CANADA VOTES Sept 13: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopl

[jennie]

This article as it lays out the federal government's objections ... and the author's perspective ... a balance.

Aug 22, 2007 04:30 AM

Carol Goar

Canada is one of seven countries blocking the quest for a universal declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The other holdouts are Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, Russia, Australia and New Zealand.

Most members of the United Nations would like to see the charter, which has been under discussion for 20 years, adopted by the General Assembly at its fall session.

Sixty-seven states are co-sponsoring it. The UN Human Rights Council approved it last summer (over Canada's objections). Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy calls it a test of "Canada's influence as a credible and influential voice for the protection of human rights."

As the vote approaches, native and human rights groups are appealing to Ottawa not to thwart the declaration. They've sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging him to uphold the rights of the world's most marginalized and vulnerable people.

"Canada must abandon its campaign against the declaration before further harm is done to the safety and well-being of indigenous peoples worldwide and to Canada's reputation as a principled defender of human rights," the signatories say. They include Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations; Beverly Jacobs, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada; Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada; Ed Bianchi, aboriginal rights co-ordinator for a church consortium called KAIROS and a number of regional chiefs.

The government's position is that the declaration is too vague to be effective.

It also maintains that some of its provisions could be interpreted in ways that are inconsistent with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs cites six specific concerns:

The declaration might be used to support aboriginal claims to territories already ceded by treaty.

It might interfere with Canada's approach to settling land claims, which balances the rights of aboriginal peoples against the interests of other Canadians.

It might be interpreted to give aboriginal peoples a veto over defence activities.

It confers on indigenous people a right to conserve and protect the environment, which is not recognized in international law.

It provides no guidance about the financing of aboriginal self-government.

And it fails to state clearly that federal and provincial laws are paramount on matters of overriding national importance.

This is nonsense, Axworthy says. International human rights declarations have never been legally binding. Moreover, this one has an explicit clause – included at Canada's insistence – stating that it must be interpreted in accordance with existing domestic laws.

Until recently, Canada was one of the leaders in rallying support for the declaration.

In the early years of the negotiations, some states wanted nothing to do with it, fearing it would give indigenous peoples rights and powers that would undermine their authority and drain their budgets.

Canada worked tirelessly to bring these countries on board, explaining and defending the concept of aboriginal self-determination. Craig Benjamin of Amnesty International sat in on some of those talks. "Canada was instrumental in breaking the deadlock between state governments and indigenous peoples. We acknowledged the right to self-government. We said we don't find it threatening."

Shortly after Prime Minister Stephen Harper was elected, Canada's stance changed.

It voted against the declaration – with Russia – at the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006. It is now lobbying other countries to join its call for a re-negotiation of all the substantive provisions of the document. So far, it has found six allies. Several African countries are wavering.

"We have grave concerns that Canada is encouraging states with appalling records on human rights to take positions against the recognition and protection of indigenous people's human rights," the petitioners say in their public letter to Harper.

There is still time for Canada to change course.

For more than a century, we have failed our original citizens abysmally. We have ignored their needs and stunted their development.

The least we can do now is offer them the tools to do better.

................................................................................

.................................

TODAY'S NEWS FROM UN, NEW YORK

Demonstration Against NZ, Australia & Canada

Friday, 31 August 2007, 9:14 am

Press Release: International Forum On Globalization

International Demonstration Against NZ, Australia & Canada

International Coalition Of NGOs Calls For Adoption Of The

Un Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples

Denounces Canada, New Zealand And Australia

For "human Rights Hypocrisy" In Leading The Opposition

To The Declaration

Protests At Three Missions To The Un To Be Held On

Thursday, August 30th, 2007

Press Conference And Rally In Front Of Canadian Mission To The Un At 12 Noon

1 - Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza (885 2nd Avenue At 47th St)

To Be Followed By March To Missions Of New Zealand And Australia

New York, New York: In an urgent effort in support of the upcoming vote (tentatively scheduled for September 13th) in the UN General Assembly on United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, over two dozen national and international NGOs in the United States and Canada have come to New York City to announce their support for Indigenous peoples rights and to protest the opposition to the Declaration being led by the governments of Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Jerry Mander, Founder and Co-Director of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) of San Francisco, the convening organization and secretariat of The Emergency Coalition of NGOs in Support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said:

"We are appalled by this action of human rights hypocrisy--especially coming from the governments of Canada and New Zealand, countries that are traditionally considered global leaders for human rights." Mander continued, "We call upon them to immediately stop their unprincipled campaign against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0708/S00717.htm

................................................................................

........

AND A BROADER CONTEXT ...

Canada's way

Climate change is an environmental issue and a human rights issue, and this country has turned from the path of leadership on both counts

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Citizen Special

Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Canada has long played a vital, yet humble, role as international leader. Leadership, however, is often lonely and difficult, and I fear we are no longer maintaining our nation's far-sighted heritage.

Canada, it appears, is withdrawing support for the world's most vulnerable populations, many of whom reside within our own borders. The price will be our international reputation as a nation of decency and principle, as well as our legitimacy when attempting to influence global matters where we were once considered stalwart defenders of rights.

This will likely come as a shock to many Canadians; after all, we pride ourselves on our staunch defence of the rights of the oppressed. Are we not a country of peacekeepers? Did we not lead the fight against landmines?

But, I fear, on climate change, on the rights of the world's indigenous peoples, and in our sudden, knee-jerk attempts at asserting our Arctic sovereignty, we have taken an alarming step away from our national legacy.

... more ... http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/o...4f-79e160cf3578

.........................................................

For those interested ... this petition has gained 12,000 signatures since I last looked at it a couple of months ago.

http://www.amnesty.ca/ip_un_petition/UN_indigenous_rights_petition.php

This petition has been organized by the Grand Council of the Crees and Amnesty International Canada. The names and organizations collected on this petition will be used to promote adoption of the Declaration to governments around the world.

GLOBAL PETITION

"We reaffirm our commitment to continue making progress in the advancement of the human rights of the world’s indigenous peoples at the local, national, regional and international levels, including through consultation and collaboration with them, and to present for adoption a final draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples as soon as possible."

-- 2005 World Summit Outcome , adopted by the UN General Assembly, 24 October 2005

In every region of the world, the survival or well-being of Indigenous peoples is threatened by grave and persistent violations of their fundamental human rights.

A strong and uplifting United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is urgently needed to establish minimum international standards to inspire and urge states and others to respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples without discrimination.

We call upon all states to support as a priority the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its adoption by the General Assembly.

............................................

Edited August 31, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

[/b]This is nonsense, Axworthy says. International human rights declarations have never been legally binding. Moreover, this one has an explicit clause – included at Canada's insistence – stating that it must be interpreted in accordance with existing domestic laws.

Then what is the point of signing the agreement if it changes nothing?

"We have grave concerns that Canada is encouraging states with appalling records on human rights to take positions against the recognition and protection of indigenous people's human rights," the petitioners say in their public letter to Harper.

This is a non-argument. If this declaration must be interpreted "in accordance with existing domestic laws" then what stops states with "appalling records on human rights" from creating laws that allow them to do what ever they want?

[jennie]

Then what is the point of signing the agreement if it changes nothing?

Since the issue is before the General Assembly, the publ;ic question is ... what is the point of not signing if it makes no difference to Canada but does perhaps make a difference to others?

And what is the point of Canada trying to sink the whole thing by aligning other nations against it?

If is is a legal non-issue, why is Harper exposing us to world ridicule and scrutiny this way?

I don't know these answers. If it is effectively toothless, why is he making such a big deal about it?

This is a non-argument. If this declaration must be interpreted "in accordance with existing domestic laws" then what stops states with "appalling records on human rights" from creating laws that allow them to do what ever they want?

I think the objection is that lilywhiteCanada is aligning itself with and encouraging such countries.

It says a lot about Canada, is the message, I think ... the ugly underbelly part ... exposed on the international stage.

Perception IS reality ... and I think Canada's cover is blown on this one. This is not what the world expects to see from Canada.

The world has delusions about us we might not want to puncture

Edited September 1, 2007 by jennie

[geoffrey]

Well, those objecting happen to be the countries that actually deal with aboriginal issues currently.

All those countries trying to ram this down our throats systematically eliminated that problem by killing all the potential beneficiaries of such a plan years ago.

It's still racism though. There is only one set of rights, for humans. Anything else is racist.

[jennie]

Well, those objecting happen to be the countries that actually deal with aboriginal issues currently.

All those countries trying to ram this down our throats systematically eliminated that problem by killing all the potential beneficiaries of such a plan years ago.

It's still racism though. There is only one set of rights, for humans. Anything else is racist.

It has always been racist, geoffrey. This is simply a rebalancing to where the laws should have come together ... the existing laws of this land and its people upon our arrival, and the laws we brought with us. These need to be better balanced to clarify the real relations and stop the racism both ways.

You have made an astute observation there about nations with aboriginal people ... I am not sure that is entirely true, but ... it bears checking out.

[Riverwind]

If is is a legal non-issue, why is Harper exposing us to world ridicule and scrutiny this way?

Harper is arguing that it is legally significant so Canada should not sign it. It is Axworthy who is claiming it is non-issue.

You have not addressed the contradiction in the original op: if it is legally significant then Canada should not sign because Canada already showers its aboriginals with special rights and cash - they hardly need any more. If it is not legally significant then the declaration is meaningless and you cannot argue that Canada would 'set an example' for these countries that are likely to do what ever they want anyways.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

Harper is arguing that it is legally significant so Canada should not sign it. It is Axworthy who is claiming it is non-issue.

if it is legally significant then Canada should not sign ... (delete) ...

If it is not legally significant then the declaration is meaningless and you cannot argue that Canada would 'set an example' for these countries that are likely to do what ever they want anyways.

My understanding is that the declaration itself is not legally binding.

It is not a question of "setting an example".

The issue is that Canada is actively undermining the vote on the Declaration by refusing to sign AND by convincing other human rights violators to do the same.

It is not simply a question of whether Canada chooses to sign on or not ... Canada is actively blocking the entire Declaration for all nations.

Is that acceptable, when in fact it is a ceremonial document only anyway?

That's what I don't get, and that was my original question ... Why is Harper making us look so bad when it is of no consequence? Seems to me he has his ideology glasses on instead of his mantle of governance, imo.

Just seems a bit foolish. As you say, it makes no difference.

[Riverwind]

It is not simply a question of whether Canada chooses to sign on or not ... Canada is actively blocking the entire Declaration for all nations.

As Geoffery put it: it is a document that no country that actually has a aboriginals population is interested in signing. The treaty itself if being pushed by countries that have nothing to lose which means their opinion is irrelevant (BTW - these countries can sign the document if they want).

That's what I don't get, and that was my original question ... Why is Harper making us look so bad when it is of no consequence?

Harper is being intelligent - the document will be used by aboriginal acitivists to justify endless claims for more rights. The Canadian government will inevitablity "look bad" because it will have to refuse the rediculous demands. It is better to take the political heat now and block the treaty entirely than to sign it and take more political heat later. Look at what happened with Kyoto: Canada signed the treaty even though it had no chance of meeting the targets and now it faces penalities for not meeting the targets. Canada would have been much better off to refuse to sign and negotiated a better deal for Kyoto2 along side the US. Edited September 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

As Geoffery put it: it is a document that no country that actually has a aboriginals population is interested in signing. The treaty itself if being pushed by countries that have nothing to lose which means their opinion is irrelevant (BTW - these countries can sign the document if they want).

Harper is being intelligent - the document will be used by aboriginal acitivists to justify endless claims for more rights. The Canadian government will inevitablity "look bad" because it will have to refuse the rediculous demands. It is better to take the political heat now and block the treaty entirely than to sign it and take more political heat later. Look at what happened with Kyoto: Canada signed the treaty even though it had no chance of meeting the targets and now it faces penalities for not meeting the targets. Canada would have been much better off to refuse to sign and negotiated a better deal for Kyoto2 along side the US.

There will be heat now, heat later ... makes no matter ... the laws are the laws and that is where the heat comes from, not from a Declaration (which is not a Treaty like Kyoto).

The Canadian government could not POSSIBLY look any 'badder' than it does right now!! In front of the whole world, no less, not just at home! Your argument 'holds no water'.

There is only one explanation for Harper's grandstanding on this issue ... I just haven't figured out yet what it could possibly be!

Does he want to look like Mr. Magnanimous when he finally caves? Do you think that is it? I am sure it is political ...

[Wilber]

There will be heat now, heat later ... makes no matter ... the laws are the laws and that is where the heat comes from, not from a Declaration (which is not a Treaty like Kyoto).

The Canadian government could not POSSIBLY look any 'badder' than it does right now!! In front of the whole world, no less, not just at home! Your argument 'holds no water'.

There is only one explanation for Harper's grandstanding on this issue ... I just haven't figured out yet what it could possibly be!

Does he want to look like Mr. Magnanimous when he finally caves? Do you think that is it? I am sure it is political ...

Personally I am glad that Canada is taking it's own approach to both environmental and aboriginal issues. Far better than making airy fairy commitments to look good on the international stage in the short term which have no teeth and will only make it more difficult to solve Canada's own problems. We would look better now if we had been honest by standing up and saying that there was no way we could meet the Kyoto targets. Chretien took the brownie points because he knew he wouldn't have to take responsibility and someone else would end up with the problem. Harper is just being honest about Canada's real position rather than just blowing smoke to make himself look good to people who are not going to have to deal with Canada's internal problems.

jennie, IMO a declaration differs from a treaty only to people who are not in the habit of keeping their word. I hope he doesn't cave.

[Wilber]

del

Edited September 1, 2007 by Wilber

[Wilber]

del

Edited September 1, 2007 by Wilber

[jennie]

Personally I am glad that Canada is taking it's own approach to both environmental and aboriginal issues. Far better than making airy fairy commitments to look good on the international stage in the short term which have no teeth and will only make it more difficult to solve Canada's own problems. We would look better now if we had been honest by standing up and saying that there was no way we could meet the Kyoto targets. Chretien took the brownie points because he knew he wouldn't have to take responsibility and someone else would end up with the problem. Harper is just being honest about Canada's real position rather than just blowing smoke to make himself look good to people who are not going to have to deal with Canada's internal problems.

I don't believe ANYbody in or potentially in a position of power is truly serious about the environment anyway.

jennie, IMO a declaration differs from a treaty only to people who are not in the habit of keeping their word. I hope he doesn't cave.

Interesting ... I agree of course, about keeping our word ...

... but who is keeping Canada's 'word' on current treaties?

no one of course ... so why would it matter now? Even if it does ...

What will we gain?

... What are we gaining by an anti-Canada demonstration in New York city at the UN ?

Has there ever been an anti-Canada demonstration before?

I know it is said somewhere that there are NO NEW RIGHTS in the Declaration ... It is simply statement of existing rights of Indigenous Peoples in the UN covenants and laws.

That is why I think Harper is being an ass, frankly. There is nothing there not already in International laws and covenants, and for that matter in Canadian law too.

That is why I find it funny ... pathetically political I am sure ... but I don't know quite how it is supposed to work for him ... the 'tough-guy I will break the law-guy' ? Is that the Stephen we know and love? What about the kittycats?

no offense ... I make fun of all politicians (Does Dion have kittens? ... Only when you're "not fair" ... oh my bad ... lol ... and Jack Layton has a pit bull ... nuf said ... )

... I just think Harper's grandstanding, that's all ... likely for the corporations ... who knows why politicians do what they do...

either way, the declaration seems to be not binding ... the laws exist ... and I have never heard of politicians honouring their word beyond what the lawyer told them was their minimum legal obligation.

Edited September 1, 2007 by jennie

[Wilber]

When I see a demonstration, the first thing I ask is who is demonstrating and why. I could care less if it is against Canada, at the UN or anywhere else.

The government which signed the treaty made little or no attempt to abide by it in the ten years they had the power to do so. Which is more dishonest, that or admitting that we cannot live up to those obligations?

I don't know about you jennie but when I make a declaration in front of people, I consider it binding. If you consider it OK to make declarations that you don't consider binding just to avoid criticism from people who won't have to live with the results of that declaration, that's your problem. I for one am glad we have a government that is not prepared to do that on the international stage.

[noahbody]

... but who is keeping Canada's 'word' on current treaties?

Do you not appreciate what the current government has done to address the backlog of treaty claims?

[jennie]

When I see a demonstration, the first thing I ask is who is demonstrating and why. I could care less if it is against Canada, at the UN or anywhere else.

The government which signed the treaty made little or no attempt to abide by it in the ten years they had the power to do so. Which is more dishonest, that or admitting that we cannot live up to those obligations?

I don't know about you jennie but when I make a declaration in front of people, I consider it binding. If you consider it OK to make declarations that you don't consider binding just to avoid criticism from people who won't have to live with the results of that declaration, that's your problem. I for one am glad we have a government that is not prepared to do that on the international stage.

The issue I have with this is that there is no reason at all for Harper to say refuse: As said above, there is nothing in the Declaration that is not already in effect.

Treaties ... refer to our historical agreements with Indigenous Nations, all of which have been broken.

[noahbody]

The issue I have with this is that there is no reason at all for Harper to say refuse: As said above, there is nothing in the Declaration that is not already in effect.

Treaties ... refer to our historical agreements with Indigenous Nations, all of which have been broken.

Jennie, the problem with this UN objective is that the status of indigenous peoples varies nation to nation. It's similar to dealing with the environment. Every nation has different circumstances, some more favourable than others. White males are discriminated against in Canada. Would it make sense to have a global declaration to protect the rights of white males? I dont' think so.

As far as "Treaties ... refer to our historical agreements with Indigenous Nations, all of which have been broken" goes, hatred can blind you.

[jennie]

Do you not appreciate what the current government has done to address the backlog of treaty claims?

Yes, I do hope that will help with the backlog of specific claims once it is operational - next year, perhaps?

It remains to be seen whether it will be truly independent of politics, though, and whether the funding allocation will allow for speeding up claims.

However, there are many large, comprehensive claims as well, and these are the ones where there are blockades against development, etc. not approved by the Nation. These are the ones where the government has made no progress and is making no progress. The number of blockades and immediate concerns across the country shows the discontent that has existed for a long time, and I see no strategy proposed for those confrontations about uses of land in dispute. The government should, by law, be consulting about those land uses, but it is not.

[geoffrey]

It remains to be seen whether it will be truly independent of politics, though, and whether the funding allocation will allow for speeding up claims

Speed them up? Why? You sound like you think they should all be approved?

Independant of politics and in discussed in a rational environment would see most of the claims tossed right out the window.

[jennie]

Jennie, the problem with this UN objective is that the status of indigenous peoples varies nation to nation. It's similar to dealing with the environment. Every nation has different circumstances, some more favourable than others. White males are discriminated against in Canada. Would it make sense to have a global declaration to protect the rights of white males? I dont' think so.

They hardly need it since they sill hold the power in the world.

As far as "Treaties ... refer to our historical agreements with Indigenous Nations, all of which have been broken" goes, hatred can blind you.

Those different circumstances are perhaps the issue, aren't they? Inequalities that the Declaration hopes to address.

I am not sure what your last statement means at all, but I think I am offended ... not sure though ... do you want to expand on the relationship between broken treaties and "hatred". It escapes me entirely ... but I think I am offended ... not sure though ... .

[Wilber]

The issue I have with this is that there is no reason at all for Harper to say refuse: As said above, there is nothing in the Declaration that is not already in effect.

Treaties ... refer to our historical agreements with Indigenous Nations, all of which have been broken.

If they are already in effect why have a declaration if not in an attempt to bind people to its contents? It's like Harper acknowledging the Quebecois as a nation. I don't agree with it but I can see why he would do it for political reasons because he has to get elected in Canada. Why bind himself to anything for a bunch of agitators in New York. Nothing in it for him or Canada thank you very much.

Actually there was a new treaty ratified by the Tswassen band in BC this spring. A very lucrative one for the band I would add. It's going to take a long time but we can solve our own problems.

[jennie]

If they are already in effect why have a declaration if not in an attempt to bind people to its contents? It's like Harper acknowledging the Quebecois as a nation. I don't agree with it but I can see why he would do it for political reasons because he has to get elected in Canada. Why bind himself to anything for a bunch of agitators in New York. Nothing in it for him or Canada thank you very much.

Actually there was a new treaty ratified by the Tswassen band in BC this spring. A very lucrative one for the band I would add. It's going to take a long time but we can solve our own problems.

Various laws and covenants apply to Indigenous people as well. This declaration just gathers all the relevant clauses and puts them in one place in relation to Indigenous Peoples. What Harper is doing is undermining the vote so no one in the world gets a declaration. That just seems petty and nasty to me. What does it really matter, so why make a big stink?

I will be delighted if there are more new treaties too. It is a very slow process

[Wilber]

How does one country stop the UN from making a declaration unless it is a permanent member of the Security Council which Canada is not?

[jennie]

How does one country stop the UN from making a declaration unless it is a permanent member of the Security Council which Canada is not?

One 'lobbies' other countries to vote against it in the General Assembly, as Canada has done.

[noahbody]

They hardly need it since they sill hold the power in the world.

So you're okay with discrimination as long as it's not on a global scale?