Modoc Land Recovery Project
Press Release: October 15, 2009
Oregon Modocs Take First Step to Separate from Klamath Tribes and Form Own Government — Issue Country's First Tribal Declaration Based on UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Approximately thirty Modoc Indians attended a meeting last Friday evening (10-09-2009) in the Klamath County Commissioner's Hearing Room in Klamath Falls, Oregon, where they listened to a presentation by Perry Chesnut in which he urged them to join the movement to reestablish Modoc self-government and sovereignty over their ancestral homelands by signing the Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe .
Chesnut, whose Indian name is Two Eagles, is a life-long social activist and champion of indigenous rights. In 1992, the late Miller Anderson adopted Chesnut into his family and made him a member of the Modoc Tribe. Miller Anderson is a direct descendant of Sloc-a-lot (known to white settlers as Chief George), who at the time of the Modoc Indian War of 1872-73 was the acknowledged La̕qi (Modoc for "Leader") or Headman of the Kokiwas Band of the Modoc Tribe.
The 11-page Declaration contains 46 Articles setting forth various inalienable rights preceded by a preamble containing 30 statements as to the reasons why the Declaration has been issued. It is believed to be the first such declaration issued by any Native American tribe or nation that is based on the provisions of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) approved by the UN General Assembly in September of 2007.
We must take decisive action to reassert our unique tribal and cultural identity
Mr. Chesnut opened the meeting by noting that the Modoc Indians of southern Oregon and northern California are living in a time of crisis. He stated that just two days before the meeting he had received a phone call from a Klamath Indian who "angrily told me that the Klamath Tribes are one people — that the Modoc Indians have no separate identity or culture, that they and the Klamaths are culturally indistinguishable."
"What could be more sacred to us than our unique identity as an Indian people? Yet that identity has been slowly slipping away for the last fifty or more years, being eroded and submerged into a mishmash of Indian peoples enrolled in the political organization known as the Klamath Tribes. And make no mistake, the Klamath Tribes is not a tribe. It is a political organization, an affiliation of three separate tribes, to which no law or moral imperative requires us to remain tied. Today very few people draw a distinction between the Klamath and Modoc peoples. Yet our Creator did distinguish between all other people and us, making us unique and giving us our own unique homeland and culture. We must take decisive action to reassert our unique tribal and cultural identity. And we must do it now, before it is too late."
Indisputable evidence of the unique identity and culture of the Modoc Indians
Mr. Chesnut noted archaeological evidence showing that the Modoc Indians have occupied southern Oregon and northern California continuously for the last 12,000 to 15,000 years and stated that there is no scientific evidence showing a similar history for the Klamath Indians. "Compared to us the Klamaths are relative newcomers to this region," Chesnut said.
Chesnut also cited ethnological field research by the University of Washington Laboratory of Anthropology in 1934 that concluded that the belief systems, values, patterns and practices of the Modoc Indians up to the time of the Modoc Indian War of 1872-73 "set their culture clearly apart from any other in the world, even from their immediate California neighbors."
Chesnut also cited a book titled Myths of the Modocs published in 1912, containing a large number of myths related to Jeremiah Curtin in 1884 by Ko-a-lak'-ak-a, a Modoc woman who was part of the group of Modocs exiled to Oklahoma at the close of the Modoc Indian War in 1873. According to the author's introduction to the 389 page book, "In childhood her grandfather had instructed her in the religion of her people, in other words, taught her all the myths of the Modocs, and to old age her tenacious memory retained many of them."
Chesnut stated that this book is "absolute proof" of the separate identity and culture of the Modoc people. As an example, he read from a passage in the story called "Kumush [Modoc for Creator] and His Daughter" that describes how the Creator made, named and gave to each of the Shasta, Pitt River, Warm Springs, Klamath and Modoc peoples their own lands and unique characteristics. Chesnut stated that the book is filled with mythical events that occurred at such places as Mt. Shasta, Lost River, Tule Lake, the Sycan River and Marsh, and Glass Mountain. "These references to culturally significant events associated with places can be used to verify and validate the extent and boundaries of our ancestral homelands," Chesnut said.
Chesnut also referred to the unique style and quality of Modoc baskets, which are prized by museums and collectors around the world. "It is not Klamath baskets that enjoy this distinction, but Modoc baskets."
Chesnut concluded this portion of his talk by stating: "It is beyond dispute that our people are a unique people with our own unique identity and culture. I have shared this with you because before we can do, we must be."
Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe
Holding up a copy of the Declaration, Chesnut stated that the document "is not a petition asking for relief from some higher authority, but a declaration of our fundamental rights as a people that reasserts our status as a unique tribe independent of any other." He said that it enumerates "specific God-given rights inherent to us as a tribe, including, but not limited to:
All of these rights can be boiled down to one overarching right — the RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT."
Chesnut declared, "Those who sign this document will be declaring their identity as a Modoc Indian, and they will be preparing the ground for the reinstitution of our own tribal government through the drafting, ratification and, if legally necessary, U.S. Government approval of our own constitution."
Constitution of Klamath Tribes 'fundamentally and fatally flawed'
Chesnut stated that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Klamath Tribes is "fundamentally and fatally flawed, and we will never be able to convince the ethnic Klamaths to fix it." He said that it is modeled on the constitutional framework offered to Indian tribes by the government under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1834. "What true government has 'bylaws'? Bylaws are something a club or a corporation have." He said that the Klamath Constitution creates a government with a weak single legislative body (General Council), a strong, directly elected executive body (Tribal Council) and a recently added Judicial branch. Chesnut stated that over the last ten years there has been a nationwide movement of tribes to reform their governments and rewrite their constitutions, moving away from the IRA model still in use by the Klamath Tribes.
Chesnut said that while such an IRA type constitution "might work" for some tribes, it has never worked for the Modocs. "As you all know, with the Lakes Treaty of 1864, the government forced the Modocs and Yahooskin Snake Band of Paiutes to remove to the Klamath Reservation, which was located entirely within the territorial boundaries of Klamath ancestral lands. This itself was a formula for failure, and, in fact was the most important cause of the [Modoc Indian] war and subsequent exile of our people to Oklahoma. But added to this is the fact that the three tribes, all of which have very different histories, beliefs, values and cultures, have been merged by this faulty constitution into a single General Council, in which all decisions are made or ratified by a simple one man one vote majority. The more than ten to one numerical superiority of the ethnic Klamaths over the ethnic Modocs and Yahooskins operates to effectively disenfranchise and subjugate them to ethnic Klamath rule."
A simple analogy
Chesnut asked those gathered at the meeting to imagine what would have happened if the founding fathers of the United States had not had the wisdom to create a bicameral legislative branch, "that is, if the Constitution did not provide for a U.S. Senate to act as a check on the power of the U.S. House of Representatives. Without a Senate, in which each state, regardless of population, has two senators, New York, California, Texas and two or three other states would make all the decisions, rendering the smaller population states effectively powerless, with representation in name only."
"This is the situation we Modocs and our Yahooskin brothers have faced for 136 years, and many of us, perhaps most, are tired of trying to work within a system that is structurally designed to make us powerless against the tyranny of the majority, who are the ethnic Klamaths."
The next step: 'our own constitution'
Chesnut said that after the Modoc people gain sufficient signatures on the Declaration, the next step will be to "draft and ratify our own constitution for the Modoc Tribe." He said that this process must be careful and deliberate because "if we just slap something together, we are likely to end up with a constitution just as bad or worse than the Klamath Tribes constitution we have now. We will need to hold numerous meetings to decide many difficult issues, such as how traditional and decentralized our government should or should not be, what particular governmental structures we need, and what our citizenship criteria will be. Above all, the constitution must reflect the values and culture of our people in order to have the legitimacy and stability necessary to promote political self-determination and healthy economic development."
The difficulty of our task — the inevitability of our freedom
During the question and answer session, Chesnut was told that many Modocs were afraid to sign the Declaration because officials of the Klamath Tribal government would retaliate by taking away their federal benefits or fire them from tribal jobs.
Chesnut responded, "This is going to be a long and difficult process. An independent self-governed Modoc Tribe will be opposed not only by the Klamath Tribal government but by many of the white owned farms and businesses that are making money off of our land. They want things to remain as they are. To the Klamaths our independence will mean a loss of federal dollars which are allocated on the basis of head count. So they see us only as so many dollars. Local farms and businesses are likely to fear that our independence will result in changes that will adversely affect them. So it's going to be hard, and we must expect vigorous opposition to what we are doing."
" But we can also expect support and help from various sources, including other Indian tribes, major university projects and institutes, environmental and human rights organizations, and even from individual white persons in this very community, who want to see the injustices of the past righted. Now that this movement has started, it cannot be stopped so long as we pursue our goal. Our liberation from 136 years of exile and oppression, the reestablishment of Modoc self-government and restoration of our ancestral homelands is inevitable."
"As to your specific concerns about retaliation against those Modocs who sign or promote the Declaration, let me point out that nothing in the Lakes Treaty of 1864 or the Klamath Tribes Restoration Act of 1986 took away our sovereignty as a tribe separate from the Klamath Tribe or Yahooskin Snake Band of Paiutes. In fact, both the Treaty and the Restoration Act list and recognize our tribes separately. Further, what we are doing now is exercising rights to self-government and self-determination authorized and encouraged by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1834, as amended in 1988, and by the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975."
"Until our new constitution is ratified and, if necessary approved by the Interior Department, we will all remain enrolled members of the Klamath Tribes, entitled to receive all the federal benefits we are receiving right now. When our new constitution goes into effect, the BIA and IHS will be required by law to administer these same benefits to our people through our own government instead of the Klamath Tribal government. This transition should be seamless, with no interruption in the flow of benefits."
"In 1968, Congress enacted the Indian Civil Rights Act, which protects political activity and speech such as we are engaging in now. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also has jurisdiction over Indian tribes and nations and enforces regulations designed to prevent and punish discrimination in employment on the part of a dominant band or group."
"One can never prevent another person who is committed to violating the law from doing so, but any retaliation by the Klamath Tribes or its officials against the Modoc People will be immediately be reported to the federal government, and appropriate legal action will be taken. As a tribe we must protect and support each other. We must make the commitment now to financially support any Modoc who is fired from a tribal job in retaliation for exercising his or her right to free speech and political organization, while legal steps are taken to obtain that person's reinstatement and back-pay. And I can assure you, if anything like that happens, there will be serious legal consequences for the Klamath tribal officials involved."
Signatures obtained and Declaration Bearers
At the close of the meeting, thirteen adult Modocs signed the Declaration, bringing the current total number of signers to just over fifty. Additionally, four individuals volunteered to act as Declaration Bearers, that is, to carry and promote the Declaration to other Modocs and to obtain their signatures. These individuals include John Slaughter, Preston Miles and Diana Wright. Modocs wishing to learn more about or sign the Declaration of Rights and the movement to enact a Modoc constitution, or who wish to become Declaration Bearers themselves should contact any of the following persons.
Robert Wayne Anderson, 541-591-2956
John Slaughter, hatchat@charter.net
Preston Miles, 541-274-1330, 929miles@gmail.com
Diana Wright, 541-273-8874, dianawright1@charter.net
Perry Chesnut, 425-770-7345, pchesnut@indigenous-rights.org
A copy of the Declaration of the Rights of the Free and Sovereign People of the Modoc Indian Tribe is attached as a Microsoft Word .doc file. For more information concerning this press release, contact:
Perry Chesnut
Modoc Land Recovery Project
425-770-7345
pchesnut@indigenous-rights.org
________________________________________________________
Copyright 2009: Modoc Land Recovery Project
Native Rights News is making this material from [name of news source] available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Oregon Modocs Reassert Unique Identity & Right to Self-Government: to Separate from the Klamath Tribes
Read more!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
U.S. Position On UNDRIP Under Review By Obama Administration
U.S.: Obama Urged to Sign Native Rights Declaration
By Haider Rizvi
IPS - Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, May 6 (IPS) - The United States is considering whether to endorse a major U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for the recognition of the rights of the world’s 370 million indigenous peoples over their lands and resources."
The position on [this issue] is under review," Patrick Ventrell, spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the U.N., told IPS about the Barack Obama administration’s stance on the non-binding U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Approved by a vast majority of the U.N. member states in September 2007, the General Assembly resolution on the declaration was rejected by the George W. Bush administration over indigenous leaders’ argument that no economic or political power has the right to exploit their resources without seeking their "informed consent."
Three other "settler nations" of European descent, namely Canada, New Zealand and Australia, also voted against the declaration, which states that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain their cultures and remain on their land.
However, last month, the new left-leaning government in Canberra reversed its position, announcing support for the declaration.
"We show our respect for indigenous peoples," said Jenny Macklin, a member of the Australian parliament. "We show our faith in a new era of relations between states and indigenous peoples in good faith."
The new government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also offered an apology to the indigenous communities who suffered at the hands of European settlers for decades.
Indigenous rights activists in the United States say they want the new liberal democratic government in Washington to make a similar move to address the grievances of native communities who have long been subjected to abuse and discrimination.
"The U.S. [should] become a resolute supporter of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," argued James Polk, who writes for Foreign Policy in Focus, a progressive periodical published by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.
"It’s a comprehensive document that affirms that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, and that, in the exercise of their rights, they should be free from their discrimination," he added.
The declaration reflects growing concerns of aboriginal communities about the continued exploitation of their resources and suppression of their cultural vales and practices by commercial concerns and governments that are alien to their cultures.
According to many scientists, the traditional knowledge and cooperation of indigenous communities are vital elements in the global fight against climate change and loss of biodiversity.
During his election campaign, President Obama repeatedly said that he cared about the issues facing Native American communities and insisted that they could trust him – pledges that are now being watched closely.
As [he] reached out to new voter blocs last summer, Obama made a campaign stop at an Indian reservation in Montana, where he told the audience, that, as an African American, he identified with their struggles.
"I know what it’s like to not have always been respected or to have been ignored and I know what it’s like to struggle and that’s how I think many of you understand what’s happened here on the reservation," Obama said.
In his speech, Obama added: "A lot of times you have been forgotten, just like African-Americans have been forgotten or other groups in this country have been forgotten."
In the Nov. 4 presidential elections, a vast majority of Native people voted for Obama, according to Frank LaMere of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, who led the American Indian delegation to the Democratic Convention.
On the campaign trail in Montana, Obama was adopted as an honourary member of the Crow Tribe, a ceremony that natives say is reserved for special guests. On that occasion, he was given a new name, "Barack Black Eagle."
Before Obama became the first-ever non-white president of the United States, the country faced scathing criticism from a Geneva-based U.N. rights body for its treatment of the indigenous communities and objectionable use of their traditional lands and resources.
In March 2006 and again in 2008, a panel of U.S. experts analysed the U.S. government’s treatment of indigenous citizens and ruled that it was guilty of racial discrimination.
Canada, another settler-nation founded on the indigenous territories in North America, has also been scolded by the U.N. Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for its abusive and discriminatory treatment of acts of native communities.
The right-wing government in Ottawa continues to justify its current policies towards the native population as just and fair with no indication whatsoever of a willingness to sign the U.N. document on indigenous peoples’ rights.
In the United States, there appears to be some signs of policy shift with regard to the U.S. government’s relations with the American Indian communities. Some representatives of indigenous tribes are currently working with Obama as advisors.
However, it remains unclear when and if the Obama administration would sign the declaration. "I can’t comment further," said Ventrell about the outcome of discussions on possible U.S. support.
__________________________________________________________
Article: Copyright © 2009 IPS-Inter Press Service
Image: Copyright 2009 TPM Media LLC
Native Rights News is making this material available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.
Read more!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Navajo Nation Calls on Obama to Intervene in Commercial Development that Will Desecrate the Sacred San Francisco Peaks
[Editor's Note: Having lost an en banc (full panel) decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and filed a petition for certiorari (review) with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has issued rulings in the past that have curtailed the religious rights of Indian tribes in favor of commercial interests, the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation and the Hualapai Tribe are now very close to exhausting their judicial remedies. Recognizing this, the Navajo Nation Council, meeting at Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona) on April 22, 2009, passed a resolution calling on President Obama to honor the commitments he made to the Indian Peoples of this nation during his presidential campaign.
They remind him not only of the commitments he made to give Native Americans a voice in Washington D.C. and to honor the government to government relationship that exists between the U.S. and tribal governments and the treaties that have been drawn between them, but also of the United States' obligations under International treaties and conventions concerning the fundamental human right to the practice of one's religious beliefs. This right is about to be extinguished for the thirteen southwestern who hold Dook' o' oosliid (San Francisco Peaks) to be sacred ground.
The resolution calls on Obama to direct administration officials to meet with representatives of the Navajo Nation and other Indian nations and tribes to find a mutually agreeable way to protect Native American sacred sites from desecration and destruction. Alternatively, it asks Obama to "aggressively champion" congressional legislation to protect Native American sacred sites.
A copy of the resolution can be found in .pdf format at: http://www.indigenousaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/CAP-16-09.pdf Our thanks to IndigenousAction.org for making the resolution available to the public on their website. -- Perry H. Chesnut, Editor NRN]
Tribes look to Obama for protection of sacred peaks
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
WINDOW ROCK — The Navajo Nation Council has given its approval for the Nation’s attorneys and leaders to meet with the Obama administration in hopes of working out a settlement to protect the sacred San Francisco Peaks from desecration.
The Nation is seeking an expedited meeting prior to May 8, when the U.S. Solicitor General’s response brief is due to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In “Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service,” the Nation and three other tribes challenged the Forest Service’s approval of an expansion of the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort on the San Francisco Peaks near Flagstaff under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The expansion included using reclaimed sewer water to make artificial snow, which in the view of Indian religious practitioners, desecrates the mountain.
In 2008, the 9th Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that the Forest Service’s approval did not violate the tribes religious freedom because the proposal does not place a substantial burden on their exercise of religion by forcing them to act contrary to their religion under the threat of a legal penalty or choose between their religion and the receipt of a government benefit.
Delegate Leonard Tsosie said it is feared that the Supreme Court will take the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the wrong way, “because they’re somewhat not sentimental to Indian cases.” The high court previously has withdrawn or denied First Amendment rights to tribes when it comes to federal land-management decisions.
The San Francisco Peaks, or Dook’o’oosliid, the sacred mountain to the west, is one of four mountains held holy by the Navajo people and 12 other Arizona tribes. Mount Taylor, or Tsoodzil, the sacred mountain to the south, is threatened by uranium mining.
The Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Havasupai, White Mountain Apache, Hualapai and others filed suit in federal court to stop what is viewed as a “government-sponsored desecration of a well-documented sacred and holy site.”
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act represents the last chance for the Navajo Nation and tribes across the country to protect their sovereignty, practice their religions, and to survive as a people, according to the emergency legislation sponsored by Tsosie and passed, 60-2, last week by Council. Edward Jim and Lawrence Platero voted against the measure.
The Nation has turned to President Barack Obama, who during his election campaign committed to honoring the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government, ensuring that treaty obligations are met and that tribes will have a voice in Washington.
“What this does is it allows our lawyers and also our leaders to sit down with the Obama Administration and look at the possibility of settling the San Francisco Peaks (case) in favor of the Navajo Nation because the lawsuit is ‘Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service,’ and the U.S. Forest Service is being represented by the U.S. government lawyers which the U.S. government has control over,” Tsosie said.
Delegate Ervin Keeswood told Council there also is a need to indicate that there are instruments of international law to which the Nation could resort.
“I believe that it’s time to start quoting and also remind the United States’ government of these actions internationally.
At some point in time ... we may have to go to the international community for resolution of some of these matters if they’re not heard as we wish in the United States government,” he said.
Delegate Rex Lee Jim, the Nation’s “international representative” at the United Nations, received approval for an amendment to the legislation.
The amendment cites religious rights contained in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man supported by the Organization of American States, of which the United States is a member. It also refers to religious rights contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, signed by the United States in 1977.
In September 2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by which the international community has made the effort to strengthen partnership with states, indigenous people and civil society as a whole.
The declaration recognized that “indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.”
The United States is one of four states that voted against the declaration.
“Without such commitment by the United States to protect the rights of its indigenous peoples, sadly the protection of holy and sacred sites such as Dook’o’oosliid will continue to yield to commercial interests,” the amendment states.
The Navajo Nation is formally requesting that Obama, on behalf of the United States and its indigenous peoples, sign the declaration without delay and stand firm with its commitment to protect and preserve holy and sacred sites of indigenous people within the United States.
__________________________________________________________
Article: Copyright © 2009 Gallup Independent
Photo courtesy of Arizona Emporium
Native Rights News is making this material available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.
Read more!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sign-On Letter to Canadian Government Calls for Action to Stop Abuses Committed by Extractive Industries
[Editor's Note: Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, current chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) , is urging organizations and individuals to add their support and signature to her letter to Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper. In that letter, Ms. Tauli-Corpus expresses her disappointment in Canada's past and current policies vis a vis the abuses committed by Canadian transnational corporations against Indigenous Peoples and the environment. She asks that the Canadian government take specific actions to curb such abuses and hold the Canadian extractive industry to account. Following are both letters.
Alliance for Indigenous Rights is signing on to the letter, and we urge all NGO's and individuals concerned about protecting Indigenous Peoples rights and the environment to do the same. -- Perry H. Chesnut, Editor NRN]
Sign-on Letter to Canadian Government
FYI. If you wish to sign-on, please respond directly to vicky@tebtebba.org. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "vicky tauli-corpuz" mailto:vicky@tebtebba.org
Sent: March 30, 2009
Subject: Letter to Canadian Government
Dear Friends,
At the Expert Group Meeting on Extractive Industries, Indigenous and Corporate Social Responisbility a discussion was held regarding the response of the government to the series of roundtables held in Canada which looked into the issue of Extractives. Obviously, the government has not accepted the recommendations. So we drafted a letter [below] which contains our disappointment with the results. Please read this and if you want to sign on please send your name and your organization [to vicky@tebtebba.org]. If you do not have an organization, [please sign] as an individual.
regards, Vicky
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Executive Director, Tebtebba
Convenor, Asia Indigenous Women's Network
1 Roman Ayson Road, Baguio City, Philippines, 2600
Telephone: 63-74-4447703 Fax: 63-74-4439459 mobile: 63-91-75317811
website: http://www.tebtebba.org/
http://www.un.org/socdev/esa/unpfii
------------ --------- --------- ------
29 March 2009
Manila , Philippines Peoples' Rights
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa , ON
Canada
K1A 0A2
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
It is with great regret that we, the undersigned participants of the International Expert Workshop on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, Corporate Accountability and Extractive Industries, and the International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, note the adoption of the new Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector. It is a strategy that falls far short of upholding Canada 's international commitments on human rights, Indigenous Peoples and the environment. By advising on existing voluntary guidelines, instead of imposing binding, regulatory requirements, it is one that will do little to stop abuses by Canadian extractive companies from continuing unabated and unpunished.
Among the Indigenous Peoples present at these two meetings - the first was organized by the Tebtebba Foundation and the second by United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) - are those who earlier in the decade shared personal reports of abuse by Canadian mining companies with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (SCFAIT). In 2005, as you know, that Committee responded by calling on the Government of Canada to "establish clear legal norms to ensure that Canadian companies and residents are held accountable when there is evidence of environmental and/or human rights violations associated with the activities of Canadian mining companies."
In "Building the Canadian Advantage" that recommendation has been ignored, as have the groundbreaking consensus recommendations that resulted from the National CSR Roundtable process. Together these recommendations represent the views of national Parliamentarians, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, industry, labour, socially responsible investors, academics and members of the Canadian public. Given this breadth of support, it is disappointing that the Conservative Government of Canada has chosen to so freely set aside the progressive outputs of democratic and officially mandated dialogue.
Particularly alarming in the new CSR Strategy is the absence of an independent and empowered ombudsperson to investigate and respond to the concerns of affected communities, and the lack of provisions for sanctions and withdrawal of public support when extractive companies fail to comply with human rights and environmental standards. Furthermore, an appointed CSR counselor, who requires the consent of the company involved to undertake a review, and who may target his or her review at both communities and their allies, offers no real recourse for communities that have been adversely affected by Canadian extractive companies, and raises serious questions about corporate co-optation of this instrument, as well as fears that the review process may be used against Indigenous Peoples.
Over the course of the last seven days, numerous participants at the International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples and the International Expert Workshop on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, Corporate Accountability and Extractive Industries have made it clear that the abuse of Indigenous Peoples' rights to lands, territories and resources at the hands of Canadian extractive companies is ongoing. This reality once again underscores the failure of voluntary, industry-driven initiatives to protect human rights and reinforces the need for extra-territorial regulation of extractive industries, especially in the context of weak governance in host countries.
It is our position that the "Canadian Advantage" has already been established in the global extractive sector and it has been established at the expense of the environment and of Indigenous Peoples. The advantage that has been lost is Canada 's reputation as a leader on human rights.
As these important meetings draws to a close in Manila, we call on the Government of Canada to take immediate steps to bring its CSR Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector into line with the recommendations of the SCFAIT Report and the Report of the Advisory Group to the National Roundtables on CSR and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Developing Countries.
It is also critical that any effort by the Canadian government reflects respect for Canada's obligations under such agreements as the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, as well as internationally recognized rights that have been entrenched in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). As you are aware, UNDRIP was endorsed by the Canadian House of Commons last year and in 2007 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination' s (CERD) concluding observations to Canada noted: "with concern the reports of adverse effects of economic activities connected with the exploitation of natural resources in countries outside Canada by transnational corporations registered in Canada on the right to land, health, living environment and the way of life of indigenous peoples living in these regions." CERD concluded by recommending that Canada "explore ways to hold transnational corporations registered in Canada accountable."
Until such a time as full regulatory measures governing Canadian extractive companies can be enacted, we further encourage Canadian Parliamentarians, including members of the Conservative Party of Canada, to consider passing the proposed Bill C-300, an Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries. Over the short-term this Act would effectively supplement the Canadian CSR Strategy by requiring publicly-funded extractive companies to uphold standards like the International Finance Corporation' s Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, with Ministers empowered to review complaints and required to report back to Parliament. Particularly welcome are the suggested amendments contained within Bill C-300, which would lead to the withdrawal of support by Export Development Canada and the cessation of investment by the Canadian Pension Plan where extractive operations are inconsistent with the guidelines that are endorsed in section 5 of the Act.
Ultimately, we request that you reconsider your limited CSR response and commit to measures that genuinely address the serious human rights and environmental abuses associated with Canadian extractive industry companies.
For your information, we have attached the Manila Declaration, the document that resulted from the International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, and will forward the report of the Expert Group Workshop when it is finalized.
We look forward to receiving your reply and request that it be directed to the Secretariat for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, so that they might in turn forward it to participants of the Manila meetings.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns, which echo those raised by over 100 participants from 35 countries.
Institutional Signatories (as of 30 March 2009)
Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago ( Indonesia )
Cordillera Peoples Alliance ( Philippines )
Kanak Agency for Development ( New Caledonia )
Centre for Environmental Research and Development ( Papua New Guinea )
Western Shoshone Defense Project ( USA )
PIPLinks - Indigenous Peoples Links ( UK )
Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education) ( Philippines and UK )
Individual Signatories (as of 30 March 2009)
Mr. Brian Wyatt ( Australia )
Ms. Urantsooj Gombosuren ( Mongolia )
Mr. Cathal Doyle ( Ireland )
Ms. Meaghen Simms ( Canada )
Ms. Elisa Canqui Mollo ( Bolivia )
Mr. Luis Vittor ( Peru )
__________________________________________________________
Source: http://IndigenousThinkers@yahoogroups.com
Native Rights News is making this material available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.
Read more!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Declaration of the International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples
23-25 March 2009
Legend Villas, Metro Manila, Philippines
We, Indigenous Peoples and support organisations from 35 countries around the world and representing many more Indigenous Nations, have gathered together in this International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples. As Indigenous Peoples we have a unique cosmic vision, diversity of languages, histories, spirituality and territories which have existed since time immemorial. However, we now find ourselves within the borders of States which have established norms and laws according to their interests. On account of this situation, we have suffered disproportionately from the impact of extractive industries as our territories are home to over sixty percent of the world's most coveted mineral resources. This has resulted in many problems to our peoples, as it has attracted extractive industry corporations to unsustainably exploit our lands, territories and recourses without our consent. This exploitation has led to the worst forms of, environmental degradation, human rights violations and land dispossession and is contributing to climate change.
Environmental degradation includes, but is not limited to, erosion of our fragile biological diversity, pollution of land, air and water, and destruction of whole ecological systems. Extractive industries, and particularly those relating to fossil fuels, also have significantly contributed to the climate change that is destroying our Mother Earth.
Human rights violations range from violations of Indigenous Peoples' right to self-determination (which includes the right to determine one's own economic, social and cultural development), rights to lands, territories and resources, as well as displacement and violations of the most basic civil and political rights, such as arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, enforced disappearances and killings.
Our cultural diversity has also been grossly eroded because of the destruction of biological diversity and lands, territories and resources by extractive industries upon which our cultures are based. This erosion of our cultural diversity is also a result of the imposition of colonial systems and the settlement of non-Indigenous Peoples. Corporations enter into our territories with the promise of “development” through employment, infrastructure building and payment of governmental taxes. Despite these promises, there still exists a situation of dire poverty in those living close to extractive industry projects. This situation has fuelled conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and the State and extractive industry corporations, as well as causing divisions within the Indigenous communities themselves.
On 6-16 May 1996, a first “Mining and Indigenous Peoples Conference” held in London produced the “Indigenous Peoples' Declaration on Mining”. This declaration highlighted conflicts occurring between our communities and corporations. It reiterated that Indigenous Peoples need to be the decision makers on whether or not mining should take place in their communities and under what conditions this may occur.
Almost 13 years have passed since this conference was held, but overall our situation on the ground has not noticeably improved. The opportunities and threats since the 1996 conference include:-
• the welcome adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007;
• new UN mechanisms for the protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• a greater interest on the relationship between human rights and corporate behaviour, including the work of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises;
• the recognition of corporate social responsibility and a claimed willingness on behalf of corporations to negotiate agreements directly with Indigenous Peoples, although so far much of this seems to be more on paper or promises, as opposed to practice;
• the climate change crisis, coming about mainly because of dependence of the current economy on fossil fuels. These resources are mined on our land and many of our peoples are disproportionately affected by such activities; and
• the global financial crisis, caused by the unregulated liberalisation of finance.
Based on the foregoing observations, we assert that:-
• Indigenous Peoples are rights holders, with an inextricable link to their lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired, and should not be treated merely as stakeholders. We have a right to self-determination of our political condition and to freely choose our economic, social and cultural development (UN DRIP Article 3);
• our rights are inherent and indivisible and seek recognition not only of our full social, cultural and economic rights but also our civil and political rights;• all doctrines, policies and practices based on the presumed superiority of colonial peoples and worldviews should be condemned;
• we contribute to the diversity and richness of the cultures that make up humanity and believe that we can teach valuable lessons to the rest of the world through our values and world views in how to tread gently upon the earth;
• destruction of Indigenous Peoples sacred sites and areas of spiritual and cultural significance by extractive industries must stop;
• the vulnerable position of women and youth with regard to the impacts of extractive industries, including loss of livelihoods, violence and impacts on health and well-being must be recognized;
• the development model premised on unsustainable consumption and production, and corporate globalisation, which fuels the entry of extractive industries onto our lands must be rejected;
• respect for the preservation of life on earth, and our right to food, must have precedence over extractive industry projects;
• extractive industry projects must not take precedence over our right to land - regardless of whether our rights are based on legal recognition or usufruct rights;
• there must be an immediate end to the criminalization of community resistance, the violent intimidation, harassment, and murder, of our leaders, activists and lawyers who are working for the defence of our lands and lives;
• extractive industry projects must not take precedence over the human right to water. Water is especially important in our lives and is sacred to us. In addition the major reserves of fresh water are found in our territories;
• the right to water is a fundamental human right which must be recognized. We therefore condemn the conduct of the World Water Council which demotes the right to water a “basic need”;
• negotiations about climate change should not be conducted by States and international organisations unless there is full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, mitigation and adaptation measures related to climate change must be designed and implemented in keeping with Indigenous Peoples' rights;
• the failure to hold extractive industries to account in host and home countries must be addressed and mechanisms for accountability and enforcement must be created immediately; and
• implementation of interstate infrastructure initiatives - such as the South American Regional Infrastructure Initiative (IIRSA) - that lead to mega-projects on our lands and territories without first obtaining our free prior and informed consent (FPIC) are destructive to our cultures and survival, and a denial of our right to self determination.
Given the above, in order to ensure respect for the rights recognized in the UN DRIP, as well as the ecological integrity of our planet and communities, we call for:-
• a stop to the plunder of our lands, territories and resources;
• a moratorium on further extractive industry projects that affect or threaten our communities, until structures and processes are in place that ensure respect for our human rights. The determination of when this has been realized can only be made by those communities whose lives, livelihoods and environment are affected by those projects;
• due process and justice to victims of human rights violations who are resisting extractive industries;
• review of all on-going projects that are approved without respect for our FPIC and self determination rights; and
• compensation and restitution for damages inflicted upon our lands, territories and resources, and the rehabilitation of our degraded environments caused by extractive industry projects that did not obtain our FPIC.
We call on Indigenous Communities and their Supporters:-
• to create an international mechanism working on extractive industries and Indigenous Peoples aimed at sharing information, education, advocacy and the defence of our rights;
• to coordinate research on mining companies, processes and investment sources to empower communities, build strategic plans and ensure recognition and respect for our rights;
• to assert their right to control the authorization of projects, and where FPIC has been given, the conduct of extractive activities in indigenous lands and territories through the use of indigenous customary laws;
• to create a mechanism to compile legal precedents from relevant court decisions on Indigenous Peoples and extractive industries;
• to build relationships with non-indigenous groups concerned with the problem of extractive industries, nationally and internationally, to find common ground; and
• to establish a International Day of Action on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples.
We call on Civil Society Organisations:-
• to increase their support, and solidarity in a manner that is sensitive to the issues of Indigenous Peoples;
• especially conservation and other NGOs, not to impose themselves or their views upon us, but respect our legitimate leadership and also seek the FPIC of communities before intervening; this also applies to academics including anthropologists; and
We call on Companies:-
• to respect international standards on rights in all jurisdictions, especially the minimum standards as set forth in the UN DRIP, which includes in particular, the right to lands, territories and resources and attendant right to FPIC. This also applies to consultants;
• to submit to independent and credible monitoring;
• to be accountable for the environmental disasters, destruction and human rights violations as a result of their operations;
• to employ proven technology and adhere to the precautionary principle at all levels and in each project;
• to recognize the specific vulnerability of indigenous women to the negative impacts involved with extractive industries;
• to ensure full transparency in all aspects of their operations, and especially to ensure affected communities have full access to information in forms and languages they can understand; and
• to conduct and implement environmental, social, cultural and human rights impact assessments to the highest international standards ensuring independent review and participation of indigenous peoples;
We call on Investors:-
• to ensure that policies in relation to investments in indigenous territories reflect the rights articulated in the UN DRIP, and that the ethical index listings used should base their investment recommendations on third party information, as opposed solely to information from the company in which they may invest and
• not to invest in fossil fuel related projects.
We call on States:-
• specifically those States that have not done so yet, to adopt the UN DRIP and ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) 169, and for those States who have to uphold the rights articulated therein;
• to establish, in consultation with Indigenous Peoples, clear mechanisms and procedures at national levels for the implementation of international juridical instruments, specifically the UN DRIP, ILO 169 and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD);
• to review laws and policies on extractive industries that are detrimental to Indigenous Peoples, and ensure consistency with the UN DRIP and international instruments protecting Indigenous Peoples rights;
• to recognize and enforce the rights Indigenous Peoples to FPIC as laid out in UN DRIP, in accordance with our customary laws and traditional practices;
• to recognize and ensure the demarcation and titling of our ancestral lands;
• to recognize our customary laws and traditional mechanisms of conflict resolutions;
• to support the efforts of Indigenous Peoples to develop economic alternatives to extractive industries, in order to alleviate the poverty that creates false dependencies on extractive industries;
• to abolish hedge funds and all forms of private equity that are not transparent and well regulated, and which distort the price of minerals;
• to legislate and regulate thorough processes for independently conducted environmental, social, cultural and human rights impact assessments, with regular monitoring during all of the phases of production and rehabilitation;
• to protect indigenous activists, human rights defenders and lawyers working on human rights issues, and where the State is the violator we demand an end to the violations against our peoples;
• to ban particularly harmful extractive practices, including riverine tailings disposal, gas flaring, effluent discharges, submarine tailings disposal, mountain top removal and large scale open-pit mining. Given the risks posed by climate change, serious re-consideration should be given to the construction of tailings containment in low-lying coastal areas and in areas exposed to increasingly severe weather events and
• to ensure that their development cooperation policies and programmes respect Indigenous Peoples rights’, in particular in the context of extractive industries and our right to FPIC.
We call on the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII):-
• to request that the UN Indigenous Peoples Expert Mechanism conduct a study, with the participation of Indigenous Peoples, on the impact of extractive industries on them, by consolidating all recommendations, observations and decisions of UN Treaty and Charter bodies pertaining to the subject and identifying the measures taken by States to adhere with these;
• to request that UN mechanisms, agencies and bodies promote the elaboration of mechanisms and procedures for States to implement to minimum standards set forth in the UN DRIP, including in particular the right to FPIC;
• to establish procedures which provide indigenous communities with the opportunity to request the relevant UN agencies to assist them in the monitoring and provision of independent information in FPIC processes;
• to support the Indigenous Peoples’ proposal that there be an international Mother Earth Day, and encourage all UN agencies, mechanisms and bodies to do likewise;
• to demand the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in all discussions and decisions pertaining to international agreements and conventions that address issues of biological diversity and or climate change;
• to emphasize the need to address the direct and indirect impacts of extractive industry on climate change, including those associated with mitigation measures;
• to emphasize the need for the widespread diffusion of information and critical debate between Indigenous Peoples about the ongoing mechanisms and negotiations relative to carbon trading and the carbon market;
• to request that the Special Representative to the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other businesses, John Ruggie, and other UN organisations, bodies and agencies, promote the enactment of legislation in home states of transnational corporations that provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to their activities;
• to recommend that the World Bank Group update its operational directives and safeguard policies pertaining to Indigenous Peoples to include the right to FPIC, as required under the UN DRIP;
• to recommend that the World Bank Group immediately stop funding, promoting and supporting fossil fuel related projects and large scale mining projects on indigenous lands, and provide a set timeline for ending of all such funding;
• to recommend that the World Bank stop influencing the design of national policies in developing countries in a manner that promotes the interests of transnational mining corporations over the rights of indigenous communities;
• to recommend that the World Health Organisation consider conducting a study on the impact of cyanide and heavy metals on the right to health of communities impacted by mining;
• to address the urgent need for the genuine recognition of indigenous religious, cultural and spiritual rights, including their sacred sites in the context of extractive projects and
• to recommend that all bilateral agreements should guarantee that indigenous peoples’ human rights are respected.
__________________________________________________________
Source: Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization (UNPO)
Native Rights News is making this material from UNPO available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.
Read more!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Pressure Mounts on New Zealand to Adopt UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
NZ now lagging behind in Indigenous Rights
Friday, 3 April 2009, 3:23 pm
Press Release: Hamilton City Council
Amnesty International Aotearoa NZ welcomes [NZ Prime Minister] John Key's recent comments regarding New Zealand's possible support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but calls on the NZ Government to follow in Australia's footsteps by making a solid commitment to the Declaration.
An announcement was made today by Australian Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin that Australia will officially support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
"Australia has now taken a lead role in the promotion of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is time for NZ to follow suit and support the Declaration and its potential for promoting trust and a healthy treaty-relationship between Maori, iwi and hapu and the NZ Government," says Andrew Erueti, Amnesty's Co-ordinator of the Human Rights of Indigenous People's Programme.
Though the Declaration is non-binding, NZ's endorsement would signal to the international community this country's serious commitment to Indigenous Rights.
"While Amnesty welcomes the NZ Governments recent decision to review the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act - an Act that was unequivocally criticised by the UN. NZ's immediate and unqualified support for the Declaration would contribute significantly towards healing the rift between Maori and Government over the foreshore debate," adds Erueti.
New Zealand was amongst only four countries to vote against the Declaration when the UN's General Assembly adopted it in September 2007, along with Australia, the United States and Canada.
"Amnesty International has consistently made calls for New Zealand to endorse this Declaration as another step forward in this country's leadership of human rights. A commitment now from the NZ Government would ensure that all New Zealanders stand to gain from such a show of good faith," says Erueti.
__________________________________________________________
NRN source for this article: Scoop Independent News
Native Rights News is making this material from [name of news source] available in accordance with a press release issued on April 3, 2009 by the Hamilton New Zealand City Council and the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
Read more!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Australia Adopts UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights: U.S., Canada, and New Zealand More Isolated
Australia backs UN declaration on indigenous rights
Last Updated: Friday, April 3, 2009 2:09 PM ET
CBC News
The Australian government has endorsed a United Nations declaration that recognizes the rights of indigenous people to their own culture, institutions and spiritual traditions.
Friday's endorsement of the non-binding declaration on the rights of the world's more than 370 million indigenous peoples reverses a position taken by Australia's previous conservative government.
Australia was one of four countries to reject the declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2007, the others being Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
"We do this in the spirit of resetting the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and building trust," Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said.
In one of his first acts after taking office last year, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered a formal apology to Australia's Aborigines for past government injustices, a gesture that his predecessor John Howard had resisted for years.
At the time, some Aborigines said the apology should have been accompanied with compensation for their suffering.
'Canada … even more isolated'
Still, indigenous leader Tom Calma on Friday described Macklin's statement as a milestone.
"This declaration gives us the scaffolding we need for our efforts to reject forever a passive acceptance of the brutal fact that indigenous Australians are dying on average about 17 years earlier than non-indigenous Australians," he said in a statement.
The Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador said it's "thrilled" by Australian's decision to join the 143 countries that have supported the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
With this additional support for the declaration, "Canada finds itself in an even more isolated position," the group said in a statement.
Australia's former conservative government had argued the declaration could give unfair advantage to Aborigines and override Australian law. Canada and the U.S. voiced similar concerns.
With files from the Associated Press
__________________________________________________________
Copyright © CBC 2009
Native Rights News is making this material from CBCNews.ca available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
Read more!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
San Francisco Seminar Slated on Indigenous Struggle to Defend Sacred Places
TRAINING: Indigenous Peoples’ Struggles to Defend Sacred Places, Saturday March 7, 2009, San Francisco State University
IITC E-News
January 2009
"Our Grandfathers and Grandmothers are still holding a bundle to pray for the water to return, and to bring back a good rain and a good snow for the Land, for the people who remain on the Land, for their grandchildren and the animals."-- Kee Watchman, Dineh NationIndigenous Peoples’ Struggles to Defend Sacred Places: Symposium and Human Rights Training
Saturday, March 7, 2009
San Francisco State University, Richard Oakes Memorial Room
PRESENTERS: Carrie Dann & Julie Cavanaugh-Bill, Western Shoshone Defense Project; Manny Pino, Save the Peaks Coalition; Andrea Carmen & Alberto Saldamando, IITC; Radley Davis & Mark Lebeau, Advocates for the Protection of Sacred Sites;
MODERATOR: Morning Star Gali, IITC
9:00 AM: Traditional opening and welcome
9:30 – 12:30 PM: Using United Nations human rights bodies and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to defend our Rights
12:30 – 2:00 PM: LUNCH BREAK
2:00 – 6:00 PM: Current struggles to protect our Sacred Places: Mt. Tenabo (Western Shoshone), Medicine Lake (Northern California) , San Francisco Peaks & Black Mesa (Arizona), Shell Mounds (Bay Area) & others
6:00 – 7:30 PM: DINNER BREAK (dinner provided for participants)
7:30 – 9:30 PM: Evening Program: Honoring our Cultural Warriors and Panel Presentation featuring special guests: Carrie Dann and Manny Pino
FOR MORE INFORMATION: MORNINGSTAR GALI, IITC SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE: (415) 641-4482
__________________________________________________________
IITC E-News 2009
Native Rights News is making this material from the International Indian Treaty Council available in accordance with the implied consent of the publisher and the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
Read more!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
International Pressure Mounts on Canada to Do More about Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Canada's Record on Indigenous Rights Questioned at UN Human Rights Council
OTTAWA, Feb. 4 /CNW Telbec/ - The international community has sent a strong message that the Government of Canada must do more to uphold the human rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Canada's human rights record was reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday, February 3 as part of the new Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.
Of the 45 states that spoke during the three -hour session, 30 raised concerns about the rights of Indigenous peoples. Some of the strongest recommendations came from states that have traditionally allied with Canada in the promotion of human rights.
The United Kingdom, for example, recommended that Canada give its "highest priority" to addressing "fundamental inequalities" between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people including through "resolution of land claims and reconciliation of governance and self-government."
The governments of Norway and Denmark called on Canada to reconsider its opposition to the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Norwegian representative said, "We believe the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is unique as a universal framework for improving implementation of existing rights of Indigenous peoples in all countries of the world."
The government of Norway also called for "comprehensive reporting and statistical analysis of the scale and character of violence against Indigenous women so that a national strategy can be initiated in consultation with Indigenous representatives to respond to the severity of this issue."
Switzerland expressed concern over the lengthy process for resolving Indigenous land disputes and the concessions demanded by the government as a condition for settling claims. Switzerland urged Canada to "redouble its efforts" to resolve land disputes and to improve the mechanisms for doing so.
Canada was also questioned about the rights of Indigenous peoples by states with close economic ties. The government of the Philippines asked, "Is there specific legislation which covers mining activities in lands claimed by Indigenous communities? What mechanisms are in place to resolve possible disputes between private corporations, local and federal government and Indigenous communities in this regard?"
Twenty-three states did not have a chance to speak because of time constraints. They have submitted questions and recommendations in writing. For example, Zambia recommended Canada "take steps to review its position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, consistent with the principal of international cooperation and the protection of the international human rights system as a whole."
Canada failed to consult with Indigenous peoples' organizations and domestic human rights groups before submitting its report to the Human Rights Council. Such consultation is recommended by the UPR process. Unfortunately, the failure to hold consultations was not made clear in Canada's report or in yesterday's session, which led some states to congratulate Canada on its consultations.
"The government is working with Aboriginal communities to agree on priorities," John Sims, the Deputy Minister of Justice, told the UN Human Rights Council. "The challenges are enormous. The scale of issues to confront is vast and many of the issues are technically very complex but we're moving ahead on many fronts: education, entrepreneurship, economic development, land claims, safe drinking water and so on."
Indigenous peoples' organizations and human rights groups are calling on Canada to take the recommendations of the UPR seriously and to engage constructively with Indigenous peoples and civil society to ensure their implementation.
The report of the Council's UPR Working Group will be released on Thursday, February 5. The Government of Canada will have until June to respond.
Video recordings of the session and related documents can be found online at: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=090203
For further information: Assembly of First Nations: Don Kelly, Communications, (613) 241-6789 ext 334, dkelly@afn.ca; Gina Cosentino, Government Relations + International Affairs, National Chief's Office, (613) 241-6789 ext 356, gcosentino@afn.ca; Amnesty International Canada: Beth Berton-Hunter, Media Officer, Amnesty International Canada, (416) 363-9933, ext 32, Cell: (416) 904-7158; Canadian Friends Service Committee: Jennifer Preston, (416) 920-5213; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Stephen Hendrie, Director of Communications, Cell: (613) 277-3178, hendrie@itk.ca; Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada): Corinne Gray, (613) 563-2642; KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice: Ed Bianchi, Indigenous Rights Program Coordinator, (613) 235-9956; Native Women's Association of Canada: Celeste McKay, cell: (613) 858-7070; Quebec Native Women: Ellen Gabriel, (450) 632-0088 ext. 228
__________________________________________________________
© 2009 CNW Group Ltd.
Native Rights News is making this material from Assembly of First Nations available as the result of a general press release. This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 2/05/2009 02:31:00 PM
Read more!
Written Submissions to UN Human Rights Council Blast Canada
Submissions to Geneva council include issues such as treatment of indigenous peoples, immigration
Linda Diebel
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER
Canada could soon find itself "named and shamed" as a country that violates human rights in a United Nations review.
Close to 50 submissions blasting Canada – on everything from the state of indigenous peoples to problems with immigration policy – have been filed with the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council as part of a new review process for UN nations.
"To be criticized doesn't mean Canada has joined the worst of the worst (abusing nations)," said Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, of Canada's review that begins Feb. 3. "But as a general rule, Canadians are proud this is a country that believes in human rights and do want our governments (federal, provincial and territorial) to do the right thing."
The Amnesty submission highlights several concerns. In a section on indigenous rights, it notes more children are in the care of the state now than during the century-plus period when they were forcibly removed from communities and sent to Indian residential schools.
"The Canadian record of upholding the rights of indigenous peoples is a real disgrace and a source of national shame," said Neve. "These are not political, economic or natural resource matters. These are issues of human rights."
He said Amnesty International expects Canada to be cited for falling short on human rights issues in a number of areas when the UN rights arm publishes its final report.
While only member states can ask questions or make recommendations during the Feb. 3 hearing, written submissions are taken into consideration for the report.
Canada currently sits on the 47-member council, a slot filled by rotation.
In its submission, the Assembly of First Nations criticizes Ottawa for refusing to endorse the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as other problems.
"Canada's position blatantly rejects and undermines the international and domestic rights processes," it says, noting the indigenous population of Canada is "drastically over-represented in incarceration rates, disabilities, poor health indices, suicide and poverty."
The brief cites last year's apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on behalf of Canadians for Indian residential schools, which were aimed at assimilation. Churches ran the schools for about 150 years, an issue addressed by a class-action settlement, the creation of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the public apology.
But the submission suggests no progress has been made.
Grand Chief Ed John, from the First Nations Summit in B.C., said Canada has "a duty to uphold human rights at the highest level."
"The government is opposed to the declaration (on aboriginal rights) for purely ideological reasons," said John.
John criticized the federal government's labelling as consultations its meetings with non-governmental organizations – including with his group and others in B.C. last Friday – when the federal submission to the UN is dated Jan. 5.
"It was after the fact," said John.
The federal government lauds Canada's rights record in its lengthy brief, citing everything from the court system and universal health care to education.
Paul Joffe, an international human rights lawyer, said the power of the review comes with publicity or its "name and shame" aspect.
"What country wants to be put in a report as being against human rights?" asked Joffe. "This process is meant to encourage countries to improve their behaviour and uplift standards."
This new process means countries will be judged for the first time by their peers, rather than by UN agencies.
All 198 UN members are reviewed every four years.
"Canadians should be concerned because the government signs international agreements and doesn't abide by them," said John Lewis, human rights co-ordinator for the Toronto-based group, KAIROS.
"In particular, we've begun to fall down on economic, social and cultural rights. That is worrisome at any time, but particularly so during an economic downturn."
In its brief, KAIROS, an organization with ecumenical support, says a majority of migrant workers in Canada report they "continue to face unacceptable living and working conditions" and that "workplace safety standards are not properly monitored and enforced."
__________________________________________________________
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2009
Native Rights News is making this material from the Toronto Star available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/14/2009 07:30:00 AM
Read more!
OAS Moves Forward on DRIP Taylored to Needs of Indigenous Peoples
Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples moves forward
By Gale Courey Toensing
Story Published: January 9, 2009
Story Updated: January 9, 2009
Around 50 indigenous representatives from the Americas attended the special session Dec. 9-12 at OAS headquarters in the Simón Bolívar Room. The OAS is an international body comparable to the United Nations that consists of 35 nations in the Americas. It is the region's principal multilateral forum for strengthening democracy, promoting human rights, and dealing with shared problems such as poverty, terrorism, illegal drugs and corruption, and carries out mandates established by the hemisphere's leaders. Visit the group's Web site at http://oas.org/.
The working group is involved in final revisions of the text, working out issues related to the process of negotiation, and pinpointing the particular issues unique to the hemisphere's indigenous peoples that should be reflected in the declaration.
December's special session was not a negotiating session, but nevertheless presented challenges, said Leonardo Crippa, a Kolla member from Argentina, and staff attorney at the Indian Law Resource Center, which has been participating in the process of developing the American Declaration since its beginning in 1989. The center's Web site can be viewed at http://indianlaw.org/.
"In negotiating sessions we usually negotiate the language that will be in the text of the American Declaration, but this time even though there were no negotiations there were some challenges, for instance, the identification of the particularities of the region that this American Declaration should reflect. That was challenging because we needed to reach some sort of agreement between the indigenous representatives and the state representatives," Crippa said.
There is consensus among the indigenous representatives, but one of the major challenges has been to get the U.S. government under the Bush administration to ratify any human rights treaty. The U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were the only four nations that voted against adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007.
The U.S. government has submitted statements to the working group outlining its general reservations about the outcome of each negotiation session. It also submitted 10 principles of the rights of indigenous peoples that it believes were already achieved in the negotiation process.
"And by doing this the U.S. basically said, 'Well, since we are submitting our general reservations on this with the 10 principles, we're not going to be involved actively in the discussions,' and that's what they've been doing for almost one year."
Canada and Columbia fall in line with whatever the U.S. wants.
The U.S. still sends representatives to the sessions, but they are observers only and not actively involved. There is hope that will change with the Obama administration, he said.
The American Declaration will complement the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Whereas the U.N. Declaration makes a universal and broad statement of rights, the American Declaration will address the particular needs of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
Crippa said the special session in December was successful in defining the articles of the Draft American Declaration that are close to agreement and will become part of the negotiation sessions this year, and in identifying the regional particularities that should be reflected in the Draft American Declaration.
In Columbia, for example, there is an internal armed conflict that is imposing human rights violations on indigenous peoples there, Crippa said. Another regional particularity is the regularity with which states fail to comply with treaties they've signed with indigenous peoples. And there is the case of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in the Amazon and regional countries like Peru, Columbia and Ecuador.
The sensitive areas basically relate to property rights, land uses, natural resources, self government and self determination.
Indigenous peoples are threatened by destructive industrial projects on or near their territories – mining, oil drilling, construction and logging. This is an issue faced both by American Indian tribes and indigenous peoples in developing countries.
"And a big particularity is the existence of indigenous peoples with their own judicial system, with their own government, with their own legislative organizations which is something that is occurring here in the U.S.," Crippa said.
These issues often end up in U.S. courts with rulings against the tribes. The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will provide the standards for the administration of justice and the OAS to provide the international venue to adjudicate these cases.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is an autonomous organ of the OAS and is one of two bodies in the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The commission has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The other human rights body is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which is located in San José, Costa Rica.
"Both the Inter American Commission and the court will interpret the American Declaration because they will have jurisdiction to do that legal work whenever they have a case concerning human rights violations of indigenous peoples," Crippa said.
That means the American Declaration will, in fact, be more effective on the ground than the U.N. Declaration because it will be implemented through an already existing court system. At the U.N. level, there is no international human rights court.
"It's a big difference," he said.
He said the Inter-American Court and domestic courts in Mexico and central and South America have already used the standards of the Draft American Declaration in deciding indigenous cases, so a body of case law is being built that will set precedent for future legal actions.
Just as most international human rights laws started out as declarations, the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the first step toward becoming an international convention or treaty.
The working group will hold meetings in Washington Jan. 26-30 and March 23-27. Once the indigenous and state representatives agree on the language of the declaration, the working group will submit the text to the OAS General Assembly for adoption by a vote of all the American member states.
"I think some time in 2010 it will be adopted."
© 1998 - 2009 Indian Country Today
Native Rights News is making this material from Indian Country Today available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/13/2009 08:42:00 AM
Read more!
