In Washington, D.C., a federal judge has ruled that construction on sacred tribal burial sites in the path of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline can continue. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that halts construction only between Route 1806 and Lake Oahe, but still allows construction to continue west of this area. The ruling does not protect the land where, on Saturday, hundreds of Native Americans forced Dakota Access to halt construction, despite the company’s security forces attacking the crowd with dogs and pepper spray. This part of the construction site is a sacred tribal burial ground. We get an update from Stephanie Tsosie, associate attorney with Earthjustice who helps represent the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in its lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over the Dakota Access pipeline.
Source: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Lawyer: Judge’s Ruling Allows Dakota Access to “Desecrate” Sacred Ground | Democracy Now!
How do we grieve the death of a river? Written by Winona LaDuke “Our people blocked the road. When the troops arrive, we will face them .”– Ailton Krenak, Krenaki People, Brazil This eighteen months saw three of the largest mine tailings pond disasters in history. Although they have occurred far from northern Minnesota’s pristine waters, we may want to take heed as we look at a dozen or more mining projects, on top of what is already there, abandoned or otherwise. These stories, like many, do not make headlines. They are in remote communities, far from the media and the din of our cars, cans and lifestyle. Aside from public policy questions, mining safety and economic liability concerns, there is an underlying moral issue we face here:the death of a river. As I interviewed Ailton Krenak, this became apparent. The people in southeastern Brazilian call the river Waatuh or Grandfather. “We sing to the river, we baptize the children in this river, we eat from this river, the river is our life,” That’s what Ailton Krenak, winner of the Onassis International Prize, and a leader of the Indigenous and forest movement in Brazil, told me as I sat with him and he told me of the mine waste disaster. I wanted to cry. How do you express condolences for a river, for a life, to a man to whom the river is the center of the life of his people? That is a question we must ask ourselves. November 2015’s Brazilian collapse of two dams at a mine on the Rio Doco River sent a toxic sludge over villages, and changed the geography of a world. The dam collapse cut off drinking water for a quarter of a million people and saturated waterways downstream with dense orange sediment. As the LA Times would report, “Nine people were killed, 19 … listed as missing and 500 people were displaced from their homes when the dams burst.” The sheer volume of water and mining sludge disgorged by the dams across nearly three hundred miles is staggering: the equivalent of 25,000 Olympic swimming pools or the volume carried by about 187 oil tankers. The Brazilians compare the damage to the BP oil disaster, and the water has moved into the ocean – right into the nesting area for endangered sea turtles, and a delicate ecosystem. The mine, owned by Australian based BHP Billiton, the largest mining company in the world, (and the one which just sold a 60-year-old coal strip mine to the Navajo Nation in 2013) is projecting some clean up. Renowned Brazilian documentary photographer Sebastiao Salgado, whose foundation has been active in efforts to protect the Doce River, toured the area and submitted a $27 billion clean-up proposal to the government. “ Everything died. Now the river is a sterile canal filled with mud,” Salgado told reporters. When the mining company wanted to come back, Ailton Krenak told me, “we blocked the road.” They didn’t get the memo. – Read more at: http://americanindiansandfriends.com/news/how-do-we-grieve-the-death-of-a-river-written-by-winona-laduke#sthash.oVTqm8uZ.dpuf
Source: How do we grieve the death of a river? — Spotted Horse Press by Winona LaDuke
Tuesday’s Federal Court decision recognizing Métis and non-status Indians as Indians under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act is just one of several landmark court decisions over the years that have helped define and shape aboriginal rights in Canada.Below is a selection of some key court rulings.Calder et al. v. B.C. attorney general (1973) — The split Supreme Court of Canada decision in this case opened the door to negotiations between the government and First Nations to establish rights to land and resources and launched the land claims process that continues to this day. B.C. cabinet minister and Nisga’a chief Frank Arthur Calder, the first status Indian to be elected to a Canadian legislature, and the Nisga’a tribal council took the B.C. government to court, arguing that the aboriginal title to about 2,600 square kilometres of Nisga’a land in and around the Nass River Valley in northwestern B.C. had never been extinguished.Although the court ultimately ruled against the Nisga’a, the decision was the first time the courts acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to colonization and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The judges could not agree, however, on whether that title extended to the modern day, with three of them saying it did and three arguing the title was extinguished when the laws of the B.C. colonial government took effect. A seventh judge ruled against the Nisga’a on a technicality, but the case laid the groundwork for the adoption of the groundbreaking Nisga’a Treaty in 2000, the first contemporary land claims agreement in B.C., and other land agreements.R. v. Sparrow (1990) — This case is considered the first Supreme Court test of the scope of Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms the “existing aboriginal and treaty rights” of the aboriginal people of Canada and has been at the centre of many court battles over land and resource rights. In its decision, the court for the first time set out criteria for determining whether a right can be considered to be an “existing” right and whether the government is justified in curtailing such a right.The case stems from the 1984 arrest of Ronald Edward Sparrow, a member of the Musqueam band in B.C., who was charged with violating fisheries regulations when he used a net that was longer than his fishing licence allowed. Sparrow argued that his right to fish with the net was an existing aboriginal right protected by Sec. 35 (1) of the Constitution Act. The court agreed but stipulated that the right is not absolute and can be, in certain circumstances, infringed upon.Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) — Although the Supreme Court of Canada never ruled on the question at the heart of this case, the statements it made about aboriginal land title were precedent setting for future land rights cases and the land claims process. The court confirmed that aboriginal title entails rights to the land itself, not just the right to extract resources from it. The court also ruled that the government has a duty to consult with First Nations on issues concerning Crown land and in some instances may have to compensate them for infringing on their rights to that land. The case was launched by Chief Earl Muldoe, known as Delgamuukw, and other hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en First Nations in B.C., who took the provincial government to court in an effort to establish ownership and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometres of territory in the Skeena watershed in northwestern B.C. The Supreme Court did not rule on the question of ownership, saying the issue had to be decided at a new trial, but gave a detailed interpretation of what constitutes aboriginal title, laying out guidelines for how the issue should be approached in future disputes.R. v. Marshall (1999) — This court battle over fishing rights in Nova Scotia inflamed tensions between aboriginal and non-native fishermen in the Maritimes and Quebec. Donald Marshall Jr., a Mi’kmaq man from Nova Scotia who decades earlier had been wrongfully convicted — and ultimately acquitted — in a high-profile murder case, had been charged with fishing eels out of season, fishing without a licence and fishing with an illegal net but argued that aboriginal rights stemming from 18th-century treaties with the British Crown exempted him from fisheries regulations.After the Supreme Court ruled in his favour, upholding the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet people’s rights to earn a “moderate livelihood” from commercial fishing and hunting, native lobster fishermen interpreted the ruling as granting them rights to catch lobster out of season and clashed with their non-native counterparts, who feared lobster stocks would be jeopardized. After a particularly heated showdown in Burnt Church, N.B., the court was forced to issue a clarification of its ruling, which underlined that the ruling applied to fisheries only and not to all natural resources and that the government could rest
Source: 6 landmark rulings on native rights – Canada – CBC News
By Morgan Godfery
…The myth of the Australian dream is that those who play by the rules, who observe the norms of mainstream society, will be treated and respected as members of that society. But this rule is only ever half-enforced when it comes to Indigenous people. They were never meant to be part of the Australian story. What Nicky Winmar knew in 1993 and Adam Goodes knows today is that sporting success is perfectly compatible with inequality and discrimination. The right to participate does not inevitably change the power relationship between (Indigenous) players, (white) fans and Australian society.
Colin Tatz coined the phrase that Indigenous players are ‘Australians when they’re winning and Aborigines at other times.’ Goodes is saying that he is Indigenous when he’s winning and Indigenous no matter what.
via Indigenous when he’s winning | Overland literary journal.