Grassy Narrows First Nation ‘not victims,’ says advocate

Community dealing with health effects after mercury was dumped into river 40 years ago

Grassy Narrows members have "developed long-term relationships with allies and activists all over the world" while addressing the adverse impacts of mercury poisoning and clear cutting on their First Nation, writes Leanne Simpson. In photo, Gary Sault of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation stands in front of a sacred fire during a Grassy Narrows protest outside Queen's Park in Toronto in 2012.
Grassy Narrows members have “developed long-term relationships with allies and activists all over the world” while addressing the adverse impacts of mercury poisoning and clear cutting on their First Nation, writes Leanne Simpson. In photo, Gary Sault of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation stands in front of a sacred fire during a Grassy Narrows protest outside Queen’s Park in Toronto in 2012. (Chris Young/Canadian Press)

By Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, reposted from CBC News, July 31, 2014

The people of Grassy Narrows First Nation have been coping with and resisting the violence of ongoing dispossession in their homeland for the last 100 years or more.

Like other indigenous communities in Canada, they have survived their children being taken away from them in the residential school system. They have maintained their community through successive versions of the Indian Act, which at times restricted their movements on and off the reserve, removed women from political processes, and made it illegal for them to hire lawyers or organize politically.

They have maintained their families despite being corralled into the reserve system and relocated to facilitate flooding for hydroelectric development.

Then for eight years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a paper mill in Dryden, Ont., dumped 20,000 pounds of mercury into the English-Wabigoon River, the lifeblood of local Anishinaabe people.

The impacts of this contamination are still being felt in the bodies, hearts and minds of the people of Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows),Wabaseemoong (Whitedog) and Wabauskang First Nations.

Forty years later, the mercury is not out of the ecosystem and it is still causing severe health impacts on the land and in the bodies of the people.

Unfortunately, this is not the only poison these communities are facing. Their territory is regularly sprayed with pesticides for new tree plantations after deforestation. Their rivers are still being polluted with pulp mill effluent, and their trap lines, hunting grounds and ceremonial spots are also being clear-cut.

People of Grassy Narrows are not victims

Members of Grassy Narrows have conducted their own scientific studies documenting heavy metals, dioxins and furans and organochlorines in their fish and wild meat. They have undertaken several health surveys. They have participated in every conceivable provincial and federal process to address these issues.

Grassy Narrows protest 2014
The Grassy Narrrows First Nation and its supporters host a rally at Queen’s Park in Toronto, on July 31. (Twitter.com)

They have presented at the United Nations Permanent Forum on indigenous Issues. They have protested and developed long-term relationships with allies and activists all over the world. They have hosted world-renowned medical doctors and scientists specializing in mercury poisoning, as well as a variety of academics, activists and allies at countless community gatherings.

Grassy Narrows First Nation has organized and maintained the longest-running logging blockade in Canadian history. They have fought the dismissal of their treaties rights in court. They have done endless media interviews, workshops and educational campaigns designed to educate Canadians about these injustices.

They have sung, danced, created art, taught their children their language, breast-fed, done their ceremonies, fished, hunted, trapped and picked medicines, anyway.

Treaty ‘not a bill of sale’

Grassy Narrows has been fighting to hang onto what it means to be Anishinaabeg now for more than 100 years.

steve fobister
Grassy Narrows resident Steve Fobister was on a hunger strike to draw attention to the issue of mercury contamination in his community. (Paul Borkwood/CBC)

All the while, Ontario and Canada continue to enact policy designed to remove Anishinaabe people from the land so they can hyper-develop natural resources.

All the while, Ontario facilitates the clear-cutting of their territory without their permission or consent, and the poisoning of their waterways without their permission or consent — attacking not just their ability to feed themselves, but their ability to live as a people.

Grassy Narrows has the right to say no to development, and Canada and Ontario have the responsibility to hear and respect that no.

Grassy Narrows has the right and the responsibility to live as Anishinaabeg people — hunting, fishing, trapping, collecting medicines, picking berries, conducting ceremonies, singing, dancing, telling stories, teaching their children and loving each other and their homeland.

Their ancestors signed Treaty 3 to ensure that their coming generations would be able to live as Anishinaabeg in their homeland. Their ancestors were brilliant diplomats. It took four years to negotiate this treaty because of the strength and commitment of those Anishinaabeg negotiators.

They intended to protect their self-determination as a nation. They intended to share some of their lands with Canada and to accommodate Canadian interests, and they intended to protect others so their people could live out unharassed and undeterred in their homeland.

‘Canada simply cannot set aside Anishinaabeg political traditions and our understandings of the treaty because it’s convenient, they have the power to do so, and they want the land.’- Leanne Betasamosake Simpson

They intended to forge a political relationship, a mutually benefiting reciprocal and proportional relationship based on respect.

Contrary to the position of Ontario and Canada, and now the Supreme Court of Canada, treaties are not a bill of sale. Treaty 3 lands are not ceded.

Canada simply cannot set aside Anishinaabeg political traditions and our understandings of the treaty because it’s convenient, they have the power to do so, and they want the land. That is not fair or honourable and it serves only to perpetuate a dysfunctional relationship between Canadians and indigenous peoples into the next generation.

The Anishinaabeg way of life that Grassy Narrows has been fighting so hard to protect has never been a threat to Canada. This beautiful and powerful way of being in the world is a gift, and a key to our sustainable future.

Drew Hasselback: Aboriginal court decisions shouldn’t be dealbreakers

First Nations chiefs hold drums while listening during a news conference in Vancouver, B.C., after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Tsilhqot'in First Nation, granting it land title to 438,000-hectares of land on Thursday June 26, 2014.
First Nations chiefs hold drums while listening during a news conference in Vancouver, B.C., after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Tsilhqot’in First Nation, granting it land title to 438,000-hectares of land on Thursday June 26, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

By Drew Hasselback, reposted from the Financial Post, July 30, 2014

You’ve heard varying degrees of panic over the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings inTsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows.

These are clearly important aboriginal rights decisions, and each will have a profound impact on Canada’s natural resource industry. Yet I’m not sure either case justifies any fear.

The cases clarify some technical aspects of aboriginal law. And, well, that’s it. They’re not legal blocades that will halt all development in this country.

Litigation is a zero-sum game. If a case makes it all the way to judgment, you have a winner and you have a loser. Now, what is it that the winner gets? A bill from the lawyers, and a bunch of legal rights that too often require a fresh round of litigation — i.e., even more legal bills — to enforce. Just because you can win a legal case doesn’t mean you instantly get what you really want. MORE


 

John Ivison: Damning audit of Aboriginal Affairs shows a department that’s deeply and intractably flawed

 

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt was given a Sisyphean task running the department.
Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt was given a Sisyphean task running the department. HE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand

By John Ivison, reposted from the National Post, July 30, 2014

Bernard Valcourt has been handed the political equivalent of the punishment meted out to Sisyphus, who was tasked with rolling an immense boulder up a hill in Hades for all eternity.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs not only has to appease 560 First Nations bands, who want more federal money and fewer conditions, he also has to take the rap for the worst department in government. It is an unenviable job. When the First Nations Education Bill unraveled, I remember saying that, after covering native affairs for a decade, I’d reached the considered opinion that nothing of substance would ever be achieved. Ever. MORE


White House says delays in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions may cost billions

Clean air advocates cheer as Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, speaks at a rally outside an EPA hearing on July 29 in Atlanta. (David Goldman/AP)

By Janet Eilperin and James Mufson, reposted from The Washington Post, July 29, 2014

The White House issued a report Tuesday warning that the United States could face billions of dollars in added economic costs if it delays action to curb the greenhouse-gas emissions linked to climate change. According to the report, each decade of delay will make it 40 percent more expensive to eventually reach the identical global climate target.

The analysis, issued by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, comes at a time when the Obama administration is struggling to incorporate the costs associated with global warming into its energy decisions. Environmental groups have been pressing the administration, in court as well as through public advocacy efforts, to factor in the environmental impact of increased emissions of carbon dioxide when it issues coal, oil or natural gas leases on federal lands.

The administration, which began two days of public hearings in four cities this week on its proposal to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, has been emphasizing the costs of inaction. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters Monday in a conference call that the agency has received more than 300,000 comments on the draft rule. MORE

James Hansen on climate change: ” We must make note of and learn from our mistakes.”

Facing Facebook: Australia’s Cap-and-Tax

On July 25, 2014, we posted James Hansen’s article, CAP-AND-TAX VERSUS FEE-AND-DIVIDEND, July 25, 2014

The article resulted in considerable comment. So this is Dr. Hansen’s one-size-fits-all clarification, Facing Facebook: Australia’s Cap-and-Tax, July 29, 2014

Download (PDF, 13KB)


RELATED:

IS THIS HOW TO SELL AMERICANS ON FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING?

 

“Human Rights and the Environment: The Relationship Becomes Clearer” VIDEO

Environmental health and human health are two sides of the same coin: human rights violations and environmental degradation are often closely related. photo via AIDA

John Knox, Wake Forest University School of Law, published on YouTube, July 28, 2014

In recent years, the application of human rights law to environmental protection has become much clearer. The question is no longer whether human rights law is relevant to the environment—it clearly is. The question is now how best to ensure that human rights norms are taken into account in environmental policy-making.

Presented by the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School, “Hot Topics in Environmental Law Summer Lecture Series.”

Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?

DTE Energy Co.'s coal-fired Monroe Power Plant in Monroe, Michigan, on June 30, 2014
DTE Energy Co.’s coal-fired Monroe Power Plant in Monroe, Michigan, on June 30, 2014 Photograph by Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg

By Peter Coy, reposted from Bloomberg Businessweek, July 30, 2014

Economists figured out long ago that the free market is the best way to curb greenhouse gases. But economists aren’t so good at packaging anti-global-warming plans to win over a skeptical segment of the public.

That’s where Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, comes in. Today Van Hollen introduced a bill he calls the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act of 2014, cleverly wrapping an economic concept in the virtues of health, family, and security.

The bill would require companies to have permits to produce or import carbon-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The permits, instead of being allocated politically, would be auctioned off by the government, so they would get into the hands of the emitters who need them the most. A similar auction system drastically reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide—which causes acid rain—quicker and cheaper than experts expected.

Here’s Van Hollen’s political twist: The money raised by the permits would make a U-turn and go straight back to the American people—specifically, every person with a Social Security number. The same amount of money to every person, even those who don’t earn enough to pay income taxes.

“This ‘Cap and Dividend’ approach achieves necessary greenhouse gas reductions while boosting the purchasing power of families across the country,” Van Hollen said in a press release.

Van Hollen’s bill would create winners and losers. Big Coal would lose because the cost of permits would induce companies to shift from carbon-intensive fuels like coal to such lower-carbon fuels as natural gas, or zero-carbon energy sources such as nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. MORE