“A day after the Canadian government said it was fully endorsing the UN ‘Declaration on the Rights of ‘Indigenous’ Peoples’ (UNDR‘I’P), Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly ‘First Nations’ {a ‘nation’ of 220 people} and Chief Lynette Tsakoza of the Prophet River ‘First Nation’ {a ‘nation’ of 249 people} said in a joint news release the move was ‘a hypocrisy in the making’.”
“Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould also delivered a speech on the opening day at the ‘UN Permanent Forum’ WHICH CALLED ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO MAKE ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ THE FOCUS OF THIS CENTURY.” 
“‘Indigenous’ Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said…Canada would fully embrace the UN ‘Declaration on the Rights of ‘Indigenous’ Peoples’ (UNDR‘I’P) and remove its “permanent objector status” to the document.
“Bennett made the announcement during a press conference in New York City, May 9, 2016. She said the government would officially make the shift on May 10th.
“I think it means a great deal in Canada, but it means a great deal around the world, that Canada is no longer a persistent objector, that we are fully adopting this and working to implement it within the laws of Canada, which is our Charter {Even though it contradicts our Charter!},”
said Bennett, during a press conference at the ‘UN Permanent Forum on ‘Indigenous’ Issues’.
“It appears that while the Harper government announced in 2010 it would “endorse” UNDR‘I’P, it officially maintained an objection to the document {They had no choice. The segregationist ‘Declaration’ is contrary to the spirit, philosophy and values of the modern age…}. The previous Conservative government said UNDR‘I’P was an aspirational document that would be interpreted
“in a manner that is consistent with our Constitutional and legal framework.”
“Bennett said the government’s change in position also put the resource sector on notice that it needed to “seek free, prior and informed consent” before moving on projects impacting {so-called} ‘indigenous’ lands.
“If you don’t do that, if you wait until after the project is launched and started, this won’t be possible”, said Bennett. “This is putting everyone on notice, you better get this done, or else the project will flounder.” {Said the economy-killing dingbat…}
“Bennett said the change on position toward UNDR‘I’P would also allow the country to begin a “conversation” on ‘indigenous rights’. {It’s NOT a conversation – it’s a primitive tribal monologue that is being shoved down Canadian throats…}
“What this allows is for us to proceed with a conversation with Canadians. It is a step for us pursuing a full ‘reconciliation’ process that is based on the principles within the UNDR‘I’P {REAL ‘reconciliation’ is a TWO-way street…}”, said Bennett.
“She said the document was “breathing life” into ‘section 35’ of the Constitution which guarantees ‘aboriginal rights’.
{Every time either the governments or courts start “breathing life” into ‘section 35’, the Race Based rights get broader and the cost grows… And none of it has the participation of the Canadian people.}
“University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran said the government’s announced change is the equivalent of removing a checkmark from a ledger.
“That’s pretty much it, but don’t get too excited, because the UN declaration is not legally binding and has no teeth anyway, objection or no objection {!}”, said Attaran.
“The minister said Ottawa would be consulting with ‘First Nation’, Inuit and Metis people {which ones?} before moving to codify UNDR‘I’P in Canadian law.
“Bennett also said a private member’s bill on UNDR‘I’P introduced earlier this year by NDP MP Romeo Saganash didn’t meet that consultation threshold.
“It would be very important that we consult ‘First Nation’, Inuit and Metis on anything we would do in order to codify (UNDR‘I’P)”, said Bennett. “It is very important we understand and we begin that conversation as ‘Nation-to-nation’, Inuit-to-Crown. I don’t think we can go forward based on a private member’s bill without proper consultation.”
“Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould also delivered a speech on the opening day at the UN Permanent Forum WHICH CALLED ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO MAKE ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ THE FOCUS OF THIS CENTURY.
“I say let us make this the century of the world’s ‘indigenous peoples’, one where ‘indigenous peoples’, no matter where they live, ‘deconstruct’ their ‘colonial legacy’ {‘stop reading and writing’} and rebuild their communities,”
said Wilson-Raybould, who is Canada’s first ever federal ‘indigenous’ justice minister.
“Let us make it a century where nation states and ‘indigenous peoples’ {who are already citizens of those ‘nation-states’} work in partnership towards true {one-sided} ‘reconciliation’ {‘devolution’} that supports strong and healthy ‘indigenous peoples’ that are in charge and in control of their own {segregated} destinies.”
“ UNDR‘I’P was originally adopted in 2007 by 144 countries. Canada, U.S., Australia and New Zealand voted against the document.”
{This could have been a proud part of former P.M. Harper’s legacy but his government later reversed direction, without any coherent explanation…}
–‘Bennett says Ottawa’s UNDR‘I’P embrace ‘putting everyone on notice’,
APTN, May 9, 2016 {CAPS added}
http://aptn.ca/news/2016/05/09/bennett-undrip-shift-putting-everyone-on-notice/
http://aptn.ca/news/2016/05/10/bellegarde-urged-trudeau-in-letter-to-declare-undrip-support-at-un/ 
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have…the right to a nationality…
“Significantly, in Article 3 the UNDR‘I’P recognizes ‘indigenous peoples’ right to ‘self-determination’, which includes the right
“to freely determine their political status…”
“Article 26 states that “‘Indigenous peoples’ have the ‘right’ to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired {often by force},” and it directs states to give legal recognition to these territories…”
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
‘United Nations Declaration on the ‘Rights’ of ‘Indigenous’ Peoples’:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
“Many U.N. member states worried that accepting the UNDR‘I’P as drafted would undermine their own political autonomy. Of particular concern were the articles affirming ‘indigenous peoples’ right to ‘self-determination’. However, many ‘indigenous’ representatives refused to change the draft, arguing that the document simply extended to ‘indigenous peoples’ the rights already guaranteed to ‘colonialists’.
“The authors of the UN Declaration sought to break free of this ‘colonial mindset’, not reinforce it. As {some peoples’} ‘human rights’ lawyer James Sa’ke’j Youngblood Henderson observes,
“[Member states] worried about the implications of ‘indigenous rights’, refusing to acknowledge the ‘privileges’ they had ‘appropriated’ for themselves.”
“The Working Group’s final draft represented a compromise between UN member states and ‘indigenous’ representatives (see, for example, ‘Article 46’, which, among other things, protects the political unity of an existing state).”
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
‘Article 46’
1.
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act…which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.
2.
“In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.
3.
“The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
From the U.N. Declaration:
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” {Does this mean that they can ignore Canadian law?}
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” {Does this mean that they can opt in and out of federal and provincial law?}
“‘Indigenous’ peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an ‘indigenous’ community or nation…” {Even 600 autonomous, independent ones within Canada’s borders?}
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning…” {A ‘right’ to segregated schooling, which contradicts modern values…}
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their ‘rights’, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own ‘indigenous’ decision-making institutions.“ {Even if these are undemocratic?}
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions…” {Even if these are contrary to Canadian law and the Constitution?}
“States shall take measures, in conjunction with ‘indigenous peoples’, to ensure that ‘indigenous’ women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.“ {But what if certain ‘indigenous cultural practices’ deny women this fundamental right? What then?}
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to maintain and strengthen their ‘distinctive spiritual relationship’ with their traditionally-owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.” {This is simply racist nonsense – pretending one ‘race’ is somehow more connected to the land than all others. The historical record demonstrates otherwise…}
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” {This ‘legal’ foolishness effectively undermines all property ownership in Canada — one of the goals of the collectivist ‘United Nations’…?}
“States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with ‘indigenous peoples’ concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving ‘due recognition’ {?} to ‘indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems…” {Where ‘oral history’ — from aboriginals only – trumps all?}
http://undesadspd.org/indigenouspeoples/declarationontherightsofindigenouspeoples.aspx
And then, there’s this foolishness from someone whose comments indicate how unfit she is for the position she holds:
“Marie-Claude Landry, the chief commissioner for the Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commission, also praised the government for its embrace of UNDR‘I’P {?}.
“This important moment in history is a key step towards supporting and rebuilding the ‘Nation-to-nation’ relationship between Canada and ‘indigenous peoples’”, said Landry, in a statement. “Canada’s decision to acknowledge the ‘unique’ and ‘inherent rights’ of Canada’s ‘indigenous peoples’ sends a strong message to Canadians and the world.” {Yes, that we have succumbed to Third World racism…}
–‘Bellegarde urged Trudeau in letter to declare UNDRIP support at UN’,
Jorge Barrera, APTN, May 10, 2016
http://aptn.ca/news/2016/05/10/bellegarde-urged-trudeau-in-letter-to-declare-undrip-support-at-un/ 
‘First Nations’ say UNDR‘I’P should mean end of Site C dam, Energy East pipeline’
“The ‘Council of {some} Canadians’ supports the ‘First Nations’ that say Canada’s endorsement of the ‘United Nations Declaration of the Rights of ‘Indigenous’ Peoples’ (UNDR‘I’P) should mean the end of the Site C hydroelectric dam on {former} ‘Treaty 8’ territory and the Energy East pipeline project that would traverse the {former} ‘traditional territory’ of 180 ‘indigenous’ communities.
“Article 32 in UNDR‘I’P states that
“‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories.” …
“The ‘Dawson Creek Mirror News’ reports,
“A day [after the Canadian government said it was fully endorsing UNDR‘I’P], Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly ‘First Nations’ {a ‘nation’ of 220 people} and Chief Lynette Tsakoza of the Prophet River ‘First Nation’ {a ‘nation’ of 249 people} said in a joint news release the move was ‘a hypocrisy in the making’. … ‘First Nations’ in the Peace insist that adopting the principals of UNDR‘I’P without stopping ‘Site C’ in its tracks amounts to little meaningful action towards the feds aspirations for ‘indigenous’ ‘reconciliation’.” …
“And ‘CBC’ reports,
“Ron Tremblay, Grand Chief of the ‘Wolastoq Grand Council’, is at the ‘United Nations’ this week in New York. He believes the declaration will give aboriginal communities ‘veto power’ over contentious resource projects including the [Energy East] pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. …The Grand Council, which says the {ancestors’ former} homeland of the Wolastoqewiyik takes in all of New Brunswick as well as parts of Maine and Quebec, came out in opposition of the pipeline earlier this year.” {Wolastoqiyik ‘territory’ was traditionally west of the Saint John river, while Mi’kmaq territory lay to the east.}
“This view of an UNDR‘I’P veto is supported by various law professors.
“CBC adds,
“If the government follows through on its plan to enforce the UN declaration through law, it’s clear that ‘indigenous’ communities would have the power to halt resource projects, according to Larry Chartrand, law professor at the University of Ottawa.
‘If they don’t want to go along with the project at the end of the day they can say ‘no’ and that’s the equivalent of a veto’, said Chartrand. {Nonsense. The Supreme Court has already ruled otherwise…}
“The Constitution includes a duty to consult ‘Aboriginal Peoples’, but it doesn’t go as far as a duty for consent. Enacting the UN document would ultimately give more power to ‘Indigenous Peoples’ on development decisions” …
“‘Significantly’, CBC also notes,
“Pam Palmater, associate professor and Chair in ‘Indigenous governance’ at Ryerson University, says ‘First Nations’ in Atlantic Canada already live on ‘unceded’ lands and have the power to say no to resource projects.
‘We have always had a veto, but Canada and the provinces have violated our rights for so long, they forget their own laws’…”
“‘The Tyee’ reports that Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa law professor and editor of the ‘National Journal on Constitutional Law’, says,
“Even where the ‘First Nations’ own the land the [Supreme Court of Canada has] said in certain circumstances, a veto would not be able to stop development if certain conditions were satisfied.”
“He adds that a compelling public interest in going ahead with a project can outweigh the need for consent…”
–‘First Nations’ say UNDR‘I’P should mean end of Site C dam, Energy East pipeline’,
Council of {Left-wing} Canadians, May 12, 2016
http://canadians.org/blog/first-nations-say-undrip-should-mean-end-site-c-dam-energy-east-pipeline 
The Background – From 2007:
“The rights of non-native Canadians would have been threatened had the government not opposed an ‘indigenous rights’ declaration that the ‘United Nations’ overwhelmingly approved on Thursday, Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl said.
“The Canadian government said it supported the “spirit” of the declaration, but could not support it because it
“contains provisions that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada’s constitutional framework.”
“It also does not recognize Canada’s need to balance ‘indigenous rights’ to lands and resources with the rights of others,”
a joint statement from the Canadian ministries of Indian and Foreign Affairs said…
“In particular, the Canadian government had problems with ‘Article 19’ (which appears to require governments to secure the consent of ‘indigenous peoples’ regarding matters of general public policy), and ‘Articles 26’ and ‘28’ (which could allow for the re-opening or repudiation of historically-settled land claims)…
“Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Chuck Strahl described the document as
“unworkable in a Western democracy under a constitutional government…”
“Canada let the UN know it would ignore the document, charging it deviated from the norm when it comes to assigning rights.
“It has no legal effect in Canada, and its provisions do not represent customary international law,”
John McNee, Canada’s ambassador to the UN, said in a statement to the General Assembly.”
–‘Native rights declaration inconsistent with legal tradition: Strahl’,
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=23df9769-3423-4f43-b828-a755725c2719&k=23677
“Strahl elaborated, saying
“In Canada, you are balancing individual rights vs. collective rights, and (this) document … has none of that. By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the ‘First Nations’. And, of course, in Canada, that’s inconsistent with our constitution.”
“He gave an example:
“In Canada … you negotiate on this … because (native rights) don’t trump all other rights in the country. You need also to consider the people who have sometimes also lived on those lands for two or three hundred years, and have hunted and fished alongside the ‘First Nations’.”
“The rights of ‘non-native’ Canadians would have been threatened had the government not opposed an ‘indigenous rights’ declaration that the ‘United Nations’ overwhelmingly approved yesterday…”
“The ‘Universal Declaration of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights’ IS INCONSISTENT WITH CANADIAN LEGAL TRADITION, and SIGNING ON TO IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN NATIVE GROUPS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, the minister said.
“In Canada, you are balancing individual rights vs. collective rights, and (this) document … has none of that”, he said. “By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the ‘First Nations’. And, of course, in Canada, that’s inconsistent with our constitution.”
“The declaration, which countries and ‘indigenous’ groups around the world have been negotiating for more than 20 years, passed 143-4, with 11 abstentions. While it is not legally binding, countries like Canada tend to take signing such documents seriously. Canadian courts will often refer to international declarations in their rulings… {Yes, whenever they wish to impose foreign legal interpretations on Canadians…}
“The reality is THE DOCUMENT IS UNWORKABLE IN A WESTERN DEMOCRACY under a constitutional government”, Strahl said.
“He cited one example where the declaration speaks of ‘indigenous peoples’ rights to lands and resources they have “traditionally” owned…
“This is an aspirational document”, said Fontaine, arguing the minister was reading too much into its legal implications {Yeah, right, said the fox in the henhouse…} “It’s neither a convention nor a treaty. When it comes to the standards that are set, if there is a legal (conflict), domestic laws will prevail.”
–‘Tories defend ‘no’ in ‘native {race} rights’ vote’,
GAZETTE (MONTREAL), SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 {CAPS added}
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5a03839b-6ee5-4391-8cd8-fe9338ac7baf
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Which articles caused the Canadian government concern?
Article 19: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the ‘indigenous peoples’ through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
“(What the government says: The provision is too restrictive; it implies that
“the State cannot act without the consent of ‘indigenous peoples’ even when such actions are matters of general policy affecting both ‘indigenous’ and ‘non-indigenous’ peoples.”)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Article 26: 1. ‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”
“(What the government says:
“This could be used by aboriginal groups to challenge and re-open historic and present day treaties and to support claims that have already been dealt with.”)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Article 28: 1. ‘Indigenous peoples’ have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or compensation for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their consent.”
“Is the Declaration legally binding?
“UN Declarations are not legally binding. It establishes an international standard for the treatment of ‘indigenous people’.”
–‘Factbox: What is the Declaration on the ‘Rights’ of ‘Indigenous Peoples’?’,
National Post, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=eec0b550-e95a-492b-8801-6ede20a2d35e 
“Quebec, too, takes the position that the Declaration cannot be pled in court and is accordingly legally inoperable within Quebec.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indignous_Peoples#cite_note-26 
“Australia said it could not allow tribes’ customary law to be given precedence over national law.
“There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world {!!!}“, said ‘Indigenous Affairs’ Minister Mal Brough.”
–‘Indigenous rights’ outlined by UN’,
BBC News, 13 September 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6993776.stm 
See also:
‘Alberta Premier and the ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ {July 10, 2015}: https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/photos/a.336196793149227.59519.332982123470694/649060701862833/?type=3
‘New Premier To Implement United Nations Declaration in Alberta’ {May 7, 2015}:
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/photos/a.336196793149227.595
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Main IMAGE: APTN
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post also at:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(*new)
END RACE BASED LAW CANADA (race laws)
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAWCANADA
(*new)
ONE NATION ONE LAW CANADA (Facebook–broader politics)
https://www.facebook.com/ONENATIONONELAWCANADA
(current)
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Twitter – Daily News (follow us)
https://twitter.com/ERBLcanada
@ERBLcanada
Twitter – Featured Stories (follow us)
https://twitter.com/endracebasedlaw
@ENDRACEBASEDLAW
1NATION1LAW (follow us)
https://twitter.com/1NATION1LAW
@1NATION1LAW
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Website – Daily News
ERBL inc. Canada News
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com
Website – Featured Stories
END RACE BASED LAW inc. Canada
https://endracebasedlaw.wordpress.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Petition to END RACE BASED LAW
http://endracebasedlaw.net/petition/
mail to: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com
JOIN US IN THE FUTURE OF A UNIFIED CANADA
END RACE BASED LAW inc. Canada FEATURE STORIES 