[I found this in my inbox this morning. I think many people in Canada will agree with this message. The Government of Canada behaved immorally, and did not represent me, when they voted "no" to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights.]
As Chief of Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation I agree that not voting for and not signing the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights has embarrassed Canada internationally. But the reality is that in Canada violations of human rights have been happening under successive governments despite the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In 1982, the Right to Property was taken out of the original draft of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the Trudeau Government understood that including the Right to Property as a Charter Right would have significantly increased the onus on the courts to recognize the property rights of the original owners of the land, the indigenous people. A right to property in Canadian domestic law would therefore put in jeopardy the continued theft of the resources from the original owners.
Canada and the United States are two of the wealthiest countries in the world and it is no secret that the resource wealth was stolen from the indigenous people of North America with extreme prejudice. Canada and the United States have a combined land mass of over 7.5 million square miles. It is no wonder that the governments of both these countries would vote against the international justice of recognizing indigenous people as a people with inherent rights.
If the Liberal Party of Canada wants real justice and are not just playing party politics, the introduction in parliament of an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include the right to property would go a long way to finally recognize the interational obligation that Canada has to support in domestic law, article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Until that is done, the reality is that the 3 million barrels of oil produced by Canada each and every day, is still stolen from indigenous people. More than 60 different metals and minerals mined in Canada produces wealth, but without any legal recognition of royalties or any payment of royalties for the original owners of the resources.
In Canada, the indigenous people are still at the 63rd level of the United Nations international living index while at the same time Canadians enjoy being the ninth richest country in the world with a Gross Domestic Product of over one trillion US dollars per year. We, as the indigenous people of these lands, are not surprised by the vote, just disappointed by the continued international reputation of Canada and the United States as being bastions of human rights.
- Chief Terrance Nelson
Showing posts with label UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
ICC climate change petition rejected
by Jane George
The effort to link climate change with human rights has suffered a setback.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights won’t consider a petition that alleges that the United States government is violating the human rights of Inuit by refusing to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted the petition last December with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Canada and Alaska, received the news in a letter from the commission last month.
“It was disappointing for sure. Their letter was evasive and dismissive, and that’s the part that disappoints me and angers me more than anything else,” Watt-Cloutier said.
The letter states the commission “will not be able to process your petition at present... the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration.”
But Watt-Cloutier hasn’t given up.
She’s asked the commission for further information on why it isn’t proceeding. She’s also invited commission members to visit the Arctic for a hearing “to provide testimony and documentation on these problems which are seriously affecting Inuit survival.”
Watt-Cloutier has told her 62 co-petitioners that “the issue remains much too important for us not to continue fighting for the world to take serious action against climate change.”
Watt-Cloutier said she isn’t discouraged by this down-turn of events.
“I’m an optimistic by nature. There are things that are happening today,” she said. “There’s some hope coming up now – Stéphane Dion is the Liberal leader.”
Watt-Cloutier unveiled the petition last December at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Montreal, which Dion, then the federal environment minister, chaired.
The petition then went to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington. The commission is an international legal body affiliated with the Organization of American States, but which operates at arms-length from the OAS and its member states.
The outcome of the legal action, supported by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska and Canada, was expected to have great influence on other courts and other jurisdictions.
The idea behind the petition, said Watt-Cloutier, was to encourage people in the South to realize climate change affects people as well the environment and the economy.
The detailed 175-page petition said climate change threatens the rights of Inuit to use and enjoy their traditional lands and personal property, their rights to health and life, to residence and movement and to their livelihood.
The petition asked for “relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global warming and climate change caused by acts and omission of the U.S.,” which has not supported any mandatory reduction agreements designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming.
The petition also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit the Arctic, conduct a hearing, and issue a report recommending the U.S. adopt mandatory measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and cooperate on other international efforts.
The petition wanted the commission to produce plans to protect Inuit culture and resources, which would outline assistance options for adaptation and “any other relief that the commission considers appropriate and just.”
The petition mentioned no amount of money.
Since 1965, the commission has processed about 12,000 human rights cases, many of them involving allegations of mass murder, torture and arbitrary imprisonment made by victims of state terror in countries like Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala. The body has also dealt with land rights cases brought forward by indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.
The Centre for International Environmental Law and the group Earth Justice provided free services to ICC in launching this petition and continue to provide legal follow-up. James Anaya, an aboriginal lawyer who works at the University of Arizona’s college of law, helped draft the petition, along with Nunavut lawyers Paul Crowley and Sandra Inutiq, and two graduate students from the U.S.
Watt-Cloutier said the next step is to wait and see how the commission reacts to the most recent round of correspondence.
“It is a long battle, but I think the least we expect is respect and some kind of a response.”
No matter what the petition’s fate is, Watt-Cloutier, who finished her tenure as ICC chair last July, intends to keep the focus on what she calls “the human face” of climate change in the Arctic.
Earlier this week, journalist Marianne Pearl, the widow of Daniel Pearl, a reporter murdered four years ago by terrorists in Pakistan, was in Iqaluit to interview Watt-Cloutier for a feature article, which will be published in the widely-circulated magazine, Glamour.
Then, Watt-Cloutier headed to Ottawa, where she was to be invested into the Order of Canada by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean on Friday, Dec. 15.
After Christmas, Watt-Cloutier plans to travel through five U.S. states on an “Arctic Voices” tour to raise awareness about the impact of climate change on Inuit.
The effort to link climate change with human rights has suffered a setback.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights won’t consider a petition that alleges that the United States government is violating the human rights of Inuit by refusing to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted the petition last December with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Canada and Alaska, received the news in a letter from the commission last month.
“It was disappointing for sure. Their letter was evasive and dismissive, and that’s the part that disappoints me and angers me more than anything else,” Watt-Cloutier said.
The letter states the commission “will not be able to process your petition at present... the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration.”
But Watt-Cloutier hasn’t given up.
She’s asked the commission for further information on why it isn’t proceeding. She’s also invited commission members to visit the Arctic for a hearing “to provide testimony and documentation on these problems which are seriously affecting Inuit survival.”
Watt-Cloutier has told her 62 co-petitioners that “the issue remains much too important for us not to continue fighting for the world to take serious action against climate change.”
Watt-Cloutier said she isn’t discouraged by this down-turn of events.
“I’m an optimistic by nature. There are things that are happening today,” she said. “There’s some hope coming up now – Stéphane Dion is the Liberal leader.”
Watt-Cloutier unveiled the petition last December at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Montreal, which Dion, then the federal environment minister, chaired.
The petition then went to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington. The commission is an international legal body affiliated with the Organization of American States, but which operates at arms-length from the OAS and its member states.
The outcome of the legal action, supported by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska and Canada, was expected to have great influence on other courts and other jurisdictions.
The idea behind the petition, said Watt-Cloutier, was to encourage people in the South to realize climate change affects people as well the environment and the economy.
The detailed 175-page petition said climate change threatens the rights of Inuit to use and enjoy their traditional lands and personal property, their rights to health and life, to residence and movement and to their livelihood.
The petition asked for “relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global warming and climate change caused by acts and omission of the U.S.,” which has not supported any mandatory reduction agreements designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming.
The petition also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit the Arctic, conduct a hearing, and issue a report recommending the U.S. adopt mandatory measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and cooperate on other international efforts.
The petition wanted the commission to produce plans to protect Inuit culture and resources, which would outline assistance options for adaptation and “any other relief that the commission considers appropriate and just.”
The petition mentioned no amount of money.
Since 1965, the commission has processed about 12,000 human rights cases, many of them involving allegations of mass murder, torture and arbitrary imprisonment made by victims of state terror in countries like Argentina, El Salvador and Guatemala. The body has also dealt with land rights cases brought forward by indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.
The Centre for International Environmental Law and the group Earth Justice provided free services to ICC in launching this petition and continue to provide legal follow-up. James Anaya, an aboriginal lawyer who works at the University of Arizona’s college of law, helped draft the petition, along with Nunavut lawyers Paul Crowley and Sandra Inutiq, and two graduate students from the U.S.
Watt-Cloutier said the next step is to wait and see how the commission reacts to the most recent round of correspondence.
“It is a long battle, but I think the least we expect is respect and some kind of a response.”
No matter what the petition’s fate is, Watt-Cloutier, who finished her tenure as ICC chair last July, intends to keep the focus on what she calls “the human face” of climate change in the Arctic.
Earlier this week, journalist Marianne Pearl, the widow of Daniel Pearl, a reporter murdered four years ago by terrorists in Pakistan, was in Iqaluit to interview Watt-Cloutier for a feature article, which will be published in the widely-circulated magazine, Glamour.
Then, Watt-Cloutier headed to Ottawa, where she was to be invested into the Order of Canada by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean on Friday, Dec. 15.
After Christmas, Watt-Cloutier plans to travel through five U.S. states on an “Arctic Voices” tour to raise awareness about the impact of climate change on Inuit.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A OA6
October 15, 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
In June, the overwhelming majority of members of the UN Human Rights Council voted to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This was a momentous achievement for the advancement of international human rights.
The Declaration has been under development for more than two decades. Throughout all those years, Indigenous peoples in every region of the world have continued to be uprooted from their lands, subject to discriminatory laws and policies, and targeted for violence and repression.
The international community must send a clear message that such abuses not be tolerated any longer. The Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important framework affirming the right of Indigenous peoples to maintain their distinct cultural identities and calling on states and Indigenous peoples to work together in a new spirit of partnership.
States as diverse as Norway and Mexico have agreed that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an appropriate and effective framework for encouraging and guiding the reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies.
It was deeply disappointing therefore that Canada was one of only two states to vote against the adoption of the Declaration by the Human Rights Council.
Your government has failed to provide a credible explanation for its opposition to the adoption of a Declaration that Canadian officials played a key role in drafting. I believe that Canada’s opposition to the Declaration was unnecessary. Canada’s opposition was harmful to the cause of human rights.
This Fall, the Declaration will come before the UN General Assembly. I urge you to ensure that Canada does not take any action that would delay the adoption of this vitally important human rights instrument or in any way undermine the positive message of its adoption by the international community.
Sincerely,
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A OA6
October 15, 2006
Dear Prime Minister,
In June, the overwhelming majority of members of the UN Human Rights Council voted to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This was a momentous achievement for the advancement of international human rights.
The Declaration has been under development for more than two decades. Throughout all those years, Indigenous peoples in every region of the world have continued to be uprooted from their lands, subject to discriminatory laws and policies, and targeted for violence and repression.
The international community must send a clear message that such abuses not be tolerated any longer. The Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important framework affirming the right of Indigenous peoples to maintain their distinct cultural identities and calling on states and Indigenous peoples to work together in a new spirit of partnership.
States as diverse as Norway and Mexico have agreed that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an appropriate and effective framework for encouraging and guiding the reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies.
It was deeply disappointing therefore that Canada was one of only two states to vote against the adoption of the Declaration by the Human Rights Council.
Your government has failed to provide a credible explanation for its opposition to the adoption of a Declaration that Canadian officials played a key role in drafting. I believe that Canada’s opposition to the Declaration was unnecessary. Canada’s opposition was harmful to the cause of human rights.
This Fall, the Declaration will come before the UN General Assembly. I urge you to ensure that Canada does not take any action that would delay the adoption of this vitally important human rights instrument or in any way undermine the positive message of its adoption by the international community.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)