Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration

[jennie]

I believe the province is writing the cheque for the historic wooden bridge ... the one the town was too ... unh ... cheap(?) to put new boards on so it could be used ... Six Nations private entrance to town.

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.

These are ALL issues of self-determination, and Harper refuses to let go. All over the world, Indigenous people are engaged in deadly battles for survival, as resource extraction plumbs the world's wildernesses, leaving behind environmental devastation and destruction of Indigenous economies. It really is no different here.

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.

Hey ... if the courts deem that the legal thing to do, the government's 'position' means sh*t. That's the problem I have with Harper's opposition points: They are all open to interpretation by the courts, which is as it should be, and it is NOT his job to presuppose that or try to control or prevent that. He can't anyway. The Supreme Court takes into account UN directions, in Canadian contexts I believe.

Look at the points ... "intellectual property" wtf? Harper wants to retain ownership of their brains?

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.

YA WELL HARPER IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED ... You have a plethora of blockades all across the country, ALL because the State failed to even CONSULT as required by CANADIAN law. So, having failed to achieve any solution, the situation now is ... you have to have consent. The Declaration has already been put into effect, but it is under Canadian law. If the government fails to consult, they stop the development, mining, logging, etc.

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

"like-minded" second generation colonial countries.

[jennie]

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

Final text of the Declaration, with late African changes highlighted.

Canada's late changes were extensive but did not make it into discussion.

None of the opposing countries had an Indigenous person speak, agreeing that their State domestic laws and ways were better.

Canada, US, NZ AUS objections made it clear that it is about protection of the government and land and resources by the military, and their right to legislatively determine Indigenous Affairs.

Therein lies the problem: Self-determination means making your own decisions for your community.

[scribblet]

Well I tried to find coverage of this important national issue in the NATIONAL Post, but a search of "indigenous" revealed only stories about mining (effects of those pesky Indigenous people, living on their own land and interfering with mining profits!!)...

and a few travelogues extolling the virtues Indigenous culture!!!)

Oh how I love the irony!

guess you missed this one

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...641&k=78349

No responsible leader could ever sign on to an agreement that concedes "indigenous people have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," even if this is merely an "aspirational," non-binding document, as native leaders contend.

Canada has signed over 500 treaties in the last 200 years, all of which could be re-visited if a court were to give legal weight to the declaration

[Posit]

guess you missed this one

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...641&k=78349

No responsible leader could ever sign on to an agreement that concedes "indigenous people have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," even if this is merely an "aspirational," non-binding document, as native leaders contend.

Canada has signed over 500 treaties in the last 200 years, all of which could be re-visited if a court were to give legal weight to the declaration

Certainly, that is still a possibility since Canada subscribes to the UN and the Declaration passed. Although a domestic court has no authority over the treaties themselves since they were recognized agreement between sovereign nations. The Declaration would definitely have an influence in the World Court in determining whether or not the treaties were seriously being complied with.

Like most guidelines, the declaration does not supplant laws but proved the means to interpret them.

I see this as Aboriginal Nations 1, Canada 0.

[cybercoma]

Why didn't the UK vote with the US and more importantly Canada, Australia and New Zealand? They're having serious issues with the aboriginal people in Australia, no one is considering that.

The other problem is that First Nations groups want to be autonomous, yet they're still benefiting from government programs. To be truly autonomous they need to cut the umbilical cord and be self-sufficient.

Edited September 14, 2007 by cybercoma

[jbg]

These are ALL issues of self-determination, and Harper refuses to let go. All over the world, Indigenous people are engaged in deadly battles for survival, as resource extraction plumbs the world's wildernesses, leaving behind environmental devastation and destruction of Indigenous economies. It really is no different here.

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.

What economies? They're not hunter-gatherers any more. If the "economy" is sustenance at the public teat, that kind of "economy" should be destroyed. Edited September 14, 2007 by jbg

[M.Dancer]

Traditionally owned. What a crock. How can a group numbering only a few thousand claim to own 8.9 MILLION acres?

If I was negotiating the contract, I would start with this offer. 3000 acres and you are on the hook for damages/ Take it or leave it.

I think the government know the algonquin lanbd claim is dodgey, look at the language they use........

What is the Algonquin Land Claim about?

The Algonquin claim is based on assertions of Aboriginal rights, which means that these negotiations address matters such as possible rights and title to land and natural resources, including the future exercise of hunting, fishing and gathering rights within the claim area.

On second thought, let them have 1000 acres and funding for a theme park and casino.

[Keepitsimple]

How dare Phil Fontaine say that the UN vote is a stain on Canada's image! The stain is on him.

The Conservative government wants to bring First Nations under the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-44 repeals Sec. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), a 30 year-old exemption which states that no part of the act affects the Indian Act. The bill would extend the reach of the Canadian Human Rights Commission over claims of discrimination that have been shielded because the Indian Act is outside the human rights code. The Canadian Human Rights Act outlaws discrimination in employment and services on such grounds as sex, race, ethnic origin and marital status. The exemption, initially implemented as a supposed temporary measure, has been condemned over the years in Canada and the United Nations. Mr. Fontaine, perplexingly supported by the Liberals and NDP, has responded to the Bill by stating that First Nations need another year or two of “consultations” to determine the “impact” of providing Human Rights protection to his own people. This impact primarily deals with the fact that First Nations women have virtually no marital rights.

Aboriginal women do not have the same rights as other women in Canada nor as Aboriginal men. The current law treats Aboriginal women differently from Aboriginal men when it comes to passing on Indian status and reserve membership to their children and grandchildren. Aboriginal women in Canada also face unconstitutional discrimination when it comes to a breakup of a marriage. Other Canadians have a right to a fair share of the marital property. Not Aboriginal women on reserve. For them, leaving the family home often means leaving their community and trying to start over in a non-Aboriginal environment.

Incredibly, Aboriginal women cannot complain to the Human Rights Commission about this situation, because they are not protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Phil Fontaine has been Chief of the Assembly of First Nations since 1997 and a Grand Chief of Manitoba First Nations for 6 years prior. If Mr. Fontaine truly believed in Human Rights as it applies to both men and women, why was he not demanding changes to the Indian Act and laying the groundwork to accommodate Human Rights for his own people? And once again - where the the Liberals all this time with their majority governments?

Thirty years of being outside the protection of Canadian Human Rights is enough. Governments come and go and as such, the urgency ebbs and flows. Sure there will be issues - mainly because there is such a big issue with Human Rights on the reserves - but delaying and stalling will not fix it. Implementation and action will. It’s time for Mr. Fontaine and his Band Chiefs to show some leadership and some genuine concern for Human Rights.

[M.Dancer]

Aboriginal women do not have the same rights as other women in Canada nor as Aboriginal men.

Like burkas and other nasty stuff done to chattel women which modesty forbids me mentioning, treating women poorly is a protected cultural attribute that we can not possibly criticise until we walked a mile in their Grebs.

[Rue]

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.

Interestingly in the end JBG at the UN vote it was the US, Can, Australia and New Zealand who voted against. I thought for sure Brazil, Indonesia, might, maybe even Finland or Russia and certainly China. This lends me to believe a lot of countries that have the exact same concerns as Canada as to not being able to exploit natural resources and avoud indigenous claism felt the declaration we are talking about is legally meaningless otherwise they would not have signed it-either that or they just don't give a rat's ass about human rights anyways.

Getting back to your issue-I on the one hand hear you loud and clear. The UN does have a huge credibility issue no doubt about it for the reasons you stated and many others.

That said, I still think such declarations even from a jaded corupted world organization are at least a start.

Believe it or not although I diagree with Harper at least I think he is clear and upfront and direct about his agenda unlike the Liberals who for years have pretended to care about aboriginal rights but whose agenda hasn't been any different.

But that is just my personal opinion.

[Rue]

guess you missed this one

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...641&k=78349

No responsible leader could ever sign on to an agreement that concedes "indigenous people have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," even if this is merely an "aspirational," non-binding document, as native leaders contend.

Canada has signed over 500 treaties in the last 200 years, all of which could be re-visited if a court were to give legal weight to the declaration

That Scriblett is an interesting point. Interestingly, I have read 10 different legal opinions as to whether such a declaration as you said would have or would not have legal relevance internally within Canada. I tend to lean towards your stated opnion that it would have relevance but to what extent I am not sure. I mean we have seen such declarations say in regards to refugee law go from declarations to international law to then be incorporated into domestic immigration law so there is no reason to believe the same wouldn't happen here.

That said Scriblett I think that is the real reason Harper did not sign it or at least that is what he was advised by his so called legal experts.

For me though, what is it really establishing as a legal precedent? That is the question to ask if you believe it does set a legal precedent...when I ask that question for now all I can answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THE LAW HASN'T ALREADY CONCEDED IN CANADA IN COURT JUDGEMENTS.

In my opinion which I concede is only that, the legal question really isn't whether aboriginals have rights which is all the declaration really says-its how those rights are to be enforced or applied which this declaration is totally silent on. So that is why I say it probably helps solidify or enshrine the concept that the rights exist but then what? We already know that.

The formulas for compensation for past breached treaties, or revenue sharing of exploitation of land in the future, or how land is to be accessed and used or controlled-those are all huge question marks and in the short term this may only seem to be an aboriginal issue affecting aboriginal rights but to me the very same things aboriginals seek will protect all of us aboriginal or not from unecessary or dangerous exploitation.

I also think Scriblett that aboriginal interest groups and large corporations are a lot more sophisticated then we often give them credit for when it comes to establishing agreements of mutual benefit. We do already have precedent for some very creative fair working relationships. There are some progressive companies that have recognized the need for aboriginal liaisons who work with them and aboriginal communities establishing mutually beneficial relationships. It has been done. There is absolutely no reason it can't form the pith and substance of future developmental policies that benefit all of us indigenous and non indigenous.

[Riverwind]

Interestingly in the end JBG at the UN vote it was the US, Can, Australia and New Zealand who voted against. I thought for sure Brazil, Indonesia, might, maybe even Finland or Russia and certainly China. This lends me to believe a lot of countries that have the exact same concerns as Canada as to not being able to exploit natural resources and avoid indigenous claims felt the declaration we are talking about is legally meaningless otherwise they would not have signed it-either that or they just don't give a rat's ass about human rights anyways.

This is non-argument. Countries like China and Russia don't give a damn about human rights and fully intend to ignore the declaration whenever they find it inconvenient. The declaration would have been used as political club even if it was non-binding. Harper realized that taking a short term hit by refusing to sign was better than facing never ending political and legal claims in the future.

You are a lawyer - do you honestly believe that aboriginals would not try to use the declaration in Canadian courts? And do you honestly believe that the declaration would have zero effect on the ultimate ruling by the court if the Canadian government had signed it?

That said, I still think such declarations even from a jaded corrupted world organization are at least a start.

Identifying some groups of people as 'aboriginal' worthy of special rights is abhorrent. All people are equal and any attempt to claim that some people are more equal than others is a slippery slope to hell.

You can never solve a problem created by racism with more racism. Unfortunately, it will probably take another 50 or so years before the well meaning but naive people in western democracies figure this out.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

This is non-argument. Countries like China and Russia don't give a damn about human rights and fully intend to ignore the declaration whenever they find it inconvenient. The declaration would have been used as political club even if it was non-binding. Harper realized that taking a short term hit by refusing to sign was better than facing never ending political and legal claims in the future.

You are a lawyer - do you honestly believe that aboriginals would not try to use the declaration in Canadian courts? And do you honestly believe that the declaration would have zero effect on the ultimate ruling by the court if the Canadian government had signed it?

Identifying some groups of people as 'aboriginal' worthy of special rights is abhorrent. All people are equal and any attempt to claim that some people are more equal than others is a slippery slope to hell.

You can never solve a problem created by racism with more racism. Unfortunately, it will probably take another 50 or so years before the well meaning but naive people in western democracies figure this out.

I found it interesting that the Canadian Ambassador in his comments said that Canada will continue to uphold its own laws and its human rights obligations via other UN documents, because:

1) Canadian governments do NOT uphold Canadian constitutional law since they fail to consult with First Nations before approving uses of their traditional and treaty lands, causing confrontation and conflict, and

2) If Canada upholds all of its human rights obligations via UN documents, then Canada is already committed to upholding the elements of the Declaration on Indigenous Rights because it is constructed of clauses from existing human rights documents.

There are no new human rights in the Declaration: It is simply a restatement of human rights we all have.

Edited September 14, 2007 by jennie

[Denny]

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.

You said what I wanted to say, but better and more forcefully.

I'll put some stock in the UN's usefullness when it comes to human rights, the day they lead the charge to oust the oppressor, Robert Mugabe.

[noahbody]

1) Canadian governments do NOT uphold Canadian constitutional law since they fail to consult with First Nations before approving uses of their traditional and treaty lands, causing confrontation and conflict, and

I don't think what this government has done to expedite the treaty claims process would qualify as an act of conflict. Generally, when the other side does something positive in negotiation, you don't increase aggression or beat someone unconcious. A thank you would be nice.

[Posit]

Do you consider falsifying records, lying to Six Nations and making a mockery out of the negotiation process is "doing something nice"? Just wondering also, if you believe that blowing up your neighbours house is justified because you wanted to help them with some landscaping.......

Six Nations has invented a brilliant process to allow developers to move forward while comply with criteria that protects the environment, reduces pollution potential and controls urban sprawl. The only other alternative during negotiations is to shut them down completely. If it were you, which would you prefer?

[noahbody]

Do you consider falsifying records, lying to Six Nations and making a mockery out of the negotiation process is "doing something nice"? Just wondering also, if you believe that blowing up your neighbours house is justified because you wanted to help them with some landscaping.......

Really, what government are you referring to? Present or past?

Six Nations has invented a brilliant process to allow developers to move forward while comply with criteria that protects the environment, reduces pollution potential and controls urban sprawl. The only other alternative during negotiations is to shut them down completely. If it were you, which would you prefer?

Is that the beat them til their unconscious processs? Yeah, that's brilliant!

[jennie]

The Six Nations Confederacy has responded to the current situation in Caledonia, Ontario where a group of the reserves residents chose to occupy the site of a housing project. Thursday, one of the town’s contractors that has been building two homes on the site for his daughters was severely beaten. There are two different versions however, as to just what took place that caused the beating to begin with. One version says Co-workers say the builder was trying to chase about a dozen youths off the property yesterday when he was hit with a piece of wood. But the occupiers say they were attacked and they defended themselves. The incident took place as a representative from the Confederacy was already trying to work out a deal with the developer. Today, Mohawk Chief Allen McNaughton, lead negotiator for the Six Nations Confederacy at maintable talks, strongly denounced the actions of those who were involved in the attack saying “The Confederacy sends its regrets to Mr. Gualtieri (GUL'-ter-ree) and family. The actions of a few protesters are not condoned or supported by the Confederacy.” McNaughton also said that the residents from Six Nations that went to the site were never asked to go there by his council. In the meantime, a deal has been reached with the developer of the project for demonstrators to leave the property and McNaughton said that any residents who were still at the site were there on their own. He said “The incident is being fully investigated by our people and we have been in contact with the police. It’s also expected that they will be

meeting with them this evening. Chief McNaughton also asked for everyone to remain calm after it was heard that there may be demonstrations held by Caledonia residents. Mr. Gualtieri (GUL'-ter-ree) remains in hospital in serious condition.

[Posit]

Really, what government are you referring to? Present or past?

Both. They have lied at the negotiation table and falsified the records they have been presenting as historical fact and when confronted about their fake documents their answer is "we need more time...."

Canada is not acting in good faith.

Is that the beat them til their unconscious processs? Yeah, that's brilliant!

Of course you are only getting information from media whores right now. How about waiting until the facts are in? From what I have heard, the builder and his two sons tried to evict the protesters and ended up receiving the worst of it. The Development process created by the Confederacy runs above the Ontario - municipal processes and provides more strict guidelines for those builders who want to move forward. Those who do not want to go forward or those that do not want to follow the process get stopped completely. In this particular case the main developer was in the process of making an agreement to stop building when this rogue sub-builder took the matter into his own hands.

[AngusThermopyle]

Of course you are only getting information from media whores right now. How about waiting until the facts are in? From what I have heard, the builder and his two sons tried to evict the protesters and ended up receiving the worst of it. The Development process created by the Confederacy runs above the Ontario - municipal processes and provides more strict guidelines for those builders who want to move forward. Those who do not want to go forward or those that do not want to follow the process get stopped completely. In this particular case the main developer was in the process of making an agreement to stop building when this rogue sub-builder took the matter into his own hands.

What a crock of apologist sh*t. Once again the noble Natives are being characterized unfairly, they did absolutely nothing wrong, sure. Caledonia is nothing more than a mockery, an opportunity for some thugs to flaunt the law, all laws.

No matter how much you want to believe these "people" are noble and peacefull the reality of the situation does not bear that conclusion out.

You should check out some of the pictures from Caledonia. I guess it must be the resident Caledonians who are burning stuff to the ground and vandalizing their own property, just for fun.

[kimmy]

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

I guess it all depends how "indigenous" is defined.

I have a suspicion that the definition of "indigenous" probably boils down to (more or less) "whoever was here before Whitey showed up," which would create an obvious quandary in Europe.

If it's not the "whoever was here before Whitey" definition, then how long must a group occupy a piece of land to for it to be considered their traditional home, and what characteristics define such a group?

-k

{wondering how many different ways supporters of this can find to explain away the racial distinction being made.}

[kimmy]

Of course you are only getting information from media whores right now. How about waiting until the facts are in? From what I have heard, the builder and his two sons tried to evict the protesters and ended up receiving the worst of it. The Development process created by the Confederacy runs above the Ontario - municipal processes and provides more strict guidelines for those builders who want to move forward. Those who do not want to go forward or those that do not want to follow the process get stopped completely. In this particular case the main developer was in the process of making an agreement to stop building when this rogue sub-builder took the matter into his own hands.

But according to Jennie, Chief McNaughton already said that the protesters who were at the site were the "rogues":

Today, Mohawk Chief Allen McNaughton, lead negotiator for the Six Nations Confederacy at maintable talks, strongly denounced the actions of those who were involved in the attack saying “The Confederacy sends its regrets to Mr. Gualtieri (GUL'-ter-ree) and family. The actions of a few protesters are not condoned or supported by the Confederacy.” McNaughton also said that the residents from Six Nations that went to the site were never asked to go there by his council. In the meantime, a deal has been reached with the developer of the project for demonstrators to leave the property and McNaughton said that any residents who were still at the site were there on their own.

-k

[kimmy]

Traditionally owned. What a crock. How can a group numbering only a few thousand claim to own 8.9 MILLION acres?

Waitwaitwait, the entirety of the City of Ottawa is enclosed within this landclaim?

That's hilarious! I hope it succeeds. I look forward to seeing what comes of this. The RCMP being kicked off of Parliament Hill and replaced with Band police, MPs flashing fake treaty cards so they can buy cheap gas, Senators games being rescheduled to unrestricted ceremonial ice-fishing at center ice, the band council declaring the entire National Capital Region to be a Dry community... the potential for zany hijinks is utterly limitless. I am writing a "treatment" for a CBC sit-com based on the idea at this very moment!

-k

[kimmy]

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.

Ok, are they Canadians, not quite Canadians, or people from some other sovereign nation who just happen to live amongst us?

As Dancer asks, if they're not Canadians, why do they get to vote in our elections?

If they're Canadians, can you cite specific instances in which they do not have "equal rights for all Canadians"?

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.

well, you keep saying they're not "extra" rights and that everybody has them, but I don't think other Canadians have carte-blanche rights to natural resources, or a virtual veto over government projects, or so-on.

You keep saying the government has to consult with the natives before doing anything on land that's under dispute... well? The entire province of BC is claimed by some band or another, and often overlapping. So the province of BC should cease building any road or anything else?

-k

[Riverwind]

But according to Jennie, Chief McNaughton already said that the protesters who were at the site were the "rogues":

In 150 years these rogues will be the 'elders' who were viciously attacked by local residents. The descendents of the Six Nations will absolutely deny the words of Chief McNaughton and claim that they were fabrications by the government and evidence of massive fraud for which entitles them tyo $100 trillion in compensation.

So tell me again. Why should we believe Six Nations claims about what happened in 1837?

Edited September 15, 2007 by Riverwind