Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[Leafless]

You just haven't inherited the property they have.

Who is they?

The 3% or so of the entire Canadian population, who were never able to defend their lands.

[jennie]

Who is they?

The 3% or so of the entire Canadian population, who were never able to defend their lands.

Our allies, the original people of Canada, made peace treaties with us in order to 'defend their land', AND to allow us to live here with them legally.

"Never able to defend their land" presupposes that we were physically attacking their land, which never happened in Canada. Since we had signed nation-to-nation treaties with them, as allies, Canada was reduced to deceit and fraud in order to steal the land. It was illegal then and it is illegal now.

[Leafless]

Our allies, the original people of Canada, made peace treaties with us in order to 'defend their land', AND to allow us to live here with them legally.

In 1763 the Royal Proclamation did exactly that.

It was created to integrate New France into the British Empire in North American. It created the Province of Québec along a fairly narrow stretch of land located along the shores of the St. Lawrence River. Part of the proclamation, however, expressively dealt with Aboriginal issues.

The British, who now controlled Québec, wanted settlement to take place within the colony, but also wanted to ensure Aboriginals had their own land for reserve settlements.

"Never able to defend their land" presupposes that we were physically attacking their land, which never happened in Canada. Since we had signed nation-to-nation treaties with them, as allies, Canada was reduced to deceit and fraud in order to steal the land. It was illegal then and it is illegal now.

Can you cite these ratified and agreed treaties?

[jbg]

You can watch the vote in the UN General Assembly live on Thursday, 10 am, as the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples passes, with or without Canada's support.

Sure. The General Assembly can vote to distribute all of the West's wealth elsewhere. Does that mean we have to agree?

[kimmy]

kimmy? Any further comments on the Declaration and individual rights?

Well, nothing I can say without getting banned...

Your explanation of this-- some people belong to a collective that just happens to have inherited a large amount of property (and apparently maintains the right to claim further property from right under the feet of others who aren't in this collective)-- does not describe the whole story.

As the membership in this fortunate group is determined strictly by race, saying that this is a collective right that everybody shares is somewhat debatable. (did anybody mention to Rosa Parks that sitting at the front of the bus was a collective right, and that she just wasn't in the right collective?)

Further, much of what is under discussion is not simply an issue of usage of inherited lands.

My family has a modest amount of inherited land; do we have the rights on our land that the natives have on their lands? No. Not even close.

I am concerned that sloppy or ambiguous wording in these declarations might give the natives further leverage to pursue claims beyond what they're already pursuing. For example, the next time Ovide Mercredi proposes that his people should receive a royalty for each cell-phone call that travels through "their" air, he will be able to mention that Article 26 could be interpreted to say he's entitled to it.

I do hope Europe signs on, though. Misery loves company, and I can't imagine what might be more miserable than the process of land claims and reparations we've signed on for. I don't know what problems Europe might experience with regard to "indigenous people", however. This issue seems to primarily affect the Americas, and it strikes me as no coincidence that the countries outside the Americas are most in favor of this while countries within the Americas seem to make up the list of countries opposing the declaration.

And who knows? Maybe my mom's people, driven from their lands in Germany and the Ukraine, might be considered "indigenous". I might wake up tomorrow and discover I've "inherited" land in eastern Europe.

-k

[Posit]

Sure. The General Assembly can vote to distribute all of the West's wealth elsewhere. Does that mean we have to agree?

Harper doesn't have to agree. Our participation in the UN and under that our agreement to comply with international law (which has been democratically implemented) makes us accountable to uphold the law. The Declaration will pass today and Canada will be under pressure to comply with its intent.

In the following weeks the campaigns will be on with Aboriginal people pressuring the government to start changing our laws to be consistent with the Declaration. Harper can certainly refuse to entertain any such ideas, however, doing so will be cause for UN-based sanctions for failing to comply with the basic human rights prescribed in the Declaration.

The failure to accept the principles of basic human rights guaranteed for all people in Canada - including aboriginal people - is a black eye on Canada. It takes us down a couple of notches and proves that Canada is still very much a racist oligarchy and that we have a long way to go before we can even consider ourselves a democratic and free nation.

[kimmy]

Harper doesn't have to agree. Our participation in the UN and under that our agreement to comply with international law (which has been democratically implemented) makes us accountable to uphold the law. The Declaration will pass today and Canada will be under pressure to comply with its intent.

In the following weeks the campaigns will be on with Aboriginal people pressuring the government to start changing our laws to be consistent with the Declaration. Harper can certainly refuse to entertain any such ideas, however, doing so will be cause for UN-based sanctions for failing to comply with the basic human rights prescribed in the Declaration.

The failure to accept the principles of basic human rights guaranteed for all people in Canada - including aboriginal people - is a black eye on Canada. It takes us down a couple of notches and proves that Canada is still very much a racist oligarchy and that we have a long way to go before we can even consider ourselves a democratic and free nation.

What in the Declaration is not already guaranteed to Canadian aboriginal people?

What changes to our laws will aboriginal people be pressuring for as a result of the Declaration?

-k

[Leafless]

The Declaration will pass today and Canada will be under pressure to comply with its intent.

The only reason the declaration will most likely pass is because of oppressed African countries who last year actually opposed the declaration due to harmful self-determination issues could lead to rebellions, but has been ironed out with additional wording in the declaration that self determination should not mean a right to create a separate country.

Canada is worried the declaration could lead to the reopening of already settled land claims.

Let's face it. This declaration is not meant for Canada's Aboriginal but directed to the truly oppressed people of third world countries who have very few rights period relating to recognizing land and other rights of these truly deprived indigenous people.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...0aab0e5&p=1

[Posit]

Lots of Canadian domestic law is not in compliance with the Charter - especially those laws that are institutionally prejudiced against aboriginal people. While the Charter does provide basic human rights, the government ignores its obligations under it to consult and accommodate First Nations when developing on lands in which they hold a constitutional interest. As well, proportionally First Nations people overpopulate Canadian prisons because they are treated differently under the justice system. And lastly as recently as the last couple of months, the Canadian police and judicial system have proven they can detain native people - Shawn Brant -, use unreasonable search against their supporters and hold hearings in secret (media blackouts for pre-trial testimony ) while the unreasonably excessive gestapo-styled OPP can exercise brutal force against First Nations women, children and old people while serving a civil court injunction that had no basis in law (as determined by a higher court).

There will be more than lobbying going on in the next decade and I suspect that not only civil disobedience but violent confrontation will become the norm in society until aboriginal people's rights are properly recognized and applied.

[M.Dancer]

(media blackouts for pre-trial testimony

I take it then you like mistrials?

[Keepitsimple]

This isn't about Harper or Canada - it's about the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They all oppose the declaration. These countries are unique. They each have a "First Nations" element that have been accomodated to various degrees in terms of helping them retain their original heritage. These countries and the steps they have individually taken to reconcile with First Nations cannot be compared to African countries in the same vein. Again, trying to have a one-size-fits-all "feel-good" document is counter-productive. I ask - which countries and peoples are we really trying to help? If you had to pick 5 countries in terms of how they have abused their First Nations Human Rights - which would you pick? Here in Canada - our First Nations have foot-dragged when our current government wants them to be governed by our Human Rights code - they say they need more time to consult!

[Posit]

In my lifetime professional experiences I have never encountered a "mistrial" for a preliminary hearing. The prelim is provided in order to ascertain if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The testimony of Julian Fantino lasted 3 hours. The basis of the judicial process is to let the "public" and the defendant know there is sufficient reason to refer the case to trial.

It is extremely Nazi-like for the Superintendent of the police force (who was neither a witness to most of the summary charges of mischief or involved in the arrest of Brant) to testify for 3 hours and then have the courts proceed to trial on that basis - especially since a deal to remove rail barricades was made with the local department and Fantino came back a week later and directed them to issue charges.

One more example of native injustice and where the rule of law does not apply to natives IMO.

[old_bold&cold]

I am no lawyer or even a political expert, but when I looked at the declaration and the way it was worded, there were too many things that evenI saw that I did not agree with. So to me that means I am happy that the government of today is not onside with this . Too bad if the UN does not like this, as we are not there to be yes men to their own misguided declarations.

[M.Dancer]

In my lifetime professional experiences I have never encountered a "mistrial" for a preliminary hearing.

I take it then you are in favour of mistrials. While else would a judge or a voir dire unless it is because there is testimony that would prejudice a jury? Such testimony, if allowed to be published would constitute either an appeal or a mistrial.

[jennie]

Well, nothing I can say without getting banned...

Your explanation of this-- some people belong to a collective that just happens to have inherited a large amount of property (and apparently maintains the right to claim further property from right under the feet of others who aren't in this collective)-- does not describe the whole story.

As the membership in this fortunate group is determined strictly by race, saying that this is a collective right that everybody shares is somewhat debatable. (did anybody mention to Rosa Parks that sitting at the front of the bus was a collective right, and that she just wasn't in the right collective?)

Further, much of what is under discussion is not simply an issue of usage of inherited lands.

My family has a modest amount of inherited land; do we have the rights on our land that the natives have on their lands? No. Not even close.

I am concerned that sloppy or ambiguous wording in these declarations might give the natives further leverage to pursue claims beyond what they're already pursuing. For example, the next time Ovide Mercredi proposes that his people should receive a royalty for each cell-phone call that travels through "their" air, he will be able to mention that Article 26 could be interpreted to say he's entitled to it.

I do hope Europe signs on, though. Misery loves company, and I can't imagine what might be more miserable than the process of land claims and reparations we've signed on for. I don't know what problems Europe might experience with regard to "indigenous people", however. This issue seems to primarily affect the Americas, and it strikes me as no coincidence that the countries outside the Americas are most in favor of this while countries within the Americas seem to make up the list of countries opposing the declaration.

And who knows? Maybe my mom's people, driven from their lands in Germany and the Ukraine, might be considered "indigenous". I might wake up tomorrow and discover I've "inherited" land in eastern Europe.

-k

It seems to me that your complaints are about other CANADIANS having MORE rights than you.

Well, as posit has said before, there is nothing that says Aboriginal people are Canadian citizens, so ask your government about that, and about 'equal rights for all Canadians': As not-quite-Canadians, Aboriginal peoples rights, land and children have been abused.

Also, as I have said, these are not 'extra' rights. They are simply the same rights that we all have, except that the rights of Aboriginal peoples have not been respected, in fact have been specifically and intentionally violated in the past.

Your comment "the right to claim further property from right under the feet of others" ... is a concern you should take up with your provincial government, since the integrity of the property deeds they issue to you is their responsibility. If they issued deeds for land taken without due process, to land without clear title, it is their responsibility to address your concerns.

Your comment is petty, sniping, feigning ignorance. We all know the land was often taken illegally, and we all know there must be restitution: repatriation of land and compensation for loss of use. It is the law in Canada, regardless of Declaration or no Declaration. Get used to it.

EUROPE has signed on to the Declaration, so you can do the research to find out if you are Indigenous.

Edited September 13, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

There is quite a lot of sucking and blowing going on.......

Well, as posit has said before, there is nothing that says Aboriginal people are Canadian citizens

Posit says a lot of things....mostly wrong.

Ask yourself one question. Do Canadian aboriginals have the right to vote in Canada?

Also, as I have said, these are not 'extra' rights. They are simply the same rights that we all have.....

With the exception of racial rights (treaty rights) which no one else has.

Your comment "the right to claim further property from right under the feet of others" ... is a concern you should take up with your provincial government, since the integrity of the property deeds they issue to you is their responsibility.

The comment was clearly over yoiur head. She meant that anything not expressly written could in the future be put on the table by natives. In other words you are condoning legalized theft.

We all know the land was often taken illegally and we all know there must be restitution: repatriation of land and compensation for loss of use.

Loss of use?

[jennie]

The UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly this morning.

143 in favour,

4 opposed (likely Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Russia)

11 abstentions.

[M.Dancer]

The UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly this morning.

143 in favour,

4 opposed (likely Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Russia)

11 abstentions.

Good. Now back to ignoring it.

[stignasty]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (referred to in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms) states:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.--We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure. that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida. or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. as described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And. We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government. they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do. by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever. provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside. and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit. by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade:

[jennie]

Good. Now back to ignoring it.

It was interesting to hear Beverly Jacobs speak after the UN session. She is a Haudenosaunee woman from Six Nations on the Grand. She said it will be important to bring the Declaration back to the negotiations table where the negotiators are currently trying to limit the discussions to Canadian domestic law, ignoring Canada's international human rights agreements.

I doubt it will be forgotten.

[M.Dancer]

It was interesting to hear Beverly Jacobs speak after the UN session. She is a Haudenosaunee woman from Six Nations on the Grand. She said it will be important to bring the Declaration back to the negotiations table where the negotiators are currently trying to limit the discussions to Canadian domestic law, ignoring Canada's international human rights agreements.

I doubt it will be forgotten.

Glad she has a productive job. If she is lucky, she will be gainfuly employed till the rivers runs dry.......

[noahbody]

It was interesting to hear Beverly Jacobs speak after the UN session. She is a Haudenosaunee woman from Six Nations on the Grand. She said it will be important to bring the Declaration back to the negotiations table where the negotiators are currently trying to limit the discussions to Canadian domestic law, ignoring Canada's international human rights agreements.

I doubt it will be forgotten.

Of course it won't be forgotton. This is obviously white man turning their back on natives once again. At least to some who choose an identity of despair. Reminds me of playing slo-pitch against two particular native teams this summer. Every call that didn't go their way, wasn't a call against their team, it was a call against their race. Gimme a break. Not all native teams are like that though. Just as some bands choose to look positively towards the future as opposed to negatively at the past. I know what team you'd be playing on.

[jbg]

I don't know what problems Europe might experience with regard to "indigenous people", however. This issue seems to primarily affect the Americas, and it strikes me as no coincidence that the countries outside the Americas are most in favor of this while countries within the Americas seem to make up the list of countries opposing the declaration.

And who knows? Maybe my mom's people, driven from their lands in Germany and the Ukraine, might be considered "indigenous". I might wake up tomorrow and discover I've "inherited" land in eastern Europe.

-k

I'd be most interested to see the descendants or relatives of Holocaust victims assert land rights in Europe as "indigenous people".

[Keepitsimple]

Of all the UN countries, why do you think Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US were the only ones to vote against it? Could it be that they have something in common? Certainly, they are all countries that have good Human Rights records. They are not countries that should be compared to Botswana or Chechnya. So what is it? It's because each of these countries have already taken significant steps to address the rights of indigenous populations and elements of the declaration are at odds with the practical solutions and steps that are in progress today. Lets not forget the $9 billion that Canada spends on First Nation issues or the fact that we are currently trying to bring First Nations under the protection of Canada's own Human Rights Code - with First Nations being reluctant to do so.

Here's a link to Canada's position and why we voted against the resolution:

Link: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/s-d2007/2-2936-eng.asp

STATEMENT BY CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

2-2936

OTTAWA (September 12, 2007) - The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, and the Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued the following statement today regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

The General Assembly will vote tomorrow on whether or not to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canada will vote against adoption of the current text because it is fundamentally flawed and lacks clear, practical guidance for implementation, and contains provisions that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada's constitutional framework. It also does not recognize Canada's need to balance indigenous rights to lands and resources with the rights of others.

Since taking office in 2006, Canada's New Government has acted on many fronts to improve quality of life and promote a prosperous future for all Aboriginal peoples. This agenda is practical, focuses on real results, and has led to tangible progress in a range of areas including land claims, education, housing, child and family services, safe drinking water and the extension of human rights protection to First Nations on reserve. We are also pushing to have Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act repealed. This would ensure the protection of fundamental human rights for all Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal women who are often the most vulnerable.

Canada supports the spirit and intent of a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But further negotiations are necessary in order to achieve a text worthy of Canadian support that will truly address the interests of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world.

We have not stood alone during this process. The U.S., Australia and New Zealand have all voiced concerns with the text as it now stands.

Canada's position has remained consistent and principled. We have stated publicly that we have significant concerns with the wording of provisions of the Declaration such as those on: lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, member States and third parties.

For example, in Article 26, the document states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." This could be used by Aboriginal groups to challenge and re-open historic and present day treaties and to support claims that have already been dealt with.

Similarly, some of the provisions dealing with the concept of free, prior and informed consent are too restrictive. Provisions such as Article 19 imply that the State cannot act without the consent of indigenous peoples even when such actions are matters of general policy affecting both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Despite Canada joining efforts with like-minded States that have a large indigenous population, our concerns with the current text were not addressed.

Canada will continue to be active internationally in the field of indigenous rights, and will continue with our practical and meaningful agenda on priorities here at home.

For further information please contact:

Philippe Mailhot

Press Secretary

Office of the Honourable Chuck Strahl

819-997-0002

Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

613-995-1874

[geoffrey]

One more example of native injustice and where the rule of law does not apply to natives IMO.

You mean how they still haven't paid for our rail bridge and highway they vandalised? How many people got charged in that incident? Has the Six Nations written CN and the province of Ontario a cheque yet?