UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Guest guest]

http://ca.news./s/capress/070906/national/un_native_rights

UN set to adopt native rights declaration, no thanks to Canada: critics

Thu Sep 6, 5:39 PM

By Sue

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada was cast Thursday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to derail the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The non-binding declaration is expected to be adopted Sept. 13 by the UN General Assembly.

Its success would thwart what critics say was a well-financed campaign under Canada's new Conservative government to undermine a process supported by the Liberals.

The Conservatives say the declaration is flawed, vague and open to broad interpretation. Provisions on lands and resources could be used "to support claims to broad ownership rights over traditional territories, even where rights ... were lawfully ceded through treaty," says a synopsis of Canada's position on the Indian Affairs website.

"The fact is that no previous Canadian government has ever supported the document in its current form," said Ted Yeomans, spokesman for Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl.

"The wording is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our Constitution Act, previous Supreme Court decisions, the National Defence Act and policies under which we negotiate treaties."

In fact, documents released to Amnesty International under the Access to Information Act show that the government fought the declaration despite advice from its own officials in Foreign Affairs, Indian Affairs and National Defence, all of them urging its support.

The declaration sets out global human rights standards for indigenous populations. Native groups, especially in developing countries, report abuse, land losses, disappearances and even murder at the hands of governments who refuse to recognize their status or title.

Discrimination helps ensure that more than 370 million native people around the world suffer disproportionate rates of extreme poverty, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said earlier this month.

Canada's strident opposition to the declaration is a "crime" that flies in the face of Ottawa's avowed desire to promote democracy, says ph Ole Simel, co-ordinator of the African Regional Indigenous Caucus.

"It's a crime against indigenous people globally, and it's a crime against indigenous people in Canada," he told a news conference Thursday in New York.

This, as Prime Minister Harper "is trying to dictate to developing nations what they should do.

"Indigenous people in Canada must be going through hell."

Canada has over the last year aligned itself with such countries as Russia and Colombia in its bid to derail the declaration.

"We are working with like-minded countries to make positive changes to the document and we will determine our position on voting at a later date depending on the outcome of our talks," Yeomans said.

While the U.S., Australia and New Zealand have also expressed concerns, Canada has become "the prominent opponent to the declaration," says Les Malezer, chairman of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus. The group co-ordinates input at the UN from seven global regions.

Critics ranging from the national Assembly of First Nations to Amnesty International say Ottawa has never fully explained its related concerns.

They stress that the declaration is a non-binding document that is specifically required to be interpreted in balance with other laws, standards and the rights of non-native citizens.

"Their argument that it undermines treaties and agreements ... is just not correct," says Malezer. "I think they're making it up. It's not a legal opinion."

The Canadian government not only supported but was a leader of the process toward drafting the declaration before the Liberals were defeated in January 2006, Malezer said from New York. The Liberals pushed for clarifications - especially on land and resource issues - but were clear proponents, he added.

Ottawa's position under the Conservatives changed so drastically that by June 2006, only Canada and Russia voted against the declaration at the UN Human Rights Council.

"Clearly it was a political flip," says Malezer. "And that's just bad behaviour. It's not good faith. It's not about human rights."

Ole Simel, of Kenya, suspects the real root of opposition can be traced to the lucrative timber, minerals and other deposits that lay on or beneath disputed lands.

Preston, program co-ordinator with the Quaker aboriginal affairs committee, has watched the process unfold for the last six years.

"I think a lot of states were deeply disappointed by Canada's behaviour," she said from Toronto. "I think they expect better from Canada at the UN.

"The fact that Canada chose to team up with the Russian Federation and Colombia on this - it's not what one would hope for on a human rights issue."

[Guest guest]

>

> Observation: Through out known history when ever a " more advanced "

> society meets one that is " less advanced " the less advanced

> society comes out the loser.

Isn't this the basis for many of the Star Gate tv program episodes?

Kim

[Guest guest]

ender wrote: " Observation: Through out known history when ever

a " more advanced " society meets one that is " less advanced " the less

advanced society comes out the loser. Even when the first contact is

friendly and benevolent, the less advanced society is the loser...

Why? The mere knowledge that there is more to the world then the less

advanced society can explain causes the less advanced society to

implode... When attempts are made to shield the less advanced society

from the culture shock, the advanced society is berated for " holding

back " the less advanced people... "

Except that the First Nations people in Canada were MORE advanced

than the Europeans who came to Canada. We had democratic societies

BEFORE Europeans did and our democratic societies included the voices

of its women long before Europeans and immigrants from Europe living

in North America even entertained equality rights for their women.

Europeans coming to Canada were welcomed, for the most part, by

Aboriginals who made their first winters her survivable and even

enjoyable in most cases.

We weren't less advanced; we were less barbaric and more grateful of

what Great Spirit had blessed us with than were those who came to

Canada from Europe.

Nice guys always finish last. It's been true for centuries and that's

what happened to First Nations people in Canada when Europeans came

to our country.

enderwiggin wrote: " Question: How long do you need to live in an

area to become the " indigenous people " ??? ... <snip> ... "

According to Merriam Webster, indigenous means " having originated in

and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a

particular region or environment. " Europeans did not originate from

North America. For those who then argue that Aboriginals (First

Nations people) did not occur naturally in North America, there is

the equally accepted dictionary definition for indigenous

that " refers to any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region

with which they have the earliest historical connection. "

Of course, along with that is the expectation -- in order to be

referred to as indigenous -- that those claiming to be indigenous

peoples have maintained distinct linguistic, cultural and social

characteristics. Keeping these characteristics, those claiming to be

indigenous peoples remain differentiated from the surrounding

populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

In Canada this has definitely been the situation with First Nations

and Métis peoples. Those who are status in Canada and the United

States are definitely indigenous as are the Métis.

ender wrote: " .... <snip> ... populations move, change, rise and

fall always in flux... all humans came for somewhere else if you look

back far enough... <snip> ... "

But not all populations fit the definition of indigenous people and

that's the point.

One could just as easily say that all autistics, by virtue of also

being human beings, do not deserve any assistance to survive this

world in which we live. They believe that autistics should be either

eradicated or corraled into institutions, among other unacceptable

things. Do you believe that this is how autistics should be

treated?

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

Ender wrote:

" Sorry, I over analysis everything, and find reasons why things happen

the way they do, if any of you want to talk more email me direct so we

don't upset the un-techies of the group. "

Feel free to hold the discussion here. Anyone who gets bored can

simply skip the posts.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Ender wrote:

" Sorry, I over analysis everything, and find reasons why things happen

the way they do, if any of you want to talk more email me direct so we

don't upset the un-techies of the group. "

Feel free to hold the discussion here. Anyone who gets bored can

simply skip the posts.

Tom

Administrator