Friday, January 11, 2013
World News
Corporatists continue to mess with the world in many ways: Dispatches concerning Japan, USA and Mali
Wild-growing GM canola continues to spread in Japan
GM Watch UK January 5, 2013
Wild-growing GM canola continues to spread in Japan
The non-GM association Aichi Japan conducts regular actions by citizens concerned about imported genetically modified canola [oilseed rape] threatening local biodiversity and food safety. The most recent one was the 12th in the series and it was conducted on the 18th November 2012.
Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM canola and Bayer's Liberty Link GM canola were found growing by the roadside between Yokkaichi port and Matsusaka city in Mie Prefecture, Japan. 44 citizens gathered together and walked along more than 15 kms in order to clean up the unwanted GM canola.
The association members together with concerned consumers, processors of agricultural products and farmers have been doing these clean up operations and finding Canadian GM canola plants growing wild again and again since they first started in 2004. The association has undertaken this activity regularly since 2006.
According to Mr Ishikawa, who is one of the core members of the Non-GM association Aichi, the amount of Liberty Link GM canola has been increasing in recent years. He has been hearing that Canadian farmers use Liberty Link GM canola seeds that are tolerant to a weedkiller Basta (glufosinate) more than Roundup (glyphosate) tolerant one. There have been growing problems in North American farm fields where the wild weed populations becoming tolerant to commonly used chemicals like Roundup. ...
Below: The US federal gov't rescue of Wall Street didn?t fix the economy ? it created a permanent bailout state based on a Ponzi-like confidence scheme. And the worst may be yet to come.
Secrets and lies of the bailout
Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone USA January 4, 2013
It has been four long winters since the federal government, in the hulking, shaven-skulled, Alien Nation-esque form of then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, committed $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street from its own chicanery and greed. To listen to the bankers and their allies in Washington tell it, you'd think the bailout was the best thing to hit the American economy since the invention of the assembly line. Not only did it prevent another Great Depression, we've been told, but the money has all been paid back, and the government even made a profit. No harm, no foul ? right?
Wrong.
It was all a lie ? one of the biggest and most elaborate falsehoods ever sold to the American people. We were told that the taxpayer was stepping in ? only temporarily, mind you ? to prop up the economy and save the world from financial catastrophe. What we actually ended up doing was the exact opposite: committing American taxpayers to permanent, blind support of an ungovernable, unregulatable, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash, and forces Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to increase risk rather than reduce it. The result is one of those deals where one wrong decision early on blossoms into a lush nightmare of unintended consequences.
We thought we were just letting a friend crash at the house for a few days; we ended up with a family of hillbillies who moved in forever, sleeping nine to a bed and building a meth lab on the front lawn.
But the most appalling part is the lying. The public has been lied to so shamelessly and so often in the course of the past four years that the failure to tell the truth to the general populace has become a kind of baked-in, official feature of the financial rescue. Money wasn't the only thing the government gave Wall Street ? it also conferred the right to hide the truth from the rest of us. And it was all done in the name of helping regular people and creating jobs. "It is," says former bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky, "the ultimate bait-and-switch." ...
Below: Same old plan. First a US-enabled military coup against a weakened puppet government. Then, opportunistically, the Tuaregs regained control of their ancestral territory in Northerm Mali. The region is resource rich. The Western Axis interfered with Takfiri proxies and took power away from the legitimate Tuareg claiments. Now the former colonial power, hungry for the resource wealth, has launched the first strike in a long-planned Western Axis operation. All in the name of anti-terrorism
France?s Hollande sends troops to Mali
Edward Cody Washington Post USA January 11, 2013
IFrance's President Francois Hollande delivers a speech on the situation in Mali in Paris on Jan. 11, 2013. French forces began backing Malian soldiers Friday in their fight against radical Islamists who are moving toward Bamako. Photo: ssouf Sanogo/AFP/Getty Images
PARIS ? As Islamist fighters scored new gains in northern Mali, French ground forces intervened Friday to help the sagging Malian army, opening a new front in the confrontation between the West and al-Qaeda-allied guerrillas.
French President Francois Hollande, who announced the unexpected deployment, did not say how many French soldiers were on the ground or exactly what their mission is. But he promised that France?s participation in the fighting would ?last as long as necessary? to guarantee that the Malian government and army can maintain control of the former French colony in northwest Africa.
?At stake is the very existence of the Malian state,? he said in a televised declaration. ...
Fearing the largely desolate region could become a launch pad for terrorist attacks, France, the United States and other European governments have sought to organize an African military intervention force to restore Malian government authority. But a senior French security official acknowledged recently that the African force is nowhere near to being ready, meaning France had to intervene on its own if it wanted to respond to the immediate crisis.
?The terrorists have regrouped in recent days along the line that artificially separates Mali?s north and south,? Hollande said in an earlier talk Friday to assembled French diplomats. ?They have even advanced. And they are seeking to deal a fatal blow to the very existence of Mali. France, as is the case with its African partners and all the international community, cannot accept this.?
Hollande, who took office last May, had consistently ruled out the dispatch of French ground forces in Africa, insisting the days of France operating as an African police force are over. But an appeal Thursday from Mali?s interim president, Dioncounda Traore, and the swift deterioration of the military situation apparently changed his mind. In addition, he indicated, France?s role as a power in Africa that can be relied on seemed to be at stake.
?The terrorists must know that France will always be there to support a population that lives in democracy,? he declared. ...
France launches Mali military intervention
Al Jazeera English Qatar January 11, 2013
Includes video (6:27)
President Francois Hollande has said France is intervening to stop al-Qaeda-linked fighters in Mali who have been moving toward the capital, Bamako.
The announcement by the leader of France, the former colonial overseer in West Africa, came on Friday after Mali's interim president Dioncounda Traore appealed for French help in stopping the rebels' advance.
"I have agreed to Mali's demand, which means French forces provided support to Mali this afternoon," Hollande said. "The operation will last as long as is necessary."
The Malian president declared a state of emergency on Friday, and French Foreign minister Laurent Fabius said France's military had already carried out air strikes.
Earlier on Friday, a Mali government official told the AFP news agency that Mali's army was being backed by Western military personnel in a fresh counter-offensive against the fighters.
"European military, including French, are present in Mali to repel any southward advance by the Islamists," the official told AFP on Friday.
"We will not reveal their number, nor where they are based, nor what equipment they have.
"They are here. We thank these countries who have understood that we are dealing with terrorists." ...
France has hundreds of troops across western Africa, with bases or sites in places such as Senegal, Ivory Coast, Chad and Gabon. ...
Speaking to the AP news agency after the president's speech, a top French diplomat said his country has completed its deployment of two surveillance drones to the region - to help boost reconnaissance of the rebels' movements and activities.
The official said France is now able to deploy military assets "very quickly" and insisted that Hollande's speech was "not just words ... When you say that you are ready to intervene, you have to be."
France's position has been complicated because armed groups in northern Mali currently hold seven French hostages.
In an updated travel advisory, the French foreign ministry said on Friday all non-essential French citizens should leave. International aid organisations have begun evacuating staff from the narrow central belt of the country. ...
Posted at: Friday, January 11, 2013 - 08:03 PM -- Posted by: Jim Scott -- Permalink: (#)
Commentary
Idle No More: Hints of a global super-movement?
This effort to protect Mother Earth is all Humanity's responsibility, not just Aboriginal People. Every human being has had Ancestors in their lineage that understood their umbilical cord to the Earth, understanding the need to always protect and thank her. Therefore, all Humanity has to re-connect to their own Indigenous Roots of their lineage -- to heal their connection and responsibility with Mother Earth and become a united voice... All Nations, All Faiths, One Prayer. - Chief Arvol Looking Horse, S'unkawakan Wicas'a, 19th Generation Keeper of the Original Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe of the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Nation of the Sioux (South Dakota), in a letter supporting the Idle No More movement posted on Facebook
Please support Idle No More, learn more about the movement, how it effects all of us and get involved. All of our futures depend on it. - Jacob Devaney, Founder and Director of Culture Collective
Idle No More: Hints of a global super-movement
Jacob Devaney Huffington Post, The Blog USA January 2, 2013
This item contains embedded links and a video.
What started as a murmur in early October from First Nations People in Canada in response to Bill C45 has become a movement that echoes the sentiments of people all over the world, a battle cry of love for the planet, "Idle No More." At first glance it might appear that this movement is isolated and doesn't effect you if you are not native or if you don't live in Canada, yet it does. It may appear that this resistance is not related to The Occupy Movement, The Arab Spring, The Unify Movement, Anonymous, or any of the other popular uprisings sparked by social unrest, but it is.
At its very core, all of these movements have very common threads and are born from common issues facing people everywhere. Those who represent financial interests that value money over life itself, that are devoid of basic respect for human decency, and for nature have dictated the future for too long and people everywhere are standing up to say, "No more." This non-violent social uprising is viral in the minds and hearts of everyone across the planet determined to bring healing to our troubled communities, our planet, and the corruption that is eroding the highest places of governments around the world. ...
Society and nature work in similar ways to our own body's immune system. We are given a symptom that causes us to be aware that there is an illness that needs to be addressed. We can try to suppress the symptom, but that does not heal the illness. Popular uprisings with very core commonalities are spreading all over the planet. Exploitation of our environment, as well as the exploitation of people and cultures for the sake of financial gain is immoral and must be stopped at the highest levels of our governments. It is possible to have a thriving economy and environmental ethics.
Here in America, the response to Occupy is tucked into NDAA as Washington prepares ways to suppress the symptoms of social discord. Without addressing the illness at its root nothing will change. It is like the mythical Many-Headed Hydra, if you cut one head off, two more will grow back. Popular uprisings will continue here and all over the world until leaders understand that people want real fundamental change in policy. Governments should lead by example if they want to be respected.
With Twitter, Facebook and the internet, these separate movements are finding solidarity with each other and converging as a global super-movement for the planet and all people. The quote used at Unify is, "Everyone, Everywhere, Together" and it is beginning to resonate more than ever.
Each of these movements share a commitment to non-violent revolution in their call to end the exploitation of people and the exploitation of natural resources. Sustainability can be applied to all aspects of social rights, economics and the environment. Social, economic, cultural, and environmental movements, resistance, civil disobedience, flash mobs and more will continue until this is addressed at home and abroad. Whether it is Anonymous and Wikileaks exposing the corruption of governments, or Indians with drums dancing and chanting in a local mall, people everywhere are awakening, speaking up, and acting for the needed changes. It's time for politicians and religious leaders to get the message everywhere.
It is a simple choice: continue to be part of the cancer that slowly destroys our water, our air and the resources that are the fabric of life by staying unconscious, or become the conscious antidote that slowly kills the cancerous disease which threatens the existence of life on the planet? ...
Commentary on the aforementioned NDDA: With a thought toward the future of Idle No More in Stephen Harper's Canada.
Obama signs NDAA 2013 without objecting to indefinite detention of Americans
RT Russia January 3, 2013, Edited January 11, 2013
President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, giving his stamp of approval to a Pentagon spending bill that will keep Guantanamo Bay open and make indefinite detention for US citizens as likely as ever.
The president inked his name to the 2013 NDAA on Wednesday evening to little fanfare, and accompanied his signature with a statement condemning a fair number of provisions contained in a bill that he nevertheless endorsed.
The NDAA, an otherwise mundane annual bill that lays out the use of funds for the Department of Defense, has come under attack during the Obama administration for the introduction of a provision last year that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. Under the 2012 NDAA?s Sec. 1021, Pres. Obama agreed to give the military the power to arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus, although he promised with that year?s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege.
In response to the controversial indefinite detention provision from last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would have forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain Americans without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although that provision, dubbed the ?Feinstein Amendment,? passed the Senate unanimously, a select panel of lawmakers led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped it from the final version of the NDAA two week later before it could clear Congress. In exchange, Congress added a provision, Sec. 1029, that claims to ensure that ?any person inside the United States? is allowed their constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, but supporters of the Feinstein Amendment say that the swapped wording does nothing to erase the indefinite detention provision from the previous year. ...
Before the 2013 NDAA was finalized, it was reported by the White House that Pres. Obama would veto the legislation over the provisions involving Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, the White House originally said the president would veto the 2012 NDAA over the indefinite detention provisions, although he signed it regardless ?with reservations? on December 31 of that year.
Since authorizing the 2012 NDAA, the president has been challenged in federal court by a team of plaintiffs who say that the indefinite detention clause is unconstitutional. US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA violated the US Constitution and granted a permanent injunction on the Obama administration from using that provision, but the White House successfully fought to appeal that decision.
Commenting on the latest signing, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero says, "President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day.? ...
A rational analysis of NDAA 2013
Adalia Woodbury PoliticsUSA.com USA January 10, 2013
Image M Live. Visit this page for its embedded links.
This past week, President Obama signed the NDAA of 2013, with an accompanying signing statement.
While the previous Congress failed to pass the VAWA, a jobs bill for Vets (or for that matter any jobs bills); they did manage to pass the NDAA 2013. The House Armed Service Committee passed it on May 10, 2012 by a vote of 56-5. The House passed the Bill (with amendments) on May 18th, 2012 by a vote of 299-120. The Senate passed it with a vote of 98-0 on December 4th.
When a bill has constitutionally dubious or otherwise problematic provisions, the President may issue a signing statement to provide clarity and voice his objections. The statement also explains how he intends to implement the law, in a manner that would be compliant with the constitution. ...
This year?s version of the NDAA raises some, but not all of the same issues and concerns that last year?s version did. It also gave rise to similar attacks on the President for signing the bill.
As was the case in the 2012 version of the NDAA, some suggest year?s version of the NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of American Citizens.
Let?s begin with some basic facts about the writ of habeas corpus. In short, habeas corpus is a protection against unlawful detention. Individuals can file a petition seeking a writ. If the custodian cannot provide adequate legal justification for detention, the court can order the petitioner?s release.
The only branch of government that has authority to suspend habeas corpus is Congress. When the right is suspended, Congress is the best way to restore it. In other words, the President does not have independent authority to suspend habeas corpus. At best, he can instruct agencies to address the issue in a manner consistent with his interpretation of the constitution, as he did with his 2012 signing statement. ...
It?s very easy to criticize the President on the question of Guantanamo Bay. The fact remains that he cannot close Guantanamo Bay without support from Congress; that fact would not have changed had he opted to exercise his veto.
Vetoing the NDAA would have created several other problems, including the absence of funding for national defense. Even if Obama had exercised his veto, Congress may very well have overridden it, meaning the NDAA would have become law as is. Perhaps Congress would not have overridden the veto and that would mean starting over. But there is no assurance that another bill would have been less objectionable on the same issues.
Sometimes presidents have to be grown-ups and sign bills they don?t like, simply because the possibility for improvement is limited by the children in Congress.
Below: Brandon Lee Gagne is an anthropology senior at The University of Florida. The Alligator was founded in 1906 as The University News, which was an independent, student-owned newspaper created to serve the University of Florida when it opened in Gainesville. In 1912, the newspaper became a part of the University of Florida administration, and was renamed the Florida Alligator. In 1973, the newspaper became independent of the University of Florida.
Obama-approved NDAA could be start of dangerous trend in national laws
Brandon Lee Gagne The Independent Florida Alligator USA January 11, 2013
I?m tired of people telling me Obama is a good guy.
?Brandon, he?s one of us. He was raised by a single mother. He inhaled!?
Obama is not a good guy, and having inhaled doesn?t change it.
Last week, the president signed the renewed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the notorious legislation that allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens without trial, making it legal for 2013.
Think about that for a moment. Think about the implications of such powers.
If the president wanted to take you in, he could do it, and you might never have a day in court. You would be in confinement until he decided to let you go.
This is an egregious breach of fundamental liberty. This is the box of matches that can torch any rights we thought we had. It sounds like a scene in some dystopian novel, but it?s not fiction. It?s real, and it?s scary.
?But Brandon, he?s only using it against the guys who are trying to kill us.?
That doesn?t much matter. Nobody should have such power for any reason. ...
One of the saddest parts about all of this is that too many of us have no idea any of this happened. The NDAA passed with little fanfare from the news outlets.
It seems like a deception took place to renew NDAA amid all of the ?fiscal cliff? circus that played out on the news. Like a magician performing a slight-of-hand trick, the big wigs directed our attention at one thing and quietly did something else while we were distracted.
I don?t understand how any sane person who is at all concerned with his or her own safety, or the safety of the public at large, could convince themselves that it?s OK that many of the most powerful people in the country think destroying habeas corpus is good for us.
If we don?t stop them in their tracks now, the next bill of this kind to be proposed will be a little worse, and the one after that worse still. ...
We can?t just sit back on this one. This one is bad. This one is where we have to draw the line.
Posted at: Friday, January 11, 2013 - 02:29 PM -- Posted by: Jim Scott -- Permalink: (#) Commentary
Placing #IdleNoMore in historical context & Canada's ruling elite lack guts dealing with oil and other resource giants: First Nations might embolden all of us & Mr. Harper, you have a road map?it is the 2005 Kelowna Accord
What if Mr. Harper had invested in the Kelowna Accord as agreed upon by all First Ministers and Aboriginal leaders in 2005? ... Today, we have a crisis in Canada. We have, however, an opportunity to gain lost ground by revisiting our past accomplishments and agreements. The Kelowna Accord was a progressive model for strengthening relationships between Indigenous peoples and governments and working collaboratively to close the inequality gaps in Canada. - Terry Mitchell and Lori Curtis. Terry Mitchell is an associate professor, department of psychology, Wilfrid Laurier Univerity; Lori Curtis is a professor in the department of economics at the University of Waterloo.
Below: Glen Coulthard is a member of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation and an assistant professor in the First Nations Studies Program and the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. He says three decades of Indigenous resistance in Canada inform today's movement.
Placing #IdleNoMore in historical context
Glen Coulthard Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Canada December 24, 2012
Much has been said recently in the media about the relationship between the inspiring expression of Indigenous resurgent activity at the core of the #IdleNoMore movement and the heightened decade of Native activism that led Canada to establish the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in 1991. I offer this short analysis of the historical context that led to RCAP in an effort to get a better sense of the transformative political possibilities in our present moment of struggle.
The federal government was forced to launch RCAP in the wake of two national crises that erupted in the tumultuous ?Indian summer? of 1990. The first involved the legislative stonewalling of the Meech Lake Accord by Cree Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper. The Meech Lake Accord was a failed constitutional amendment package negotiated in 1987 by then Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, and the ten provincial premiers. The process was the federal government?s attempt to bring Quebec ?back in? to the constitutional fold in the wake of the province?s refusal to accept the constitutional repatriation deal of 1981, which formed the basis of the The Constitution Act, 1982. Indigenous opposition to Meech Lake was staunch and vocal, in large part due to the fact that the privileged white men negotiating the agreement once again refused to recognize the political concerns and aspirations of First Nations. In a disruptive act of legislative protest, Elijah Harper initiated a filibuster in the days immediately leading up to the accord?s ratification deadline, which ultimately prevented the province from endorsing the package. The agreement subsequently tanked because it failed to gain the required ratification of all ten provinces within 3-years of reaching a deal.
The second crisis involved a 78-day armed ?standoff? beginning on July 11, 1990 between the Mohawk nation of Kanesatake, the Quebec provincial police (SQ), and the Canadian armed forces near the town of Oka, Quebec. On June 30, 1990 the municipality of Oka was granted a court injunction to dismantle a peaceful barricade erected by the people of Kanesatake in an effort to defend their sacred lands from further encroachment by non-Native developers. The territory in question was slotted for development by a local golf course, which planned on extending nine holes onto land the Mohawks had been fighting to have recognized as their own for almost 300 years. Eleven days later, on July 11, one hundred heavily armed members of the SQ stormed the community. The police invasion culminated in a twenty-four second exchange of gunfire that killed SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay. In a display of solidarity, the neighbouring Mohawk nation of Kahnawake set up their own barricades, including one that blocked the Mercier Bridge leading into the greater Montreal area. Galvanized by the Mohawk resistance, Indigenous peoples from across the continent followed suit, engaging in a diverse array of solidarity actions that ranged from leafleting to the establishment of peace encampments to the erection of blockades on several major Canadian transport corridors, both road and rail. Although polls conducted during the stand-off showed some support by non-Native Canadians outside of Quebec for the Mohawk cause, most received their information about the so-called ?Oka Crisis? through the corporate media, which overwhelmingly represented the event as a ?law and order? issue fundamentally undermined by Indigenous peoples? anger and resentment-fuelled criminality. [i]
For many Indigenous people and their supporters, however, these two national crises were seen as the inevitable culmination of a near decade-long escalation of Native frustration with a colonial state that steadfastly refused to uphold the rights that had been recently ?recognized and affirmed? in section 35 (1) of the The Constitution Act, 1982. By the late 1980s, this frustration was clearly boiling over, resulting in a marked rise in First Nations? militancy and land-based direct action. The following are some of the more well-documented examples from the time[ii]: ...
Below: Kirstin Scansen is a Nehithaw woman, from the Lac La Ronge Indian Band in Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan. She has a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology, with a minor in Political Science, and is currently an MA candidate in Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria. She believes, "Idle No More presents a challenge to the old colonial order that forms the basis of Canadian society."
Indigenous sovereignty and human rights: Idle No More as a decolonizing force
Kirstin Scansen Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society Canada December 28, 2012
Last week I was compelled into a leadership role with the Prince Albert Idle No More rally. Prince Albert is a growing city in central Saskatchewan, with a population of about 35,000. The traditional Nehithaw place name is kistahpinanihk, which means ?meeting place?. Prince Albert has a high Indigenous population and is surrounded by key sites in the history of Treaty 6. It would be ideal to say that Indigenous-Settler relations here have been harmonious, a peaceful meeting place of sorts, but the presence of colonialism is heavy. Surrounded by medium and maximum security prisons, housed disproportionately with Indigenous inmates, oppression can be felt strongly. Racism and racialised violence are pervasive. But there is also a strong regional history of Indigenous resurgence and resistance to colonialism; key sites of the Riel Rebellion are within a 30 minute drive from city limits, and Indigenous languages, ceremonies, and land-based teachings thrive despite centuries of genocidal policies. ...
Below: Canada's elite lack guts dealing with oil giants. First Nations might embolden all of us argues Mitch Anderson. "In a larger sense the awakening of Aboriginal Canada could fundamentally change resource use in Canada. Like Norwegians, First Nations have ancient cultural ties to the land. Companies seeking to exploit resources on these lands have learned the hard way that ignoring aboriginal interests can stop their expensive projects in their tracks."
Idle No More, meet the Norwegians
Mitch Anderson TheTyee.ca British Columbia Canada January 10, 2013
Visit this page for its embedded links.
Norway is a long way from Attawapiskat but there may be some important lessons for Canada's First Nations from across the Atlantic in the looming showdown with Stephen Harper. In a recent series for The Tyee, I documented how this tiny Nordic country stood up to powerful outside oil interests intent on exploiting their natural resources and achieved a remarkable economic success.
By standing their ground with a clear vision and united front, Norwegians negotiated arguably the toughest ever terms with the world's most powerful industrial sector. They now enjoy full employment, no debt, generous social programs, and have over $600 billion in the bank -- putting them $1.2 trillion ahead of Canada.
Norwegian experts I interviewed repeatedly stressed that this achievement was rooted not in policy or economics but in their culture. Because people in Norway have such a strong and ancient connection with their land, and a famous Viking chutzpah dating back to the Iron Age, they refused to capitulate to outside timelines or artificial industrial imperatives.
Seen through this lens, the First Nations of Canada have a far better chance of replicating the Norwegian success story than the rest of our country. Their awakening could well lead the way forward towards transforming resource management in our country. And it needs transformation. ...
There is little evidence that we have learned much from [our past] failures, however a long-overdue game changer may be the groundswell of anger from First Nations around the lack of economic benefits from resource extraction within their traditional territories. A pregnant example is a billion-dollar diamond mine operated by de Beers since 2008 within 100 kilometres of Attawapiskat, yet not a dime of this revenue is currently going to the impoverished community.
In fact, APTN reported last year that the current housing crisis in Attawapiskat was partially caused by de Beers overloading the town the sewage system and flooding numerous homes that are now uninhabitable. Chief Theresa Spence? has been on a severely reduced diet for a month in protest of these and other indignities visited on her people. ...
Imagine if native communities moved beyond sporadic blockades to demand their fair share of resource rents? And not the paltry pertinences typically agreed to by provincial governments, which seem to view resource wealth as something left behind by previous owners when they moved into the house.
Imagine if First Nations demanded Norwegian-scale revenue and management sharing? Not only might this lift native communities out of shocking levels of poverty, it could also show the rest of the country what bumpkins we have been regarding the giveaway of our treasure trove of resources.
Such determination will not come from non-native Canada, but we might all benefit from it. While many Canadians were fretting about the NHL lockout, it was First Nations taking to the street to oppose Harper's gutting of Canada's environmental laws. Their fight has the potential to win a better future for all Canadians.
Below: Russell Diabo is a member of the Mohawk Nation at Kahnawake.
Mr. Harper, one short meeting won?t end native protests
Russell Diabo Globe and Mail Canada January 11, 2013
Friday?s meeting between Stephen Harper and a delegation of first nations leaders, at which the Prime Minister will be present for barely a few hours, will produce rhetorical gestures at best, if it does not fall apart entirely. Those who expect this meeting to halt the native protests don?t understand the Idle No More movement.
Canada?s indigenous peoples have endured a generation of betrayed promises of change and missed opportunities. We are not about to waste another. The stakes are too great, for us and for Canadians. We are drawing a line in the sand.
History shows that prime ministers have always underestimated our will to survive as peoples. More than 40 years ago, Pierre Trudeau put forward his White Paper, the culmination of a hundred years of previous government policy.
The plan offered us an ?equality? that would strip us of our identity, our status, our treaties and what remained of our homelands. We formed new political organizations, rallied across the country, and Mr. Trudeau had to withdraw his plan.
Ten years later, another crest of activism insured that aboriginal and treaty rights were affirmed in the Constitution, again against Mr. Trudeau?s wishes.
Successive federal governments have refused to abandon Mr. Trudeau?s assimilation plan. Mr. Harper is attempting to implement this agenda through a suite of legislation and a strategy of political attrition, while developing Canada?s economy on the backs of our lands and resources. ...
Brian Mulroney?s call for a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was part of a strategy to dampen the fires of unrest. Though born of a cynical calculus, the commission was the most exhaustive ever, and its blueprint for reconciliation between aboriginal peoples and Canada is as relevant today as it was then.
It recognized the fact that we will not be assimilated, and that constant attempts to do so had only disastrous consequences. It recognized that we are nations with rights enshrined in the Canadian constitution, with adequate land bases that would be the key to genuine self-government, economic development and healthy communities.
But when the Commission was released in 1996, the government responded with resounding silence. Canadians had by then turned their attention elsewhere, with protests no longer in the daily news. Of its hundreds of recommendations, barely a handful have been implemented.
Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have continued doing precisely what the Royal Commission warned against: tinkering with a colonial system, rather than fixing its rotten foundation. The issues identified by the Commission have never gone away.
Little wonder, then, that Idle No More is only the most visible and sustained expression of an uprising that has been building for years in Indian country. First nations across the country have been battling destructive resource exploitation. ...
The constitutional, legal and treaty rights that first nations have brandished in these numerous but isolated victories are no fantasy, but a reality that Canada has no choice but to reckon with. And the power of the Idle No More movement is that it has started to show that these rights, if properly honoured, don?t just hold the promise of healthier, self-sufficient indigenous communities. They offer non-native Canadians the promise of a country sustainably co-managed in the interests of generations to come. Is this road not preferable to Mr. Harper?s vision for continued strife? ...
Below: Joe Fiorito is not a member of any First Nation. But he has lived around and worked with indigenous people for much of his life.
Feds should be idle no more
Joe Fiorito Toronto Star Ontario Canada January 11, 2013
I have read a lot of stuff about Chief Spence and her hunger strike, including many things intended to discredit her, and also the movement ?Idle No More.?
I have a hunch that much of what I have read has been written by people who do not know any native people, and have never visited a reserve, and know nothing about what it is like to live under the provisions of the Indian Act.
Opinions are cheap. Ill-informed opinions are offensive. The oldest treaties are the worst. ...
In my opinion, people thrive when they are in control of their own lives and in charge of their own resources.
The federal government should be idle no more in these matters.
Related news items: Chiefs demand fundamental change but can?t guarantee they?ll meet Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Joanna Smith and Bruce Campion-Smith Toronto Star Ontario Canada January 10, 2013
OTTAWA?First Nations leaders are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper commit to fundamentally changing the relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples, but they could not guarantee their planned Friday meeting would actually take place.
?It is time we broke through the paralysis and endless broken promises and it is time to act,? National Chief Shawn Atleo told a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday that had been delayed by a day as the Assembly of First Nations continued discussing the demands they expected to put on the table.
Frustration over decades of disappointment was on display as chiefs warned Harper with an uncompromising tone to take this mission seriously or face the wrath of a young and energetic Idle No More protest movement prepared to disrupt the Canadian economy.
They also had a warning for Atleo, who late into the night Thursday was appealing to dissenting chiefs ? including his main political rival ? to focus on progress rather than logistics as they threatened to boycott the meeting unless it happened on their turf and their terms.
The Assembly of First Nations has come up with a list of short- and long-term demands that would lead to a restoration of the nation-to-nation relationship envisioned by treaties signed between indigenous peoples and the Crown in the 18th century and revamped for the modern day.
?The treaties were not meant to make us poor in our homelands, but that is what you see,? said Saskatchewan Regional Chief Perry Bellegarde, who appeared alongside Atleo and B.C. Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould at the news conference.
The ?high-level commitments? the chiefs are seeking from Harper include: ...
Even as Atleo laid out his vision for a transformed relationship, he was coming under growing pressure from chiefs across Canada not to meet with Harper on Friday unless the prime minister comes to the downtown hotel where the Assembly of First Nations has been meeting this week and brings Gov. Gen. David Johnston with him.
Johnston has agreed to meet First Nations leaders, but at his Rideau Hall residence after the working meeting.
Pam Palmater, who placed second to Atleo in the Assembly of First Nations election last year, said Atleo has no authority to go to the meeting in the face of the chiefs? opposition.
?If the AFN decided to go to that meeting against the will and decision of the chiefs, then the AFN would no longer be valid representative organization ... that?s as simple as it gets,? she told reporters. ...
Angry Canadian aboriginals divided ahead of Harper meeting
David Ljunggren Thomson Reuters Canada/UK January 11,2013
OTTAWA, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Deep splits emerged in the ranks of Canada's aboriginal movement on Friday, casting doubt on a planned meeting between chiefs and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss a series of native grievances.
Native leaders say the growing aboriginal Idle No More protest movement is prepared to block highways and prevent resource development unless Ottawa does more to tackle the poor living conditions and high jobless rates facing many of Canada's 1.2 million aboriginals.
Harper, under pressure from an Ontario native leader on a month-long hunger strike in Ottawa, had agreed to meet senior chiefs in his office at 1 p.m. (1800 GMT) on Friday.
Hours before the session was scheduled to begin, Teresa Spence, the hunger-striking leader, was insisting that the meeting include more natives and Governor-General David Johnston, the official representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state. Johnston has already said he will not attend, saying it is not his place to get involved in policy discussions.
Spence said she would not attend the meeting unless Johnston participates.
Native groups complain successive Canadian governments have ignored treaties that aboriginals signed with British settlers and explorers hundreds of years ago, treaties they say granted them significant rights over their territory.
"We shared the land all these years and we never got anything from it. All the benefits are going to Canadian citizens, except for us," Spence told reporters.
"It's important for the government and the governor-general to understand about the treaties," she said. "This government has been abusing us, raping the land."
Spence's stance underlines divisions inside the native community and the challenges facing Shawn Atleo, leader of the Assembly of First Nations umbrella group, which represents 633 separate bands. ...
Native leaders threaten to escalate blockades on day of Harper meeting
Gloria Galloway Globe and Mail Canada January 11, 2013
First nations leaders are threatening to shut down major transportation corridors to stress the depth of their grievances with the Harper government.
Chiefs said they were waiting Friday at an Ottawa hotel where they have been meeting all week for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to show up for a meeting.
Mr. Harper has agreed to meet with the chiefs at his office this afternoon but they want him to come to them and many of the invited chiefs have said they will boycott the meeting because it is not being conducted on their terms.
In the meantime, protests are taking place Friday across Canada and around the world under the banner Idle No More ? rallies and demonstrations that were timed to coincide with the meeting but could now turn into angry cries of support for the chiefs who are refusing to attend.
And some of the first nations leaders are promising future action to disrupt business ? especially resource development ? that is a key point of contention for native peoples. They want a share of the resource revenues from development that is taking place in their traditional territories and they want the federal government to maintain a strong hand in environmental oversight ? something it has largely turned over to the provinces in recent budget legislation. ...
Despite the boycott by some first-nations leaders, Shawn Atleo, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and a handful of other chiefs will meet with Mr. Harper and his ministers on Friday afternoon. Mr. Harper has agreed to be there for the first half hour and then to return for an hour at the end of the three-and-a-half hour meeting to talk about the outcome of the discussion.
The Prime Minister?s Office insisted that the delegation from the first nations be limited to between 30 and 35 people. That meant that many of the chiefs who have come to Ottawa for the meeting will not be able to attend.
Mr. Atleo has repeatedly explained that the discussion is not intended to be a summit or a gathering but as a working meeting to start progress on first-nations issues. ...
5 things to know about today's First Nations meetings
CBC News Canada January 11, 2013
National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Shawn Atleo is under intense pressure to broker a compromise between the Harper government - with whom he must work to make progress on First Nations issues - and some of his own chiefs and grassroots protesters across the country who are demanding talks on their own terms. Photo: Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press. This item contains a live Twitter feed.
A group of First Nations leaders has chosen not to attend today's meeting with the prime minister, saying the Governor General, who is slated to hold a "ceremonial" meeting later in the day, should be at the main event.
Here's a look at what is expected to happen ? and what may not proceed as planned ? on Friday. ...
Final commentary: Canada, first nations have a road map. It was the Kelowna Accord
Terry Mitchell and Lori Curtis Globe and Mail Canada January 11, 2013
Whatever your opinion is on the actions of Chief Theresa Spence, her demands for consultation are supported by Canadian law, the constitution, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Significantly, Chief Spence is no longer calling attention specifically to the community of Attiwapiskat, but rather bringing the world?s attention to the crisis of Aboriginal and federal relations in Canada. Concerns with treaty rights, environmental issues, poverty, and a lack of consultation are unifying a diverse grassroots group of first nations, Inuit and Metis.
Chief Spence continues to represent the focused resolve of an increasing number of people demanding dialogue on Aboriginal treaty rights with the legal authority of the Supreme Court?s ruling on the duty to consult on all matters that affect Aboriginal peoples. ...
Mr. Harper?s record on Aboriginal issues indicates that he is aware of the urgent need to reconcile and to build new and productive relations with first nations peoples. He apologized in 2008 for the Indian Residential schools and began a process of reconciliation by setting up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Mr. Harper then signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010. This is a remarkable sequence of events and a seemingly positive progression in relations between the government of Canada and Aboriginal peoples. Juxtaposed to these actions, however, is the Harper government?s profound lack of consultation on Bill C-45 and other bills, severe funding cutbacks to Aboriginal organizations, and the abandonment of the Kelowna Accord -- leading into a period of strikes, blockades, demonstrations which seeded the emergence of the now international Idle No More (INM) movement.
First nation, Inuit and Metis Leaders, emboldened by the awakening of their communities through INM may reflect on the distance travelled and the ground lost. The Kelowna Accord was an unprecedented agreement with Aboriginal leadership based on 18 months of consultation. The Accord was characterized by a profoundly democratic strategic planning process with specific targets for addressing social inequalities through a $5-billion investment over five years. The Accord was an agreement to work collectively to bring high school completion rates on par with the non-Aboriginal population, to reduce youth suicide rates (the highest in the world) by 50 per cent and to provide potable water and improved housing conditions to first nation reserves. Investment in community economic development was pegged at $200-million and resources were provided for training in financial accountability. The funding targets and investments were a clear statement that the federal government was no longer willing to tolerate the substandard living conditions of Aboriginal communities and would no longer accept the disadvantages faced by Aboriginal youth from inadequate education and unequal opportunity.
What if Mr. Harper had invested in the Kelowna Accord as agreed upon by all First Ministers and Aboriginal leaders in 2005? ...
Posted at: Friday, January 11, 2013 - 12:43 PM -- Posted by: Jim Scott -- Permalink: (#) Thursday, January 10, 2013
Social Ideas
Democracy? Whales in fish tanks. Economic and/or poiitical?autocrats are autocrats. Let the fish swim freely & The foundation of a new democratic economy is worker self-directed enterprises
Corporate America: A whale in a fish tank
Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks Truthout USA January 9, 2013
Sticking a whale in a fish tank is a bad idea. With its fat body pressed up against all four glass walls, there's no room for any of the other fish ? goldfish, zebra fish, sucker fish ? to swim about or even eat since, of course, the whale will eat all the fish food and likely the fish themselves.
Eventually all the other fish will die. Then, all you're left with is a whale, alone, in a fish tank.
And what good is that?
The point is whales don't belong in fish tanks any more than giant transnational monopolies or oligopolies belong in our economy.
Nature has a way of restricting the size of animals in their ecosystem making sure they don't get too big and cause problems for the other animals and organisms that call the same ecosystem home. Similarly, our economy must have mechanisms to restrict the size of corporations to make sure they don't become too big and cause problems for other businesses trying to make a living. ...
While banking is the most notorious example of whales in a fish tank, it's not the only example.
Consider our food industry. ...
And then there's the health insurance market. ...
Also, from newspapers to television, radio to movies, oligopolies ? or whales ? dominate the markets. ...
Related: A commitment to democracy logically should extend to the place where adults spend most of their lives. Workers in control of their own workplaces are much less likely to ship their own jobs overseas, underpay employees or pollute their own communities.
The foundation of a new democratic economy is worker self-directed enterprises
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers Truthout USA January 10, 2013
Visit this page for its embedded links.
...
The economic collapse and slow recovery that has led to high unemployment and under-employment, coinciding with an extreme wealth divide in which workers have a shrinking share of the GDP, means people are looking for new approaches. How can we create an economy that works for all Americans?
Through his new project, Democracy at Work, economist Richard Wolff strives to develop a social movement that puts in place a reorganization of the economy built on a foundation of employee control of the workplace. Employees would act together as their own bosses in a fully egalitarian, democratic workplace where workers run the business, share the assets and create a workspace that runs in harmony with not only its workers, but the entire community.
We join him in this effort through our project, It's Our Economy, which seeks to create economic democracy, with worker ownership at its foundation. Economic democracy is consistent with the democratic ideals of the United States. And employee ownership is an all-American approach to problem-solving that has been supported by people on the Right and Left. Workers will relish the democratic structure; businesspeople will appreciate its entrepreneurial spirit. ...
Much of what goes wrong in US-European capitalism is due to how corporations are organized - hierarchical and undemocratic. As Wolff says "people go to work and do what they are told rather than participate." The undemocratic workplace is dominated by a handful of people - owners, stockholders or a board of directors. Those who make the decisions create greater wealth and power for themselves, usually at the expense of their workers; and not surprisingly they get involved in politics to ensure that they continue to keep their power and wealth.
Worker Self Directed Enterprises are a new way of organizing. Workers have the capacity to direct decisions in their workplace. As decision-makers they have to live with the decisions they make, like moving jobs overseas, replacing workers with technology or polluting their environment. Wolff says: "If we are committed to democracy, then the workplace where people spend most of their adult lives should be democratic."
Especially when an economy is not working, it is time to say "this system does not do what we need, we can do better." Throughout history, there has been a gradual move to self-governance. As Wolff notes, "We don't need kings, nor do we need to be governed by a few at the workplace." To accomplish this transition to a decentralized and democratized economy, we need to build a social movement that takes this message to the American people. ...
Jim comment: Ah! A mild form of a 21st Century Syndicalism. It has already gained a small foothold in British Columbia, Canada in the pulp and paper, broadcasting and other areas of the economy. Here in BC, workers and friendly capitalists have, together, successully rebuilt industry brought down by the inherent weaknesses of the prevailing system or have built their enterprises from scratch upon a more enlightened ideological foundation. But history teaches such thinking and action can lead to civil wars and, in the 20th Century, to fascist control of the political economy of the state (e.g., Italy, France and particularly Spain). So it goes. Will it?must it?go that way again? There are some disturbing signs it may.
Posted at: Thursday, January 10, 2013 - 07:01 PM -- Posted by: Jim Scott -- Permalink: (#) Commentary
Forthcoming Council on Foreign Relations book asks is the United States learning it can?t count on emerging powers like India and Brazil to promote freedom in their neighborhoods?
Throughout the cold war, the United States and its NATO allies served as figureheads for democracy in the rest of the world. But that role came at a price?not only a financial one, but also the perception that some open democratic societies were simply American puppets. Repressive regimes from Libya to North Korea claimed legitimacy in part from their resistance to American power. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, observers noted an encouraging trend: The Western powers weren?t the world?s only high-flying democracies. New powers like India were emerging with democratic governments and regional clout, and starting in the later part of the Clinton administration, the United States and other Western nations began aggressively trying to enlist them in global democracy promotion. The Clinton administration helped establish the Community of Democracies, a global meeting of nations held for the first time in Poland in 2000, which eventually expanded to create a democracies? caucus at the United Nations. Other regional pro-democracy groups sprang up around the world, often with US help and support. At one such gathering, the World Movement for Democracy, held in Jakarta in the spring of 2010, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said: ?I am convinced that ultimately the 21st century instinct is the democratic instinct.... No political system can ignore this.? - Joshua Kurlantzick, writing in the Boston Globe December 16, 2012
Joshua Kurlantzick is a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow for Southeast Asia. Democracy in Retreat: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government will be published February 4, 2013 as 'A CFR Book' by Yale University Press
Publisher's description:
Since the end of the Cold War, the assumption among most political theorists has been that as nations develop economically, they will also become more democratic?especially if a vibrant middle class takes root. This assumption underlies the expansion of the European Union and much of American foreign policy, bolstered by such examples as South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and even to some extent Russia. Where democratization has failed or retreated, aberrant conditions take the blame: Islamism, authoritarian Chinese influence, or perhaps the rise of local autocrats. But what if the failures of democracy are not exceptions? In this thought-provoking study of democratization, Joshua Kurlantzick proposes that the spate of retreating democracies, one after another over the past two decades, is not just a series of exceptions. Instead, it reflects a new and disturbing trend: democracy in worldwide decline. The author investigates the state of democracy in a variety of countries, why the middle class has turned against democracy in some cases, and whether the decline in global democratization is reversible.
Is democratic government in decline?
Asia Sentinal Hong Kong December 12, 2012
Across the planet, things look a bit disturbing
(Joshua Kurlantzick?s new book, The Decline of Democracy, to be published soon by Yale University Press, revolves around a disturbing thesis: that after a steady increase in the number of democracies in the world for nearly a century, autocratic rule is on the march. With Kurlantzick?s permission, Asia Sentinel presents this excerpt from what can be expected to be a profoundly unsettling work.)
When viewed against the entire expanse of the 20th and 21st Centuries, or against even longer periods of human history, the world today appears to be highly democratic. At the start of the 20th Century, only a tiny fraction of the countries in the world could have been called true democracies.
Nearly all of these democracies were in Western Europe, North America, and the former overseas territories of the British Empire. Together they constituted no more than one- tenth of the world?s population. Empires ruled much of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Even as recently as 1988, before the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a small minority of the world?s people lived under democracy; Central Asia and Eastern Europe had no democracies, and sub-Saharan Africa had virtually no true democracies as well.
Compared with those bleak periods, the number of democracies in the early 21st Century seems like a great advance. Many African nations have made the beginnings of a transition to democratic rule, and real democracy is increasingly entrenched in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and many parts of East Asia.
No one expects that democracy will backslide to its weak global position in 1900; the prospect of democracy being wiped away completely, as seemed possible in the 1930s, now appears all but impossible. Indeed, the point of this book is not to suggest that democracy is in its death throes, but that it is in decline over the past decade? a decline that should be worrying because of its vast impact on human rights, economic freedoms, and the international system.
If policy makers do not recognize this decline, and understand the complex reasons, examined later on, for democracy?s current weakness in many developing nations, they will fail to reverse this trend. Worse, as the economic crisis lags on, publics in many developing regions may become far more distrustful of democratic rule? a prospect that could indeed help set the world back to the situation in 1988 or before.
Choosing to look at democracy?s decline over the past de cade is not arbitrary. Just as 1974, and then 1989, were watershed years for democratization, so too was 2001 such a year, although not in a positive way. Over the subsequent decade certain trends, which were less apparent in the 1980s or 1990s, clearly indicated weakening democracy throughout the developing world.
Those trends began to materialize in 2001, and they would grow stronger throughout the 2000s and into the
Source: http://saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=23074
greg mcelroy new york post kate middleton bob costas bowl projections Jovan Belcher Charlie Batch
No comments:
Post a Comment