Canada votes No
I said I’d be keeping an eye on the Sharbot Lake issue when possible. Today, another piece of the puzzle far away from the lake fell into place. Canada is voting against the declaration of native rights at the UN.
A previous story gives some context about why this may be important to the Sharbot Lake issue.
The Conservatives say the declaration is flawed, vague and open to broad interpretation. Provisions on lands and resources could be used "to support claims to broad ownership rights over traditional territories, even where rights … were lawfully ceded through treaty," says a synopsis of Canada's position on the Indian Affairs website.
. . .
In fact, documents released to Amnesty International under the Access to Information Act show that the government fought the declaration despite advice from its own officials in Foreign Affairs, Indian Affairs and National Defence, all of them urging its support.
. . .
Canada has over the last year aligned itself with such countries as Russia and Colombia in its bid to derail the declaration.
"We are working with like-minded countries to make positive changes to the document and we will determine our position on voting at a later date depending on the outcome of our talks," Yeomans said.
Lovely that the Conservatives think countries like Columbia and Russia are “like-minded” isn’t it? Even those lions of human rights seem to have managed to sign the declaration. It is very odd that the only four nations opposed to the declaration are normally known for their defence of human rights in the world at large. It can't be because this particular declaration would force them to acknowledge some of the less attractive portions of their own histories, do you think?
Given Canada’s history at the UN, it is a considerable departure to oppose a human rights declaration, one that the previous Liberal government had supported, but what does this have to do with Sharbot Lake?
Ole Simel, of Kenya, suspects the real root of opposition can be traced to the lucrative timber, minerals and other deposits that are on or beneath disputed lands.
The feds have been very quiet about the giving away of mineral rights on the disputed lands. Supporting this resolution might have made that silence a lot harder to justify.
But Strahl said the government is moving ahead on "making an actual difference" in improving the daily lives of aboriginal Canadians, instead of offering "empty promises and rhetoric."
Hmm, in my opinion, the refusal to honour the Kelowna Accord, the fight to derail this UN declaration on native rights, and the total inaction while a mining company tries to move in on disputed lands speak a lot louder as to where their priorities lie.
