Latest news with #UNDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples
New Indian Express
21 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Treaty to end plastic pollution: More discord than convergence in the new draft released
GENEVA: Delegates negotiating the world's first legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution are heading into a high‑stakes stocktake plenary with a daunting reality. The latest Assembled Text released in the early hours of Saturday shows not convergence, but a proliferation of disagreements. The new draft — which compiles the outputs of four contact groups after days of line‑by‑line wrangling — bristles with bracketed text, the tell‑tale markers of unresolved options. According to a count, there are more than 1,500 bracketed sections in the Assembled Text, up from roughly 370 in the Chair's Text tabled last December. Each set of brackets represents competing phrases, entire clauses, or even whole paragraphs still up for negotiation. Expanded preamble, broader scope Compared to the Chair's version, the Assembled Text reflects a greatly expanded preamble. It introduces new concepts: recognition of 'mountain environments' alongside marine ecosystems, detailed human rights references — from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the right to a clean, healthy environment — and explicit mention of vulnerable groups such as waste pickers, coastal communities, and people of African descent. The Chair's original wording was more concise, largely focusing on existing multilateral environmental agreements and sustainable development. Now, multiple alternative formulations sit side by side in brackets, underscoring ideological divides over how far the treaty's values and scope should extend. Core disagreements persist The very purpose of the treaty remains unsettled. Should it 'end' plastic pollution, 'address' it, or 'protect human health and the environment from its detrimental effects'? References to 'sustainable development' and 'equity' appear in some versions but not others. The Chair's simpler December text — to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution based on a comprehensive life‑cycle approach — has now splintered into a tangle of possible formulations.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Canada pushing to include Indigenous rights in United Nations plastics treaty
OTTAWA – Canada is pushing to bring language recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples back into a United Nations plastics pollution treaty. Delegates from more than 170 countries are in Geneva to resume negotiations on a treaty that was supposed to be finalized last year. Countries are at odds on how far the legally binding agreement should go, with many nations opposing caps on plastic production. Following negotiations in South Korea in November, which ended without an agreement, the draft version of the treaty removed references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada, with the backing of 45 other countries, presented a proposal Tuesday to put UNDRIP language back in to the treaty. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Scientists estimate the world disposes of more than 350 million tonnes of plastic every year, with less than one-tenth being recycled and more than one-fifth ending up in the environment. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 6, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
16-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
More legal battles likely as First Nations launch first lawsuit against new federal, provincial laws
As First Nations launch the first constitutional challenge against federal Bill C-5 and Ontario's Bill 5 — sweeping laws to fast-track mines and major infrastructure — legal experts say the governments' refusal to consult has left Indigenous communities with no other option and more court battles are likely ahead. 'They didn't engage with First Nations, they didn't engage with labour unions, and they simply passed bills that don't work for either group — making a lawsuit almost inevitable,' said Luke Hildebrand, a lawyer not involved with the lawsuits. 'I'd be surprised if this is the only one.' Hildebrand said both governments escalated the situation by refusing to consult the very people most affected. He sees the legal challenge as grounded in three core arguments: that both laws violate the constitutional duty to consult, undermine treaty rights, and conflict with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) , which protects the right to free, prior and informed consent. 'This is about unilateralism,' Hildebrand said. 'Instead of sitting down and building something together, they [both governments] said, 'We're doing this — you catch up.' That's the wrong approach.' 'No escape for First Nations' The two laws allow governments at both federal and provincial levels to bypass environmental assessments and permit requirements, clearing the way for major development projects with little or no First Nations involvement. Bill 5 allows the provincial cabinet to create 'special economic zones,' where selected projects and developers could be exempt from environmental regulations and planning laws, undermining First Nations consultation. The government has already signalled its intent to designate the Ring of Fire as a 'special economic zone' under the new law. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court by nine First Nations, argues both pieces of legislation violate constitutional rights, treaty obligations and Canada's international commitments. The filing argues that the two laws build on one another, compounding their effects. 'Since both are similar in their violative regimes, purposes and effects, there is no escape for First Nations,' the lawsuit reads. 'Our case is not a fight against development,' said Chief Taynar Simpson of Alderville First Nation in a statement. 'It is a fight against dangerous development pushed ahead by factless, thoughtless and reckless decision-making from government ministers behind closed doors with little accountability.' First Nations leaders say the speed at which the bills were passed left them with no time to respond. There was little warning, no meaningful engagement and no opportunity to shape the legislation. 'Rushing headlong into major projects without knowing the costs means the governments are playing a dangerous game with our lands and futures,' said Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin. She pointed to the Ring of Fire region — a sensitive peatland ecosystem critical to carbon storage — as an area at serious risk. She warned that damage from mining and infrastructure could have catastrophic consequences. 'Our way of life, our children's futures and our shared environment, which is the basis of all life, is not a pawn in some political game,' she said. The federal and provincial governments have defended the legislation as a necessary response to economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs. In an email response, a spokesperson from the federal Privy Council Office said the government is reviewing the court challenge, noting it had 'just received the Notice of Application,' and declined to provide further comment. However, the statement reaffirmed the government's commitment to Indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It said Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, includes multiple stages of consultation with Indigenous communities before major projects are approved. Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to meet with First Nations leaders in the coming days, the statement added. In an email, Ontario Premier Doug Ford's office said it has begun consultations with First Nations to shape regulations for special economic zones. 'We will continue to build consensus with First Nations on shared priorities, including legacy infrastructure, all-season roads and resource development that support long-term prosperity,' Ford's office said. But Hildebrand says the harm has already been done. 'This wasn't about consultation — it was about centralizing power and sidelining not just First Nations, but workers and municipalities too,' he said. Sara Mainville, an Anishinaabe lawyer, said the legal challenge is unusual but valid. She says while constitutional challenges typically follow a specific project approval, this case is different: the laws themselves may be enough to violate Indigenous rights. 'The federal government only gave First Nations seven days to respond to Bill C-5,' Mainville said. 'That's not real consultation. It erased years of relationship-building.' Mainville pointed to the Mikisew Cree Supreme Court decision , which confirms that even legislation — not just project decisions — can trigger constitutional challenges if it strips away protections that would normally require consultation. Mainville said this case might follow the same path Alberta and Ontario used to successfully challenge federal impact assessment law. Both Mainville and Hildebrand believe the lawsuit may delay the very projects the government hoped to fast-track — and more challenges are likely. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the Ford government was warned repeatedly that Bill 5 would end up in court. He said the failure to consult First Nations made legal action inevitable, and even members of the premier's own party raised concerns about the bill's flaws. 'Had the government worked collaboratively from the start, we'd be much further along,' Schreiner said. 'First Nations consent is non-negotiable. Their involvement strengthens both the process and the outcome.' He warned that Ford's actions will delay progress. 'Ford's reckless disregard for Indigenous rights and democratic debate will slow down development because of court challenges and the lack of public support,' he said. Hildebrand said that if the courts strike down the bills, it could restrict the use of fast-track economic zones across Canada and force governments to rethink how major projects are approved. 'If Indigenous nations succeed, it will affirm that economic development can't come at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty, workers' rights or environmental protection,' he said. But he added that real reconciliation must happen through dialogue — not just legal battles. 'Reconciliation doesn't happen in a courtroom — it happens at the nation-to-nation table,' Hildebrand said. 'My hope is that this lawsuit is a wake-up call to both Prime Minister Carney and Premier Ford. But whether they'll answer it is another question.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
16-07-2025
- Business
- National Observer
More legal battles likely as First Nations launch first lawsuit against new federal, provincial laws
As First Nations launch the first constitutional challenge against federal Bill C-5 and Ontario's Bill 5 — sweeping laws to fast-track mines and major infrastructure — legal experts say the governments' refusal to consult has left Indigenous communities with no other option and more court battles are likely ahead. 'They didn't engage with First Nations, they didn't engage with labour unions, and they simply passed bills that don't work for either group — making a lawsuit almost inevitable,' said Luke Hildebrand, a lawyer not involved with the lawsuits. 'I'd be surprised if this is the only one.' Hildebrand said both governments escalated the situation by refusing to consult the very people most affected. He sees the legal challenge as grounded in three core arguments: that both laws violate the constitutional duty to consult, undermine treaty rights, and conflict with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which protects the right to free, prior and informed consent. 'This is about unilateralism,' Hildebrand said. 'Instead of sitting down and building something together, they [both governments] said, 'We're doing this — you catch up.' That's the wrong approach.' 'No escape for First Nations' The two laws allow governments at both federal and provincial levels to bypass environmental assessments and permit requirements, clearing the way for major development projects with little or no First Nations involvement. Bill 5 allows the provincial cabinet to create 'special economic zones,' where selected projects and developers could be exempt from environmental regulations and planning laws, undermining First Nations consultation. The government has already signalled its intent to designate the Ring of Fire as a 'special economic zone' under the new law. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court by nine First Nations, argues both pieces of legislation violate constitutional rights, treaty obligations and Canada's international commitments. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Ontario Superior Court by nine First Nations, argues both pieces of legislation violate constitutional rights, treaty obligations and Canada's international commitments. The filing argues that the two laws build on one another, compounding their effects. 'Since both are similar in their violative regimes, purposes and effects, there is no escape for First Nations,' the lawsuit reads. 'Our case is not a fight against development,' said Chief Taynar Simpson of Alderville First Nation in a statement. 'It is a fight against dangerous development pushed ahead by factless, thoughtless and reckless decision-making from government ministers behind closed doors with little accountability.' First Nations leaders say the speed at which the bills were passed left them with no time to respond. There was little warning, no meaningful engagement and no opportunity to shape the legislation. 'Rushing headlong into major projects without knowing the costs means the governments are playing a dangerous game with our lands and futures,' said Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin. She pointed to the Ring of Fire region — a sensitive peatland ecosystem critical to carbon storage — as an area at serious risk. She warned that damage from mining and infrastructure could have catastrophic consequences. 'Our way of life, our children's futures and our shared environment, which is the basis of all life, is not a pawn in some political game,' she said. Governments defend bills The federal and provincial governments have defended the legislation as a necessary response to economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs. In an email response, a spokesperson from the federal Privy Council Office said the government is reviewing the court challenge, noting it had 'just received the Notice of Application,' and declined to provide further comment. However, the statement reaffirmed the government's commitment to Indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It said Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, includes multiple stages of consultation with Indigenous communities before major projects are approved. Prime Minister Mark Carney is expected to meet with First Nations leaders in the coming days, the statement added. In an email, Ontario Premier Doug Ford's office said it has begun consultations with First Nations to shape regulations for special economic zones. 'We will continue to build consensus with First Nations on shared priorities, including legacy infrastructure, all-season roads and resource development that support long-term prosperity,' Ford's office said. But Hildebrand says the harm has already been done. 'This wasn't about consultation — it was about centralizing power and sidelining not just First Nations, but workers and municipalities too,' he said. Sara Mainville, an Anishinaabe lawyer, said the legal challenge is unusual but valid. She says while constitutional challenges typically follow a specific project approval, this case is different: the laws themselves may be enough to violate Indigenous rights. 'The federal government only gave First Nations seven days to respond to Bill C-5,' Mainville said. 'That's not real consultation. It erased years of relationship-building.' Mainville pointed to the Mikisew Cree Supreme Court decision, which confirms that even legislation — not just project decisions — can trigger constitutional challenges if it strips away protections that would normally require consultation. Mainville said this case might follow the same path Alberta and Ontario used to successfully challenge federal impact assessment law. Both Mainville and Hildebrand believe the lawsuit may delay the very projects the government hoped to fast-track — and more challenges are likely. Schreiner: Ford ignored the warnings Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the Ford government was warned repeatedly that Bill 5 would end up in court. He said the failure to consult First Nations made legal action inevitable, and even members of the premier's own party raised concerns about the bill's flaws. 'Had the government worked collaboratively from the start, we'd be much further along,' Schreiner said. 'First Nations consent is non-negotiable. Their involvement strengthens both the process and the outcome.' He warned that Ford's actions will delay progress. 'Ford's reckless disregard for Indigenous rights and democratic debate will slow down development because of court challenges and the lack of public support,' he said. Hildebrand said that if the courts strike down the bills, it could restrict the use of fast-track economic zones across Canada and force governments to rethink how major projects are approved. 'If Indigenous nations succeed, it will affirm that economic development can't come at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty, workers' rights or environmental protection,' he said. But he added that real reconciliation must happen through dialogue — not just legal battles. 'Reconciliation doesn't happen in a courtroom — it happens at the nation-to-nation table,' Hildebrand said. 'My hope is that this lawsuit is a wake-up call to both Prime Minister Carney and Premier Ford. But whether they'll answer it is another question.'
The Star
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Star
Borneo.TV launch sparks backlash from Sabah creatives and indigenous groups
KOTA KINABALU: was launched to bring Sabah's stories to the world – but instead of celebration, it has sparked backlash from local creatives and indigenous groups who say they were excluded from the process meant to represent them. Unveiled on July 1, the online streaming platform is marketed as a digital showcase under the banner "Sabah in the eyes of the world." However, critics argue the initiative risks cultural insensitivity, legal ambiguity and the sidelining of local voices. Several Sabah-based creatives claimed they were blindsided by the launch, asserting there was no formal engagement with local filmmakers, content producers or cultural custodians before the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Sabah Maju Jaya (SMJ) secretariat and Kuala Lumpur-based IB Media Consultant Work Sdn Bhd. Sabah Film and Visual Association president Chester Pang described the move as disappointing, calling for greater transparency on policies, content curation and communication channels with the local industry. "This kind of exclusion weakens trust and sidelines the very people who've helped build Sabah's creative ecosystem," he said. Safva, representing Sabah in the Malaysian Film Association Coalition, expressed readiness to collaborate but expects clearer policies and meaningful inclusion moving forward. Beyond the creative sector, cultural advocates say the platform may dilute Sabah's indigenous narratives instead of elevating them. Historian and MA63 advocate Remy Majangkim questioned the implications of outsourcing a cultural platform to a non-local entity. "Are these small steps to neutralise our cultural diversity and remove our sovereign identity through new narratives?" he asked, warning that cultural storytelling must come from within the communities it aims to portray. Indigenous rights activist Atama Katama said the move failed to uphold international cultural standards, including the Unesco Convention on Cultural Diversity and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Sabahan national artist Yee I-Lan echoed those views in a public Facebook post saying that it risks erasing local agency in favour of top-down branding. Legal concerns have also surfaced. Safva legal advisor Yong Yit Jee said it remains unclear whether IB Media holds the necessary broadcasting licences from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission or complies with the Personal Data Protection Act 2010. "Any income generated from Sabah's content must benefit Sabah's economy. Without transparency in contracts or clear IP protection, Sabah creators could be left vulnerable to exploitation or loss of control over their work," he said. Yong also stressed the need for free, prior and informed consent when indigenous cultural elements are involved, warning of possible legal consequences if this is ignored. Safva and other stakeholders are now calling for the public disclosure of the SMJ-IB Media agreement and for an open dialogue involving groups like Jatiks and other cultural bodies to ensure the platform respects the legal, cultural and economic rights of Sabah's creative community. Previously, SMJ Secretariat chief coordinator Datuk Rosmadi Datu Sulai explained that the government remains open to engaging with local stakeholders. But many in Sabah's creative and indigenous circles remain unconvinced, saying meaningful inclusion requires more than after-the-fact invitations. While many support the idea of sharing Sabah's stories with the world, they say the platform's success depends on how genuinely it involves the communities it claims to represent.
