada slammed over UN declaration
Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 7, 2007
OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ...
Canada blasted over policy on natives
Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 7, 2007
OTTAWA–Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ...
Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration
Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 6, 2007
OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ...
AND THE DECLARATION WILL PASS ANYWAY !!
UN set to adopt native-rights declaration
Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 6, 2007
OTTAWA — The United Nations is set to adopt a new Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People despite what critics say was aggressive opposition from Canada ...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=%22indigenous+rights%22&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d
(Note: This google search may already be updated, but you should be able to find the above articles by date.)
(Further note: I tried to find an article on this in the National Post, but a search there for "Indigenous" revealed only mining companies complaining about the people living on top of THEIR mineral rights, and some travelogues extolling the delights of Indigenous culture, presumably in places where there are no worthy minerals.
)The Indigenous Forum accepted the changes proposed by the 51 African nations, so the Declaration has enough votes to pass in the General Assembly this Thursday September 13, without Canada, US, NZ, AUS and Russia. Harper says he will be "looking at the new changes very carefully to see whether Canada can and will implement them."
Frankly, I think a 'yes' from Harper would be more of a commitment than one from Paul Martin would have been, but I am not really expecting Harper to change his position.
Watch UN live to see how Canada votes,
Thursday Sept 13, 10 am:
http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp
Frankly, I think a 'yes' from Harper would be more of a commitment than one from Paul Martin would have been, but I am not really expecting Harper to change his position.
Watch UN live to see how Canada votes,
Thursday Sept 13, 10 am:
http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp
