As you may have seen in today’s media, more than 20 prominent leaders from across business and civil society have written to Prime Minister Trudeau about the need and opportunity to drive clean growth and innovation across Canada’s economy, building on the leadership he has shown. The group includes a number of industry CEOs (including major oil and resource firms) as well as environment, labour, youth and aboriginal leaders.
This letter is a sneak preview of a major initiative (“Smart Prosperity”) to roll out in early 2016 – which will include a vision to make Canada a clean growth leader and a roadmap to get there. Sustainable Prosperity has played a key role in building this alliance, which includes SP’s Chair Stewart Elgie.
The letter states, in part:
“We are a diverse group of leaders from business, labour, aboriginal, youth and environmental perspectives. We believe Canadians want to be masters of our destiny and take the steps needed to build an economy that grows stronger, even as we lighten our environmental impact.
That is the aim of our Smart Prosperity initiative, and we look forward to sharing our ideas on how to strengthen the economy and accelerate environmental improvement. These ideas will lead to greener growth that benefits all parts of Canada’s economy — from resources to clean technology — and creates the next generation of good jobs. They will produce the best results if embraced by political leaders at the local, provincial and national level, in a coordinated way.”
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau:
As you know well, leadership often means challenging people to embrace change, even if it means uncertainty, in order to build a better future.
As the world grapples with climate change and other growing environmental problems, the global economy is transforming. Before long, the strongest economies will be those that have been rebuilt to run on clean energy, conserve resources, reduce waste, provide vibrant and healthy communities for people to live in, and preserve nature.
The world around us is changing, and Canada will either shape change or have it buffet us. We applaud the steps you have already taken to change the conversation about these choices, and to establish Canada as a voice for positive action around the world.
We are a diverse group of leaders from business, labour, aboriginal, youth and environmental perspectives. We believe Canadians want to be masters of our destiny and take the steps needed to build an economy that grows stronger, even as we lighten our environmental impact.
That is the aim of our Smart Prosperity initiative, and we look forward to sharing our ideas on how to strengthen the economy and accelerate environmental improvement. These ideas will lead to greener growth that benefits all parts of Canada’s economy — from resources to clean technology — and creates the next generation of good jobs. They will produce the best results if embraced by political leaders at the local, provincial and national level, in a coordinated way.
Favouring jobs or the planet — or pretending we can solve environmental problems without considering how we support our way of life — is a false choice. Evidence is all around us that we have the know-how to marry our environmental and economic values.
If we embrace this new reality, we can grow our exports of cleaner resources and technologies, meet our climate commitments, and position Canada to succeed in a changing global economy; if we do not, our competitors around the world will prosper and we will fall behind.
The steps your government takes — whether on climate policy, investing in infrastructure and skills, or supporting science and clean innovation — all will set a tone and a pace for the country. Drawing on our diverse experiences and taking a long view of the history of this fine country, we encourage you to continue to lead with ambition… to build on the strengths of today and lay the foundation for a stronger, cleaner tomorrow.
In doing so, know that our group, and many, many people across different generations, walks of life and regions of this country want to put our shoulders to the wheel too.
Kathy Bardswick
President and C.E.O. The Co-operators
Dominic Barton
Global Managing Director Mckinsey and Company
Ross Beaty
Executive Chairman, Alterra Power Corp. Chairman, Pan American Silver Corp.
Arlene Dickinson
C.E.O., Venture Communications
Stewart Elgie
Professor, University of Ottawa, Chair, Sustainable Prosperity
Phil Fontaine
Special Advisor to the Royal Bank of Canada Former National Chief, Assembly of First Nations
In the month since its election, Canada’s new government has sent many positive signals that we’re entering a new era of greater respect for debate, dissent and diversity — the cornerstones of democracy. Its tone, its cabinet, its early pronouncements, its outreach to indigenous peoples and others who have been marginalized — it’s all very encouraging.
When Parliament meets again on December 3, it will be an important opportunity for the government to build on its promise of “sunny ways”, taking full advantage of its post-election momentum to buttress respect for rights, the rule of law, transparency and accountability. The challenge is not simply to hit the reset button. It’s to move this country forward.
We have lived through a dismal decade during which critics were defamed and defunded, evidence was suppressed, protest was criminalized and Parliament was undermined. And frankly, the record of earlier federal governments isn’t as rosy as some would contend.
It’s crucial, therefore, that we seize the moment and press forward with substantive reforms.
So while the throne speech should signal the government’s clear intention to stop undermining rights and to restore Parliamentary traditions, we also need new laws, priorities and programs to promote healthy, informed debate and ensure all Canadians enjoy the protections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The muzzling and interference with ombudspersons and officers of Parliament must end immediately. The enhanced scrutiny of progressive charities by the CRA through political activities audits must end. So must the targeted surveillance of advocates like Cindy Blackstock who seek justice for those most vulnerable.
On the legislative front, a slew of hostile or punitive legislation should be repealed or amended on public safety, national security, environmental protection, citizenship, sentencing, privacy and labour unions. The reckless reforms of Bill C-51 remain top of mind. As well, the use of omnibus bills must be curtailed. There’s a need for new laws to improve access to information, strengthen oversight and better reflect the role and realities of charities in the 21st century.
For a generation of young and new Canadians, their only experience of government is that of the past ten years. Simply reversing the worst of the Harper record isn’t enough.
The creation of a commission of inquiry on murdered and missing indigenous women — one that respects the concerns of their families and addresses the systemic roots of their vulnerability — is critical. Tangible support for the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and redress for other human rights violations is equally important. Funding cut from essential women’s rights organizations must be re-established.
Restoring the integrity of Parliament, empowering committees, welcoming the expert advice of the civil service and respecting the independence of the judiciary (while ensuring appointments that reflect the true face of Canada) are essential. Department of Justice lawyers should be allowed to do their jobs and signal to Parliament when draft laws are not likely to pass Charter muster. With a new generation of MPs, there are tremendous opportunities for innovative approaches that respect traditions but respond to the growing need for greater openness and transparency.
The government must demonstrate its commitment to the principles and practices of inclusive public participation and free, prior and informed consent. This includes restoring funding for a broadly-mandated Court Challenges Program and creating an enabling environment that encourages active engagement of all Canadians in shaping our future — with special attention and funding for those whose voices are least likely to be heard.
Internationally, Canada has an opportunity at the COP21 meetings in Paris to show the world that it will act as a responsible international citizen, not as a bully or a roadblock to progress.
It’s an ambitious agenda but critically important if we are to protect ourselves — under this or a future government — from a return to arbitrary and partisan attacks on the fundamental building blocks of our peace and prosperity.
We are reminded that, even in a country such as Canada, rights are vulnerable, and respect for dialogue and diversity is fragile.
For a generation of young and new Canadians, their only experience of government is that of the past ten years. This raises the risk of a “new normal,” setting the bar so low it will be easy for the new government to improve on the performance of its predecessor.
Simply reversing the worst of the Harper record isn’t enough.
We look to the new government to move forward with a bold and ambitious agenda to strengthen respect for debate and dissent. And we encourage all Canadians to actively engage in shaping that agenda and holding the government to account for its implementation.
Voices-Voix is a non-partisan coalition of Canadians and Canadian organizations committed to defending our collective and individual rights to debate and dissent. This article was co-signed by the following activists:
Robert Fox, human rights activist Pearl Eliadis, human rights lawyer Alex Neve, secretary general, Amnesty International Canada Monia Mazigh, national coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group Veronica Strong-Boag, professor emerita with UBC’s Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice Ken Norman, emeritus professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan Tim McSorley, Voices-Voix coordinator Mary Eberts, human rights lawyer Gregory S. Kealey, Professor Emeritus at the University of New Brunswick
3 First Nations, CPAWS, Yukon Conservation Society to apply to have case heard by nation’s top court
3 Yukon First Nations along with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Yukon Conservation Society say they will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, before the new year. (Cheryl Kawaja/CBC)
Yukon First Nations and environmental groups are launching a final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada over the Peel watershed land use plan.
Lawyers and representatives from three Yukon First Nations, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), and the Yukon Conservation Society (YCS) made the announcement at a news conference Tuesday morning in Whitehorse.
“This is not something we take lightly,” said Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in chief Roberta Joseph. “We understand the challenges that are in front of us. We also know we must meet them head on, to protect the integrity of our agreements as well as the land use planning process.
‘Court action was not our first choice. Our initial hope was for the government to be a collaborative partner,’ said Roberta Joseph, chief of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation. (CBC)
“We’re willing to take this stand not only for the Peel but for all future planning processes in the Yukon.”
The groups said they will file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court before the new year.
‘A mistake in law’
Last month, the Yukon Court of Appeal ruled that the territorial government did not respect the land use planning process set out in final land claim agreements, when issuing its plan for the Peel region.
The court ordered the process to return to an earlier stage to allow for proper consultation.
The First Nations and environmental groups will argue in their application to the Supreme Court that ruling was “a mistake in law and that it does not uphold the integrity of the Final Agreements.” They will also argue that the ruling will introduce “substantial uncertainty” into future land use planning processes.
‘This ability for a ‘do-over’ works to great advantage to the government,’ said Margaret Rosling, a lawyer representing the First Nations and environmental groups. (CBC)
Last month’s decision “would effectively give Yukon Government a ‘do-over’,” said Margaret Rosling, a lawyer for the First Nations and environmental organizations (Tom Berger, the group’s lead counsel was not at Tuesday’s announcement, as he’s recovering from surgery).
“This ability for a ‘do-over’ works to great advantage to the government, and to the great disadvantage of First Nations, Yukoners and the process contemplated under the final agreements,” Rosling said.
She worries the appeal decision makes it possible for the government to do the requisite consultation, then “scrap the entire initiative and reject the entire plan, leaving no plan for the Peel.”
The Peel Watershed drains 14 per cent of Yukon’s territory, mostly pristine wilderness. (Philippe Morin/CBC)
Yukon government ‘disappointed’
The Yukon government issued a statement Tuesday saying it was disappointed that the case may go before the country’s highest court. The government said it was satisfied with the Yukon Court of Appeal decision.
Once the groups file their application to the Supreme Court, the Yukon government will have 30 days to respond. The court will decide sometime next year whether to hear the appeal.
If the appeal goes ahead, the costs would be covered by the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Na-Cho Nyäk Dun and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations, as well as CPAWs and YCS.
The five groups are holding a public event tonight in Whitehorse to talk about the case. A livestream of that event is also being presented in Haines Junction, Dawson City and Inuvik. SOURCE
French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius, centre, who chaired the Paris climate talks, and Christiana Figueres, left, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, celebrate at the close of the summit on Saturday, Dec. 12, 2015. (Stéphane Mahé/Reuters)
Anna Maria Tremonti, reposted from TheCurrentCBC, Dec 15, 2015
“We were in Paris pushing for an ambitious agreement, and that’s what we got, and what’s really exciting is that you actually see that it’s being welcomed not just by countries around the world but by businesses, environmental NGOs, indigenous leaders as well. So we’re building consensus on this really urgent need to act.”- Environment Minister Catherine McKenna on CBC Radio
Canada’s Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is not the only one feeling that way about Saturday’s Paris Agreement to combat climate change. German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the deal signals a “historic turning point in climate policy.” U.S. President Barack Obama called it “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”
Under the Paris Agreement, the governments of 195 countries have committed to keep the earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — which scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Individual countries will establish their own, non-binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the expectation that those targets will be reviewed and amped up over time. And developed countries will be expected to spend at least $100-Billion-a-year between 2020 and 2025 to help emerging economies deal with the effects of climate change.
And yet … not everyone believes this will be enough. In fact some climate activists say the Paris Agreement falls far short of what’s needed to save the planet.
Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and the author of “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate.” She was in London, England.
Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands. She was in Paris.
The classroom in the Moose Factory, Ontario, school. (General Synod Archives, Anglican Church of Canada, P7538-970. This picture is also in the TRC summary report).
Once upon a time, when I was still a pup junior Crown prosecutor in the 1980s, a brief sentencing hearing in a routine plea deal forever crystallized the fortress and labyrinth of the Canadian justice system. It revealed more than I wanted to know, about the system and about myself.
In sentencing hearings, defence counsel relate mitigating or personal details the court should take into account. In this case the lawyer for an Aboriginal habitual offender (who financed his addiction through property crime) told the court he was in mourning as his common-law wife had been murdered, her body stuffed in a dumpster.
The thing is, all of us in the courtroom knew her. She’d been an Aboriginal sex-worker, also financing her own addiction. The sheriff, court staff, trial judge and I had all seen her come through the revolving door of DTES soliciting charges.
There was an awkward pause as the recognition and the tragedy and the horror sunk in, but nobody acknowledged it, or uttered a word for of condolence to this beaten man. We knew this woman—her face is before me still—tiny, fragile, and short-haired.
Reality careened into the courtroom like a car crash, but we all ignored it and followed our script to the letter. The judge passed a short prison sentence, the sheriff took the convicted offender into custody, and the system never skipped a beat. God forgive me, but I followed suit and never said a thing.
The man was escorted out through the door for prisoners without a word of acknowledgement from us and was gone. Disappeared. I called the next case.
Whatever natural expression of sympathy or empathy, or just common human decency that the moment called for, it’s still stuck in my throat and will stay there forever.
It was suddenly clear how completely that man and his lost wife were “the other.” They were outsiders who passed through our system and our daily lives, but they weren’t us. Yet whatever took them from childhood to their doomed and devastated lives as adults, we in that courtroom were part of it.
As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issues its final report, and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Inquiry gets under way, it’s Canada’s solemn duty to learn things it’s unbearable to know.
And then to change. The Reconciliation is for us to do.
In The Fire Next Time, his searing exploration of race in America, James Baldwin wrote:
[T]his is the crime of which I accuse my country and my countrymen, and for which neither I nor time nor history will ever forgive them, that they have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it…
But it is not permissible that the authors of devastation should also be innocent.
It is the innocence which constitutes the crime.
The stone cold truth is that we are not innocent and never were.
Safeguards meant to protect the innocent shield the powerful
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission identified fewer than 50 criminal convictions arising from allegations of abuse at residential schools, yet some 38,000 reports of sexual and serious physical abuse were submitted to the formal review process (at p. 213). That’s a 0.13 per cent conviction rate—so vanishingly low it’s a wonder anyone was ever convicted at all.
As the TRC noted, the Crown refused to prosecute these cases out of “a belief that the denial of any accused person who occupied a position of authority at the schools would be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt about guilt.” Lack of independent corroboration—something virtually impossible to secure after the passage of time—finished any chance of success in the legal system.
For Indigenous people, our justice system is an abysmal fraud, where safeguards intended to protect the innocent more often shield the powerful, including the police, from scrutiny and justice.
In the Oppal inquiry into the botched Pickton serial killer investigation, taxpayers paid as many as 24 lawyers to represent police interests, while the government funded only one to represent Aboriginal interests. By the time that lawyer quit in frustration, outgunned and overwhelmed by work, thirty-eight full days of police evidence had been heard, and not one Indigenous witness.
When the government wouldn’t fund lawyers for better community representation, Commissioner Oppal expressed the hope that some lawyers could be found who would work for free.
Of course, with 24 lawyers for the police, the public never did get an answer as to how police blew the case so badly that Pickton killed at least 13 women right under RCMP noses after he’d been identified as the prime suspect.
And a book could be written on the recent controversy and trial over allegations of abuse made by Aboriginal former students against John Furlong, the CEO of Canada’s Olympic Games. Furlong had taught phys-ed at Immaculata Catholic School in Burns Lake in 1969-70, a period which 45 years later mushroomed into six lawsuits, five of which were dismissed or withdrawn before trial. The last one finally concluded decisively in Furlong’s favour last September.
While most of the allegations claimed harsh physical and emotional abuse, three individuals alleged sexual abuse.
Consider what happened to Daniel Morice. One of three who launched lawsuits that were later dismissed, Morice was subjected to humiliating national ridicule and contempt when Furlong’s lawyers announced the revelation that he’d never attended the Immaculata school.
That information was one of several factors (many of them egregious, it must be said) contributing to the dismissal of Morice’s lawsuit. Furlong’s lawyers had verified that Morice attended Lejac Elementary School in a nearby community. He had reported abuse by a priest there, for which he received payment as part of the TRC-related compensation.
Justice Catherine Wedge, the trial judge in the Furlong case, accepted in her ruling that Morice had not attended Immaculata, rebuking the reporter Robinson for poor fact-checking.
Open and shut?
Yet look below at the Immaculata school records entered as an exhibit at the Furlong trial, at the page for Miss P. Manning’s Grade 3 class list for 1969-70. There, at number 10, is one Daniel (Danny) Morice. According to Immaculata records, he attended 172.5 days that year, from September to June. The records also show he was there the year earlier for Grade 2, when he attended 159 days.
Perhaps Morice changed schools sometime after the 1969-70 school year, and there was a clerical error about when he started at Lejac.
Morice’s attendance at Immaculata is further corroborated in an affidavit sworn by Ronnie West in May, 2012, and published at CANADALAND. West said he witnessed Furlong’s rough treatment of “Danny Morris” at Immaculata (which appears to be a mis-spelling of Morice). He said:
“I was a good athlete and he [Furlong] did not make any problems for me. I witnessed, however, the abuse of Danny Morris, the late Verna Joseph being kicked in the ass for not running quickly enough. He threw [a] basketball so hard at kids that it was enough to knock them down.”
Check that class list again. Listed at Numbers 19 and 8 are Ronnie West and Verna Joseph. “The late Verna Joseph.” What ocean of sorrow is contained in those four words? At least we know where she was in Grade 3.
We can’t unravel the mystery of the conflicting records without more investigation.
Ronnie West. (Photo: CANADALAND).
But it was so easy for the public and media to heap scorn on Morice on talk shows and in newspaper columns all across the country. Like the man in my courtroom all those years ago, he was an outsider. If today Daniel Morice is a damaged, embittered and abusive man with no respect for lawyers or the justice system, which he undoubtedly is, we should search our own consciences about how he got that way.
But he was telling the truth about at least one thing; he was at Immaculata when John Furlong taught there, and the proof is right in the court’s own records.
Nothing about us without us
Yet the most striking feature of the epic Robinson-Furlong legal melee is what didn’t happen.
What didn’t happen was for Indigenous Canadians who made claims against a powerful public figure to have their day in court. Indeed, the Furlong trial was marked by not just the absence, but by the explicit exclusion and suppression of evidence from Indigenous witnesses about a matter of profound concern to them.
On a motion by Furlong’s defence counsel at the outset of the trial over whether he had defamed Laura Robinson, every affidavit sworn by his former students was ruled inadmissible and excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial. Prejudicial to whom?
And so the door quietly closed on any evidence from the Furlong claimants themselves, and was locked from the inside. From that moment on, this was a trial by and for the non-Indigenous people in the room, full stop.
Except as everyone knows, it wasn’t. In the public’s mind this was more than a defamation case, it was a trial about what John Furlong did or didn’t do all those long years ago and so far away. It was the Indigenous claimants who were on trial, through the proxy Laura Robinson.
Running like a vein of ice through the judge’s ruling is the unspoken inference that all the claimants’ stories are false. In fact, her approach toward them seems strangely cold, although she’d heard not a whisper of evidence from a single one.
Whether John Furlong’s accusers were truthful, mistaken or lying, we still don’t know to this day. Clearly some of the evidence and witnesses are seriously compromised, but the majority haven’t been scrutinized at all. In view of the larger context, the claimants should have been heard in court, irrespective of any errors by the journalist who reported their story.
The Morice example shows what happens when we shut people out of a trial and jump to conclusions about them. Given all that we now know, more effort to accommodate Indigenous witnesses should have been made.
In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “justice without mercy is cruelty.”
Freezing out the marginal and disenfranchised
The Furlong ruling has the dangerous potential to freeze out the ability of the vulnerable and disenfranchised to challenge the powerful and find voice in the media.
In its landmark 2009 ruling on defamation in Grant vs. Torstar, the Supreme Court of Canada sided squarely with the constitutional right of journalists to report on matters of public interest, so long as they do so responsibly. The court said (emphasis added):
The first two rationales for the freedom of expression guarantee in… the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the proper functioning of democratic governance and getting at the truth — squarely apply to communications on matters of public interest, even those which contain false imputations. Freewheeling debate on matters of public interest is to be encouraged and the vital role of the communications media in providing a vehicle for such debate is explicitly recognized in the text of (the Charter) itself.
The Supreme Court recognized the very serious problem of the damage to reputations of individuals, including public figures, but found that this interest does not outweigh the public’s interest in full debate on matters of importance, and the vital role of the press in reporting it.
It prescribed comprehensive directions for journalists to follow when reporting matters that veer into the realm of defamation, giving instruction to lawyers and judges to carefully weigh and balance two important and competing interests.
In the Furlong trial, the judge didn’t concern herself with the public interest in getting at the truth of what happened at Immaculata School. Rather, Furlong’s reputation was of paramount concern. She found that when someone faces “such serious and devastating allegations” as those leveled at John Furlong, reporters have a high bar to meet.
Yet the judge’s finding that Robinson had not even minimally “tested” most of the claims of her sources flies in face of the the TRC recommendations, which point to the practical impossibility of obtaining independent corroboration for marginalized victims.
In Torstar the Supreme Court of Canada ruled:
To insist on court‑established certainty in reporting on matters of public interest may have the effect not only of preventing communication of facts which a reasonable person would accept as reliable and which are relevant and important to public debate, but also of inhibiting political discourse and debate on matters of public importance, and impeding the cut and thrust of discussion necessary to discovery of the truth.
The inescapable implication of the Furlong ruling is the opposite. It doesn’t matter if eight people in Burns Lake (or dozens more who gave unsworn statements) say they were physically abused as children by a powerful public figure. Without independent corroboration, the press shouldn’t report it and the public shouldn’t know it.
The danger is that nobody’s going to publish these stories at all. And if nobody will publish or prosecute, the powerful are immune. This is how to get a conviction rate of 0.13 per cent.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Ireland’s Ryan Commission into child abuse at residential and industrial schools, the Boston Globe’s investigative journalism all involved an expansive view of the public interest over individual reputations.
The Old Sun Indian Residential School in Gleichen, AB. (P75-103 S7-184, 1945, General Synod Archives).
Whatever journalistic errors Robinson made, it’s essential that our courts defend the rights of the marginalized and vulnerable to be heard, and the right of the media to responsibly yet fearlessly report on their experiences.
Even as the TRC releases its final report to Parliament, if the Furlong ruling stands as the last word on defamation, Indigenous and vulnerable voices will fall silent.
Furlong’s accusers have not backed down, and are expressing horror at a trial that disgraced and discredited them in absentia. They are adamant and unrepentant, and they’re trying to turn up the pressure. They’ve asked for Prime Minister Trudeau and the government to intervene to provide some forum for them to be heard.
But few media outlets will report their statements now; a deeply unhealthy state of affairs for the press.
A real commitment to Reconciliation demands that we do this better, and get it right. While John Furlong has a powerful and justifiable interest in his own reputation, justice demands a better resolution for these claimants, who have never been heard, yet have been humiliated and shamed by a system that placed a powerful man’s reputation above their own. Whether their claims are true or false, it’s clear that the formal justice system as it is presently constituted, is failing Aboriginal Canadians.
Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, committed the government to the principle “Nothing about us, without us” last week in the House of Commons.
She could start right here with this. Let’s stop pretending we’re innocent. SOURCE
Calling for ‘system change,’ civil society members hold a sit-in at the Paris climate talks. (Photo: Emma Cassidy/ Survival Media Agency)
By John Scales Avery, reposted from Countercurrents,Dec 14, 2015
WE NEED SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE! Civil society, excluded from the COP21 conference by the French government, carried banners with this slogan on the streets of Paris. They did so in defiance of tear-gas-using black-clad police. System change has been the motto for climate marches throughout the world. Our entire system is leading us towards disaster, and this includes both economic and governmental establishments. To save human civilization, the biosphere and the future, the people of the world must take matters into their own hands and change the system.
Our present situation is this: The future looks extremely dark because of human folly, especially the long-term future. The greatest threats are catastrophic climate change and thermonuclear war, but a large-scale global famine also has to be considered. All these threats are linked.
Inaction is not an option. We have to act with courage and dedication, even if the odds are against success, because the stakes are so high. The mass media could mobilize us to action, but they have failed in their duty. Our educational system could also wake us up and make us act, but it too has failed us. The battle to save the earth from human greed and folly has to be fought through non-violent action on the streets and in the alternative media.
We need a new economic system, a new society, a new social contract, a new way of life. Here are the great tasks that history has given to our generation: We must achieve a steady-state economic system. We must restore democracy. We must decrease economic inequality. We must break the power of corporate greed. We must leave fossil fuels in the ground. We must stabilize and ultimately reduce the global population. We must eliminate the institution of war. And finally, we must develop a more mature ethical system to match our new technology.
What are the links between the problems facing us? There is a link between climate change and war. We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. But nevertheless, the stuggle for the world’s last remaining oil and gas resources motivated the invasion of Iraq, and it now motivates the war in Syria. Both of these brutal wars have caused an almost indescribable amount of suffering.
ISIS runs on oil, and the unconditional support of Saudi Arabia by the West is due to greed for oil. Furthermore, military establishments are among the largest users of oil, and the largest greenhouse gas emmitters. Finally, the nearly 2 trillion dollors that the world now spends on armaments and war could be used instead to speed the urgently needed transition to 100% renewable energy, and to help less-developed countries to fave the consequences of climate change.
There are reasons for hope. Both solar energy and wind energy are growing at a phrnomenal rate, and the transition to 100% renewable energy could be achieved within a very few decades if this growth is maintained. But a level playing field is needed. At present fossil fuel corporations receive half a trillion dollars each year in subsidies. Nuclear power generation is also highly subsidized (and also closely linked to the danger of nuclear war). If these subsidies were abolished, or better yet, used to encourage renewable energy development, the renewables could win simply by being cheaper.
We can also take inspiration from Pope Francis, whose humanitarian vision links the various problems facing us. Pope Francis also shows us what we can do to save the future, and to give both economics and government a social and ecological conscience.
None of us asked to be born in a time of crisis, but history has given great tasks to our generation. We must rise to meet the crisis. We must not fail in our duty to save the gifts of life and civilization that past generations have bequeathed to us.We must not fail in our duty future generations.
by Sherman Richardson, reposted from Observer Oracle Dec 15, 2015
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also approached aboriginal issues in a more respectful manner, he added.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which documented the haunting legacy of Canada’s residential schools, is set to present its final report Tuesday to the parties in the class-action settlement that led to its creation.
The commission released its summary report in June, with 94 recommendations for reform.
“Many students who went to residential school never returned”. The report spares no gruesome detail of their experience, from the deaths of at least 3,201 students between 1867 and 2000, to the lack of food, water, and resources available children in the schools.
Sinclair said the commission’s findings make clear that the myriad problems of aboriginal communities are rooted, directly or indirectly, in years of government efforts to “assimilate, acculturate, indoctrinate and destroy”.
“I stand before you hopeful that that we are at the threshold of a new era, a point of fundamental change in Canada’s story; a period of change that if sustained by the will of the people, will forever realign the shared history of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.”
The prime minister also plans to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [see below], as called for by the commission.
He said it is time for a renewal of the relationship between indigenous peoples and Canada as a whole.
“Today, we find ourselves on a new path, working together toward a nation-to-nation relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation and partnership”, an emotional Trudeau said.
The ceremony heard speeches from commissioners, elders, IRS survivors, members of government, and church leaders, all of whom assisted in the TRC process.
“Achieving reconciliation…is like climbing a mountain; we must proceed one step at a time”, he said. “It is to accept fully our responsibilities and our failings, as a government and as a country”, Trudeau told hundreds of residential school survivors as the report was released in Ottawa.
“It is also about changing the way we talk to and about each other”.
“Reconciliation will require more than pious words about the shortcomings of those who preceded us”. SOURCE
