Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[jennie]

Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

Sep 06, 2007 05:59 PM

Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to derail the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The non-binding declaration is expected to be adopted Sept. 13 by the UN General Assembly.

... http://www.thestar.com/News/article/253959

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 lay 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."

[Visionseeker]

This just sickens me.

Harper - Our bridge to the 18th century

[Posit]

There is nothing new here.

Harper and the Reform party were clear about their agenda. They were all about denying international human rights, and allowing corporations full access to the government till. All of his playing down to the crowd is only a ruse to divert attention away from his real intentions. And since the beginning, he has been focusing on getting a majority in parliament so he doesn't have to answer to anyone when he begins to gut government regulation and rape the treasury.

Harper and the Reformers under his command have an evil agenda.

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives have never really said what their opposition is about or how the declaration would affect Canada.

When three government departments urge support for the declaration, you have to think that it is Harper's political agenda that is preventing support from going through.

I suspect that if Harper ever gets his majority, First Nations would find out what his policy for them really is and not like it one bit.

Edited September 8, 2007 by jdobbin

[jennie]

The Conservatives have never really said what their opposition is about or how the declaration would affect Canada.

When three government departments urge support for the declaration, you have to think that it is Harper's political agenda that is preventing support from going through.

I suspect that if Harper ever gets his majority, First Nations would find out what his policy for them really is and not like it one bit.

It is pretty clear what his agenda is:

IT'S IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

I wish I could say it was different where the Liberals are in power, but it isn't. McGuinty has failed to "consult and accommodate" Aboriginal people regarding development on their traditional and treaty land too, failed to respect Aboriginal peoples or the law of Canada. By his actions, he does not support the Un Declaration either, as he is already willing to violate the laws of Canada

FOR ONTARIO'S DIRTY MONEY FROM STOLEN INDIGENOUS RESOURCES.

It is disgusting right across the country.

[buffycat]

It is pretty clear what his agenda is:

IT'S IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

You certainly have that right Jennie!

BTW I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts - what a breath of fresh air you are around here

[betsy]

OH NO! <shudder>

There goes Canada's image! Surely, despotic corrupt tin pots think so lowly of us now!

But why don't I give a hoot? I must be so insensitive and uncaring.

<shrug>

I'd say Canada should lead in ripping apart the farcical UN! The UN should follow the way of the League of Nations. Dead and buried!

Edited September 8, 2007 by betsy

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Summary: it is pointless drivel.

And its about the money? Damn straight it is.

150 odd years of paternalism and waste has resulted in an aboriginal people in crisis and a general populace that is equal parts enraged about the waste and apathetic about an intolerable situation. And your solution: more of the same please, more money.

[Bonam]

The UN is an ineffectual idiocracy. The general assembly is dominated by third world countries who can't lift themselves out of destitute poverty, and yet presume to tell prosperous nations how they should behave. Whether Canada accepts or opposes the UN's meaningless "declarations" is completely irrelevant.

[kimmy]

In an effort to find out what all the fuss is about, I thought I'd have a look and see what this Declaration is actually about. From one of its proponents:

The Declaration fills an important gap. It addresses Indigenous Peoples' protection against discrimination and genocide. It reaffirms their right to maintain their unique cultural traditions and recognizes their right of self-determination, including secure access to lands and resources essential for their survival and welfare.

(Amnesty International)

Canadian aboriginals already have all of that. Huge areas of land set aside for the exclusive use of a small portion of the population, with a legal claims process under which they at some point or other will probably lay claim to every square centimeter of Canada's land mass. Protection from discrimination and genocide are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is their right to preserve their culture and traditions (which they do with considerable financial assistance from the public at large.) They have their own governments, and now even their own police forces in some instances.

How is Canada's refusal to participate in this exercise depriving Canadian natives of anything, when Canadian natives have these rights and have had them for many years?

I think that what Canada's refusal to participate in this dialog deprives us of will be the spectacle of Ovide Mercredi standing in front of a UN Human Rights Tribunal claiming that the White Man is stealing his peoples' skies by broadcasting radio-waves through native lands.

-k

[Posit]

Then I take it you support Canada signing the declaration, Kimmy? I mean if in your opinion (and I so value your opinion) there is no effect on Canada then it must be something we need to guarantee for less-fortuntate countries, right?

[Leafless]

The Conservatives have never really said what their opposition is about or how the declaration would affect Canada.

The Conservatives have said what their opposition is to the proposed declaration:

The Conservatives say the declaration is flawed, vague and open to broad interpretation. Provisions on lands and resources could be used "to support claims to broad ownership rights over traditional territories, even where rights . . . were lawfully ceded through treaty," says a synopsis of Canada's position on the Indian Affairs website.

"The fact is that no previous Canadian government has ever supported the document in its current form," said Ted Yeomans, spokesman for Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl.

"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."

BTW- The declaration would have NO EFFECT on Canada since it is non-binding.

[kimmy]

Then I take it you support Canada signing the declaration, Kimmy? I mean if in your opinion (and I so value your opinion) there is no effect on Canada then it must be something we need to guarantee for less-fortuntate countries, right?

I'm still reading over the actual declaration, so I have not yet decided whether there's no effect on Canada. My claim isn't that there's no effect on Canada, just that Canada's natives already enjoy all of the benefits that the declaration's supporters claim.

Canadian natives already enjoy the benefits claimed in the declaration, but I have little doubt that Canadian natives would try to use the UN declaration to strengthen whichever claim, lawsuit, or shakedown they next embark upon.

And, as Leafless points out, this is supposedly legally non-binding anyway... so how is it really going to help indigenous people in countries where indigenous people are in real danger?

-k

[kimmy]

Ok, I have read the declaration and am not sorry at all that Canada is opposing this.

I see Articles 25 and 26 as an open invitation to a billion lawsuits and court cases.

I see Article 27 as opening a Pandora's Box that could wind up making Slavery Reparations in the US seem like a tame issue in comparison.

(and cheap to settle by comparison.)

And I see Article 35 as a legal defense strategy the next time the Mohawk Warriors get busted smuggling cheap American guns and cigarettes into Canada.

Let's discuss! Read the Declaration for yourself at:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G06...pdf?OpenElement

-k

[Wilber]

Non binding declarations are crap. Anyone who makes a declaration and doesn't consider it binding is just being dishonest, which sums up the UN to a great degree.

[Rue]

It is pretty clear what his agenda is:

IT'S IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

I wish I could say it was different where the Liberals are in power, but it isn't. McGuinty has failed to "consult and accommodate" Aboriginal people regarding development on their traditional and treaty land too, failed to respect Aboriginal peoples or the law of Canada. By his actions, he does not support the Un Declaration either, as he is already willing to violate the laws of Canada

FOR ONTARIO'S DIRTY MONEY FROM STOLEN INDIGENOUS RESOURCES.

It is disgusting right across the country.

I must agree with you. There are many other countries with indigenous peoples and resource issues that are also on the side of Russia and Canada including the US, Australia and New Zealand, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Inmdonesia, China and the Philippines to name a few....not that it makes their position any more acceptable but I do think its misleading to suggest its only Canada, Columbia and Russia.

Wherever you see mass destruction of forests, wetlands and widespread mineral excavation there's a country at odds with its native peoples.

What makes Canada so reluctant today is two things. One Harper is of course doing a 360 degree policy flip flop to distance himself from the fact the policy comes from the Chretiens Liberals and is something Paul Martin holds dearly. So on one level its about ego. But on another level it is quite simply the sad reality of "the melting North".

Now that there is a rush by the US, Russia, Denmark and Norway as well as Canada to try dominate the North and its potential ability to provide timber, minerals, gas, oil, of course federal governments including Denmark's Norway's and Finland's (yes Finland still has huge battles with its Laplanders over property rights) suddenly will be thinking, if we give indigenous peoples rights, we may end up having to share the profit or worse still maybe these people will not agree to exploit the land on the scale these goevrnments will want to.

So of course it comes down to profit sharing issues that flow from conflicting claims to the land and yes even non binding international treaties have the capability of setting legal precedents even though they don't start off that way. Any non binding international agreement that is followed for a solid period of time without disruption, can become enforceable.

I do think it is absolute nonsense to depict indigenous peoples as the ones acting unfairly. That is an absolute misrepresentation of their legal rights and the actual historic facts leading to the breach of treaties and who is to blame for them. People who lump all indigenous people into this stereotypical category that they are asking for things they are not entitled to, do so because its the intellectual lazy way out-by demonizing indigenous peoples, they do not have to bother to find out just what rights have been violated and who violated them. Its easier to demonize people then take the time to read about who they are, where they come from, and why they find themselves in the situations they are in.

It is interesting to see some of you unable to resist smeering all indigenous peoples simply because theymay have interest groups seeking to have their treaties enforced while you remain deliberately silent with the breaches committed by governments and large corporations. Talk about a double standard.

A leader has to be visionary. Right now with due respect, I believe Mr. Harper is avoiding constructing any long term vision with aboriginals and I believe he has the intellectual capacity to do so but is reluctant to venture outside his comfort zone.

I personally think he is simply doing what a Social Credit leader who calls himself a Conservative or former Reformist but is truly a recycled Social Credit leader does-he lives in the moment and caters tp short term implications-he's not worried about the state of Canada 5, 10, 20 years from now let alone 100 years from now. What we know about Mr. Harper is he thinks in the present tense and he thinks by doing so this is common sense and the key to good government. I think he does this with honest intentions.

I think he looks at facilitating the immediate economic needs of large business because he believes that is the best thing you can do as a goivernment for the economy. The evironment and long term consequence do not appear to be his primary concerns-assuring business can obtain profit is.

when you read his theories on the economy, he comes from the school of thought that believes first and foremost to serve the most important need of a state a government must assist business in generating profit which in turn he believes trickles down in a ripple to benefit we the uneducated otherwise unemployed, unproductive masses.

Gold old social credit theory. Real Couette and WAC Bennet would be proud of him. So would Preston Manning's daddy.

Me I tend to be a modernist on this topic. I think if Canada is to properly exploit the North it can not do so my permanently damaging or polluting the North and has to have politicians willing to forgo short term benefits by ignoring environmental concernsto assure long term benefits by honouring environmental concerns. Of course not living in the here and now and generating huge profit and jobs does not get you votes.

I also believe the indigenous peoples if shut out of the exploitation process, will eventually turn on these governments and sabotage their efforts.

If big business thinks it can police and protect its operations and shut out the indigenous peoples good luck to them thinking they can.

Without an alliance with the indigenous peoples, they don't stand a chance.

The key to exploiting natural resources is to honour the rules of nature not try ignore them. Its possible to use the planet without causing it permanent damage. The question is, are politicians so interested in short term gain, willing to listen to indigenous peoples who are far more advanced in their understanding of the environment and the rules of nature then the alleged scientists and researchers behind these corporations.

Does anyone not believe there will be an oil spill off the coast of Saint John's once Hebron is in full operation?

Yah right, the operations are iceberg proof. Yah yah. Seen that. Hated the movie with Leo DeCapprio. My wife made me watch it three times. That Celine Dion music was torture.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Rue

[jennie]

I must agree with you. There are many other countries with indigenous peoples and resource issues that are also on the side of Russia and Canada including the US, Australia and New Zealand, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Inmdonesia, China and the Philippines to name a few....not that it makes their position any more acceptable but I do think its misleading to suggest its only Canada, Columbia and Russia.

I personally think he is simply doing what a Social Credit leader who calls himself a Conservative or former Reformist but is truly a recycled Social Credit leader does-he lives in the moment and caters tp short term implications-he's not worried about the state of Canada 5, 10, 20 years from now let alone 100 years from now. What we know about Mr. Harper is he thinks in the present tense and he thinks by doing so this is common sense and the key to good government. I think he does this with honest intentions.

Great post Rue. Well thought out. I agree with you about Harper being short-sighted, but I will go a step further and say ALL of our governments act that way. They only see as far as the next election ... the next budget ... the next profits from our resource industries.

Our 4yr cycle of 'democracy' does not work to protect our environment for our future and that of our families.

Here we are, our standard of living second to none, but our means of accomplishing that is reprehensible: We rape and plunder the earth for its natural resources, leaving behind contamination and desecration. The Indigenous people living on the land who have an interest and rights on the land are ignored, PAID NO SHARE OF THE PROFITS, while their livelihoods are destroyed as water and land and air become polluted, toxins cause illnesses, learning disabilities, psychiatric illness and sometimes death. In most cases they do not benefit from the presence of the industry as they are not trained for those jobs.

Our governments' obsessions with money I can understand, if not totally support. However, their willingness to let Indigenous people die and try to cover up information about the industrial toxins that are causing their deaths is horrific.

Health Canada muzzles oilsands whistleblower

Note: I believe this problem was found to come from a uranium mine, not from the oilsands ... yet.

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/is...olitics1_6.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...r-fortchip.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/...ip-oconnor.html

Canada is truly a two faced country: We present a friendly, compassionate face to the world while we destroy the earth and its original peoples.

I don't know the answer ... but I no longer believe that the answers lie with governments or politicians. The answers lie with people ... democratic action ... civil action ... perhaps direct action.

Edited September 9, 2007 by jennie

[noahbody]

Great post Rue. Well thought out. I agree with you about Harper being short-sighted, but I will go a step further and say ALL of our governments act that way. They only see as far as the next election ... the next budget ... the next profits from our resource industries.

Our 4yr cycle of 'democracy' does not work to protect our environment for our future and that of our families.

Here we are, our standard of living second to none, but our means of accomplishing that is reprehensible: We rape and plunder the earth for its natural resources, leaving behind contamination and desecration. The Indigenous people living on the land who have an interest and rights on the land are ignored, PAID NO SHARE OF THE PROFITS, while their livelihoods are destroyed as water and land and air become polluted, toxins cause illnesses, learning disabilities, psychiatric illness and sometimes death. In most cases they do not benefit from the presence of the industry as they are not trained for those jobs.

Our governments' obsessions with money I can understand, if not totally support. However, their willingness to let Indigenous people die and try to cover up information about the industrial toxins that are causing their deaths is horrific.

Canada is truly a two faced country: We present a friendly, compassionate face to the world while we destroy the earth and its original peoples.

I don't know the answer ... but I no longer believe that the answers lie with governments or politicians. The answers lie with people ... democratic action ... civil action ... perhaps direct action.

[jbg]

Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

Sep 06, 2007 05:59 PM

Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to derail the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The non-binding declaration is expected to be adopted Sept. 13 by the UN General Assembly.

"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."

This just sickens me.

Harper - Our bridge to the 18th century

I'd say Canada should lead in ripping apart the farcical UN! The UN should follow the way of the League of Nations. Dead and buried!

Of the above, Betsy is clearly the one that has this right. The key is the "United Nations". The UN is no one to be giving anyone policy lectures. The UN has tolerated just about every form of rapine, massacre, pillaging, etc. by despotic regimes such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. The latter country is deliberately starving its people through a doctrine called "juche" or forced self-reliance. The famines and human suffering has been massive. The UN blithely ignores this and its development of nuclear weapons.

It is time for Canada (and the US) to disengage from the UN. If this is not an option, maybe Canada should deepen its involvement through inviting its headquarters to relocate to Baker Lake or Tuktuyutok. Harper may be a bridge to the 18th Century all right; an Anglosphere country devoid of phony political correcteness.

Edited September 9, 2007 by jbg

[Visionseeker]

Ok, I have read the declaration and am not sorry at all that Canada is opposing this.

I see Articles 25 and 26 as an open invitation to a billion lawsuits and court cases.

Article 25.

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard;

Article 26.

Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including to total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their laws, traditions and customs, land-tenure systems and institutions for the development and management of resources, and the right to effective measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation of or encroachment upon these rights;

I won't speak to potential litigation in other countries, but these 2 articles do accurately reflect the reclamation of rights that are the crux of nearly all land claims in Canada I am aware of. Beginning in 1973, the Government of Canada established a specific claims resolution process as an alternative to the courts. This process was established as a means of streamlining certain common elements in reclamation actions that would otherwise have to be fought and re-fought in countless successive and concurrent legal actions. In establishing this process, the government essentially conceded that the indigenous peoples of Canada were entitled to the rights that can be found in Articles 25 and 26 above. What remained to be negotiated was the territory involved and, when necessary, the compensation to be provided in lieu of.

Since 1973, this process has received 1279 claims of which 489 have since concluded.

I see Article 27 as opening a Pandora's Box that could wind up making Slavery Reparations in the US seem like a tame issue in comparison.

(and cheap to settle by comparison.)

Article 27.

Indigenous peoples have the right to the restitution of the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have the right to just and fair compensation. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status.

Again, this right is conceded by the government and examples can be found in any number of the 489 claims already concluded. Of the 790 that remain outstanding, there is quite a few that present serious challenges with respect to restitution because the lands in dispute are heavily developed and adjacent or proximate uninhabited alternatives are simply non-existent. In these cases it is inevitable that the eventual settlement will come in the form of handsome monetary restitution. The potentially substantial sums involved are often cited as the primary reason why these claims seem forever held-up in administrative ruses intended to camouflage political avoidance.

Some critics of the recently announced Specific Claims Action Plan suggest that the government intends to prioritize outstanding claims which are more benign and less costly as a means of improving the number of concluded claims, thereby improving the overall conclusion numbers while deliberately leaving the more complex undertakings to fester. Only time will tell, and that unfortunately, is why many aboriginal communities are growing increasingly impatient.

And I see Article 35 as a legal defense strategy the next time the Mohawk Warriors get busted smuggling cheap American guns and cigarettes into Canada.

Article 35.

Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with other peoples across the borders.

States shall take effective measures to ensure the exercise and implementation of this right.

Indeed, this provision will provide smugglers with inherent legal rights to ply their trade and free them from prosecution.[/sarcasm] I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not so stupid as to believe this and that you simply haven't thought this through.

Assuming you've regained your faculties, I invite you to acquaint yourself with Article III of the Jay Treaty (1794), US federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1359), and the US federal court case Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D.Me. 1974). Each of these reinforces the legal fact that there is no border for North American aboriginals. So Article 35 is already a fact of law in both Canada and the United States.

[jennie]

Article 25.

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard;

Article 26.

Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including to total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their laws, traditions and customs, land-tenure systems and institutions for the development and management of resources, and the right to effective measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation of or encroachment upon these rights;

I won't speak to potential litigation in other countries, but these 2 articles do accurately reflect the reclamation of rights that are the crux of nearly all land claims in Canada I am aware of. Beginning in 1973, the Government of Canada established a specific claims resolution process as an alternative to the courts. This process was established as a means of streamlining certain common elements in reclamation actions that would otherwise have to be fought and re-fought in countless successive and concurrent legal actions. In establishing this process, the government essentially conceded that the indigenous peoples of Canada were entitled to the rights that can be found in Articles 25 and 26 above. What remained to be negotiated was the territory involved and, when necessary, the compensation to be provided in lieu of.

Since 1973, this process has received 1279 claims of which 489 have since concluded.

Article 27.

Indigenous peoples have the right to the restitution of the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have the right to just and fair compensation. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status.

Again, this right is conceded by the government and examples can be found in any number of the 489 claims already concluded. Of the 790 that remain outstanding, there is quite a few that present serious challenges with respect to restitution because the lands in dispute are heavily developed and adjacent or proximate uninhabited alternatives are simply non-existent. In these cases it is inevitable that the eventual settlement will come in the form of handsome monetary restitution. The potentially substantial sums involved are often cited as the primary reason why these claims seem forever held-up in administrative ruses intended to camouflage political avoidance.

Some critics of the recently announced Specific Claims Action Plan suggest that the government intends to prioritize outstanding claims which are more benign and less costly as a means of improving the number of concluded claims, thereby improving the overall conclusion numbers while deliberately leaving the more complex undertakings to fester. Only time will tell, and that unfortunately, is why many aboriginal communities are growing increasingly impatient.

Article 35.

Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with other peoples across the borders.

States shall take effective measures to ensure the exercise and implementation of this right.

Indeed, this provision will provide smugglers with inherent legal rights to ply their trade and free them from prosecution.[/sarcasm] I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not so stupid as to believe this and that you simply haven't thought this through.

Assuming you've regained your faculties, I invite you to acquaint yourself with Article III of the Jay Treaty (1794), US federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1359), and the US federal court case Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D.Me. 1974). Each of these reinforces the legal fact that there is no border for North American aboriginals. So Article 35 is already a fact of law in both Canada and the United States.

There is nothing there that is not already in Canada's laws, in those articles or others, imo.

There is a Canadian delegation with knowledge of our laws and treaties, like the Jay Treaty visionseeker mentioned, who would have had input to that. There is no legal reason for Harper to refuse to sign this Declaration.

Harper refuses to sign and tried to undermine it because he also refuses to accept Canadian law: the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, imo.

UN-New Zealand

This May at the Forum's annual session, Ms. Tauli-Corpuz said that there was a widespread misunderstanding that the declaration places indigenous peoples in a special category.

"The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - it's really an instrument that interprets international human rights law in so far as it applies to indigenous peoples," she said. "So it's not a document, it's not a declaration that creates new rights." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0709/S00195.htm

Edited September 9, 2007 by jennie

[Visionseeker]

Harper may be a bridge to the 18th Century all right; an Anglosphere country devoid of phony political correcteness.

Great argument there jdb. If you're looking to relive the 18th century, I suggest you try to join the Amish or form your own reactionary community.

Ah yes, the Anglosphere. That wonderfully truculent term that presumes an imperial outlook amongst the inhabitants of those English speaking nations who are predominantly white. Well Tony Blair is gone, Howard is in peril and as for Bush, he’ll be gone in just under 500 days and with him this nonsense of Anglosphere may mercifully die.

[jennie]

Great argument there jdb. If you're looking to relive the 18th century, I suggest you try to join the Amish or form your own reactionary community.

Ah yes, the Anglosphere. That wonderfully truculent term that presumes an imperial outlook amongst the inhabitants of those English speaking nations who are predominantly white. Well Tony Blair is gone, Howard is in peril and as for Bush, he’ll be gone in just under 500 days and with him this nonsense of Anglosphere may mercifully die.

500 days ... there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

... I hope it isn't another train.

visionseeker, Bushieboy's handlers ... the corporate war industry profiteers ... they know this is going to happen.

I can't believe they don't have a contingency plan.

What do you think?

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

LOTS of news about the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous peoples today

Here's a google search ...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...;ncl=1120435752

and some excerpts ...

RIGHTS: South Stands with Indigenous Peoples at the U.N.

By Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 7 (IPS) - Despite continued opposition from the United States and some other major powers, the United Nations General Assembly seems poised to adopt the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Peoples' Rights later this month.

Indigenous leaders told IPS Friday they were optimistic that a vast majority of the 192-member General Assembly would vote in favour of the resolution calling for the recognition of the rights of the world's 270 million aboriginal people.

The proposed declaration was set to be adopted by the General Assembly late last year but due to strong objections from certain countries, it was repeatedly set aside for further negotiations.

In addition to the United States, the countries that refused to endorse the declaration included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Colombia, Suriname, Guyana and a group of African nations led by Namibia.

While many amongst them remain in opposition, there are strong indications that almost all the African countries are now fully supportive of the declaration.

The African group changed its stance after a majority of the 16-member U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues agreed to accept its demand for changes in certain parts of the text dealing with the concept of "self-determination".

The declaration calls for recognition of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over lands, a principle fully recognised by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, but deemed controversial by some who fear that it could undermine the sovereignty of states.

In return for their support, the African countries wanted the declaration to mention that it does not encourage any actions which would undermine the "territorial integrity" or "political unity" of sovereign states.

Despite the fact that the African viewpoint has been incorporated into the amended version, the draft declaration remains assertive of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their land and resources.

"It is subject to interpretation, but we can work with this," Les Malezer, chair of the Global Indigenous Caucus, told IPS. Like many other indigenous leaders, Malezer, a longtime aboriginal rights activist, initially did not approve of amendments in the draft.

"If a few states did not accept the declaration, then it would be a reflection on them rather than the document." said Malezer, in a veiled reference to the position taken by the U.S. Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Many indigenous leaders charge that, as they have in the past, the U.S. and Canada were still trying to apply pressure tactics on economically weak and vulnerable nations to secure their votes against the declaration.

"They have been dictating to developing countries," said Joseph Ole Simel, coordinator of the African Regional Indigenous Caucus. "However, the Third World countries have now taken a very progressive step in terms of commitment to the rights of indigenous peoples."

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

Those in opposition see the draft declaration as "flawed," mainly because of its strong emphasis on the right to self-determination and full control over lands and resources. In their view, they would hinder efforts for economic development and undermine the so-called established democratic norms.

This tension is also reflected in other areas of diplomatic discourses, including the U.N. treaty on biological diversity and the World Trade Organisation, in terms of the needs of neo-liberal economic order and the argument that indigenous people have the right to own and use their resources without interference.

The biodiversity treaty, for example, not only recognises the significance of traditional knowledge, but also calls for a "fair and equitable" share of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises.

The United States has refused to sign on to that treaty, while some of its allies who are against the declaration have expressed their reservations about how to implement the principle of "fair and equitable" distribution of resources.

.........

The General Assembly move to consider the declaration comes at a time when more than 100 political leaders from around the world are preparing to arrive in New York to attend a high-level meeting on climate change.

For many indigenous leaders, this is a historic moment.

"We have been doing this work for more than 22 years," said Vicky Tauli-Corpus, chairperson of the Permanent Form, hoping that this time the General Assembly would say yes to the declaration.

(END/2007)

Edited September 9, 2007 by jennie

[jbg]

Ah yes, the Anglosphere. That wonderfully truculent term that presumes an imperial outlook amongst the inhabitants of those English speaking nations who are predominantly white. Well Tony Blair is gone, Howard is in peril and as for Bush, he’ll be gone in just under 500 days and with him this nonsense of Anglosphere may mercifully die.

Maybe I overstated the case by wanting to go back to the 18th Century, but on the Anglosphere, what other group of countries has provided such a decent standard of living and extensive good, democratic government to so many?

[Posit]

Maybe I overstated the case by wanting to go back to the 18th Century, but on the Anglosphere, what other group of countries has provided such a decent standard of living and extensive good, democratic government to so many?

AH, the great standard of living.....for whom?

1/3 of US citizens live at or below the poverty level. That is even greater in countries where western imperialism is exploiting the country for their resources.

On the other side of the coin, 5% of Americans hold 90% of the wealth (and that also means that 10% of the remaining wealth is distributed to 95% of the population with the government pulling back as high as 65% back in taxes.)

There is no "great standard of living" unless you happen to have been born into that wealthy 5%. AND the government services that we receive is a result of those abhorrent taxes we pay, while those 5% send money off shore away from paying their proportional shares.

If we truly lived in a society with a democratic government, this would be reversed. But because the wealthy corporations control government WITHOUT our input, it is allowed to continue while the resources we depend on get sucked up and out of the country. Like an old elastic band this will break and the corporations will run away to exploit other countries....oh....they already are.....