----- Original Message ----- 
From: RUSSELL DIABO 
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@priv-edtnaa02.telusplanet.net 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:06 AM
Subject: Ottawa's rejection of native-rights declaration 'sad'




Ottawa's rejection of native-rights declaration 'sad'
BILL CURRY 

>From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canada's reputation as a human-rights leader will be smeared when it 
votes against a declaration on indigenous rights, warns the chair of the United 
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz said it is "very sad" that Canadian officials have gone 
from active supporters to strong opponents of the United Nations Declaration of 
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which could be put to a final vote as early 
as next week in New York.

"Canada has a substantial number of indigenous peoples, and having the 
reputation of being a champion of human rights, will definitely be smeared by 
this act that they are going to take," she said in an interview with The Globe 
and Mail.

Ms. Tauli-Corpuz, a career advocate of indigenous rights in the Philippines, 
was elected as chair of the 16-member United Nations advisory group.

Canadian native leaders and all three federal opposition parties are accusing 
the Conservative government of harming Canada's reputation by reversing its 
position on the declaration, which has been discussed for more than 20 years 
and will finally come to a vote by the full United Nations as early as next 
week. It is one of the first two declarations to come out of the new Human 
Rights Council, which was established in May after strong support from Canada.

The declaration calls for the recognition that indigenous peoples be free from 
discrimination and provides an extensive list of rights that governments should 
extend.

But a Canadian official who has been involved in the international talks since 
1984 said Ottawa's position has been consistent from the Liberal to 
Conservative governments.

Canada made a host of specific objections at a December, 2005, meeting when the 
Liberals were still in office, and when the final text did not address those 
concerns, the government of today decided to oppose the declaration.

"I can tell you definitely that the wording of [the section dealing with land 
rights] did not reflect the suggestions we put forward," said Fred Caron, an 
assistant deputy minister with Indian Affairs.

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, who was not available for an interview, 
has said one of his main concerns is the line referred to by Mr. Caron, which 
states, "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and 
resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise acquired." 
In a detailed explanation posted on the Indian Affairs website, department 
officials argue that such wording is so broad that it could lead courts to 
interpret it as a native right to reopen land claims that have already been 
negotiated and settled.

Other concerns are that a duty to consult and obtain "free and prior consent" 
on issues that have an impact on indigenous peoples are so unclear that they 
could impede Parliament's ability to legislate in areas of native policy by 
granting a veto to undefined native groups. Wording dealing with 
"self-determination" could also be interpreted to allow native communities the 
right to full statehood, officials argue.

Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, is in New York 
this week lobbying other countries to ensure the declaration will pass. He 
insists Canada did change its position.

"We witnessed the 180-degree shift and we were extremely disappointed with the 
government's change of position on this," he said.

Craig Benjamin, of Amnesty International, says the document is not legally 
binding on governments and that the sections that worry Canada are tempered by 
other sections of the declaration. 

"When governments like Canada or the U.S. or New Zealand or Australia make 
claims that you can take any particular article and predict dire consequences 
for law and order or for the operation of the state, it just doesn't work that 
way. None of the provisions will ever have that kind of weight," he said. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Native News North
List info{all lists}:
http://nativenewsonline.org/natnews.htm

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNews-north/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNews-north/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to