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

[jennie]

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

I didn't say that.

Are we still talking about Indigenous rights?

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[Wilber]

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

Good, I'm against anything that spells out rights for particular groups of people. All humans should have the same rights and the same protections regardless of what group they may belong to, no more, no less.

[Keepitsimple]

This is a perfect example of trying to create a one-size-fits-all set of politically-correct "rules". I cannot speak for many of the other countries but Canada is following it's own path in reconciling with our First Nations. Contrary to the attitude of some posters, the Conservatives have been fighting to bring our First Nations under the protection of our Human Rights laws, from which they are excluded today. This is far more important than a "feel good" agreement put together by a disfunctional organization like the UN. This whole topic is another tempest in a teapot to demonize the Conservatives. Let's get on with things of substance - but I should add that the opposition parties are criticizing the protection of First Nations under our Human Rights laws - they say we need to "consult" for another year or two.

Link: http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detai....php?PubID=1764

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice wants to repeal a 30-year-old section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that blocks the ability of First Nations citizens to lay claims against Chiefs and band councils acting under the outdated Indian Act. Fearing a loss of power, national native leaders have called the proposed change a rushed, unilateral move that would sow dissent and tensions on reserves. Prentice should stick to his guns.

“First Nations people’s don’t have the same rights and remedies as other Canadians,” he said when he introduced the legislation last December. “We think that’s unacceptable and we’re prepared to move on it.”

That’s welcome news to the rank and file in First Nations, many of whom have suffered human-rights abuses from their own leaders. It also has the full support of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which detailed the problems with Section 67 of the Human Rights Act in a special report published in October, 2005. The Section “runs contrary” to the “inclusive approach” of the Act, the Commission wrote, which says that “any action, policy or legislation within federal jurisdiction can be the subject of a human rights complaint.”

Edited September 2, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[jefferiah]

Yeah, why indigenous people's rights? Why not left-handed chain-smoking pianists rights? Rights are rights. If you have human rights, then those rights should be good enough.

I don't care if it looks bad. It's right. That's the truth. Let us look bad. The UN is not infallible, you know.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

There is a human rights bill re aboriginal people in preparation in Canada. There have been concerns for some time at the UN, too.

But you are right ... human rights are human rights ... Indigenous people or otherwise ... that's what the UN found when they looked at the question.

I gather what the UN did was search all UN agreements ... 'covenants' ... to see what human rights were already in effect for all people, including Indigenous people, and any other documents relevant to them. Sure enough, they found enough existing ones that they didn't need any new ones.

They just pulled them all together in one document ... the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is simply a 'declaration' of existing rights.

Then the UN Human Rights Committee made some country visits to 'try out' the document including Canada, and reported the findings ... in this report

E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.3

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05...pdf?OpenElement

UNITED NATIONS Economic and Social Council

2 December 2004

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session

Item 15 of the provisional agenda

INDIGENOUS ISSUES

Human rights and indigenous issues

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen

Addendum

MISSION TO CANADA*

Summary

This report is submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights

resolution 2004/62 and refers to the official visit paid to Canada by the Special Rapporteur

on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people from 21 May

to 4 June 2004, at the invitation of the Government of Canada, where he had conversations with

federal, provincial and territorial authorities, representatives of Aboriginal peoples’

organizations, members of the academic world, and members of Aboriginal communities in

Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario and Nunavut. He had previously visited several First

Nation communities in May 2003. Based on the information gathered during these visits, he

presents the present report on the human rights situation of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Aboriginal peoples, who include First Nations (Indians), Métis and Inuit, represent

4.4 per cent of Canada’s total population of 30 million inhabitants. The Constitution Act, 1982,

recognizes their existing Aboriginal and treaty rights that have been subsequently reaffirmed by

the courts. In recent years, some Aboriginal nations have negotiated new agreements with the

federal and provincial governments concerning land claims and self-government arrangements.

In its new Aboriginal policy of 1998, known as “Gathering Strength,” the federal Government

has pledged to strengthen the relationship between Canada and the Aboriginal peoples.

The Special Rapporteur is encouraged by Canada’s commitment to ensuring that the

country’s prosperity is shared by Aboriginal people, a goal to which the federal and provincial

governments of Canada devote an impressive number of programmes and projects and

considerable financial resources, as well as by Canada’s commitment to close the unacceptable

gaps between Aboriginal Canadians and the rest of the population in educational attainment,

employment and access to basic social services.

Economic, social and human indicators of well-being, quality of life and development are

consistently lower among Aboriginal people than other Canadians. Poverty, infant mortality,

unemployment, morbidity, suicide, criminal detention, children on welfare, women victims of

abuse, child prostitution, are all much higher among Aboriginal people than in any other sector

of Canadian society, whereas educational attainment, health standards, housing conditions,

family income, access to economic opportunity and to social services are generally lower.

Canada has taken up the challenge to close this gap.

Ever since early colonial settlement, Canada’s indigenous peoples were progressively

dispossessed of their lands, resources and culture, a process that led them into destitution,

deprivation and dependency, which in turn generated an assertive and, occasionally, militant

social movement in defence of their rights, restitution of their lands and resources and struggle

for equal opportunity and self-determination.

etc ...

So yes ... Canada is trying to do something about it itself, and could help worldwide too like we usually do.

Not sure why we're not.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[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.

The Declaration is made up of 'human rights' existing in a whole bunch of other documents, just pulled together in one declaration.

See I think this is just the same type of situation ... maybe it's not about Harper getting elected, but it is about public perceptions of him ... and especially perceptions of Canada.

No we don't have to get 'elected' in the world, but we do want to do business there, I think.

Making 'much ado about nothing new' may not make us too 'attractive' to the world.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

Making 'much ado about nothing new' may not make us too 'attractive' to the world.

Don't care about attractive. Being right and being attractive are too different things, Jennie. Sorry, but the UN can shove it. If signing documents the UN comes up with is integral to being attractive, then very soon there will be no such thing as sovereign nations.

Sorry, but the wording of a document can have a lot of implications, and I don't want to be bullied into signing something that may have a cleverly worded clause in there. If they found that nothing new was needed and all that, then I have to wonder why would they feel it necessary to "pull together" this declaration for the rights of indigenous peoples, especially when you say that they found that human rights were more important than a certain groups rights. Indigenous peoples is just a term used to make not signing it unnattractive. I don't trust it.

[jennie]

Don't care about attractive. Being right and being attractive are too different things, Jennie. Sorry, but the UN can shove it. If signing documents the UN comes up with is integral to being attractive, then very soon there will be no such thing as sovereign nations.

Sorry, but the wording of a document can have a lot of implications, and I don't want to be bullied into signing something that may have a cleverly worded clause in there. If they found that nothing new was needed and all that, then I have to wonder why would they feel it necessary to "pull together" this declaration for the rights of indigenous peoples, especially when you say that they found that human rights were more important than a certain groups rights. Indigenous peoples is just a term used to make not signing it unnattractive. I don't trust it.

Canada came up with the document. We were the key player ... for over 20 years.

It is entirely consistent with our laws.

I think we might want to concern ourselves about what the world thinks of Canada. Afterall, we do business there.

I understand that there is a new clause being added to the document about "territorial integrity" that will resolve the issues raised by the African countries, allowing it to pass in the General Assembly despite Canada's objections.

http://raven.kisikew.org/pdf/SCReport_070831.pdf

[Keepitsimple]

"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.

That's the scary part. The petitioners are saying that our First Nations will use this Charter to further their goals. Those goals should be furthered through Canadian action and legislation - not by loosely worded, one-size-fits-all international charters. We already have important initiatives underway with our First Nations - finally, we seem to have some momentum in the areas of Human Rights, Band "accountability", land claims committments, and more focus on support for off-reserve First Nations people. Edited September 2, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[jennie]

That's the scary part. The petitioners are saying that our First Nations will use this Charter to further their goals. Those goals should be furthered through Canadian action and legislation - not by loosely worded, one-size-fits-all international charters. We already have important initiatives underway with our First Nations - finally, we seem to have some momentum in the areas of Human Rights, Band "accountability", land claims committments, and more focus on support for off-reserve First Nations people.

We are making progress lately, it is true. Only because First Nations are demanding it, though. There would not have been the speed of changes this year without their activism.

The Declaration is consistent with Canadian laws. Problem is our federal and provincial governments have not been behaving in a legal manner on First Nations issues.

Harper doesn't like Canadian laws - Charter and Constitution - and does not adhere to them. Not signing the Declaration is a personal declaration itself that he intends to continue breaking Canadian law.

To be clear: The current activism is due to Canada's failure to consult (as per SCoC) with First Nations regarding developments on traditional and treaty land - i.e., land in dispute and caught in Canada's land claims boondoggle.

The boondoggle was created for that purpose: To stall settlement until resources are extracted from the land or it is otherwise developed. We all know that. We all know our governments are acting illegally.

I credit Harper for being truthful about his intent, but I cannot respect his purposes of continuing the practice of acting illegally and trampling rights of aboriginal people. However, I am glad this issue has put Canada front and centre internationally because there will be more exposure of malpractices and more pressure to follow the law ... I hope.

Pretty sad when the best thing you can say for all your governments since Confederation is "I hope someday they will obey our laws."

[Keepitsimple]

We are making progress lately, it is true. Only because First Nations are demanding it, though. There would not have been the speed of changes this year without their activism.

Jennie - you sound like a thoughtful person and not necessarily a "Conservative hater".

If you have been following Jim Prentice's career, you would find him to be a champion of First Nations issues and the previous initiatives that I've mentioned - and it is he who has crafted the Conservative's plan for First Nations. This plan has been ongoing since the Conservatives took power but has been lost in the opposition and media noise about the Kelowna Accords - a vague promise by a dying Liberal government to spend yet again more money in a manner that has not worked for the past god-knows-how-many-years....and while $5 billion sounds like a lot of money - it was actually over 10 years - with no real plan for how to distribute the money.

Phil Fontaine and the Band Chiefs continue to do a grave injustice to First Nations. They want the Liberals back in power so they can continue avoiding being accountable for the money they get. That's why there's a lot of activism going on - in spite of the many good things that Prentice and the Conservatives have done and continue to do, Fontaine and his chiefs do not want accounbtability for the billions that are spent - full audits of what comes in, what goes out and how it's spent.

So......was it really the activism that got things moving - I don't think so. Having said that, I think it has had a positive impact. It has put the isse on the average Canadian's radar and perhaps now, the Conservatives will start to get credit for taking a fresh approach and some actual action to better the lives of our First Nations.....but make no mistake, the Band Chiefs must be accountable to it's people and they must be protected by Human Rights and our Charter - just like any Canadian. If we can get past those two roadblocks, I think we'll really start to see some progress.

[Wilber]

The Declaration is made up of 'human rights' existing in a whole bunch of other documents, just pulled together in one declaration.

See I think this is just the same type of situation ... maybe it's not about Harper getting elected, but it is about public perceptions of him ... and especially perceptions of Canada.

No we don't have to get 'elected' in the world, but we do want to do business there, I think.

Making 'much ado about nothing new' may not make us too 'attractive' to the world.

I would hope Canada will be judged on its actions not empty declarations that are supposedly not binding. Look around, human rights have very little to do with doing business. Much of what we buy in our stores is made by people who's human rights pale in comparison to Canadians, indigenous or otherwise.

[Posit]

We already have important initiatives underway with our First Nations........

Name them. The only thing underway are the same things that politicians have been doing for the last century - politicking. There is nothing substantial that our government has been doing that improves the lives of First Nation peoples. Even the so-called land claims negotiations forced by the natives taking back lands are a ruse. Harper and Prentice (ya Strahl is too new) have made it clear that they have the last word on EVERY agreement. They killed the Kelowna Accord after agreements were made and compromises offered. Does anyone think that we can talk to First Nations again with any credibility?

So we go around and around all the while First Nations have worse conditions - undrinkable water, higher child mortality, poorer economies and still we steal their children and throw them in foster care because we know what is best for them. And then we complain about the drunks that litter our streets....No one is smart enough to make the connection - that displacement, isolation and assimilation have led them to the streets of Toronto, ow Winnipeg or Vancouver. Most of you are incapable of seeing how residential schools didn't just affect one or two generations but sent a legacy of illness, dis-ease and dysfunction into future generations. Dr. John Bradshaw once said that alcohol and drug addition was not only linear in its effects but that it radiates outward in circular waves affect not only immediate family members but also extended, greater extended and community members as well. This effect has contaminated whole communities and left many without knowledge of their culture and traditions or their familial histories.

Our legal duties as Canadians si one thing. How ever, our moral and social obligations reach far beyond the government and its lawyers. We have a responsibility to ensure that the treatment of native peoples never digresses again - that no matter if you call it genocide or simple mistakes, we can no longer tolerate seeing our fellow human beings without the things we take for granted including clean water, safe and warm housing and food for their bellies. All those things must be guaranteed to every human being.

[jennie]

Jennie - you sound like a thoughtful person and not necessarily a "Conservative hater".

If you have been following Jim Prentice's career, you would find him to be a champion of First Nations issues and the previous initiatives that I've mentioned - and it is he who has crafted the Conservative's plan for First Nations. This plan has been ongoing since the Conservatives took power but has been lost in the opposition and media noise about the Kelowna Accords - a vague promise by a dying Liberal government to spend yet again more money in a manner that has not worked for the past god-knows-how-many-years....and while $5 billion sounds like a lot of money - it was actually over 10 years - with no real plan for how to distribute the money.

Phil Fontaine and the Band Chiefs continue to do a grave injustice to First Nations. They want the Liberals back in power so they can continue avoiding being accountable for the money they get. That's why there's a lot of activism going on - in spite of the many good things that Prentice and the Conservatives have done and continue to do, Fontaine and his chiefs do not want accounbtability for the billions that are spent - full audits of what comes in, what goes out and how it's spent.

So......was it really the activism that got things moving - I don't think so. Having said that, I think it has had a positive impact. It has put the isse on the average Canadian's radar and perhaps now, the Conservatives will start to get credit for taking a fresh approach and some actual action to better the lives of our First Nations.....but make no mistake, the Band Chiefs must be accountable to it's people and they must be protected by Human Rights and our Charter - just like any Canadian. If we can get past those two roadblocks, I think we'll really start to see some progress.

Yes, I respect Jim Prentice and no I am not a conservative hater. I am not an admirer of politicians in general, and that extends to the Band Councils. Yes some activism is coming from the Chiefs, but only under great pressure from their people. The real activism is coming directly from the people, especially more traditional people, who see their future in self-determination and justice from Canada on land and compensation issues, not necessarily just in more government funding (like the Kelowna Accord).

I agree that there must be accountability to the people for the Band money, and that all people must be covered by human rights legislation. That requires some thought and consultation with them, though, to make sure their collective rights are also protected. Harper disrespected that trying to push it through this summer, but he was not successful.

I am really of two minds regarding the UN Declaration. I fully support it. If the Liberals were in power, there is no question they would sign it, just to keep Canada 'under the radar' ... out of the UN's line of sight re human rights violations. Harper has chosen to take a stand against it, which I think looks kind of odd since we have the same things in our own laws already (though not adhered to). It is raising red flags at the UN and among other countries, so there will likely be much more international scrutiny of Canada's human/indigenous rights record and behaviour in the future. If that is Harper's purpose for taking this approach, then I applaud him: we certainly do need to resolve the injustices and pay our liabilities to First Nations, and if international scrutiny helps, then I approve.

So ... I guess it will all come out in the wash, as they say.

I have heard it said: It is easy to implement human rights for MOST of the people but much more difficult to do so for ALL of the people. I think that is where Canada stands right now - a human rights 'leader' for most of the people, but a human rights offender for indigenous people. Since much of the billions in resources that feeds Canada's economy everyday comes from traditional and treaty land, it is easy to see how we can afford to implement human rights for some. However, the money that fuels our economy and our standard of living and our rights ... is taken from the economic health and prosperity and rights of indigenous people. That is the dilemma we have to resolve.

I have also heard it said that Canada's economy is too dependent on resource wealth. I think that is the hangup - we are riding the 'resource gravy train' to 8 straight budget surpluses and no one wants to stop it, even though we are trampling all over the rights of Indigenous people, desecrating their land and not sharing any of the resource wealth with them despite their land rights.

We need to make a full commitment to settling all land disputes promptly. The 'negotiation' process used by the feds was designed to stall land claims, not resolve them. We need a collaborative approach, not adversarial. We also need to make a commitment to consulting with aboriginal people regarding any plans that affect their land, as is required by law (and not done).

And we need to get off the resource gravy train before it crashes, imo.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Yes, I respect Jim Prentice and no I am not a conservative hater. I am not an admirer of politicians in general, and that extends to the Band Councils. Yes some activism is coming from the Chiefs, but only under great pressure from their people. The real activism is coming directly from the people, especially more traditional people, who see their future in self-determination and justice from Canada on land and compensation issues, not necessarily just in more government funding (like the Kelowna Accord).

I agree that there must be accountability to the people for the Band money, and that all people must be covered by human rights legislation. That requires some thought and consultation with them, though, to make sure their collective rights are also protected. Harper disrespected that trying to push it through this summer, but he was not successful.

I am really of two minds regarding the UN Declaration. I fully support it. If the Liberals were in power, there is no question they would sign it, just to keep Canada 'under the radar' ... out of the UN's line of sight re human rights violations. Harper has chosen to take a stand against it, which I think looks kind of odd since we have the same things in our own laws already (though not adhered to). It is raising red flags at the UN and among other countries, so there will likely be much more international scrutiny of Canada's human/indigenous rights record and behaviour in the future. If that is Harper's purpose for taking this approach, then I applaud him: we certainly do need to resolve the injustices and pay our liabilities to First Nations, and if international scrutiny helps, then I approve.

So ... I guess it will all come out in the wash, as they say.

I have heard it said: It is easy to implement human rights for MOST of the people but much more difficult to do so for ALL of the people. I think that is where Canada stands right now - a human rights 'leader' for most of the people, but a human rights offender for indigenous people. Since much of the billions in resources that feeds Canada's economy everyday comes from traditional and treaty land, it is easy to see how we can afford to implement human rights for some. However, the money that fuels our economy and our standard of living and our rights ... is taken from the economic health and prosperity and rights of indigenous people. That is the dilemma we have to resolve.

I have also heard it said that Canada's economy is too dependent on resource wealth. I think that is the hangup - we are riding the 'resource gravy train' to 8 straight budget surpluses and no one wants to stop it, even though we are trampling all over the rights of Indigenous people, desecrating their land and not sharing any of the resource wealth with them despite their land rights.

We need to make a full commitment to settling all land disputes promptly. The 'negotiation' process used by the feds was designed to stall land claims, not resolve them. We need a collaborative approach, not adversarial. We also need to make a commitment to consulting with aboriginal people regarding any plans that affect their land, as is required by law (and not done).

And we need to get off the resource gravy train before it crashes, imo.

Hmmm ... posit ... looks like we left them speechless!!

Chalk one up for the "middle of the road!"

[noahbody]

... we can no longer tolerate seeing our fellow human beings without the things we take for granted including clean water, safe and warm housing and food for their bellies. All those things must be guaranteed to every human being.

Let's all be communists. Great idea!

[Keepitsimple]

Hmmm ... posit ... looks like we left them speechless!!

Chalk one up for the "middle of the road!"

Not quite speechless.....I've said my bit and you've said yours. I respect your viewpoint but I'll maintain mine - albeit with a little better insight with a couple of the points you've made. No need to go around in circles.

[Wilber]

jennie

I'm curious. What human rights do indigeonous people not have under the law that other Canadians do? Forget treaty rights, treaties are agreements made between individiul bands and the government. They are not human rights.

[jennie]

jennie

I'm curious. What human rights do indigeonous people not have under the law that other Canadians do? Forget treaty rights, treaties are agreements made between individiul bands and the government. They are not human rights.

There is a section of the Indian Act that suspends certain human rights, and that is Harper's concern.

However, you cannot separate human and collective rights of Indigenous people, I don't think.

Indigenous rights are their human rights.

If they are to survive and thrive as Indigenous peoples, their collective rights (land rights, self-governance) must be respected too.

[Wilber]

There is a section of the Indian Act that suspends certain human rights, and that is Harper's concern.

However, you cannot separate human and collective rights of Indigenous people, I don't think.

Indigenous rights are their human rights.

If they are to survive and thrive as Indigenous peoples, their collective rights (land rights, self-governance) must be respected too.

So if there are a hundred different treaties in effect for different native bands in Canada, all those bands have different human rights? I don't think so. Treaty rights are not human rights. They are agreements which must be respected under the law but they are not human rights.

I can't go along with any act that suspends or gives special human rights for any portion of the population.

[jennie]

So if there are a hundred different treaties in effect for different native bands in Canada, all those bands have different human rights? I don't think so. Treaty rights are not human rights. They are agreements which must be respected under the law but they are not human rights.

I can't go along with any act that suspends or gives special human rights for any portion of the population.

The rights to fish and hunt and gather could be considered human rights, and they are in the treaties.

I applaud your honourable intention in saying that treaties are "agreements that must be respected" but the fact is ... Canadian governments have never respected any of the treaties. If they had, there would not be the current land claims boondoggle.

Since 1982 the Constitution has said "existing aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and confirmed". However, their existing aboriginal and treaty rights are not recognized to this day.

Yes the suspension of human rights by the Indian Act must be addressed, but not in a way that infringes on their collective rights. I believe Harper is trying to implement individual rights in such a way as to begin breaking up and selling off the reserves. This is not acceptable to them.

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

[Wilber]

The rights to fish and hunt and gather could be considered human rights, and they are in the treaties.

I dissagree, they may be a right of indigenous people resulting from an agreement with government but they are not a human right. Human rights must apply to all humans or they are not human rights, they are something else.

[jennie]

I dissagree, they may be a right of indigenous people resulting from an agreement with government but they are not a human right. Human rights must apply to all humans or they are not human rights, they are something else.

whatever ... why does it matter to you?

[Wilber]

It matters to me when people start claiming contractual rights are human rights. I believe this is fundamentally wrong.

[jennie]

It matters to me when people start claiming contractual rights are human rights. I believe this is fundamentally wrong.

I see. Well ... treaties are not the issue here anyway ... you brought them up.

It is interesting how the UN developed the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples ...

It simply consists of human rights from other UN documents.