UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Comments
This story, that saga reminded us about, two summers back, is again in the news this morning. I missed the CBC radio news that gave the reason for updaing, but was reminded that now, only Canada and the U.S. have not signed on. Probably something to do with property. :)
Canada still is not on board with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UN Condemns Land Grabs in Native Territories
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/15
"Millions of people around the world who belong to indigenous communities continue to face discrimination and abuse at the hands of authorities and private business concerns, says a new UN report released here Thursday. It is happening not only in the developing parts of the world but also in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which champion the causes of human rights and democracy the report says..."
US Re-Examines Opposition to UN Declaration
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/24/united-states-re-examines...
"Political tides are turning as international support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continues to grow, putting greater pressure on Canada and the US to fully endorse it.."
Christian Doctrine Fueled Indigenous Genocide: UNPFII
http://colorado-aim.blogspot.com/2010/05/christian-doctrine-fueled-indig...
"Dehumanization leads to the second thing indigenous peoples share in common. Being treated on the basis of the belief that those who invaded our territories have a right of lordship or dominance over our existence and, therefore, have the right to take, grant, and dispose of our lands, territories, and resources without our permission or consent.."
I think, as well, that the private property ideology, as represented by John Locke and others, in which "undeveloped" property could "rightly" be confiscated by those looking to "develop" the property. E M Wood writes about this in "The Origin of Capitalism". I should add, of course, that the ideology is hardly the determining factor; rather, the ideological justifications and reflexes reflect the underlying socio-economic relationships that were being established.
BC First Nations Leader Has Demand For New Federal Indian Affairs Minister
http://www.straight.com/article-337595/vancouver/bc-first-nations-leader...
"The newly appointed federal minister of Indian affairs needs to convince Prime Minister Stephen Harper to fully endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, says the president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs..."
Stephen Harper - pm@pm.gc.ca
Can you believe it?
Canada's Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/ia/dcl/stmt-eng.asp
Being cynical, I want to know why now and not before?
In March 2010, the Government of Canada announced it would take steps to endorse the UN Declaration...
– Source
It took the Harpocons eight months to draft this self-congratulatory statement, which is not a statement of support but rather a reiteration of opposition to the UN Declaration.
All they grudgingly promise to do is "interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework." In other words, they'll ignore it, or twist it to suit their own political agenda.
Could this be fallout from Canada's recent failure to gain a seat on the U.N.'s Security Council?
Herr Harper sucking up to the U.N. to save face?
I was wondering the same thing, FrmrSldr. M. Spector, I have no doubt that their commitment to the principles will be ignored. This is a fig leaf move on the part of Harper but it strikes me as interesting in terms of the timing. I don't trust him one iota on this file or any for that mater.
Frmrsldr wrote:Could this be fallout from Canada's recent failure to gain a seat on the U.N.'s Security Council?
Herr Harper sucking up to the U.N. to save face?
I was wondering the same thing, FrmrSldr.
Yes, remember the media framed it as "Canada voted against Iran becoming a member of a U.N. Commission overseeing the rights of women."
Two points about that:
1. Canada's vote was not instrumental in Iran's failing to gain a seat on that commission but was one vote among many others that resulted in this outcome.
2. The Canadian fawning commercial media framing it in this manner sounds like Canada voted against Iran in this case as a vengeance vote - on the assumption that the Islamic Republic of Iran voted against Canada getting a seat on the U.N. Security Council because of Canada's "principled" (Herr Harper's term) support for (the state, i.e. government of) Israel.
It's great that they have (kind of) supported UNDRIP. We'll see if anything actually comes of it. Perhaps the document will be given more weight in court now that Canada is a signatory?
What we should remember is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and USA refused to sign this document. Their first reaction was that recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples was not in their interest. Perhaps this will make it easier for some people to recognize that all four of these settler states are currently involved in the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, which makes it hard to affirm their rights internationally.
Sean Atleo has said that signing the document is a new begining for the relationships between Canada and Indigenous commmunities. With The Apology, and now this, Canada is certainly starting lots of new beginings and it will be important to influence how they end.
Nothing will come out of it.
The Illusion of Justice in Canada - The Conservatives Conditional Support of UNDRIP
http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.com/2010/11/illusion-of-justice-in-canad...
For those who have any further questions about what this all means, INAC also provides a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions". In answer to the question of whether a State which originally voted against UNDRIP can change its mind, INAC very clearly says "There is no official way for a State to change its position on a declaration". All it can subsequently do is issue a Statement of Support. Canada knew this when it originally voted against UNDRIP. In answer to the question of what UNDRIP means: "The UNDRIP is a non-legally binding aspirational document". I am not sure how much clearer they could have made their position.
So, at the end of the day, all Canada has done is publicly support the cherished wish list of Indigenous peoples but that wish list will not have any legal application or effect in Canada. Regardless of this striking fact, one might argue that Canada could still make significant and substantive changes to its relationship with Indigenous peoples and take transformational action to address serious social, economic, political, cultural and legal issues impacting on the well-being of Indigenous peoples, the majority of which it caused through its colonial laws and policies.
Sure....Canada "could" do that - the question is will it? Well, let's see what Minister of INAC John Duncan had to say:
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/11/12/canada-finally-backs-un-indigenous-declaration/
You will note in the above interview with APTN, that Minister Duncan re-affirms that UNDRIP is an "aspirational" document only that has NO legal application in Canada. Furthermore, on whether Canada's endorsement of UNDRIP will bring about significant changes for Indigenous peoples in Canada, Minister Duncan responds that Canada has its "own agenda" and as a result does not "anticipate any significant change".
So, once again I am still asking myself what the heck is everyone so excited about? Why on earth would the Assembly of First Nations celebrate this announcement? Why would First Nations leaders appear in the media and praise Canada for making such a significant commitment to the rights of Indigenous peoples? Did anyone take the time to actually read what the Statement said or what INAC said its alleged "endorsement" means?
Nonstatusindian seems to have hit it on the head. This was my initial reaction but I was trying not to much of a downer out of the gate.
I would guess that the AFN celebrated the announcement so that they can use it as political leverage. If they act like it means something they can call the Feds on their hypocracy everytime that they poison a lake or support a uranium mine in a nation's territory. Or use it to call for expansion of basic services to reserves.
Two things:
A state actually can change its position on a declaration or any other UN agreement. There is no such thing as being unable to change your position, at least according to the UN. According to Reformatories... well, we know that answer. Canada did change its position on the Kyoto Protocol, for example (with the massive caveat that Canada never did a damn thing other than undermine it-- a risk we now run with the UNDRIP).
The Declaration is aspirational according to the UN and to international law, not just to internationally lawless Canada. A nation can choose to make it meaningful by changing its domestic legislation, budget, etc, to abide by the aspirations of the Declaration. Obviously this government is signalling that as far as it's concerned , the Declaration will remain nothing but a pretty aspiration.
I think it will have the meaning the government wants it to, as always, unless we fight back.
I do see this as step forward; it gives us all (Indigenous and settler) another way of pushing back. You gotta believe that there are some seriously pissed off mining and oil companies out there this week, because the UNDRIP spells out conditions for free, prior and informed consent that are a nightmare for them. Sure, our spineless and passively / agressively racist politicians and general public won't act (check out the comments over at CBC for a nastly little peek into our "nation's" psyche). But that's not new. We have to use other avenues.
I am very thankful to be able to work with a document that was drafted by hundreds of elders and true leaders over the course of 20 years. Some of it is necessarily UN-speak, but some of it is very moving. I agree we can't be naive about the AFN or the government, but I guess I see this as a tiny, necessary step towards the vision laid out in the Declaration.
This government does like to stress the fact that the declaration is legally non-binding. It's in all their statements on UNDRIP. That only serves to demean and deflect from it's moral precedents. The document attempts to address a global injustice for the "world's" Indigenous people. But the selfish needs of this government ignore the actual scope of the declaration's intent. Without adhesion, I don't think Canada has any "moral" basis from which to express opinions on other issues (declarations or conventions) that attempt to address the interests of the world's Indigenous peoples. This is a disingenuous effort, and I think the only reason they are recognizing UNDRIP is to better secure their opinions elsewhere. Like the processes of Convention on Biological Diversity. Now they can claim they have a moral interest.
1) Canada (Liberal) supported and helped develop the Declaration on INDIGENOUS RIGHTS. However, Canada (Con) voted against it at the committee level, and sabotaged the vote at the Assembly. The UN has written to Canada demanding that we change our position. I agree. I have posted a petition below in case anyone is interested. There is a special UN meeting going on in NY right now on Indigenous Rights.
2) Canada, last week, was the ONLY country to vote against a UN protocol for monitoring and reporting on HUMAN RIGHTS issues. That is, Harper refuses to allow the UN to monitor human rights in Canada. I find this extremely scary, knowing what we know about his views on human rights. For example, Harper refused to participate in the 25th anniversary celebration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claiming a preference for the old Bill of Rights.
SO ... the issue here is rights of Indigenous Peoples, but rights of all Canadians are in jeopardy as well, it seems to me.
PETITION:
http://www.amnesty.ca/ip_un_petition/UN_indigenous_rights_petition.php
Aboriginal group issues statement about UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights
July 4, 2007 - by Joseph Quesnel
Open letter from First Nations Leadership Council: Statement Regarding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Coast Salish Territory/Vancouver – One year ago today the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. To Canada's shame, it, together with Russia, voted against the adoption of the Declaration. Since then, Canada has been actively engaged through the UN process to continue to undermine the resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council. While Canada is taking some measures to address human rights issues domestically, it is still working hard to undermine the Declaration at the United Nations. If Canada is truly serious about its dealings with Indigenous Peoples, it would support the Declaration as it was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006.
Canada, in letters from the Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, has said that unless changes are made to the Declaration it will vote against the adoption of the Declaration. Canada's approach to human rights issues is being severely tarnished by this position and actions of the federal government.
The Declaration provides minimum INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS for the protection of the "dignity, well being and the survival" of the world's 370 million Indigenous Peoples. It is clear the current domestic/Canadian standards are unilateral, arbitrary and self serving. Canada’s comprehensive claims policies, self government policies and specific claims policies are all products of Canada's unilateral and arbitrary standard setting.
For example, Canada does not like the articles in the Declaration which refer to
• lands, territories and resources
• compensation for lands that have been taken/lost/stolen
• "free prior and informed consent" of Indigenous peoples when governments plan to develop lands/territories in Indigenous territories
One only need ask any First Nations negotiator to confirm that Canada continues to put forth a policy of not providing compensation to Indigenous peoples for lands and resources taken without Indigenous free, prior and informed consent.
Canada wants to determine First Nations peoples’ human rights in light of selfserving policies. In fact as evidence of this, just a few days ago Canada voted against a resolution at the Human Rights Council in Geneva which requires States (i.e., Canada) to be subjected to periodic UN reviews of its human rights record. Canada was the only country to vote against this resolution.
After several days of "consultations" with States and Indigenous Caucus and a large number of non-Indigenous non-governmental organizations, the UN will convene a plenary session today in New York to discuss/debate the Declaration. Grand Chief Edward John, a member of the First Nations Summit Executive and the First Nations Leadership Council is currently at the United Nations on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations and the North American Indigenous Caucus to observe the discussions. The Assembly of First Nations represents 633 First Nations in Canada.
If the declaration were assented there would be more consistency in the administration of land claims. None of this changing policy from election to election stuff.
The UN last week called an emergency meeting to address this issue. Canada's opposition is delaying the entire process. I hope there is some heavy duty pressure being applied to Harper, and any and all help from babblers would be great!
harper.s@parl.gc.ca
Harper made it clear he does not support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by refusing to attend the 25th anniversary celebrations, and he even said he prefers the old 'Bill of Rights'. He has also defied the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings by refusing to "consult and accommodate" regarding Six Nations land disputes, instead calling it a matter for the police and courts, and thus causing the brutal attack on women, youth and men by police April 20 2006. (Note: The video of the attack has not yet received wide distribution, but is currently being distributed to developers in Haldimand County, to discourage them from assuming that the police will solve their problems.)
Land in dispute is being developed on a RUSH basis these days. This is the government's way of refusing to return land - Oops! It is developed ... gee ... can't return that land!
Consequently, Six Nations Confederacy people have had to enforce the ruling themselves, by stopping the developments on the disputed land. It has worked: By physically intervening in two developments, the rest have quit.
The UN Declaration does nothing more than the laws we already have in place ... that our government does not uphold.
It would make a difference, for example, in situations like the one that occurred in the NWT this spring: The DeNe have not 'signed off' on the pipeline across their territory, demanding that the government consult and accommodate their own plans. SO ... with a little help from south of the border, military manoevres were conducted on their land without their permission, to intimidate them. (It didn't work.)
I think Harper's problem is specifically the issue of not being able to send the army in, since he likes to threaten such action. I think it is disgusting if it comes down to that!
BTW ... it covers "traditional and treaty lands" (i.e., the ones under claim), not just reserve land.
Harper is an embarassment on the world stage and a threat to our civil rights, especially those that protect Aboriginal people and minority groups. I wish Canadians would wake up and see what a monster he is.
(KEEP THOSE EMAILS FLOWING, FOLKS! HARPER.S@PARL.GC.CA),
...here, and maybe he did in South America too ... and he has strangely recalled a committee to see if they can pass the aboriginal 'human rights' thingy he has proposed to bad reception From the Chiefs.
Perhaps he thinks this will substitute for the UN Declaration ... ???
Not a bit ... totally different
... individual not collective rights.
And was an attempt to initiate private land ownership, via 'rights of women' to the marital home, I think, to start breaking up the land.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 22 July 2007: Message edited by: saga ]
July 21, 2007
Indigenous Peoples demand UN accountability
By Rebecca Sommer
New York, NY, UN Headquarters (Special to HNN) -- Representatives of Indigenous Peoples demand the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but feel highly alarmed by restrains and restrictions of rules and procedures of the United Nations system.
The Indigenous Peoples Caucus, comprised of legitimate political leaders of their peoples, objected on Wednesday, July 18, 2007, in a press release against the myth that discussion of issues at the UN General Assembly would be for governments "only" -- and that Indigenous Peoples delegations are merely non-governmental organizations.
The United Nations Charter begins with the words “We, the peoples of the world.” The will of the peoples and the collective interests of the peoples are represented at the United Nations by the governments of the nation states.
"We Indigenous Peoples cannot be represented by states, which control our lives, rule over our traditional territories and exploit our resources for alien benefit," stated Les Malezer, chairman of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus. "
Representatives of our people must have the right to be heard at the General Assembly level when they decide on our UN Declaration. We demand to be allowed to be present on the floor of the General Assembly when the UN General Assembly resolution is presented for final adoption: let's not forget that the Declaration is for us and about us."
Just two weeks ago, Indigenous Peoples representatives were prevented from participating in an informal intersessional meeting about the Declaration at the UN headquarters. Even though announced as an open meeting, a small group of states lead by Russia forced the Indigenous representatives to leave the room. Some Indigenous delegates traveled from far countries -- to attend that meeting to represent the interests of their people.
"We were quite upset that we could not witness the discussions about our own human rights and that governments insisted that it should be a closed meeting,” said Kenneth Deer, the Publisher and Editor of the The Eastern Door, and a member of the Mohawk Nation.
...
"We cannot accept that some states want to dilute the right for Indigenous Peoples to their self-determination," said Romy Tincopa , a state representative of the UN Mission of Peru. “That right is essential that Indigenous Peoples can protect and determine their future, their culture, language and way of life.”
...
"Some states believe that the sky will fall down when IP would have the right to self-determination" said Dalee Sambo Dorough, a representative of the Inuit people. "But that right which all people have – is consistent with International law, the UN Charters."
...
“The states, by the way, who now want to restart the drafting of the Declaration -- we would like to see the human rights records of these states, in relation the treatment of indigenous peoples and in particular the most recent reports of the human rights treaty bodies to be taken into account in conjunction with their views on the Declaration,” Malezer added.
...
CONTACT: Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the UN
Email: les.malezer@faira.org.au
Cell: +1 (646) 338 3029
Website: www.ipcaucus.net
How states voted at the Human Rights Committee...
http://www.ipcaucus.net/IK_6.html
Ten points ... "8. The Declaration contains no new rights"
http://www.ipcaucus.net/IK_1.html
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 22 July 2007: Message edited by: saga ]
ACTION Message for those interested.
Aug. 7, 2007
NEWS ANALYSIS: Day-Long Agenda Slated for Thursday to Address Indigenous Peoples Rights
By HNN Staff
New York, NY (HNN) -- On the United Nations International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples --Thursday, Aug. 9, 2007-- rights advocates from around the world will address the most pressing priority issues affecting the world's Indigenous Peoples.
DISCUSSIONS ON THE U.N. DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES is a one-hour work in progress film on one of the most-discussed pieces of legislation in UN history. For 25 years, governments and indigenous peoples have been discussing how to apply the universal declaration of Human Rights to the specific situations of indigenous peoples. This desperately needed Declaration, which articulated only the most basic of needs, was nonetheless rejected in November 2006. In this film, governmental and indigenous leaders present their issues of concern and the implications for the future. (First screened on the opening day of the 6th Session of the PFII in May 2007)
...
to watch sample video clips click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D10JDA4OL2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOUeGMa8iLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8Tz_nw8w&mode=related&search=
Canada still is not on board with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Thank you for posting that M Spector - it makes one truly embarassed for our country. Especially juxtoposed with our faux concern over human rights in Afghanistan.
http://www.trangonews.com/n/Jail_and_trial_are_next_for_wounded_Peru_Ind...
Right post but wrong thread.
The Assembly of First Nations represents 633 First Nations in Canada.
Like hell they do - unless you mean Indian Act Band Councils acting as administrative units of the Canadian government itself..?