America's Foreign Policy History

Source

"Canada should arrest George W. Bush when he visits next week: Amnesty"

OTTAWA - "Amnesty International wants the federal government to arrest former U.S. president George W. Bush when he visits British Columbia next week.

The rights body said both Canadian and international law require Canada to detain Bush and investigate him for war crimes and torture.

"It is incumbent upon Canadian officials to investigate, arrest and prosecute former president Bush for torture when he arrives in Canada a week tomorrow," said Alex Neve, Amnesty Canada's secretary general.

Bush and former president Bill Clinton are scheduled to attend an economic conference in Surrey, B.C. next week.

Neve said many will argue that arresting Bush is unrealistic because the United States is a close and powerful ally or that the crisis after 9-11 required extraordinary measures.

"None of those arguments justify inaction under international law," he said.

Neve conceded that arresting a former president would likely cause tension with the United States, but "taking a principled step merits that sort of strain."

Neve said Bush admitted in his memoirs that he authorized the use of torture against terror suspects.

American authorities used a variety of torture methods, including water boarding, beatings and sleep deprivation, Neve said. The Bush administration used euphemisms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques," but these methods constituted torture.

"All of this was authorized and condoned and put in place through his own repeated decisions."

Neve said the international arm of Amnesty sent a lengthy brief to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson outlining the government's responsibilities under international law and urging him to act.

"This is something the entire global movement stands behind," Neve said.

Nicholson's office did not respond to a call for comment on Amnesty's demand."

Source

Aboriginal Canadians Get a Fuller Share of Rights

Published Sunday, Jun. 19, 2011.

Until Saturday, Canada’s aboriginals had less recourse than other Canadians when their human rights were violated. And so the extension of the Canadian Human Rights Act to complaints under the Indian Act is a welcome and overdue move. Not only will it give further dignity to aboriginals; it holds the promise of improving governance on reserves.

The Canadian Human Rights Act covers many of the activities of everyday life that usually proceed without incident, but over which a malicious person, or a maliciously-run institution, can run roughshod – practices like sexual harassment in the workplace; denial of an apartment because of someone’s background; or dismissal from a job because of a family feud. Previously, aboriginal Canadians could not use the complaint mechanism in the Act to appeal to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if they faced this kind of unacceptable discrimination. Now, they can.

Aboriginals have some special concerns that deserve redress, and one group of women, in particular, could use protection. As reported by the Commission in 2005, “The lack of an on-reserve matrimonial real property regime is a long standing human rights issue.”

There are significant challenges ahead. Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, who has pledged to work with the federal government to implement the extension, says “First Nations lack the capacity and resources to effectively implement the changes.” The most obvious new challenge that the extension of the Human Rights Act will allow – over access to band offices and other on-reserve facilities for people with physical disabilities – might also be the most visible and costly one. And it will take time for aboriginals themselves to be aware of the new avenues of redress they can seek, an awareness that First Nations governments themselves should be willing to foster.

But in these challenges comes an opportunity for greater collaboration. A small band government with jurisdiction over a population in the hundreds can’t be expected to deal with complaints as competently or professionally as a provincial government might. Existing cross-reserve institutions such as the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre – which helps First Nations with matters like environmental assessments and land codes – are good models for the professionalization and centralization of work that can bring First Nations governments into compliance with human rights legislation.

There needn’t be any contradiction between collective aboriginal rights and human rights. And First Nations people have been lacking crucial protections for too long. While the struggle for other aboriginal rights, and for a revision to the Indian Act, continues, the new human rights regime is a cause for celebration.

Source

‘Do you have running water? I don’t and I live in Canada’

Published Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011.   Maude Barlow

One year ago today, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution recognizing the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation. Two months later, the Human Rights Council adopted a second resolution affirming that drinking water and sanitation are human rights, and setting out the responsibilities all governments now carry to fulfill these rights.

Because the Human Rights Council resolution is an interpretation of two existing international treaties, it clarifies that the General Assembly resolution is legally binding in international law. Together, the two resolutions represent an extraordinary breakthrough in the international struggle for the right to safe drinking water and sanitation and a milestone in the fight for water justice.

For the past decade, Ottawa has consistently opposed recognizing the right to water and sanitation. The Harper government voted to abstain when the General Assembly vote took place, and then argued (incorrectly) that the resolution is not binding. Canada and Tonga are now the only countries in the world that have not recognized the right to water or the right to sanitation.

The only explanation the Harper government gives is that it’s concerned about Canada’s sovereignty over its water supply, an argument that’s been debunked by international legal experts who point out that a newly recognized right is a pact between a government and its own citizens and doesn’t oblige one country to fulfill that right in another. The more likely reason is that, with an enforceable obligation, the government would likely face extensive liability with respect to the terrible drinking water and sanitation conditions in so many first nations communities.

There are at least 49 “high risk” aboriginal communities in Canada with little access to clean water and more than 100 facing “boil water” advisories. First nations homes are 90 per cent more likely to be without running water than the homes of other Canadians. And unlike other Canadians, whose water services are provided by the provinces, the federal government is responsible for the delivery of public services to first nations. But the Indian Act doesn’t explicitly authorize the protection of source water and, as a consequence, says environmental lawyer David Boyd, first nations people on reserves are without the legal guarantees of water quality enjoyed by the other 34 million Canadians.

The UN’s recognition of the human right to water and sanitation could become a powerful tool for the first nations to force the Canadian government to deal with this situation. Canada, like all members of the UN, must put in place an action plan and submit it to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This plan is required to address three obligations that affect aboriginal communities.

Under the obligation to respect, water and sanitation services now delivered can’t be removed. But as local authorities move to increase water rates to pay for aging infrastructure repair or lease their water services to for-profit companies, poorer and marginalized Canadians can expect to start seeing water cutoffs as is happening in U.S. inner cities.

Under the obligation to protect, governments must step in to ensure that third parties such as corporations or extractive industries aren’t destroying local water systems. The Cree of Fort Chipewyan in northern Alberta could argue that their right to safe drinking water has been violated by the destruction of water sources in tar sands production, as could the Aamjiwnaang of Sarnia, Ont., whose water supply has been so contaminated by the petrochemical industry that two girls are born for every boy.

And under the obligation to fulfill, the government is required to take additional measures necessary to guarantee the newly recognized right. This means it must pledge to provide the safe drinking water and sanitation services to the first nations communities now without.

“Do you have running water? I don’t and I live in Canada.” These words are on posters that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs took to the UN in an attempt to gain international recognition of their plight. It’s time for the Canadian government to recognize this most basic of rights, in Canada and around the world.

source