Posts Tagged ‘justice’

Indigenous Peoples about imposed elected band and council governments: Joint intervention at United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, May 29, 2013

Tuesday, June 4th, 2013
Joint Intervention
Presented on May 29, 2013 by Tonya Gonnella Frichner, Esq. (Onondaga) to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
The American Indian Law Alliance with the Haudenosaunee, Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development, Native Children’s Survival, Maya Vision, Techantit, TONATIERRA, American Indian Community House, Rigoberta Menchú Tum Foundation, Flying Eagle Woman Fund for Peace, Justice, & Sovereignty, Southern Diaspora Research and Development Center, United Methodist Women, Spiderwoman, Morning Star Foundation, WESPAC Foundation, and the Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action.
May 20-31, 2013
Agenda Item 8: Future work of the Permanent Forum, including matters of the Economic and Social Council and emerging issues.

Mr. Chairman,

1) We wish to address an issue regarding the future work of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, concerning the rightful status of Indigenous Peoples and Nations participation in all UN fora. Therefore we will respond to the statement of several umbrella groups, “National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes, and California Association of Tribal Governments, 72 Indigenous Nations and Seven Indigenous Organizations,” made yesterday under Agenda item six (6) discussion on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in particular recommendation number three (3) regarding an appropriate status for Indigenous Peoples participating in UN activities. We do agree that “Indigenous Peoples deserve to have a permanent status for participation in the UN that reflects their character as peoples and governments,” and we would respectfully request that traditional Indigenous Nations be included in this recommendation along with peoples and governments.

2)  On May 16, 2013 a Communiqué was issued by the Haudenosaunee, a signatory to this joint statement, reiterating their position on imposed elected councils. The position holds that the primary intent of imposed elected band and council governments is and was to abolish the strength and national character of traditional governments as well as to assist in the assimilation of the Haudenosaunee and other traditional governments into the national fabric of both Canada and the United States. The abolishment and termination of traditional indigenous governments is in direct violation of the minimum standard of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent over our lands, territories and resources, including our inherent right to self-determination as established in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

3)  The line between traditional councils and imposed elected band and council governments is clear and distinct. Traditional councils are the original and continuous governments in place for over 1,000 years, while the imposed elected band and council governments are systems of the Indian Act in Canada and the Indian Reorganization Act in the United States for the administration of colonial policies in each of our respective communities.

4) Continuing these ongoing destructive policies, on May 22, 2013 the distinguished representative of the Permanent Mission of the United States to the UN made an intervention at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on Agenda Item 7 Human Rights, (a) Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in which they reiterated their position that the rights of self-determination as recognized under international law for all peoples is somehow a different right for Indigenous Peoples.

5)  We agree with the intervention made by the International Indian Treaty Council on May 28, 2013 under Agenda Item 6, Discussion on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples “discrimination must not be tolerated in any body or process of the United Nations, which is based on the fundamental principles of international human rights law and the tenets of the UN charter which include non-discrimination.” The failure of the governments of Canada and the United States to recognize the legitimate, traditional governments and their right to self-determination is blatantly discriminatory.

6)  Since 1923 and more recently 1977, the Haudenosaunee and other traditional governments of the Western Hemisphere have pioneered the Indigenous presence at the United Nations and other international venues, leading to the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 by the UN General Assembly. Throughout these decades of work traditional governments have been advocating for a proper status within all UN processes. It should be noted that the same traditional governments never referred to themselves as NGOs or domestic dependent nations.

7) Therefore Mr. Chairman, we would respectfully request that the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues consider for its future work the following recommendation:

8  Recognizing that the Haudenosaunee and other traditional indigenous Nations and Peoples have continued to express their fundamental right to self-determination and their original unbroken right to sovereignty over their lands, resources, and territories; we recommend observer status be given serious consideration, building upon the recommendation of the Expert Mechanism in 2011, “adopt, as a matter of urgency, appropriate permanent measures to ensure that indigenous peoples’ governance bodies and institutions, including traditional indigenous governments, indigenous parliaments, assemblies and councils, are able to participate at the UN as observers with, at a minimum, the same participatory rights as non-governmental organization in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council” U.N.Doc. A/HRC/18/43 (Aug. 19, 2011).

9) However, Mr. Chairman we would go further and bring to your attention the observer mission status of entities which have received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and while maintaining permanent observer missions at UN Headquarters, as examples we suggest you look towards the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See and the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine. Indigenous Peoples and Nations cannot lock ourselves into a minor position; our position has always been that we are equal to all peoples and nations.

10) In closing Mr. Chair, Considering that traditional Indigenous Nations have worked diligently these past several decades within the international community of nations and have done so on a level that represents our status as sovereign, independent nations we therefore feel that observer status within the UN system is reasonable and appropriate.

Thank you Mr. Chair for your kind attention.

+++++++++++END OF STATEMENT ++++++++++

Julian Assange responds to Anonymous

Saturday, October 20th, 2012
Julian Assange responds to Anonymous
Monday 15th October 2012
Wikileaks found Julian Assange has released a statement in response to last week’s announcement by the internet activist group Anonymous that they can no longer suppot the way Wikileaks is going.
Assange, who is currently inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London said:
Freedom isn’t free, justice isn’t free and solidarity isn’t free. They all require generosity, self-discipline, courage and a sense of perspective.
Groups with unity flourish and those without unity are destroyed and replaced by those who have it.
Traditional armies gain unity through isolation, ritualized obedience, and through coercive measures applied to dissenters up to and including death.
Groups who do not have techniques of unity derived from solidarity and common cause will be dominated by groups with coercive unity.
In the end it is the techniques of unity that dominate our civilization. Unified groups grow and multiply. Groups which lack unity imperil themselves and their allies.
It doesn’t matter what principles a group espouses. If it is not able to demonstrate basic unity it will be dominated by alliances that do.
When a group grows large the public press becomes a medium through which the group talks to itself. This gives the public press influence over the groups self-awareness. The public press has its agendas. So do insiders who speak to it.
For large groups, group insiders who interface with the public press are able to lever themselves into a position of internal influence via press influence.
Because Anonymous is anonymous, those who obtain this or other forms of leadership influence can be secretly decapitated and replaced by other interests.
This is exactly what happened in the Sabu affair. An important part of Anonymous ended up being controlled by the FBI. The cooption of its most visible figure, Sabu, was then used to entrap others.
FBI agents or informers have subsequently run entrapment operations against WikiLeaks presenting as figures from Anonymous.
According to FBI indictments the FBI has at various times controlled Anonymous servers. We must assume that currently a substantial number of Anonymous servers and “leadership” figures are compromised. This doesn’t mean Anonymous should be paralyzed by paranoia. But it must recognize the reality of infiltration. The promotion of “” and similar assets which are indistinguishable from an entrapment operations must not be tolerated.
The strength of Anonymous was not having leadership or other targetable assets. When each person has little influence over the whole, and no assets have special significance, compromise operations are expensive and ineffective. The cryptography used in Friends of WikiLeaks is based on this principle while WikiLeaks as an organization has a well tested public leadership cohort in order to prevent covert leadership replacement.
Assets create patronage and conflict around asset control. This includes virtual assets such as servers, Twitter accounts and IRC channels.
The question Anonymous must ask is does it want to be a mere gang (“expect us”) or a movement of solidarity. A movement of solidarity obtains its unity through common value and through the symbolic celebration of individuals whose actions strive towards common virtues.
Assessing the statement by “@AnonymousIRC”.
In relation to alleged associates of WikiLeaks. It is rarely in an alleged associates interest, especially early in a case, for us to be seen to be helping them or endorsing them. Such actions can be used as evidence against them. It raises the prestige stakes for prosecutors who are likely to use these alleged associates in a public proxy war against WikiLeaks. We do not publicly campaign for alleged associates until we know their legal team approves and our private actions must remain private. This calculous should be obvious.
Several weeks ago, WikiLeaks began a US election related donations campaign which expires on election day, Nov 6.
The WikiLeaks campaign pop-up, which, was activated weeks ago, requires tweeting, sharing, waiting or donating once per day.
Torrents, unaffected even by this pop-up remain available from the front page.
These details should have been clearer but were available to anyone who cared to read. The exact logic and number of seconds are in the page source. We are time and resource constrained. We have many battles to deal with. Other than adding a line of clarification, we have not changed the campaign and nor do we intend to.
We know it is annoying. It is meant to be annoying. It is there to remind you that the prospective destruction of WikiLeaks by an unlawful financial blockade and an array of military, intelligence, DoJ and FBI investigations, and associated court cases is a serious business.
WikiLeaks faces unprecedented costs due to involvement in over 12 concurrent legal matters around the world, including our litigation of the US military in the Bradley Manning case. Our FBI file as of the start of the year had grown to 42,135 pages.
US officials stated to Australian diplomats the the investigation into WikiLeaks is of “unprecedented scale and nature”. Our people are routinely detained. Our editor was imprisoned, placed under house arrest for 18 months, and is now encircled in an embassy in London where he has been formally granted political asylum. Our people and associates are routinely pressured by the FBI to become informers against our leadership.
Since late 2010 we have been under an unlawful financial blockade. The blockade was found to be unlawful in the Icelandic courts, but the credit companies have appealed to the Supreme Court. Actions in other jurisdictions are in progress, including a European Commission investigation which has been going for over a year.
Despite this we have won every publishing battle and prevailed over every threat. Last month the Pentagon reissued its demands for us to cease publication of military materials and to cease “soliciting” US military sources. We will prevail there also, not because we are adept, although we are, but because to do so is a virtue that creates common cause.
Julian Assange
Embassy of Ecuador