UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[url=http://www.straightgoods.ca/2009/ViewFeature.cfm?Ref=453]Canada still is not on board with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[/url]

Quote:

Two years ago, on September 13, 2007, nations around the world signed an innovative human rights treaty: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the aim of which is to protect some 370 million people around the world.

Last week, the Assembly of First Nations of Québec and Labrador (AFNQL) participated in a public event to celebrate the anniversary of that signing. But, as the AFNQL pointed out, [b]Canada is one of the three countries which continues to reject this document.[/b] Québec, despite several invitations, also remains silent on the question.

"How can you explain the fact that governments who call themselves champions of human rights, like the governments of Québec and Canada, continue to refuse to support a document which recognizes the fundamental human rights of aboriginal peoples?" asks Ghislain Picard, Chief of the AFNQL. "Canada's refusal to sign the declaration is inconceivable!"

http://www.trangonews.com/n/Jail_and_trial_are_next_for_wounded_Peru_Ind...

 The Assembly of First Nations represents 633 First Nations in Canada.[/quote] NDPP

Like hell they do - unless you mean Indian Act Band Councils acting as administrative units of the Canadian government itself..?

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..."

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.."

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 -  [email protected]

Quote:

In March 2010, the Government of Canada announced it would take steps to endorse the UN Declaration...

– [url=http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html]Source[/url]

It took the Harpocons eight months to draft this self-congratulatory statement, which is not a statement of support but rather a [b]reiteration of opposition[/b] 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Ahni wrote:

The rhetoric just doesn't sit with the reality. For instance, there are five ongoing blockades in four Provinces right now, because Canada won't respect Indigenous Peoples' right to consent or consultation and accommodation. On top of that, there are at least a dozen other "hot spots" where blockades could be on the way, again, because of Canada's suppression and avoidance of those basic rights. And let's not forget dozens upon dozens of blockades, protests and lawsuits that have been aimed at Canada and the Provinces in recent years.

On top of that, the "economic and social well-being" of Indigenous People hasn't improved at all in recent years. In fact it's probably getting worse, especially since Canada decided to cut their funding to 134 indigenous healing centres which were largely dedicated to helping residential school survivors.

Then there's the waste problem in Canada. For instance, how there aren't any laws to stop companies from dumping their toxic waste onto reserve lands---or how Canada won't remediate the 4,464 toxic sites on reserve. According to the Auditor General of Canada, it would cost under $200 million to clean these sites. But Canada chooses not to spend the money.

Finally, there's the matter of physical health in Canada. Even though Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, downplayed it in his 2008 Annual Report on the State of Public Health in Canada, there is a major gulf between the health of average Canadians and Indigenous Peoples in Canada. From youth suicide to Infant mortality rates, homelessness to "substandard" housing, unsafe water to obesity, chronic diseases to infectious diseases and the list goes on. The numbers are all higher for the Indigenous population.

[url=http://intercontinentalcry.org/so-canada-endorsed-the-un-declaration-of-... Cry[/url]

Harper continues Canada's dirty and shameful role on the world stage:

[url=http://http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/02/canada-un-indigenous-righ... Is The Only UN Member To Reject Landmark Indigenous Rights Document[/url]

Quote:

The United States, who was among four nations (including Canada) who opposed the adoption of the original declaration seven years ago, notably reversed its position. President Barack Obama threw his administration’s support behind the declaration, regarding it as one that will "help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future."

The document was adopted by all nations by consensus last week, but Canada was the only country to file its objections, flagging the wording of “free, prior and informed consent” as problematic.

Free, prior, and informed consent is commonly upheld as a key principle in international law. But according to Ottawa, it’s tricky wording that could be interpreted as “a veto to aboriginal groups and in that regard, cannot be reconciled with Canadian law, as it exists.”

“As a result, Canada cannot associate itself with the elements contained in this outcome document related to free, prior and informed consent,” the government explained in a statement.

Excellent article - it details the record of Canada's role since the original 2007 vote.

Thanks for renewing our interest in the present status of Indigenous Rights globally.

In spite of the fact that the Government did support the Declaration on Indigenous Rights in 2011, in spirit, its imperialist ventures in the mining and oil patches within Indigenous Terriories, not to mention globally, is total contradiction and violation.

What is essential to consider here is enforcement of these global indigenous rights, whatever the (corrupt) political parties and lower courts may say and do! (And continually in opposition to international Court declarations!)

So international indigenous organization pronouncements in support of their rights inevitably must follow up with coordinated international actions and targeting Canada whenever necessary. 

Canada to shift position on UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Canada officially adopts UN declaration on rights of Indigenous Peoples

There were cheers in the United Nations as Canada officially removed its objector status to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Tuesday, almost a decade after it was adopted by the General Assembly.

"We are now a full supporter of the declaration, without qualification," Bennett said, as she addressed the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations in New York City on Tuesday.

"We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution."...

"Meet the new boss same as the old boss" except this one claims to be on the side of the First Nations while he is kniving them in the back.  The treaty process has always had only one goal as far as the business community and their government allies are concerned and that is extinguishment of aboriginal title.

Quote:

A Liberal history without real change

Majority governments are typically arrogant and interpret their electoral promises as they see fit, including whether they will even implement their promises.

Six months in and experienced observers of Indigenous policy can see the differences between what Trudeau and his ministers publicly say and what’s really happening on the ground. This shows how the Trudeau government is interpreting its platform promises.

The Trudeau government’s 2015 promises are reminiscent of 1993, when I was involved in the development of the federal Liberal Aboriginal Platform as vice-president of policy for the Liberal Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission, which consisted of Chapter 7 of the Red Bookand a longer Aboriginal platform issued in Saskatoon on October 8, 1993, by the Liberal leader at the time, Jean Chrétien.

There were two Liberal Aboriginal platforms in the 1993 federal election. The Liberal Aboriginal Commission had to fight with the backroom types such as Chaviva Hošek, Eddie Goldenburg and others to be included in the Red Book, which was the centrepiece. What we couldn’t get into the Red Book, we pushed to have included in a longer and more detailed Liberal Aboriginal platform, which we pushed Chrétien to announce on the campaign trail in Saskatoon.

However, as we found out after the election, it was all for nothing, as Prime Minister Chrétien either manipulated, broke or ignored the Liberal Aboriginal promises. The removal of on-reserve tax exemption and municipalization of reserves originated with the Chrétien Liberal government in the 1990s and are a main part of the 1995 Liberal Aboriginal Self-Government policy, which the Chrétien Liberal government unilaterally imposed.

It is the grassroots First Nation peoples on reserve and off reserve who will continue to suffer, not those employed at band offices and First Nation chiefs’ organizations.

Also in 1995, Finance Minister Paul Martin placed a 2 per cent cap on First Nations programs, and he didn’t remove it when he became prime minister in 2003. Martin and subsequent Liberal leaders buried the 1993 Liberal Aboriginal Policy promises.

For the last 21 years the federal “self-government” policy has set out Canada’s negotiating position with all First Nations. It gives all provinces a veto in any negotiations with First Nations on subject matters that affect provincial jurisdiction or laws.

Another dangerous feature of the federal “self-government” policy is that Canada intends to keep for itself all of the real powers of sovereignty and nationhood necessary for sustaining an economy, trade and diplomatic relations with other nations in the world. These are not on the table for negotiations with First Nations. There is no real power sharing contemplated in the federal self -government negotiation process. The only role that Aboriginal groups or “bands” would have under the self-government agreements are “delegated authority” under various federal (and provincial) subject areas. The policy also requires that Aboriginal groups or “bands” raise their “own source revenues,” which is Ottawa’s code for taxation or forms of taxation.

This is the policy that many bands are currently negotiating under to get out of the Indian Act — essentially they are converting into a municipal-type government.

Despite the talk of nation-to-nation relationships, the Trudeau government is maintaining this municipal model of self-government and extinguishment of Aboriginal title through what are called modern treaties.

This was confirmed by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould when she told APTN that the Trudeau government will get rid of the Indian Act one community at a time through “sectoral government initiatives” to “bi-lateral self government agreements” to “comprehensively negotiating a treaty under the modern treaty process.”

https://ricochet.media/en/1154/trudeau-cloaks-continued-attack-on-first-...

Thanks, kropotkin. I had to copy that article and make it a Word document, as I find it very hard to read long Ricochet articles with their formattng.

http://www.adoptandimplement.com/

Petition in support of Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Quote:

We call upon the Canadian government to fully adopt and implement the Declaration, and stand up for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We call on Canada to adopt Bill C-262 to this effect.

Sign today.

Indigenous consent is a right. Will the GreeNDP honour it?

A key implication of the power-sharing agreement between the BC NDP and BC Green parties is that consent from First Nations will be taken seriously when their lands or waters could be affected by natural resource and energy projects.

The agreement prominently features their collective support for the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2014 landmark Tsilhqot’in decision. That decision, in case you missed it, established that in the absence of a treaty, Indigenous peoples' rights apply not just to densely-inhabited areas but to the full extent of their ancestral territory, and outlined the Crown’s obligations for obtaining First Nations’ consent.

In both documents, the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent is central.

quote:

Under Canada’s federal system, neither the federal nor provincial governments wield absolute power. The two levels of government may have varying interests and attitudes toward a particular project, and rejection by one or the other may prevent a project’s advance. For example, the federal government recently rejected Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, even though the province of Alberta sought the project’s approval. Nobody called that a veto and neither should we when Indigenous governments withhold consent.

The Supreme Court’s Tsilhqot’in ruling means that Canada can no longer unilaterally make decisions about unceded Indigenous land. This is especially true in B.C. where very few treaties exist.

I don't think the g-word applies in Canada.  No gas chambers here. Some little wars and too many natives killed.  Am I a racist and white supremicist ? . What was the alternative to residental school ? No schools ?  Maybe one school per reserve would have been best.