What Wikileaks Reveals about Canadian and U.S. Efforts in Suppression and Surveillance of Indigenous Communities

First, from Brenda Norrell's exceptional effort to keep us all abreast of a wealth of daily news concerning indigenous struggles--CENSORED NEWS: Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights--some extracts (please see the complete articles at the links below), with the most recent articles listed first:

Wikileaks: Top six ways the US and Canada violated Indigenous rights--Wikileaks reveals how the US and Canada worked globally to systematically violate Indigenous rights:

1. The United States worked behind the scenes to fight the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Ecuador, the US established a program to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration. In Iceland, the US Embassy said Iceland's support was an "impediment" to US/Iceland relations at the UN. In Canada, the US said the US and Canada agreed the Declaration was headed for a "train wreck."
2. The United States targeted and tracked Indigenous Peoples, community activists and leaders, especially in Chile, Peru and Ecuador. A cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Mapuche and Quechua activists and community leaders. President Chavez and President Morales were consistently watched, and their actions analyzed. Indigenous activists opposing the dirty Tar Sands were spied on, and other Indigenous activists in Vancouver, prior to the Olympics.
3. The United States was part of a five country coalition to promote mining and fight against Indigenous activists in Peru. A core group of diplomats from U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. In other illegal corporate profiteering, Peru’s government secretly admitted that 70-90 percent of its mahogany exports were illegally felled, according to a US embassy cable revealed by Wikileaks. Lowe's and Home Depot sell the lumber.
4. Canada spied on Mohawks using illegal wiretaps. Before Wikileaks hit the headlines, it exposed in 2010 that Canada used unauthorized wiretaps on Mohawks. Wikileaks: "During the preliminary inquiry to Shawn Brant's trial, it came out that the Ontario Provincial Police, headed by Commissioner Julian Fantino, had been using wiretaps on more than a dozen different Mohawks without a judge's authorization, an action almost unheard of recent history in Canada." The United States and Canada tracked Mohawks. In one of the largest collections of cables released so far that targeted Native people and named names, the US consulates in Montreal and Toronto detailed Mohawk activities at the border and in their communities.
5. The arrogant and insulting tone of the US Embassies and disrespect for Indigenous leaders is pervasive in US diplomatic cables. The US Embassy in Guatemala stated that President of Guatemala, Álvaro Colom, called Rigoberta Menchu a "fabrication" of an anthropologist and made other accusations. Menchu responded on a local radio station that Colom was a "liar."
6. The collection of DNA and other data, makes it clear that US Ambassadors are spies abroad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the Intelligence Community relies on biographical information from US diplomats. In cables to Africa and Paraguay, Clinton asked US Embassy personnel to collect address books, e-mail passwords, fingerprints, iris scans and DNA. “The intelligence community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide," Clinton said in a cable on April 16, 2009. Clinton said the biographical data should be sent to the INR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research) for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.

Wikileaks: Canada says UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights headed for 'Train Wreck'

In a diplomatic cable marked 'sensitive,' US Ambassador David Wilkins states that the US and Canada agree that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is 'ill conceived and is headed for a train-wreck.' It was written five weeks after the United Nations adopted the Declaration.When the United Nations adopted the UN Declaration, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia were the four countries that voted against it. Although the four countries later took action on it, the US and Canada gave only lip service and did not sign on to it, or fully endorse it.

Wikileaks Quito: US worked against UN Indigenous Rights Declaration in Ecuador--US Ambassador in Quito carried out US mission of working against adoption of UN Declaration:

"Wikileaks reveals that US Ambassador Jewell in Quito, Ecuador, described steps taken by the US to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration in 2006, the year before it was adopted by the UN. Jewell stated the government of Ecuador was inclined to support the Declaration in 2006. She said, however, that the US took steps to present papers to show that the UN Declaration 'is fundamentally flawed'."

Wikileaks Peru: US feared Indigenous power--US Ambassador in Peru obsessed with fears of Venezuela, radicalism and Indigenous rule:

"Wikileaks releases from Peru once again reveal the pro-copper mining and anti-Indigenous sentiment of the US Embassy in Lima. Former US Ambassador Curtis Struble in Peru expresses fear that Indigenous may once again govern Peru. Struble is again on the look-out for Venezuela's "meddling," and again is tracking Indigenous activists. This time, on the US watch list, is Aymara activist Felipe Quispe of Bolivia, leader of Pachakuti Indigenous Movement, according to the June 19, 2007 cable. In one of six cables released Friday, Feb. 25, from Lima, Ambassador Struble writes of the regions of Peru. He said the southern highland province of Puno has an 'affinity for far-left radicalism.' Struble fears Venezuela is involved here and fears the movement of Bolivarism. 'Evo Morales is widely popular, but he is admired for his poor, indigenous background, not for his political views,' Struble wrote. Continuing his obsession with the feared 'radicalism' and Indigenous rule in Peru, Struble writes of the 'ethnocacerism' of Antauro Humala. He calls this 'a murky philosophy that seeks to return Peru to a past when only indigenous persons wielded political power'."

Wikileaks: US engaged in espionage of Indigenous activists

"A Wikileaks cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and community leaders. Since the writing of this cable, the bonds with Native Americans and First Nations have grown stronger in the struggles for justice. Bolivian President Morales and Ambassador Solon were in the forefront of the Indigenous global climate change efforts in 2010. Palacin was in Tucson for an anti-mining conference in 2007, and more recently at the climate summits in both Cochabamba and Cancun. The US Embassy report dated March 17, 2008, focuses on Indigenous activists and their supporters who, the cable states, were organizing "anti-summit" protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit scheduled for mid-May of 2008 in Lima. James Nealon at the US Embassy in Lima wrote the cable released Sunday, Feb. 13. 'The greatest concern among our European Union mission colleagues is the threat that radicals could hijack the protests by aggressively confronting ill-prepared security forces, as occurred in Cusco in February'."

Wikileaks Peru: US Ambassador targeted Indigenous activists, promoted mining--Diplomats protecting mining interests of Barrick, Newmont, BHP; US, Canada, Australia, UK, Switzerland and South Africa:

"...The diplomatic cables reveal the US promoting multi-national corporations, while targeting Indigenous activists and their supporters. The new cables reveal that a core group of diplomats formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. The diplomats were from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa."

Wikileaks on Indigenous Peoples: US white privilege:

"The most disturbing aspect of the US State Department cables on Indigenous Peoples is the haughtiness and white privilege that bleeds through the print. The cables make it clear that to the United States, Indigenous Peoples are annoying, even potential terrorists, and must be dealt with. Along with the Mapuches defense of their land and environment, the Wikileaks cables released so far [to December 2010] show the United States’ obsession with Bolivian President Evo Morales and his growing popularity. In the Bolivian cables, the incorrect facts, poor content and unreliable sources are the most glaring aspect."

Chile: "The US spy in Santiago said, 'Secretariat General of the Presidency Minister Viera Gallo told the Ambassador January 30 that the GOC – and Chilean society - are only belatedly taking seriously a growing problem with Chile's indigenous (largely Mapuche) population, which has never been fully integrated and is becoming increasingly radicalized. Mapuche alienation and protest activity could impact on issues such as terrorism, energy, and development in environmentally sensitive regions.' This cable, and other cables, show the growing concern by the United States of the rising collective power of Indigenous Peoples, it terms of uniting with other groups and stopping the development of enormous development projects such as dams that destroy Indigenous lands. With the Mapuches, the US is concerned about connections to the Basque and NGOs (non-governmental organizations.)"

Iceland's support of Indigenous Declaration an 'impediment' to US relations

"The United States scrutinized Iceland's support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, according to new cables released by Wikileaks. The US cables reveal the behind-the-scenes maneuvers of the United States, the last country in the world to support the Declaration. US Ambassador Ambassador Carol van Voorst said Iceland's support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an 'impediment' to full cooperation between the US and Iceland at the United Nations. Van Voorst said Iceland is the only country in the Nordic that does not have Indigenous Peoples. Iceland officials, however, said they would join other Nordic countries in support of the Declaration, Van Voorst wrote to the US State Dept."

Second, from APTN:

U.S. considers ‘Native Canadian groups’ as possible terror threats: embassy cables

"The U.S. has been keeping regular intelligence on potential security threats in Canada, including the activities of unnamed First Nations groups, according to two cables sent by the U.S. embassy in Ottawa and obtained by APTN National News....The cables, sent from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa, and titled, Security Environmental Profile Response For Mission Canada, appear to be part of regular updates on the situation in the country. The U.S. identified the involvement of Aboriginal groups in anti-U.S. demonstrations and as possible terror threats in a Feb. 27, 2009 cable."...'Human rights groups, small political protest/grass roots organizations and Canadian Aboriginal groups are prone to carrying out demonstrations aimed at the host government and sponsor anti-U.S. demonstrations,' reads the cable from 2009....The cables also list potential terrorist threats in Canada. Under the heading 'Indigenous Terrorism,' the cables outline several subgroups of interest, including Anti-American Terrorist Groups and Other Indigenous Terror Groups....The cables...include Aboriginal groups under the heading of 'Other Indigenous Terror Groups'..."

Third, from rabble.ca:

Wikileaks comes to Canada: Federal failure on aboriginal rights

"You just know things are bad when the U.S. criticizes Canada for its treatment of Indigenous people. Wikileaks late last week released a memo from the American Embassy in Ottawa to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, outlining a land claim process that is hopelessly mired in bureaucracy, costly court cases, allegations of the mismanagement of First Nations funds and assets, and the lack of any lucid definition of aboriginal rights. The disparaging memo, which dates back to August of 2009, ends rather pessimistically. 'As long as Canada lacks a clear definition of aboriginal rights or a uniform model for negotiations, effective mechanisms to resolve aboriginal grievances in a timely manner will remain elusive'...."

Canada Endorses UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights

Now joining New Zealand and Australia, Canada becomes the third of the four settler nations to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with the U.S. continuing to hold out. Canada, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, were the only four states to oppose the Declaration, one that Canada had previously worked on securing. New Zealand backed the UN Declaration in mid-April 2010, while Australia also did an about face and endorsed the Declaration in April of 2009 (see the response by Michael Dodson, rapporteur for the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues). Australia also issued a formal apology to members of the stolen generation.

---

From Canada's Dept. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

Canada’s statement of support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

November 12, 2010

Today, Canada joins other countries in supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In doing so, Canada reaffirms its commitment to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples at home and abroad.

The Government of Canada would like to acknowledge the Aboriginal men and women who played an important role in the development of this Declaration.

The Declaration is an aspirational document which speaks to the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples, taking into account their specific cultural, social and economic circumstances.

Although the Declaration is a non-legally binding document that does not reflect customary international law nor change Canadian laws, our endorsement gives us the opportunity to reiterate our commitment to continue working in partnership with Aboriginal peoples in creating a better Canada.

Under this government, there has been a shift in Canada’s relationship with First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, exemplified by the Prime Minister’s historic apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools, the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the apology for relocation of Inuit families to the High Arctic and the honouring of Métis veterans at Juno Beach.

These events charted a new path for this country as a whole, one marked by hope and reconciliation and focused on cherishing the richness and depth of diverse Aboriginal cultures.

Canada continues to make exemplary progress and build on its positive relationship with Aboriginal peoples throughout the country, a relationship based on good faith, partnership and mutual respect.

The Government's vision is a future in which Aboriginal families and communities are healthy, safe, self-sufficient and prosperous within a Canada where people make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and make strong contributions to the country as a whole.

The Government has shown strong leadership by protecting the rights of Aboriginal people in Canada. The amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the proposed Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act and the proposed legislation concerning matrimonial real property rights on reserve are just a few recent examples.

This government has also taken concrete and viable actions in important areas such as education, skills development, economic development, employment, health care, housing and access to safe drinking water. These are part of a continuing agenda focused on real results with willing and able partners.

At the international level Canada has been a strong voice for the protection of human rights. Canada is party to numerous United Nations human rights conventions which give expression to this commitment.

Canada has a constructive and far-reaching international development program that helps to improve the situation of Indigenous peoples in many parts of the world. Canada’s active involvement abroad, coupled with its productive partnership with Aboriginal Canadians, is having a real impact in advancing indigenous rights and freedoms, at home and abroad.

In 2007, at the time of the vote during the United Nations General Assembly, and since, Canada placed on record its concerns with various provisions of the Declaration, including provisions dealing with lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties. These concerns are well known and remain. However, we have since listened to Aboriginal leaders who have urged Canada to endorse the Declaration and we have also learned from the experience of other countries. We are now confident that Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected in Canada through a unique framework. These rights are enshrined in our Constitution, including our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and are complemented by practical policies that adapt to our evolving reality. This framework will continue to be the cornerstone of our efforts to promote and protect the rights of Aboriginal Canadians.

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games were a defining moment for Canada. The Games instilled a tremendous sense of pride in being Canadian and highlighted to the world the extent to which Aboriginal peoples and their cultures contribute to Canada’s uniqueness as a nation. The unprecedented involvement of the Four Host First Nations and Aboriginal peoples from across the nation set a benchmark for how we can work together to achieve great success.

In endorsing the Declaration, Canada reaffirms its commitment to build on a positive and productive relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to improve the well-being of Aboriginal Canadians, based on our shared history, respect, and a desire to move forward together.

From the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations:

Canada Endorses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(November 12, 2010) The Government of Canada today formally endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws. Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. John McNee, met with the President of the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Joseph Deiss, to advise him of Canada’s official endorsement of the United Nations Declaration.

“We understand and respect the importance of this United Nations Declaration to Indigenous peoples in Canada and worldwide,” said the Honourable John Duncan, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians. “Canada has endorsed the Declaration to further reconcile and strengthen our relationship with Aboriginal peoples in Canada.”

“Canada is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples,” said the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs. “Canada’s active involvement abroad, coupled with its productive partnership with Aboriginal Canadians, is having a real impact in advancing indigenous rights at home and abroad.”

The United Nations Declaration describes the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples. It sets out a number of principles that should guide harmonious and cooperative relationships between Indigenous peoples and States, such as equality, partnership, good faith and mutual respect. Canada strongly supports these principles and believes that they are consistent with the Government’s approach to working with Aboriginal peoples. While the Declaration is not legally binding, endorsing it as an important aspirational document is a significant step forward in strengthening relations with Aboriginal peoples.

“Canada’s Aboriginal leadership has spoken with passion on the importance of endorsing the Declaration. Today’s announcement represents another important milestone on the road to respect and cooperation,” added Minister Duncan.

Canada’s endorsement builds upon numerous other government initiatives for Aboriginal peoples on education, economic development, housing, child and family services, access to safe drinking water, and the extension of human rights protection and matrimonial real property protection to First Nations on reserve.

From SHAWN A-IN-CHUT ATLEO - NATIONAL CHIEF OF THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS - PRESS RELEASE:

November 12, 2010

National Chief Welcomes Canada’s Endorsement of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Respect, Partnership and Reconciliation will Guide Work to Improve the situation of First Nation Peoples and Build a Stronger Canada

OTTAWA, ON: Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn A‐in‐chut Atleo stated that Canada’s endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a positive development that sets the stage for a new approach to building stronger First Nations and a stronger Canada.

“Today marks an important shift in our relationship and now the real work begins,” National Chief Atleo said. “Now is our time to work together towards a new era of fairness and justice for First Nations and a stronger Canada for all Canadians, guided by the Declaration’s core principles of respect, partnership and reconciliation. First Nations have worked long and hard to set out constructive and effective approaches and to abandon the colonial relationship embodied in the Indian Act that has held back our people and this country. We are ready to move now – today – on our key priorities including education.”

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007. Canada committed to endorsing the UN Declaration in the 2010 Speech from the Throne. The UNDRIP has the distinction of being the only Declaration within the United Nations which was drafted with the rights‐holders, themselves, the Indigenous Peoples of the world.

“Today is important, not as the culmination of our efforts, but as the beginning of a new approach and a new agenda,” the National Chief stated. “Canada’s apology for the residential schools in 2008 was a critical moment to acknowledge the pain of the past. Endorsing the Declaration is the opportunity to look forward and re‐set the relationship between First Nations and the Crown so it is consistent with the Treaties and other agreements with First Nations upon which this country was founded. In endorsing the UN Declaration, Canada is committing to work with us as a true partner to achieve reconciliation as instructed by the courts in Canada.

I congratulate Canada in taking another step towards the promotion and protection of human and fundamental freedoms for all.”

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing First Nations in Canada.

YOU ARE ON INDIAN LAND

You Are on Indian Land

Mort Ransen, 1969, 36 min 48 s

The film shows the confrontation between police and a 1969 demonstration by Mohawks of the St. Regis Reserve on the ...
[ more ]

The film shows the confrontation between police and a 1969 demonstration by Mohawks of the St. Regis Reserve on the bridge between Canada and the United States near Cornwall, Ontario. By blocking traffic on the bridge, which is on the Reserve, the Indians drew public attention to their grievance that they were prohibited by Canadian authorities from duty-free passage of personal purchases across the border, a right they claim was established by the Jay Treaty of 1794.

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance

Kanehsatake 270 Years of Resistance

Alanis Obomsawin, 1993, 119 min 15 s

On a July day in 1990, a confrontation propelled Native issues in Kanehsatake and the village of Oka, Quebec, into ...
[ more ]

On a July day in 1990, a confrontation propelled Native issues in Kanehsatake and the village of Oka, Quebec, into the international spotlight. Director Alanis Obomsawin spent 78 nerve-wracking days and nights filming the armed stand-off between the Mohawks, the Quebec police and the Canadian army. This powerful documentary takes you right into the action of an age-old Aboriginal struggle. The result is a portrait of the people behind the barricades.

Call for Support for the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake, Quebec

Sun Aug 3, 2008

A CALL FOR ENDORSEMENTS AND SOLIDARITY

Dear friends and allies --

As you might know, in March the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake, located 400 kms north of Montreal, Quebec, had their Customary Chief and Council deposed by the Canadian government, with support from the Quebec government, in an attempt to get out of binding agreements signed with the community.

This is only the latest chapter in Barriere Lake's long struggle to wrest control over their lives and lands from governments and corporations. In 1991, Barriere Lake compelled Canada and Quebec to sign a groundbreaking land management and sustainable development agreement, after a campaign of civil disobedience that caught international attention. The Trilateral agreement set important precedents: it would give Barriere Lake decisive say in the management of 10,000 square kilometers of their traditional territory, protect Algonquin land uses, and give them a share in the resource-revenue from logging and hydro projects on their land.

Praised by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the agreement was an alternative to the Comprehensive Land Claims process, which Barriere Lake rejected because it would force them to extinguish their Aboriginal title and rights, among other reasons.

The federal and provincial governments never liked the agreement, and have tried everything to undermine it – including the unilateral leadership change in March. It's the third time in the past 12 years that the government has refused to recognize the legitimate community leadership. Today, the agreement remains unimplemented.

For background and information on Barriere Lake:
http://www.barrierelakesolidarity.blogspot.com/

Though a small community with few resources, Barriere Lake has demonstrated remarkable tenacity in their struggle for self-determination and the protection of their culture and land. But it is a struggle that can only succeed with broad support and solidarity from non-native people.

The Barriere Lake Solidarity collective in Montreal, taking direction from Barriere Lake, is looking for groups and organizations to ENDORSE THE COMMUNITY'S LIST OF DEMANDS in order to build pressure on the federal and provincial government.

Email us if you can: barrierelakesolidarity@gmail.com

Barriere Lake's List of Demands

1. That the Government of Canada agree to respect the outcome of a new leadership re-selection process, with outside observers, recognize the resulting Customary Chief and Council, and cease all interference in the internal governance of Barriere Lake.

2. That the Government of Canada agree to the immediate incorporation of an Algonquin language and culture program into the primary school curriculum.

3. That the Government of Canada honour signed agreements with Barriere Lake, including the Trilateral, the Memorandum of Mutual Intent, and the Special Provisions, all of which it has illegally terminated.

4. That the Government of Canada revoke Third Party Management, which was imposed unjustly on Barriere Lake.

5. That the Province of Quebec honour signed agreements with Barriere Lake, including the 1991 Trilateral and 1998 Bilateral agreements, and adopt for implementation the Lincoln-Ciaccia joint recommendations, including $1.5 million in resource-revenue sharing.

6. That the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec initiate a judicial inquiry into the Quebec Regional Office of the Department of Indian Affairs' treatment of Barriere Lake and other First Nations who may request to be included.

7. That the Government of Quebec, in consultation with First Nations, conduct a review of the recommendations of the Ontario Ipperwash Commission for guidance towards improving Quebec-First Nation relations and the SQ's procedures during policing of First Nation communities.

------
Apart from ENDORSEMENTS, we are seeking other forms of support:

**Consider getting INVOLVED in our campaign – as a group, or as an individual – during the upcoming months.

**Consider making a DONATION, to support Barriere Lake's needs and to help with our mobilization efforts. Contact us by e-mail to make a donation, or donate directly to Barriere Lake through our website.
http://barrierelakesolidarity.blogspot.com/
2008/03/donations.html

**If you want UPDATES, we can add you to an email list to notify you about upcoming events and actions. Just email
barrierelakesolidarity@gmail.com

-- the Barriere Lake Solidarity collective

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007

Many thanks to Dr. Roi Kwabena for forwarding this information.

Media release from Woodward and Company:

Decision Reached in Historical Land Claim Case:

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700

Victoria, British Columbia, November 21, 2007 - After a courageous and epic struggle, a small Tsilhqot'in First Nation that took on the governments of Canada and British Columbia to protect their land and way of life has been victorious in Court. In a major precedent-setting decision, Justice David Vickers of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled today that the Tsilhqot'in (Chilcotin) people have proven Aboriginal title to approximately 200,000 square hectares in and around the remote Nemiah Valley, south and west of Williams Lake, British Columbia. Although Justice Vickers declined to make a declaration of title based on technical issues, he found that the tests for evidence of title were met in almost half the area claimed.

The trial lasted 339 days during which 29 Tsilhqot'in witnesses gave evidence, many in their native language. 604 exhibits were entered with Exhibit 156 alone containing over 1,000 historical documents. The Judge received about 7,000 pages of written submissions from the lawyers on all sides.

"The court has given us greater control of our lands. From now on, nobody will come into our territory to log or mine or explore for oil and gas, without seeking our agreement," said the Plaintiff, Chief Roger William. "The court recognized that we have proven title in about half of the Claim Area - and from today we accept our renewed responsibility and powers of ownership of those lands."

Justice Vickers made a number of important findings that will impact future relations between the governments of Canada and British Columbia and First Nations, including:

1. The Tsilhqot'in people have aboriginal rights, including the right to trade furs to obtain a moderate livelihood, throughout the Claim Area.

2. British Columbia's Forest Act does not apply within Aboriginal title lands.

3. British Columbia has infringed the Aboriginal rights and title of the Tsilhqot'in people, and has no justification for doing so.

4. Canada's Parliament has unacceptably denied and avoided its constitutional responsibility to protect Aboriginal lands and Aboriginal rights, pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution.

5. British Columbia has apparently been violating Aboriginal title in an unconstitutional and therefore illegal fashion ever since it joined Canada in 1871.

Throughout much of Canada and the United States, the colonial governments made treaties with First Nations to purchase their lands. This did not happen in most of British Columbia. The government has continued to deny that B.C.'s indigenous people inherited the land that their grandparents owned.

A longer version is available at:
http://www.woodwardandcompany.com/william/newsrelease_long.pdf

2) A link to the decision itself is available at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/sc/sc-jdbwk.asp

--
Dr Roi Ankhkara Kwabena
http://www.freewebs.com/roikwabena
http://nefertamu.tripod.com
http://www.ankhkara.blogspot.com
http://www.roikwabena.blogspot.com
http://www.roikwapoetry.blogspot.com
http://www.dialogue4culture.blogspot.com
http://freewebs.com/rakabooks

The Binding Symbolic Value of the UN Declaration

Four settler states were clearly unsettled by the passage of what, in formal terms, was a non-binding Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, voted against the document, when the majority of UN member states approved it, says a great deal which many of us will be left to debate for some time. Perhaps it will be little time: opposition parties in Canada and Australia, with a good chance of winning the next elections, have already promised to sign the Declaration once elected, and some of us will be sure to remember their promises. In the meantime, the Declaration is now an international "fact," and no longer a "draft." To be seen to act against the contents of the Declaration will be equated with acting against international public opinion. What stands out is not that "the liberal democracies with the most intense engagements with indigenous issues" voted against the Declaration, as some have said, since many other countries, with larger indigenous populations, and arguably more intense engagements, voted for it. What stands out instead is how settler states are still in the process of trying to settle themselves, how much "engagement" has really been disengagement, distance, friction, and conflict, and how much wishful thinking plays a part in reigning fantasies that, one day, Europe Part 2, will be as embedded in its foreign soil as Original Europe can claim to be on its soil.

The vote against the Declaration was a serious tactical error: these four states now sorely stand out as colonial, white states, anachronistic entitites in a world where "decolonization" has become part of the international vocabulary. They have also handed the Chinas of the world a powerful argument--that they too flout the will of "the international community," that they too do not recognize the rights of disadvantaged minorities, and that liberal democracy is really little more than kleptocracy. If accepting the Declaration could have been symbolically binding (even if not legally so), then surely rejecting the Declaration will also come at a political cost. Some of us will see to it that it does.

UN DECLARATION ON RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: APPROVED

On Thursday, 13 September, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted on and approved the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by a vote of 143 in favour against 4 opposed. The Declaration had been amended just before the vote, after more than twenty years of discussions, negotiations, and multiple revisions. The final text of the Declaration can be accessed by clicking here. A copy of the declaration, with last minute amendments highlighted in yellow, can be retrieved by clicking here.

Canada, along with other settler states (the United States, Australia, and New Zealand) has "distinguished" itself internationally for voting against a non-binding document which would not have become law in Canada, a dogged insistence on attacking the symbolic value of a document masking what is probably the Canadian government's support for transnational corporations appropriating indigenous resources worldwide. For more on Canada's failure to live up to its much vaunted claims of being a moral leader in the world, see "Canada votes 'no' as UN native rights declaration passes" in the CBC news. You can also download a video of the news story by clicking here, as well as a video of CBC's interview with Canada's Minister for Indian Affairs. Also on the CBC: "Northern leaders slam Canada's rejection of UN native rights declaration."

According to a list of FAQs produced by the United Nations Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues, these are some of the key details explaining the purpose and value of the Declaration:

UN Declarations are generally not legally binding; however, they represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and reflect the commitment of states to move in certain directions, abiding by certain principles. This is the case for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well. The Declaration is expected to have a major effect on the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. If adopted, it will establish an important standard for the treatment of indigenous peoples and will undoubtedly be a significant tool towards eliminating human rights violations against the over 370 million indigenous people worldwide and assist them in combating discrimination and marginalization.

Seventeen of the forty-five articles of the Declaration deal with indigenous culture and how to protect and promote it, by respecting the direct input of indigenous peoples in decision-making, and allowing for resources, such as those for education in indigenous languages and other areas.
The Declaration confirms the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and recognizes subsistence rights and rights to lands, territories and resources.
The Declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.
Essentially, the Declaration outlaws discrimination against indigenous peoples, promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, as well as their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development.

The Declaration addresses both individual and collective rights, cultural rights and identity, rights to education, health, employment, language, and others. The text says indigenous peoples have the right to fully enjoy as a collective or as individuals, all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By that right they can freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. They have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they choose to, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state.

---

Happy June 21st and June 24th

Tomorrow, June 21st, is Canada's annual "National Aboriginal Day." In the United States, June 21st has been set as the National Prayer Day for Native Sacred Places (see Indian Country Today).

June 24th marks "el dia del Indio" (Indian Day) in Andean nations such as Peru.

Ottawa to Appeal Expansion of Indigenous "Status"

As expected, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to appeal a recent Canadian provincial high court ruling that struck down a long-standing restriction on legal recognition of indigenous identity.

For more on this see Bill Curry's "Appeal of native ruling likely, Ottawa says," The Globe and Mail, Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Canada: New Developments in Indigenous Status

The past week in Canada has seen the promise of some major new transformations in the current position of Aboriginal peoples. For those readers not too familiar with the Canadian situation, it is important to note that there are two basic "classes" of Aboriginals: (1) those officially registered as "status Indians" who have legal rights to residence on reserves, with individual reserves referred to as "First Nations"--the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is tied to this backdrop; and, (2) people who self-identify as Aboriginal, but who are "non-status" because they had a mother or grandmother who married a non-native--the Congress of Aboriginal People, which rarely receives anywhere as much media attention as the AFN, is tied to this population.

In Canada, the law had descent reckoned through the paternal line, even when this went against particular aboriginal societies' custom of reckoning descent through the maternal line. As a result, a vast number of Aboriginals lost the right to reside on reserves, and most ended up in cities. In the meantime, Aboriginal men were entitled to marry non-native women, and those women obtained the right to reside on reserve, so that some persons with "status" may not even be Aboriginal. This double-pronged erosion of reserve-based nations may be coming to a final end. (The Indian Missions of Trinidad were regulated by an even more severe version of this system--where all "mixed race" offspring were officially de-Indianized and lost rights to collective lands that had been granted to their parents and grandparents. Both Trinidad and Canada were governed by the British for a period of time.)

On Saturday, June 16, 2007, Bill Curry writing in The Globe and Mail ("Indian status can be traced through mother, court rules"), tells us the following:

The B.C. [British Columbia] Supreme Court has wiped out one of the most contentious aspects of the federal Indian Act, striking down part of Ottawa's definition of a status Indian and opening the door to hundreds of thousands of new applications for native services.

The court rejected part of the existing legal definition on the grounds that it discriminates against Canadians who trace their aboriginal roots through their female relatives rather than their father or grandfather.

The ruling alters the federal law that has long created two classes of aboriginals in Canada: the 767,000 who fit the definition of status Indian and the several hundred thousand more who don't.

The 2001 census found 976,000 Canadians who self-identified as aboriginal and more than 1.3 million who said they had aboriginal ancestry.

Many aboriginals who failed in their requests for status will now have a much better chance of success, said Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

"This opens the floodgates," she said. "I don't think we could have asked for a better judgment."

Aboriginals with status qualify for prescription drug coverage and can apply for postsecondary assistance.

The Federal Government of Canada disingenuously claimed that it previously addressed the issue of patriarchal discrimination in the Indian Act by passing Bill C-31 in 1985. What was the "major change" of that Bill? It simply pushed the cut-off line to second generation offspring of unions between natives and others, and still reckoned descent along paternal lines. That minor change did however return status to 175,000 individuals. This latest court ruling has the effect of nullifying Section 6 of the Indian Act, that section which pertains to who can claim to be an "Indian" (the subject of an upcoming seminar in Montreal).

In the same week, the Federal Government committed itself to setting up, in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations, an impartial tribunal for resolving the more than 800 land claim cases that remain unresolved in Canada, that on average have been the subject to legal disputes lasting 20 years, with some much longer than that (see The Globe and Mail, June 13, 2007, "New land-claims process in works"). This would mean that the Federal Government could no longer act as defendant, judge, and jury all at the same time. While there is no way of predicting future rulings on so many cases, if one were to assume that there will be much more land added to the current land base of First Nations reserves, but also many more persons with status as outlined above, the net effect might be bigger numbers on all fronts, but not necessarily more land per person. If, on the other hand, the current size of the reserve land base were to remain roughly the same, but the numbers of persons with status vastly increased, it could serve to effectively crush reserves under their own weight. The situation where a boon becomes bane is not all that uncommon in Canada, as in the case of select reserves suffering from high rates of alcoholism and substance abuse suddenly finding themselves awash in cash from settled claims or other compensation packages, precisely at the time that those particular Aboriginals can least handle the new resources, and where the temptation to squander is higher than it might otherwise be.

Canada, the UN, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In a previous posting on this blog for June 20, 2006, we related news of the Canadian government's opposition to the United Nations' Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, opposition that has become more marked since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister after the Conservatives came to power in the 2006 elections. While his government's opposition to the Declaration has therefore been known for some time, in this past week a fair amount of controversy has been brewing in both the Canadian parliament and in international media coverage. The Draft Declaration, if it had been supported by Canada, would not have acted as binding legislation. The current, renewed debate seems to stem from the recently concluded assembly of the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues at the UN, as well as discussions in Canada about bringing aboriginal peoples under national human rights legislation.

In some of the leading news about Canada's position this past week, some newspapers have reported that Australian Prime Minister John Howard may have inspired Canada's Stephen Harper to oppose the UN declaration. In The Globe and Mail for Saturday, June 9, 2007, a story by Gloria Galloway titled, "Did Australia Demand Reversal on Natives?" states: "Canada's decision to withdraw support for the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples coincided with a visit to Ottawa by Prime Minister John Howard of Australia — a country that strongly opposes the declaration. Shortly after Mr. Howard's meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in May, 2006, Mr. Harper called Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice to tell him to review Canada's position of support, government sources said Friday." While a spokeswoman for PM Harper denied this, the reporter insists "the sources were clear that there was a direct link between the visit of the Australian Prime Minister and the change in policy." It is important to note that previous Canadian governments had in fact played a role in drafting the UN declaration.

The link between Howard and Harper was first claimed in an Australian press report in late May. In Melbourne's The Age newspaper, Russell Skelton's "Australia 'blocked UN native rights declaration'" said that Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, "claimed Australia had played a role in persuading Canada, which had initially supported the declaration, to oppose the landmark statement."

Amnesty International has also called attention to the turnaround in Canadian policy under Harper's administration (see: CTV.ca, "Canada blocking UN Aboriginal rights: Amnesty"). Amnesty further revealed that staff in three Departments of the Canadian state urged the Harper government to approve the declaration. The staff work in the Departments of Defence, Indian and Northern Affairs, and Foreign Affairs. This was also reported by Gloria Galloway on June 8, 2007, in The Globe and Mail: "Back UN on native rights, Ottawa urged--Bureaucracy at odds with PM's position, documents show."

The future of the Draft Declaration at the UN seems in doubt, as one might expect where the rights of indigenous peoples are contingent upon the good faith of one of the leading institutions responsible for indigenous marginalization: the nation-state. States and not peoples are the members of the UN. While public opinion at home might encourage states to adopt declarations that could limit state sovereignty, it seems that public opinion is very confused. In Canada, feedback to press reports show that while many support approval of the declaration, an almost equal number of respondents feel that Aboriginals are already protected under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which is not the case), or that allocating rights on the basis of "race" is racist, or that the United Nations should not "dictate" policy to Canadians, or that the Draft Declaration entails such stark provisions as allowing foreign troops to be based in Canada if invited by First Nations reserves to do so.

Canadian Government and Native "Terrorists"

April 2, 2007 - by Joseph Quesnel for FIRST PERSPECTIVE, National Aboriginal News

A national Aboriginal leader is asking Ottawa to ensure that Aboriginal groups are removed from a federal National Defense document which lists militant Aboriginal groups alongside other radical groups.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine today demanded that the federal government immediately remove any reference to First Nations in a Department of National Defense draft counter-insurgency manual listing international terrorist threats. According to a report by The Globe and Mail, radical Native American organizations such as the Mohawk Warriors Society are listed in the training manual as insurgents, alongside other insurgent groups.

"Any reference to First Nations people as possible insurgents or terrorists is a direct attack on us - it demonizes us, it threatens our safety and security and attempts to criminalize our legitimate right to live our lives like all other Canadians do. Just being referenced in such a document compromises our freedom to travel across borders, have unimpeded telephone and internet communications, raise money, and protest against injustices to our people," stated AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine.

"I am calling upon Prime Minister Stephen Harper to immediately and without reservation, reject and remove any references to First Nations from all versions of the training manual."

READ MORE...

"Canada" Opposes UN Draft Charter for Indigenous Peoples

The Government of "Canada" is determined to oppose the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, joining other colonial powers also opposing the motion, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand. "Canada's" opposition was announced in Parliament by Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Jim Prentice. Ironically, just a few short weeks ago, Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, had praised Jim Prentice on CBC News as someone who was sensitive to the situation of aboriginal peoples in "Canada," as someone who was very knowledgeable, "someone we can work with"--comments made by Fontaine as he opposed the Six Nations protesters in Caledonia. Fontaine's reward for loyalty? Nothing.

More on this story appeared in CBC News online at:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/20/aboriginal-declaration.html?print

The Native "Terrorist": Anti-Indigenous Vocabulary in 2006

Please see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/
caledonia_blockade.html for some examples of what is referred to below.

From what I see on this page of letters from viewers, the CBC is doing an excellent job at upholding one side of the debate, particularly the viewpoints of those who continually seem to earn for themselves the right to be called "non-native." They earn that right in imposing themselves on the natives, by referring to their own laws, their civilization, their modernity, their money, their roads, and their Way, always in contrast to that of the natives. Any expression of indignation over being called "non-native" (i.e., white "Canadian") is possibly superficial, or worse, an attempt to take everything away from the natives, even their name.

For a country that prides itself on prosecuting hate crimes, I would imagine that some of the feedback posted on the CBC website comes close to hate speech, except that we in "Canada" tend to only really enforce anti-hate crime laws when it comes to the victims of someone else's holocaust in another continent. Genocide denial is quite tolerated here at home. Indeed, it seems that it is being taught, learned and recited.

I have been reading some letters on the CBC that speak of "our civilization" and how "we" have showered native peoples with modernity and progress. This is typical colonial discourse: without us, the white man, these natives would have all died; we brought them medicine; we brought them proper shelter; we brought them schools; we brought them jams and blankets. I had thought that only in Australia could one still hear such self-serving distortions of history, but that was obviously naive and unfair of me. In "Canada," we like to conveniently forget the Innu ("Canada's" own Tibet) and the countless communities that have been confined to living in filth, disease, unemployment and toxic pollution. We like to forget the unforgivably and uniquely high rates of tuberculosis in First Nations communities, the awful living conditions, the unbelievable rates of suicide. The United Nations--which we always claim to respect--routinely finds "Canada" at fault for grotesque living conditions on reserves that mirror if not rival those of any "third world" state.

Many "Canadian" non-native writers might also consider writing to thank President George W. Bush for providing them with their vocabulary: use of the words "terrorist," "our own home-grown terrorists," "appeasement," "hostages." When such words are used, it's only one option that the writers could be dreaming of, and that would be the total extermination of the natives.

In the past, I have provoked subscribers to The CAC Review to consider how the invasion of Iraq and 1492 mirror each other. I was soundly rebuked by some subscribers, who added to their protest that I was showing disrespect to those Native American soldiers who were risking their lives in battle in someone else's country. Now, the language of anti-terrorism, which sent Natives to fight natives, has been imported back from the grounds of colonial conquest, and is being leveled at native protesters here in North America. How did you not expect to see this discourse come back and tear your hind quarters to shreds? Pity those of us who cling to the dream that colonialism is a thing of the past.

What is Happening in "Canada"?

It is quite plain that the Six Nations protesters had taken down their barricade at Caledonia. The unnecessary, irrational, and provocative counter-barricade by some Caledonia residents has deliberately upset any plans for a peaceful settlement in the short term, which is clearly the aim of those hooligans. After years of pious, self-congratulatory Canadian comparisons to the United States, the way we congratulate ourselves on being a beacon of social justice, it is a relief to see the truth come out. Quite clearly, we are a colonial society with a deep substratum of ignorant, white racism still very much alive. "Canada," whatever that fiction is supposed to mean, reveals itself as an arbitrary construction of illegitmate power and abuse. At this point, anything the Six Nations people do to defend themselves is totally justified.

See http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/23/caledonia-monday.html for the latest news from the perspective of the state owned news media, and see also: http://sisis.nativeweb.org/actionalert/.

Jose Barreiro: "Six Nations: Good Minds Calm Frayed Tempers"

Six Nations: Good minds calm frayed tempers
© Indian Country Today April 27, 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[submited by Jose Barreiro and reprinted with permission. The CAC Review's Creative Commons Licence does not apply to the contents of this post]

The heated confrontation at Six Nations Reserve in Ontario, Canada, widened and deepened in the past week while at the same time showing sign of progress toward resolution. The deeply rooted Native sentiment on the land and against any type of physical aggression against their own people has stiffened the resolve of Six Nations clan mothers, chiefs and warriors after a bungling assault by police forces fanciful that they could arrest the ''trouble-makers'' and lay low the protesters' encampment.

It was not to be, and within half a day Canada was reminded that the peoples of the old Haudenosaunee Confederacy unite under stress and self-defend in ways most ingenious, straightforward and stark. By day's end, roads around the encampment site were blockaded, bridges were temporarily shut down and across southern Ontario rail lines were immediately threatened so that important train runs between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal were suspended.

Canadian authorities know, but still do forget, that when they deal with Six Nations people - particularly if the populous Mohawks are engaged - police assaults can trigger an intense, decentralized response among warrior societies. Just the protest at the railroad lines by Tyendinega Mohawks 350 kilometers (217.4 miles) away ''delayed service for thousands of passengers yesterday, and shipment of goods worth tens of millions of dollars,'' according to the Toronto Star newspaper. The railways protest ended April 22 after only a day's paralysis; but as this edition goes to press, the Kahnawake Mohawk warrior society is holding the Mercier Bridge in Montreal at bay, while Akwesasne residents leaflet motorists on the international bridge at Cornwall. Both of these bridges have been shut down by Mohawks before.

The warrior response is not always pretty or romantic. Often it bubbles with anger nearly impossible to contain. But it is a real and organic action/reaction based on a long historical memory. While one local paper described them as ''the so-called clan mothers,'' the circle of elder women who hold wampum and select chiefs and other officials for Six Nations longhouses can still cause great movement among their peoples.

Undoubtedly, the Six Nations traditional councils and longhouses are too often contentious, within and among themselves, on interpretations of the Great Law of Peace and on what courses of action to coalesce around. But some issues, most emphatically those relating to land, treaty rights and freedom from police aggression, particularly for elders and children, activate large numbers of Haudenosaunee people, extended relations that connect through impenetrable and unbreakable familial and clan ties.

Expectedly, the heat of action and youthful energy will recede to allow the Six Nations negotiating team, guided by the clan mothers and now led by the Confederacy chiefs in collaboration with band council representatives, to sustain what provincial and federal authorities describe as ''marathon talks'' held through the weekend of April 22 - 23.

These talks have apparently produced some breakthroughs as the Indian delegation grew in sophistication and unity and Canadian authorities contemplated the depth of sentiment and breadth of potential action on the Native side. According to the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, Ontario Cabinet Minister David Ramsay emerged confident the dispute ''can be resolved peacefully,'' after the opening talks.

For the traditional side, the core longhouse governments of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in Canada, there was a victory just in having been recognized as lead negotiators by the band council government. The long tribal memory is keen on the details of Canadian ''regime change'' on Six Nations Reserve in 1924, an incident that reverberated in Europe as the League of Nations was petitioned by traditional chiefs of that day, notably the greatly respected Cayuga chief, Deskaheh.

It was Deskaheh who between 1921 and 1924, as ''Speaker of the Six Nations,'' first traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, to make the case over land, jurisdiction and the right of a ''small nation of the world'' to survive and to govern itself according to its custom and tradition. Deskaheh was denied an official hearing at the League of Nations but continued on a speaking tour that garnered great attention and support for the Six Nations cause. Nevertheless, Canada attacked then as well, imposing the Federal Indian Act, exiling Deskaheh, dispersing the traditional government and installing an elective system that 80 years later is called the Six Nations Band Council and governs day-to-day affairs and services on the reserve.

The band council is here to stay, 80 years later, and is not nearly as nefarious as its origin. Yet a strong moral and, many contend, legal authority still rests with the traditional longhouses, which are culturally central to the communities.

For elected Chief David General and most of his council to defer authority to the longhouse government on the land claims negotiation is the biggest political change in nearly a century.

As Hazel Hill, not a clan mother but an elder longhouse woman leader who was wrestled to the ground by five police officers during the April 19 assault, told the Star: ''It's monumental. It's big. I can't even explain the enormity of what's happening.''

The hope is that the unity of Native leadership now in talks with Canadian authorities will sustain and deepen.

Already, the resolute stand has brought Canada to the dialogue it long avoided, and the reality of purposeful negotiation has brought the beginning of common approach to a community divided into elective and traditional systems.

One big obstacle to good relations is the standoff itself, which sees the camp occupants worried about a police assault and, in response, keeping important roads around the reserve blockaded. This is highly provocative and building intense anger among many non-Native local residents who are calling for force against ''the Indians.'' Interestingly, at least according to Haldiman County Mayor Marie Trainer, local residents still support the Native quest of land claims justice, reported CBC Newsworld.

It behooves the Indian activists to fully cultivate this lingering support and turn it in a positive direction.

Deskaheh, the ancestor chief who called on the world for support of Six Nations causes in 1924, wrote a letter to his people from his European mission. He requested from them a longhouse meeting back home, where ''you must combine all the good people ...to ask [the Creator] to help us in our distress of this moment and you must use Indian tobacco, in our usual way we ask help from our Great Spirit.''

Deskaheh specified that the tobacco-burning must be done ''very early in the morning, so that our God may hear you and the children.'' We join Deskaheh's insightful call for the positive thought, so that good minds may prevail on behalf of our future generations.

Please visit the Indian Country Today website for more articles related to this topic.

Oka Project: Demonstration, Montreal, May 18

We've been trying to stop this mine for years. Got any ideas?

*please post and forward*

STOP NIOCAN’S PROPOSED NIOBIUM MINE ON KANIEN’KEHAKA TERRITORY!

Demonstrate at Niocan’s Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

*****************************************************************
WHEN: May 18th, 2006, 9:30am
WHERE: Best Western Hotel, 3407 Peel (corner Sherbrooke)
WHAT: Demonstrate Against Niocan’s Annual General Shareholder’s Meeting *****************************************************************

Refuse Niocan! Resist Environmental Racism! Reject Canadian Colonialism!

Niocan Inc., a Montreal-based mining corporation, is nearing the final stages of approval for their "Oka Project", a toxic niobium mine to be developed within traditional Kanien’kehaka (Mohawk) territories.

Community members have taken a clear stance on this issue - they said the destructive project would not be tolerated! In addition to the outright violation of the centuries old claim the Kanien’kehaka people have to this land, the mine also poses serious environmental threats - the release of ionizing radiation which will contaminate the air, soil and water.

Niocan assured their shareholders they only invest and develop in politically stable regions. In solidarity with the Haudenosaunee Peoples from Six Nations to Kanehsatake, we gotta let the investing-class know: "The myth of political stability is over!" Investing in developments on stolen native lands has a price - and that price is the risk of bankrupcy Henco Industries is currently facing. The decolonization movement is growing and coast-to-coast People will rise up in solidarity with Kanehsatake!

**************************************************************
bring noisemakers, placards, banners and your anti-colonial determination!
**************************************************************

BACKGROUNDER:

Last May, Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks Thomas Mulcair announced that Montreal-based mining company Niocan Inc. would have to provide more substantive environmental study results before he would issue the necessary certificate of authorization to move ahead with the company's niobium mining project on unceded Kanien:keha'ka (Mohawk) territory.

In a letter to shareholders on November 30, 2005, Niocan stated that the company is "reassess[ing] the hydrogeological studies to date and to propose a plan of action to provide answers to the questions raised by the professionals at the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parcs (MDDEP)." The report also reiterated Niocan's commitment to "move ahead with vigor and determination on the Oka Project."

The report to shareholders cited the recent Oka municipal elections as proof of community support for the project, stating: "the mayor and four councilors that support the Oka Niobium Project have been re-elected. This is further evidence of the support of area residents for the project." This, despite a press release issued last May 16th by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) stating: "the commission learned through the public consultation process that the land on which the mine is located is subject to claims... [and] most public consultation participants are very concerned about the mining project, to which they did not consent."

Niocan’s former Chairman and CEO René Dufour said "the Mohawks have nothing to do with this." But Dufour couldn't be more wrong. The land on which the proposed mine would be built has never been surrendered to the Canadian government, and thus neither Niocan nor the Quebec (an equity investor in the project to the tune of $427,000) have any legal right to continue with this environmentally devastating project. This is yet another gross example of the blatant violation of Native sovereignty in Canada. More studies and assessments will mean nothing. They simply cloud the real issue, which is one of violation of Mohawk land claims by the governments of Canada and Quebec and the huge corporations they keep close to them.

Currently, Niocan is awaiting a certificate of authorization from Claude Bechard, the newly-appointed Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment & Parks to give the project the go ahead. Niocan is confident the certificate will be granted.

If you can not attend the May 18th demo, please phone/fax or email your objections to Claude Bechard at:

Phone: (418) 521-3911
Fax: (418) 643-4143
E-Mail: ministre@mddep.gouv.qc.ca

Sample Letter,

Attention: Mr. Claude BÉCHARD


We are writing to you to express our absolute opposition to Niocan Inc.'s proposed Oka Project.

This project would entail destructive practices on traditional Kanien'keha'ka (Mohawk) land - territory that they have laid claim to for centuries and continues to be disputed. Thus far, no efforts have been made on the part of the government or Niocan Inc. to consult with the people of Kanehsatake in regards to this mine. Despite Niocan's claims, the community remains adamantly opposed to the project. Regardless of the company's assertions that the Oka Project will result in a dramatic infusion of capital and jobs into the local economy, this operation is not environmentally, economically or culturally sustainable for the Kanien’keha’ka people. The Socio-economic study carried out by Niocan's auditors, KPMG, contained no recognition of these matters. The fact that the Quebec government has a $427, 000 equity investment in the project is not lost on community members and allies; nor is the fact that mining operations have historically targeted Indigenous lands and perpetrated violence, displacement and environmental racism.

We would also like to reiterate the environmental concerns that have been raised by members of both the Kanehsatake and Oka communities. Despite the BAPE's dismissal of the amount of radioactive material which will be released during the excavation, essentially, there is no established safe limit of ionizing radiation. Consequently, neither Niocan Inc. nor the government can guarantee the project will not have adverse health effects on those living in the area. Locals are already exposed to the highest national levels of radon gas - a well established carcinogen. Secondary to previous mining activities, radiation levels in some homes in Oka already exceed the relatively lax Canadian safety standards. There is no documentation as to what these levels are in Kanehsatake.

Besides release into the air, waste from the operation will be released into the local water system; the water table will also be used to supply the project. The far-reaching effects of all of these derangements on the local agriculture and way of life cannot be understated. Furthermore, the materials left behind in slags and tailings after the projected 17 year operation will continue to negatively impact the environment and future generations. In April 2000, 62% of the Parish of Oka voted against Niocan's project.

Approval of this project would result in serious violations of Kanien'keha'ka treaty rights and the rights of all local residents to health and security.

Therefore, in alliance with the communities of Kanehsatake and Oka, we demand that Niocan Inc.'s Oka Project proposal be rejected by your office.

Sincerely,
_______________________________________________
IPSM-l mailing listIPSM-l@lists.resist.ca
http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ipsm-l

"Canada": The Name of an Invasion

Assaulting Mohawks on their Land

On April 20, 2006, near Caledonia, Ontario, a force of heavily armed police invaded lands belonging to the Six Nations Mohawks who were peacefully demonstrating in defense of their legal land rights and against the invasion of a private company, Henco Industries, which claimed to have legally purchased the land in order to build another tribute to Western civilization: 250 condominiums at Douglas Creek Estates. Faced with unarmed prostesters, police pointed automatic assault rifles mere inches from the faces of the prostesters.

For weeks prior to this assault, Mohawk spokespersons had warned of this possibility, given their intimate knowledge of how different arms of the state are quick to respond with violence against any demonstration by First Nations in Canada. The Montreal Gazette, in a shameless editorial of April 21, was quick to denounce not the use of illegitimate and immoral force by the state, but the Six Nations demonstrators who were occupying their own lands. Likening the traditional owners of the land to thugs and criminals, the "newspaper," owned by one of Canada's largest media congolmerates, did not hesitate to proclaim the Mohawk hold on their own lands as illegal, and also complained about the overly generous nature of court judgments on native land title cases, when it is widely acknowledged that such cases, when successful, are resolved in a little over a generation, at the soonest.

On behalf of the members of the editorial board of the Caribbean Amerindian Centrelink (www.centrelink.org), a small working group of indigenous and non-indigenous scholars and activists, I am writing to express our unqualified support for the Six Nations demonstrators protecting their lands in Caledonia, Ontario, and to ensure that we help to get the word out, further afield, amongst our Caribbean and Central American partners, so that the world is reminded of the anti-indigenous injustices perpetrated by a Canadian state which still seems intent on conquering indigenous territory on the behalf of capitalist corporate interests.

It is not with shock or surpise, but grief, that we witness the forces arrayed against the Six Nations: the forces of state-sanctioned violence, media disinformation, internal collaborators and racist attitudes that continue to be exhibited by both the Euro-Canadian residents of Caledonia and, unfortunately, across Canada. It seems that many of the colonial residents have resented the Mohawk presence as a nuisance--"the Indians are in our way", "they ['the Indians'] are disrupting our lifestyle" (this is a statement rich in ironies), or, "this needs to be over", without bothering to reflect for a moment on the foundations or effects of their presence in someone else's home.

The land in question (a question more for the imperial authorities) belongs to the Mohawks. They never "lost" it and they never gave it up. As they have explained time and again, this land is under the protection and jurisdiction of the women, according to Wampum #44 of the Kaianereh'ko:wa. The Women, hold the land in trust for their future generations. No alienation is legally valid. They filed this objection with the Crown and others. Moreover, the British Crown made a commitment to the Mohawks in 1784 when General Haldimand promised to protect their right to occupy a stretch of land for six miles wide on both sides of the Grand River from its mouth to its source. This includes 800 square miles of every body of water within the Beaver Hunting Grounds for natives to hunt, fish, trap and collect medicines for all time to come. Since then the British government and its colonial agents did not keep their word. Most of their land has been stolen through illegal transfers and squatting.

This is a situation that is all too familiar, and painful, to many indigenous communities in the Caribbean who retain not a stitch of land to which they have recognized rights. As a direct descendant of Caribbean slaves, who should be painfully aware of the miseries wrought by oppressive colonial regimes, the Governor General of Canada, Michaelle Jean, should be speaking out on this issue forcefully. As a Haitian, and official head of state of Canada, chief representative of the British Crown which was party to the original commitment of 1784, her continued silence on this issue shows moral weakness and an abdication of legal responsibility. When the Canadian fish starts to rot from the head down, nobody should complain about the stink that ensues.

We would like to affirm our support for the courage of the Six Nations in defending their territory against further armed and illegal invasion. We call on the Canadian state, at all levels, to avoid any further violent assaults. As for corporate and other squatters, we ask that they withdraw from indigenous territory. To those Canadian citizens who continue complaining about, ridiculing, and insulting the traditional owners of the land on which they erected their homes, we pray that they will achieve their own decolonization and reformation before it is too late. We are all watching and we all have long memories.

Readers, please send your objections to: Henco Industries Ltd., Fax (519) 442-3461; City of
Brantford: Fax (519) 759-7840 mhancock@brantford.ca; Corporation of Haldimand County: Fax (905) 772-2148 mayor@haldimandcounty.on.ca; Oxford County info@city.woodstock.on.ca; Onondaga: Customer Service Fax (519) 758-1619; South Dumfries: Customer Service Fax (519) 448-3105; Dufferin County: Fax (519) 941-2816 warden@dufferincounty.on.ca; Kent County, Michigan: Mike Cox, Attorney General Fax: (517) 373-3042; Waterloo: sken@region.waterloo.on.ca; Innisfil: bjackson@barint.on.ca; Attorney General: Fax (416) 326-4007 Media Relations Brendan.Crawley@jus.gov.on.ca ; Governor General: Michaelle Jean Fax (613) 998-1664 E-mail: info@gg.ca; Chinese Consulate in Toronto Fax: (416) 324-6468; Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace; Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty Dalton.McGuinty@premier.gov.on.ca; Canadian Prime Minister Hon. Stephen Harper, pm@pm.gc.ca.

For more information, and to receive regular updates on the situation, contact:
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
Kahentinetha2@yahoo.com