History is made!
New Zealand reverses opposition to U.N. Declaration on Indigenous Rights, U.S. reviewing stance
Kenneth Deer
Exclusive to Turtle Island News
UNITED NATIONS NEW YORK, N.Y.-The government of New Zealand announced its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Monday at the opening ceremonies of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
New Zealand was one of the four governments that voted against the Declaration on September 13, 2007, along with Canada, Australia and the United States. This is good news for all Indigenous Peoples around the world as the Declaration becomes more and more entrenched in the UN system and supported by more states. Now that it changed its vote, and with Australia already endorsing the Declaration, that leaves Canada and the United States. Canada has announced in the recent Throne Speech that it intends to endorse the Declaration but when that will happen is not clear. The next possible date would be June 21st on Canada's National Aboriginal Day. That would leave the United States as the only country in the UN that has not endorsed the Declaration.
Sunday, April 25, 2010 - 11:54 AM
Turtle Island News
http://www.theturtleislandnews.com/
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
25 April 2010
09 July 2006
MNN on UN DRIP
UN "Rip-Off" Declaration of Indigenous Rights
MNN. July 4, 2006. Who do they think they're kidding? This is a rip-off of Indigenous people! Nothing less is acceptable to us Rotino'shon:ni / Iroquois than full acceptance into the UN as a nation equal to all the others. Otherwise, it's just a lot of "hot air" to stop us from getting in.
We are still under forced "colonial rule".
Who do we complain to when the UN violates us? We know we are being set up to be undermined even more. The UN is controlled by the multinational corporations. It looks like they're setting up a "World Indigenous Affairs" to control us, our lands and our resources. Conspicuously missing from this declaration is any acknowledgement of the fact that many of the United Nations members are still occupying territory stolen from Indigenous People through the oppressive colonial processes, which are still going on [and not being stopped by the UN]. Otherwise, they'd get off our land and go home. Why on earth does the UN need to say that Indigenous people have a right to be "citizens" of the states that's oppressing them and ripping them off? That's because the UN refuses to admit that they have recognized a whole lot of colonial states that have taken over Indigenous people's countries.
We still don't have any say, except maybe in an advisory capacity, with no way to enforce any violations. We can say "shame, shame on you" which doesn't bother the the thick-skinned insensitive parasites called colonizers. We have to accept submission to a colonial state in order to be heard. Control over us will be so far away that we can't even see it. They hope no one else will either. They won't respect our title to Turtle Island. It's just another layer of bureaucracy for us to plow through so we can have the edifying experience of being snubbed once more. [they'll have their feet on a clean empty desk and tell us, "That's not my department. You'll have to go across the globe to talk to so and so"].
The bottom line is we have to be compliant or we'll be ignored. What we're getting here is a watered down version of all our rights that are supposed to be in all the other UN conventions that are already being ignored. We have news for you, we are people too! Are the Rotino'shon:ni / Iroquois in fact being set back? We should declare that we do not go along with this counterfeit they call a "Declaration of Indigneous Human Rights". We want Canada and the U.S. to live up to the original relationship with us which is nation-to-nation. We don't want to become citizens of their states. It's a puff of smoke and a hall of mirrors, reflecting the same old colonial game.
Let's explain some of what the "Plain language" version of the Draft Declaration put out by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission really says.
It deals with self-determination, culture and language, education, health, housing, employment, land and resources, environment and development, intellectual and cultural property, indigenous law and treaties and agreements with governments.
We're seeing that there will be no nation-to-nation relationship which is the only way that the issues can be resolved. This is the only way there's a chance they can understand our ways of thinking.
The "plain language" version is intended to help indigenous communities, organisations and the general public understand the Draft Declaration.
It is actually insulting to our intelligence. It seems to assume that none of us are smart enough to understand this baffle gab. For indigenous people who are rooted to the soil, it's astounding to think that we have any more rights just because they say we have a right to a "country". This suggests we can be displaced.
The preamble lists some of the reasons, which led the United Nations to develop a declaration on indigenous peoples' rights. They want recognition of their rights as distinct peoples, including the right to self-determination, and the right to control development of their societies.
Do we need them to give us this "human right"? No! It's as human as the will to live. Self-determination is part of nature. It's the reason why the thistle seed grows into a thistle. It's the reason why a chicken egg hatches a chicken and not a lizard. Do they expect with this declaration that a lamb will grow into a jackass?
Rejection of the view that some peoples are better than others as racist and wrong.
We never thought or accepted that anyone was better than us. Oppression is a state of mine and it was enforced at gunpoint, with swords, cutlasses, ropes, chains, instruments of torture, laws, theft and economic monopolies.
Colonisation - indigenous peoples have been deprived of their human rights and freedoms and this has led to their colonisation and the taking of their land.
We still have title to our land but we're occupied. Colonization is a hoax enforced at gun point. We don't need fancy words. They just need to stop stepping on our feet and get off our land.
Respect - Recognition of the urgent need to respect the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly their rights to their land and resources.
No guarantee here. By the way, did they remember to mention they've taken everything and they don't think the resources are ours? If they really wanted to respect our resources, they'd give us our places at the table with all the other nations and conglomerations of lost souls.
Indigenous Organisations - indigenous peoples are getting together to end discrimination and oppression.
Now here is a real contradiction. If all people are equal, how could it make on jot of difference what the chosen few who get to speak at the UN dictate? The UN cannot end oppression and discrimination from above. It is their very concept of hierarchy that creates oppression. If they want to end their violations of human rights, they have to start behaving respectfully, give up all they've stolen from us and stop dictating to us. Invite us to help them to overcome their illnesses and delusions. It's like a drug addiction. There's no point in writing fine declarations of intent. You either kick the drug or you don't. The first step to overcoming addictions is to acknowledge that you have a problem. We don't see any acknowledgement here.
Environment - respect for indigenous peoples' knowledge can contribute to fair and lasting development and better management of the environment.
"Fair and lasting developing"! What do they mean by this? Last time we looked, their concept of development meant destroying the environment as we know it. If they're serious about respecting Indigenous people, they should set up a plan to restore the environment to the state it was in when they vandalized and stole it. Hey! Has anyone noticed the glaring omission in this document? There is not one word of remorse or apology for colonialism and there isn't even an announcement that it's over.
Fundamental Rights
Article 1: Human Rights - Indigenous peoples have the right to all the human rights and freedoms recognized in international law.
Who's going to enforce this and how? Here's another conspicuous absence. The colonial states that belong to the UN have proved themselves to be notoriously negligent in the past when it comes to restraining its citizens from violating our rights. Their response has generally been to legalize the violations that were committed. In fact, they are still claiming sovereignty over us on the basis of theft and murder by their citizens.
Article 2: Equality - Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples. They must be free from discrimination.
Statements like this actually serve to validate and reinforce the old way of looking at things. Instead of acting on the ideals they profess and inviting us to the table as equals, they just announce that we should be treated as equals and leave us shut out in the cold. What's the big deal? Are they afraid that if they sit beside us to eat an apple, that somehow they wont be fed?
Article 3: Self-determination - Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination.
This is a gross attempt to usurp the power of nature. All people are born as they were conceived. All have a right to be, whether or not anyone cares to pronounce on the matter. No one can give anyone else the right to self-determination. It is an innate instinct that asserts itself even before birth and continues when we take our first breath. The pine seed produces a pine tree. A human produces a human. Do they think that any palaver at the UN is going to change that?
This means they can choose their political status and the way they want to develop.
Here's a piece of two-face hypocrisy. We Mohawks have chosen our status as nations equal to others. Our confederacy applied for membership in the League of Nations in 1923 and also for membership in the United Nations. But we haven't even been allowed to present our case. How does this qualify as "free choice of our political status"? As a matter of fact, we are being attacked over this very issue at Six Nations right now.
Article 4: Distinct Characteristics - Indigenous peoples have the right to keep and develop their distinct characteristics and systems of law. How can we do this when the colonists have illegally forced their system of subjugation over us and our land?"
We want our original jurisdiction over our land, ourselves, our resources and so on which we never gave up according to international law.
They also have the right, if they want, to take part in the life of the rest of the country.
Yeah. It's always been that way. We've heard of this before. It's called "assimilation" or "civilization" depending on which generation is saying it. What about our right to be left alone with our possessions? This has not been respected. To become Canadians! Is this held out as a privilege, to become a sell-out colonist? We constantly rejected this and they still don't get it. Canadians don't want to be Americans!
Article 5: Citizenship - Every indigenous person has the right to be a citizen of a country.
Just a minute! That's what we're fighting against. We are citizens of our own nations. Yet we are still being forced to become citizens of foreign colonial societies. A "Citizen" is a "freeman of a city". Why would we want to live in cities when we are rooted in the land of our ancestors?
There is much disagreement over what self-determination means. Indigenous peoples base their claims to self-determination on the fact that they were the first peoples in their territories.
What's wrong with that? Self-determination means the right of indigenous peoples to choose their political status and to make decision about their own development. Determined by who? No, we base self-determination on our essential belongingness to nature. We have the same right to self-determination as an oak tree to a newt. And we don't intend to start laying dinasaur eggs
Some governments reject the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination or try to limit its scope. They are fearful of independence movements and the possibility of national disintegration.
Why should colonists continue their oppressions and theft of everything of ours in their sight? Well, the one thing they forget is that if a nation is a nation, they remain a nation, no matter what! A pine forest will not become a flock of geese. (Though at this point this declaration seems about to produce a bucket of vomit).
Indigenous representatives at the UN consider this view to be racist and discriminatory. The UN Charter and the main human rights instruments state self-determination as a right of all peoples.
Aw, shut up!
Article 6: existence - Indigenous peoples have the right to live in freedom, peace and security.
Even if we're in one of your colonial jails for defending these very freedoms as so many of us are? Can we reclaim our stolen possessions? Is that possible? Or is that another jail term for us?
They must be free from genocide and other acts of violence.
How will this stop Canada from attacking us for justly reclaiming our land, from listening to our phone conversation and interfering with our emails just for telling it like it is?
Governments shall prevent the taking of their land and resources.
Like Canada helping DeBeers Diamonds and other resource development companies to steal from and destroy Northern communities like Kashechewan. The Crees are being removed from their land and being brutalized for not going along with DeBeers and Canada's theft from their traditional territory. They have been removed from their communities by coercion.
Writing about this piece of trash called the Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights is getting boring. Everyone gets the general idea that the United Nations wants to maintain colonialism, does not want to stop the genocide by respecting our constitutional jurisdiction over our land, does not want to respect our title and rights over all our land and resources, will not stop states from forcing their laws and taxation of our labor and goods on us and our land. Our people will continue to be killed, jailed and vilified for standing up for our inherent powers to our sovereignty, lands and resources.
In other words, they will not recognize our nations as equal to any other in the world and will not make the colonists deal with us on a nation-to-nation basis. Yes, they will let us do our songs, chants, dances and wear our "customs" for their entertainment. Our cultural property, Turtle Island, will continue to be occupied and environmentally devastated by the colonizers.
This is a whitewash to help the corporate takeover of the world. It's a distraction and a red herring. What they're really doing is depriving more and more people and putting us into subordinate positions. It's stopping people from noticing what's really going on. They've created a delusion so no one will notice that we are one of the last little problems that need to be "cleaned up" and put in our place.
The bottom line is that real legality is not coercive. It means that everybody has to be on the same page. This is a document meant to work under the coercive laws of the colonizers. If there was a real intention to decolonize and to treat us as equal human beings, it would not take this form. We would be told about the "big" meetings that are happening and would be invited to sit at the table as equal nations of the world.
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
kahentinetha AT mohawknationnews.com
via: Native News North
List info (all lists)
Archived: Sun Jul 9, 2006 5:58 pm
MNN. July 4, 2006. Who do they think they're kidding? This is a rip-off of Indigenous people! Nothing less is acceptable to us Rotino'shon:ni / Iroquois than full acceptance into the UN as a nation equal to all the others. Otherwise, it's just a lot of "hot air" to stop us from getting in.
We are still under forced "colonial rule".
Who do we complain to when the UN violates us? We know we are being set up to be undermined even more. The UN is controlled by the multinational corporations. It looks like they're setting up a "World Indigenous Affairs" to control us, our lands and our resources. Conspicuously missing from this declaration is any acknowledgement of the fact that many of the United Nations members are still occupying territory stolen from Indigenous People through the oppressive colonial processes, which are still going on [and not being stopped by the UN]. Otherwise, they'd get off our land and go home. Why on earth does the UN need to say that Indigenous people have a right to be "citizens" of the states that's oppressing them and ripping them off? That's because the UN refuses to admit that they have recognized a whole lot of colonial states that have taken over Indigenous people's countries.
We still don't have any say, except maybe in an advisory capacity, with no way to enforce any violations. We can say "shame, shame on you" which doesn't bother the the thick-skinned insensitive parasites called colonizers. We have to accept submission to a colonial state in order to be heard. Control over us will be so far away that we can't even see it. They hope no one else will either. They won't respect our title to Turtle Island. It's just another layer of bureaucracy for us to plow through so we can have the edifying experience of being snubbed once more. [they'll have their feet on a clean empty desk and tell us, "That's not my department. You'll have to go across the globe to talk to so and so"].
The bottom line is we have to be compliant or we'll be ignored. What we're getting here is a watered down version of all our rights that are supposed to be in all the other UN conventions that are already being ignored. We have news for you, we are people too! Are the Rotino'shon:ni / Iroquois in fact being set back? We should declare that we do not go along with this counterfeit they call a "Declaration of Indigneous Human Rights". We want Canada and the U.S. to live up to the original relationship with us which is nation-to-nation. We don't want to become citizens of their states. It's a puff of smoke and a hall of mirrors, reflecting the same old colonial game.
Let's explain some of what the "Plain language" version of the Draft Declaration put out by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission really says.
It deals with self-determination, culture and language, education, health, housing, employment, land and resources, environment and development, intellectual and cultural property, indigenous law and treaties and agreements with governments.
We're seeing that there will be no nation-to-nation relationship which is the only way that the issues can be resolved. This is the only way there's a chance they can understand our ways of thinking.
The "plain language" version is intended to help indigenous communities, organisations and the general public understand the Draft Declaration.
It is actually insulting to our intelligence. It seems to assume that none of us are smart enough to understand this baffle gab. For indigenous people who are rooted to the soil, it's astounding to think that we have any more rights just because they say we have a right to a "country". This suggests we can be displaced.
The preamble lists some of the reasons, which led the United Nations to develop a declaration on indigenous peoples' rights. They want recognition of their rights as distinct peoples, including the right to self-determination, and the right to control development of their societies.
Do we need them to give us this "human right"? No! It's as human as the will to live. Self-determination is part of nature. It's the reason why the thistle seed grows into a thistle. It's the reason why a chicken egg hatches a chicken and not a lizard. Do they expect with this declaration that a lamb will grow into a jackass?
Rejection of the view that some peoples are better than others as racist and wrong.
We never thought or accepted that anyone was better than us. Oppression is a state of mine and it was enforced at gunpoint, with swords, cutlasses, ropes, chains, instruments of torture, laws, theft and economic monopolies.
Colonisation - indigenous peoples have been deprived of their human rights and freedoms and this has led to their colonisation and the taking of their land.
We still have title to our land but we're occupied. Colonization is a hoax enforced at gun point. We don't need fancy words. They just need to stop stepping on our feet and get off our land.
Respect - Recognition of the urgent need to respect the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly their rights to their land and resources.
No guarantee here. By the way, did they remember to mention they've taken everything and they don't think the resources are ours? If they really wanted to respect our resources, they'd give us our places at the table with all the other nations and conglomerations of lost souls.
Indigenous Organisations - indigenous peoples are getting together to end discrimination and oppression.
Now here is a real contradiction. If all people are equal, how could it make on jot of difference what the chosen few who get to speak at the UN dictate? The UN cannot end oppression and discrimination from above. It is their very concept of hierarchy that creates oppression. If they want to end their violations of human rights, they have to start behaving respectfully, give up all they've stolen from us and stop dictating to us. Invite us to help them to overcome their illnesses and delusions. It's like a drug addiction. There's no point in writing fine declarations of intent. You either kick the drug or you don't. The first step to overcoming addictions is to acknowledge that you have a problem. We don't see any acknowledgement here.
Environment - respect for indigenous peoples' knowledge can contribute to fair and lasting development and better management of the environment.
"Fair and lasting developing"! What do they mean by this? Last time we looked, their concept of development meant destroying the environment as we know it. If they're serious about respecting Indigenous people, they should set up a plan to restore the environment to the state it was in when they vandalized and stole it. Hey! Has anyone noticed the glaring omission in this document? There is not one word of remorse or apology for colonialism and there isn't even an announcement that it's over.
Fundamental Rights
Article 1: Human Rights - Indigenous peoples have the right to all the human rights and freedoms recognized in international law.
Who's going to enforce this and how? Here's another conspicuous absence. The colonial states that belong to the UN have proved themselves to be notoriously negligent in the past when it comes to restraining its citizens from violating our rights. Their response has generally been to legalize the violations that were committed. In fact, they are still claiming sovereignty over us on the basis of theft and murder by their citizens.
Article 2: Equality - Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples. They must be free from discrimination.
Statements like this actually serve to validate and reinforce the old way of looking at things. Instead of acting on the ideals they profess and inviting us to the table as equals, they just announce that we should be treated as equals and leave us shut out in the cold. What's the big deal? Are they afraid that if they sit beside us to eat an apple, that somehow they wont be fed?
Article 3: Self-determination - Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination.
This is a gross attempt to usurp the power of nature. All people are born as they were conceived. All have a right to be, whether or not anyone cares to pronounce on the matter. No one can give anyone else the right to self-determination. It is an innate instinct that asserts itself even before birth and continues when we take our first breath. The pine seed produces a pine tree. A human produces a human. Do they think that any palaver at the UN is going to change that?
This means they can choose their political status and the way they want to develop.
Here's a piece of two-face hypocrisy. We Mohawks have chosen our status as nations equal to others. Our confederacy applied for membership in the League of Nations in 1923 and also for membership in the United Nations. But we haven't even been allowed to present our case. How does this qualify as "free choice of our political status"? As a matter of fact, we are being attacked over this very issue at Six Nations right now.
Article 4: Distinct Characteristics - Indigenous peoples have the right to keep and develop their distinct characteristics and systems of law. How can we do this when the colonists have illegally forced their system of subjugation over us and our land?"
We want our original jurisdiction over our land, ourselves, our resources and so on which we never gave up according to international law.
They also have the right, if they want, to take part in the life of the rest of the country.
Yeah. It's always been that way. We've heard of this before. It's called "assimilation" or "civilization" depending on which generation is saying it. What about our right to be left alone with our possessions? This has not been respected. To become Canadians! Is this held out as a privilege, to become a sell-out colonist? We constantly rejected this and they still don't get it. Canadians don't want to be Americans!
Article 5: Citizenship - Every indigenous person has the right to be a citizen of a country.
Just a minute! That's what we're fighting against. We are citizens of our own nations. Yet we are still being forced to become citizens of foreign colonial societies. A "Citizen" is a "freeman of a city". Why would we want to live in cities when we are rooted in the land of our ancestors?
There is much disagreement over what self-determination means. Indigenous peoples base their claims to self-determination on the fact that they were the first peoples in their territories.
What's wrong with that? Self-determination means the right of indigenous peoples to choose their political status and to make decision about their own development. Determined by who? No, we base self-determination on our essential belongingness to nature. We have the same right to self-determination as an oak tree to a newt. And we don't intend to start laying dinasaur eggs
Some governments reject the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination or try to limit its scope. They are fearful of independence movements and the possibility of national disintegration.
Why should colonists continue their oppressions and theft of everything of ours in their sight? Well, the one thing they forget is that if a nation is a nation, they remain a nation, no matter what! A pine forest will not become a flock of geese. (Though at this point this declaration seems about to produce a bucket of vomit).
Indigenous representatives at the UN consider this view to be racist and discriminatory. The UN Charter and the main human rights instruments state self-determination as a right of all peoples.
Aw, shut up!
Article 6: existence - Indigenous peoples have the right to live in freedom, peace and security.
Even if we're in one of your colonial jails for defending these very freedoms as so many of us are? Can we reclaim our stolen possessions? Is that possible? Or is that another jail term for us?
They must be free from genocide and other acts of violence.
How will this stop Canada from attacking us for justly reclaiming our land, from listening to our phone conversation and interfering with our emails just for telling it like it is?
Governments shall prevent the taking of their land and resources.
Like Canada helping DeBeers Diamonds and other resource development companies to steal from and destroy Northern communities like Kashechewan. The Crees are being removed from their land and being brutalized for not going along with DeBeers and Canada's theft from their traditional territory. They have been removed from their communities by coercion.
Writing about this piece of trash called the Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights is getting boring. Everyone gets the general idea that the United Nations wants to maintain colonialism, does not want to stop the genocide by respecting our constitutional jurisdiction over our land, does not want to respect our title and rights over all our land and resources, will not stop states from forcing their laws and taxation of our labor and goods on us and our land. Our people will continue to be killed, jailed and vilified for standing up for our inherent powers to our sovereignty, lands and resources.
In other words, they will not recognize our nations as equal to any other in the world and will not make the colonists deal with us on a nation-to-nation basis. Yes, they will let us do our songs, chants, dances and wear our "customs" for their entertainment. Our cultural property, Turtle Island, will continue to be occupied and environmentally devastated by the colonizers.
This is a whitewash to help the corporate takeover of the world. It's a distraction and a red herring. What they're really doing is depriving more and more people and putting us into subordinate positions. It's stopping people from noticing what's really going on. They've created a delusion so no one will notice that we are one of the last little problems that need to be "cleaned up" and put in our place.
The bottom line is that real legality is not coercive. It means that everybody has to be on the same page. This is a document meant to work under the coercive laws of the colonizers. If there was a real intention to decolonize and to treat us as equal human beings, it would not take this form. We would be told about the "big" meetings that are happening and would be invited to sit at the table as equal nations of the world.
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
kahentinetha AT mohawknationnews.com
via: Native News North
List info (all lists)
Archived: Sun Jul 9, 2006 5:58 pm
30 June 2006
AFN: Draft DRIP Moves Forward
ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS
Transmitted by CNW Group on : June 29, 2006 16:08
Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Moves Forward
Despite Canadian Government Interference
OTTAWA, June 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Indigenous peoples and human rights organizations in Canada are welcoming the historic decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council to back the adoption of the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
However, these organizations also expressed their deep frustration and disappointment with the Canadian government's efforts to stall this much-needed and long overdue human rights instrument. Canada called the vote as a pre-emptive move against the Declaration's passage, but in the end Canada was one of only two countries to vote against the Declaration.
Instead, the Council voted to bring the proposed Declaration forward for possible adoption by the UN General Assembly later this year. The vote was 30 in favour and 2 against (with 12 abstentions and 3 absent).
"Canada's opposition to the Declaration has soured the first meeting of the Human Rights Council," says Beverly Jacobs, President of the Native Women's Association of Canada. "The Council was created in the hope that states would set aside domestic considerations and work impartially to advance the human rights of all. It's a bitter disappointment that Canada would mar the very first session by openly pursuing a dubious domestic agenda."
The Canadian government was an active participant in the Working Group that drafted the current text and, in recent years, had a played a critical role in building state support for the principles of the draft Declaration. The current government has tried to explain its sudden opposition by claiming that some provisions of the Declaration are incompatible with Canadian law. It has not provided any substantiation of this claim. Canada had failed also in an earlier attempt to bring forward a counter-resolution to have the decision on the Declaration delayed so it could be re-opened for further negotiation. All of these moves damage Canada's international reputation as a leader in Indigenous and human rights.
Indigenous peoples' organizations that have participated in the Working Group point out that not only is the Declaration a non-binding, aspirational statement that would not override any domestic laws, it also contains specific assurances, introduced by Canada, that its provisions must be interpreted in a fair and balanced manner that respects basic principles of human rights, democratic society and good government.
"We are outraged that Canada would demonstrate such bad faith in opposing a text that it helped write," says Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada "It is even more astounding that Canada would then try to persuade other states that another round of negotiations is needed. It was fortunate - though embarrassing for all Canadians - that Canada quickly found itself isolated on a Council that was prepared to move forward with a principled defence of Indigenous peoples' human rights."
Strong international support for the Declaration is an important step forward in countering the widespread racism and discrimination that threatens the survival and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide. The draft Declaration clearly affirms that Indigenous peoples must not be arbitrarily denied the right of self-determination, which is recognized in international law as a universal right of all peoples. The Declaration also affirms diverse rights regarding lands, territories and resources that are essential to the cultural identities of Indigenous peoples and the fulfillment of their basic human rights.
"This is an historic day for Indigenous peoples around the globe," said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine. "We are grateful that the Council has recognized the importance and urgency of moving ahead with human rights protections for Indigenous peoples. It is very unfortunate that in trying to stand in the way of the Declaration, Canada has done so much harm to its credibility and influence on a Council that it worked so hard to create."
Transmitted by CNW Group on : June 29, 2006 16:08
Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Moves Forward
Despite Canadian Government Interference
OTTAWA, June 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Indigenous peoples and human rights organizations in Canada are welcoming the historic decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council to back the adoption of the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
However, these organizations also expressed their deep frustration and disappointment with the Canadian government's efforts to stall this much-needed and long overdue human rights instrument. Canada called the vote as a pre-emptive move against the Declaration's passage, but in the end Canada was one of only two countries to vote against the Declaration.
Instead, the Council voted to bring the proposed Declaration forward for possible adoption by the UN General Assembly later this year. The vote was 30 in favour and 2 against (with 12 abstentions and 3 absent).
"Canada's opposition to the Declaration has soured the first meeting of the Human Rights Council," says Beverly Jacobs, President of the Native Women's Association of Canada. "The Council was created in the hope that states would set aside domestic considerations and work impartially to advance the human rights of all. It's a bitter disappointment that Canada would mar the very first session by openly pursuing a dubious domestic agenda."
The Canadian government was an active participant in the Working Group that drafted the current text and, in recent years, had a played a critical role in building state support for the principles of the draft Declaration. The current government has tried to explain its sudden opposition by claiming that some provisions of the Declaration are incompatible with Canadian law. It has not provided any substantiation of this claim. Canada had failed also in an earlier attempt to bring forward a counter-resolution to have the decision on the Declaration delayed so it could be re-opened for further negotiation. All of these moves damage Canada's international reputation as a leader in Indigenous and human rights.
Indigenous peoples' organizations that have participated in the Working Group point out that not only is the Declaration a non-binding, aspirational statement that would not override any domestic laws, it also contains specific assurances, introduced by Canada, that its provisions must be interpreted in a fair and balanced manner that respects basic principles of human rights, democratic society and good government.
"We are outraged that Canada would demonstrate such bad faith in opposing a text that it helped write," says Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada "It is even more astounding that Canada would then try to persuade other states that another round of negotiations is needed. It was fortunate - though embarrassing for all Canadians - that Canada quickly found itself isolated on a Council that was prepared to move forward with a principled defence of Indigenous peoples' human rights."
Strong international support for the Declaration is an important step forward in countering the widespread racism and discrimination that threatens the survival and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide. The draft Declaration clearly affirms that Indigenous peoples must not be arbitrarily denied the right of self-determination, which is recognized in international law as a universal right of all peoples. The Declaration also affirms diverse rights regarding lands, territories and resources that are essential to the cultural identities of Indigenous peoples and the fulfillment of their basic human rights.
"This is an historic day for Indigenous peoples around the globe," said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine. "We are grateful that the Council has recognized the importance and urgency of moving ahead with human rights protections for Indigenous peoples. It is very unfortunate that in trying to stand in the way of the Declaration, Canada has done so much harm to its credibility and influence on a Council that it worked so hard to create."
The Declaration has been under development for more than two decades. The current proposal, which emerged from an 11-year-long Working Group process, has been endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People and by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. It has also been supported by a wide range of states worldwide, including states such as Norway and Denmark which, like Canada, have a history of negotiation and treaty-making with Indigenous peoples.
Source: Native News North
Info (all lists)
29 June 2006
UN overrides Canada over native rights
UN overrides Canada over native rights
Associated Press
Published: Thursday, June 29, 2006
GENEVA -- The new UN Human Rights Council on Thursday overrode Canadian and Russian objections and passed a declaration to protect the rights of native peoples around the world, including an assertion that they have a possible right to restitution for land and resources taken from them.
By 30-2 vote, the body approved the declaration that said indigenous people should be free from discrimination and that they have a right "to consider themselves different and to be respected as such." A dozen countries abstained and three were absent.
A coalition of indigenous people who had been campaigning heavily in favour of passage had complained that Canada, a former supporter of the declaration, had switched sides after the Conservative party ousted the Liberals earlier this year.
They said Canada thus joined the United States, Australia and New Zealand -- all countries with significant native populations -- in opposing the declaration. The U.S., Australia and New Zealand, however, have no vote because they are not members of the 47-nation council, which began its first session last week.
The council replaced the widely discredited 53-country UN Human Rights Commission.
© Associated Press 2006
Source
Archived: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:57 pm
Associated Press
Published: Thursday, June 29, 2006
GENEVA -- The new UN Human Rights Council on Thursday overrode Canadian and Russian objections and passed a declaration to protect the rights of native peoples around the world, including an assertion that they have a possible right to restitution for land and resources taken from them.
By 30-2 vote, the body approved the declaration that said indigenous people should be free from discrimination and that they have a right "to consider themselves different and to be respected as such." A dozen countries abstained and three were absent.
A coalition of indigenous people who had been campaigning heavily in favour of passage had complained that Canada, a former supporter of the declaration, had switched sides after the Conservative party ousted the Liberals earlier this year.
They said Canada thus joined the United States, Australia and New Zealand -- all countries with significant native populations -- in opposing the declaration. The U.S., Australia and New Zealand, however, have no vote because they are not members of the 47-nation council, which began its first session last week.
The council replaced the widely discredited 53-country UN Human Rights Commission.
© Associated Press 2006
Source
Archived: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:57 pm
20 June 2006
Canada opposes UN
Canada opposes UN aboriginal treaty
Last Updated Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:28:01 EDT
CBC News
Canada is threatening to scuttle a United Nations declaration that would enshrine the rights of aboriginal people worldwide.
The United Nation's Human Rights Council in Geneva is expected to hold a vote on the treaty before the end of the month, but the Conservative government is one of several that feels the language is too all-encompassing.
Other nations opposing the declaration also have significant aboriginal populations - for example, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
"It contains provisions that are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter," said Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Jim Prentice said of the deal. "It contains provisions that are inconsistent with the Constitution Act of 1982. It's quite inconsistent with land-claims policies under which Canada negotiates claims."
Prentice said the document would hinder land-claims talks with some aboriginal bands on handing over rights to exploit resources. He said Canada would vote against the document if it remained unchanged.
The Assembly of First Nations and Amnesty International were quick to criticize the government for delaying a document they said has already taken 20 years to craft.
"We feel that there's been sufficient discussion, and let's get on with the declaration and let's have the international community acknowledge the rights of the indigenous peoples," said Agnes Toulouse, Ontario Regional Chief.
The declaration is not legally binding, but rather, would be a symbolic gesture that shows countries support the sovereign rights of aboriginal people.
In a joint statement last month, the United States, Australia and New Zealand rejected the assertion that aboriginal people have the right to "self-determination," saying it was inconsistent with international law.
Source
Archived: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:29 pm
Last Updated Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:28:01 EDT
CBC News
Canada is threatening to scuttle a United Nations declaration that would enshrine the rights of aboriginal people worldwide.
The United Nation's Human Rights Council in Geneva is expected to hold a vote on the treaty before the end of the month, but the Conservative government is one of several that feels the language is too all-encompassing.
Other nations opposing the declaration also have significant aboriginal populations - for example, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
"It contains provisions that are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter," said Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Jim Prentice said of the deal. "It contains provisions that are inconsistent with the Constitution Act of 1982. It's quite inconsistent with land-claims policies under which Canada negotiates claims."
Prentice said the document would hinder land-claims talks with some aboriginal bands on handing over rights to exploit resources. He said Canada would vote against the document if it remained unchanged.
The Assembly of First Nations and Amnesty International were quick to criticize the government for delaying a document they said has already taken 20 years to craft.
"We feel that there's been sufficient discussion, and let's get on with the declaration and let's have the international community acknowledge the rights of the indigenous peoples," said Agnes Toulouse, Ontario Regional Chief.
The declaration is not legally binding, but rather, would be a symbolic gesture that shows countries support the sovereign rights of aboriginal people.
In a joint statement last month, the United States, Australia and New Zealand rejected the assertion that aboriginal people have the right to "self-determination," saying it was inconsistent with international law.
Source
Archived: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:29 pm
Canada said stalling declaration
Canada said stalling aboriginal rights declaration
Jun. 19, 2006
SYLVAIN LAROCQUE
CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL -- Canada has teamed with the United States and Australia to stop the United Nations from passing a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, says Amnesty International.
The human rights group, along with opposition parties, accused the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday of stalling the declaration along with these other nations.
It's been twenty years that the international community has been working on a declaration on aboriginal rights," said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada.
"It's difficult to imagine an important issue of human rights that the governments of the world have taken more time to resolve," Neve said Monday. "The problem of the human rights of indigenous peoples is urgent," said Angus Toulouse, president of the Assembly of First Nations.
"It's not necessary for the rights of these people to come in second place in order to please the United States, New Zealand and Australia." Last month, representatives of those three countries sent out a joint statement calling the declaration "profoundly imperfect."
The UN declaration would guarantee "auto-determination" for indigenous peoples, giving them the right to reclaim traditional territory and refuse military activity upon traditional lands.
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said the declaration contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it comes to aboriginal land claims, as well federal laws on national defence.
"The text is clearly in need of work," Prentice said.
But "we support the adoption of a declaration on the rights of aboriginal peoples and we're working on that."
The UN's new council on human rights will consider the declaration at a meeting that began Monday and will last through to June 30.
First Nations and Amnesty International hope the council adopts the declaration. If they do, the text could be put to the general assembly of the United Nations at their next meeting in September.
If Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand succeed in convincing the council not to adopt the law this time around, First Nations groups said they fear it will never happen.
At the beginning of the month, a House of Commons committee adopted a Bloc Quebecois motion demanding Ottawa support the declaration.
On Monday, Liberal MP Anita Neville chided the Conservatives for abandoning the leadership shown by the Liberals, who she said supported the motion.
Prentice responded by saying that "no Canadian government ever supported" the declaration.
Source
Archived: Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:31 pm
Jun. 19, 2006
SYLVAIN LAROCQUE
CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL -- Canada has teamed with the United States and Australia to stop the United Nations from passing a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, says Amnesty International.
The human rights group, along with opposition parties, accused the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday of stalling the declaration along with these other nations.
It's been twenty years that the international community has been working on a declaration on aboriginal rights," said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada.
"It's difficult to imagine an important issue of human rights that the governments of the world have taken more time to resolve," Neve said Monday. "The problem of the human rights of indigenous peoples is urgent," said Angus Toulouse, president of the Assembly of First Nations.
"It's not necessary for the rights of these people to come in second place in order to please the United States, New Zealand and Australia." Last month, representatives of those three countries sent out a joint statement calling the declaration "profoundly imperfect."
The UN declaration would guarantee "auto-determination" for indigenous peoples, giving them the right to reclaim traditional territory and refuse military activity upon traditional lands.
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said the declaration contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it comes to aboriginal land claims, as well federal laws on national defence.
"The text is clearly in need of work," Prentice said.
But "we support the adoption of a declaration on the rights of aboriginal peoples and we're working on that."
The UN's new council on human rights will consider the declaration at a meeting that began Monday and will last through to June 30.
First Nations and Amnesty International hope the council adopts the declaration. If they do, the text could be put to the general assembly of the United Nations at their next meeting in September.
If Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand succeed in convincing the council not to adopt the law this time around, First Nations groups said they fear it will never happen.
At the beginning of the month, a House of Commons committee adopted a Bloc Quebecois motion demanding Ottawa support the declaration.
On Monday, Liberal MP Anita Neville chided the Conservatives for abandoning the leadership shown by the Liberals, who she said supported the motion.
Prentice responded by saying that "no Canadian government ever supported" the declaration.
Source
Archived: Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:31 pm
16 June 2006
Six Nations Land: A View
Six Nations Land: A View From Below And To The Left
May 14, 2006
Stewart Steinhauer
First the facts: Canada is a settler state located in the northern portion of Turtle Island, formed out of two European colonies established here in the seventeenth century, one by Great Britain and one by France. These colonies were established on the basis of the Doctrine Of Discovery, itself an outgrowth of the European decision to de-construct the original Peoples of Turtle Island as both individual human beings, and as collections of human beings living together in rule of law type societies, and to re-construct these erased people and Peoples as a monolithic dependent population known henceforth as "Indians," "Natives," and "Aborigines," in need of civilizing.
Modern Canadians will say: "What do the actions of my ancestors in the seventeenth century have to do with me today?"
If modern indigenous people and Peoples weren't living trapped inside nations based on the Doctrine of Discovery, a legal doctrine now routinely overturned wherever it comes to trial in the international arena, living tortured lives as "Indians", "Natives", and "Aborigines", while modern Canadians, and modern euro-ancestry citizens of every other nation on Turtle Island and in other places around the globe, for instance Australia and New Zealand, enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, along, of course, with Western Europe, itself, on wealth produced specifically from the riches of the lands that they occupy by force of arms, not law, then one could logically say: "Why, nothing at all."
This brings us to the Haldimand Tract in southern Ontario, running from the Grand River's mouth on the northern shore of Lake Erie in a twelve mile wide swath up the Grand River to its headwater basin. In current mainstream discourse, the Six Nations land dispute is framed in the context of "Indian land claims." Reports mention up to 29 separate claims being made by Six Nations against the Crown's assertion of title. The Federal Government of Canada and the Provincial Government of Ontario are establishing a panel to settle these "Indian land claims."
The reality obscured by three unrelenting centuries of the European obsession with the manufacture of "Indians" is that, at least in law, it is the federal and provincial governments of Canada who are trying to make a claim to land, a claim based on the Doctrine of Discovery. The same objection raised at the Henco development site by Six Nations people can be legally raised, by various indigenous Peoples, throughout the entire territory currently called Canada. Instead of a panel whose every chair is occupied by a federal or provincial representative, either pale-faced or brown, seeking resolution to "Indian land claims", there should be a panel of non-European, non-Canadian adjudicators seeking resolution to "Canadian land claims".
For instance, a panel made up of well-respected international figures like Rigoberta Menchu from Guatemala, Arundahti Roy from India, Linda Smith from New Zealand, and so on across Africa and Asia, would be able to listen to Canada's claims with an open mind and a willing heart. It's not a question of whether the indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island want to share the land with settler populations from around the globe. If that were the case, then there would be no settler nations present on Turtle Island, just as there are no settler nations present in China. The seventeenth century European decision to manufacture "Indians" was based on the European observations of the sixteenth century, specifically that the people and Peoples of Turtle Island, while fierce in protection of their way of life, were committed to rule of law societies rather than rule of force societies, widely held sharing as a core value, and particularly eschewed murder as a dispute resolution mechanism.
At Six Nations we see the outline of this older form of society still intact in spite of three century's worth of investment by first European, now Canadian interests into the complete elimination of this distinct society. Twice, European colonial forces attempted a total eradication of Six Nations Peoples, at one point reducing the Six Nations Confederacy population to 1% of its former count. To the Western world's surprise, a delegation from Kanawake arrived at the doorsteps of the newly formed League of Nations, in 1924, asking for admittance to the organization modeled on the Six Nations Confederacy. Canada's response was to send an armed force of RCMP to Kanawake to arrest the Longhouse leaders, impose an Indian Act-recognized Chief and Council system, and amend the Indian act to make it illegal for Indian Bands to hire Canadian lawyers to defend their interest in Canadian or other courts.
Astonishingly, in 2006, the Six Nations Confederacy still exists. The people have their language, their constitution, in English called the Great Law of Peace, their original peaceful co-existence agreement with Europeans, the Two Row Wampum Belt agreement, an understanding of their territorial boundaries, and of their way of life based in a Clan Mother system that recognizes women as the title-holders of the land, protecting it for the "faces to come" who are the true owners. The Six Nations Confederacy call themselves the Eastern Door People. They are strategically located on the entrance to the northern portion of Turtle Island. Passing through their territory one can travel to the geographical center of Turtle Island by water. Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Boston, and New York are all located on Six Nations Confederacy lands.
The Six Nations Confederacy was part way through a unification process using the Great Law of Peace, which by the way, is not only the basis of first the League of Nations and now the United Nations, but also of modern democracy. The colonial experience is just a hiccup in this unification process. It's possible that, in spite of several hundred years of genocide, the Six Nations may wish to extend an invitation to Canada to join in unity under the Great Law of Peace. Canada could become a nation in law, could even possibly become a nation of peace. Modern Canadians could possibly enter into a new relationship with the original human inhabitants of the northern portion of Turtle Island, a relationship that the original Peoples have been patiently waiting for, for hundreds of years.
Lastly, the facts: The Six Nations Confederacy cannot be eradicated by any means. The offer to join them under the Great Law of Peace will probably remain on the table. Canadians can accept the offer now, or continue with their attempted eradication for another unknown amount of time. As a modern Canadian, what would you like to choose?
Source
Archived: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:34 am
May 14, 2006
Stewart Steinhauer
First the facts: Canada is a settler state located in the northern portion of Turtle Island, formed out of two European colonies established here in the seventeenth century, one by Great Britain and one by France. These colonies were established on the basis of the Doctrine Of Discovery, itself an outgrowth of the European decision to de-construct the original Peoples of Turtle Island as both individual human beings, and as collections of human beings living together in rule of law type societies, and to re-construct these erased people and Peoples as a monolithic dependent population known henceforth as "Indians," "Natives," and "Aborigines," in need of civilizing.
Modern Canadians will say: "What do the actions of my ancestors in the seventeenth century have to do with me today?"
If modern indigenous people and Peoples weren't living trapped inside nations based on the Doctrine of Discovery, a legal doctrine now routinely overturned wherever it comes to trial in the international arena, living tortured lives as "Indians", "Natives", and "Aborigines", while modern Canadians, and modern euro-ancestry citizens of every other nation on Turtle Island and in other places around the globe, for instance Australia and New Zealand, enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, along, of course, with Western Europe, itself, on wealth produced specifically from the riches of the lands that they occupy by force of arms, not law, then one could logically say: "Why, nothing at all."
This brings us to the Haldimand Tract in southern Ontario, running from the Grand River's mouth on the northern shore of Lake Erie in a twelve mile wide swath up the Grand River to its headwater basin. In current mainstream discourse, the Six Nations land dispute is framed in the context of "Indian land claims." Reports mention up to 29 separate claims being made by Six Nations against the Crown's assertion of title. The Federal Government of Canada and the Provincial Government of Ontario are establishing a panel to settle these "Indian land claims."
The reality obscured by three unrelenting centuries of the European obsession with the manufacture of "Indians" is that, at least in law, it is the federal and provincial governments of Canada who are trying to make a claim to land, a claim based on the Doctrine of Discovery. The same objection raised at the Henco development site by Six Nations people can be legally raised, by various indigenous Peoples, throughout the entire territory currently called Canada. Instead of a panel whose every chair is occupied by a federal or provincial representative, either pale-faced or brown, seeking resolution to "Indian land claims", there should be a panel of non-European, non-Canadian adjudicators seeking resolution to "Canadian land claims".
For instance, a panel made up of well-respected international figures like Rigoberta Menchu from Guatemala, Arundahti Roy from India, Linda Smith from New Zealand, and so on across Africa and Asia, would be able to listen to Canada's claims with an open mind and a willing heart. It's not a question of whether the indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island want to share the land with settler populations from around the globe. If that were the case, then there would be no settler nations present on Turtle Island, just as there are no settler nations present in China. The seventeenth century European decision to manufacture "Indians" was based on the European observations of the sixteenth century, specifically that the people and Peoples of Turtle Island, while fierce in protection of their way of life, were committed to rule of law societies rather than rule of force societies, widely held sharing as a core value, and particularly eschewed murder as a dispute resolution mechanism.
At Six Nations we see the outline of this older form of society still intact in spite of three century's worth of investment by first European, now Canadian interests into the complete elimination of this distinct society. Twice, European colonial forces attempted a total eradication of Six Nations Peoples, at one point reducing the Six Nations Confederacy population to 1% of its former count. To the Western world's surprise, a delegation from Kanawake arrived at the doorsteps of the newly formed League of Nations, in 1924, asking for admittance to the organization modeled on the Six Nations Confederacy. Canada's response was to send an armed force of RCMP to Kanawake to arrest the Longhouse leaders, impose an Indian Act-recognized Chief and Council system, and amend the Indian act to make it illegal for Indian Bands to hire Canadian lawyers to defend their interest in Canadian or other courts.
Astonishingly, in 2006, the Six Nations Confederacy still exists. The people have their language, their constitution, in English called the Great Law of Peace, their original peaceful co-existence agreement with Europeans, the Two Row Wampum Belt agreement, an understanding of their territorial boundaries, and of their way of life based in a Clan Mother system that recognizes women as the title-holders of the land, protecting it for the "faces to come" who are the true owners. The Six Nations Confederacy call themselves the Eastern Door People. They are strategically located on the entrance to the northern portion of Turtle Island. Passing through their territory one can travel to the geographical center of Turtle Island by water. Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Boston, and New York are all located on Six Nations Confederacy lands.
The Six Nations Confederacy was part way through a unification process using the Great Law of Peace, which by the way, is not only the basis of first the League of Nations and now the United Nations, but also of modern democracy. The colonial experience is just a hiccup in this unification process. It's possible that, in spite of several hundred years of genocide, the Six Nations may wish to extend an invitation to Canada to join in unity under the Great Law of Peace. Canada could become a nation in law, could even possibly become a nation of peace. Modern Canadians could possibly enter into a new relationship with the original human inhabitants of the northern portion of Turtle Island, a relationship that the original Peoples have been patiently waiting for, for hundreds of years.
Lastly, the facts: The Six Nations Confederacy cannot be eradicated by any means. The offer to join them under the Great Law of Peace will probably remain on the table. Canadians can accept the offer now, or continue with their attempted eradication for another unknown amount of time. As a modern Canadian, what would you like to choose?
Source
Archived: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:34 am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
