…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article by Ry Moran, Director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, published in rabble.ca

Yesterday [December 15] the Commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation released their final report. Six years. Seven volumes. Thousands of pages.

Tens of thousands of tears.

The materials contained within the reports will resonate for years to come but it will be up to us, collectively as Canadians, to determine whether the Calls to Action are implemented; whether the truth is fully acknowledged; whether reconciliation is achieved.

Through the work of the Commission I have witnessed thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, join together in collective actions of reconciliation and with the brave voices of Survivors leading the way, I have seen things change, both at home and abroad.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Organization of American States (OAS) located in Washington D.C.

I was part of a multi-person panel that included members of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, former MP and well-known film producer Tina Keeper and Canada’s ambassador to the OAS. Two elders from Manitoba gave meaningful words of prayer and traditional perspective to open the day. Two dancers from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet performed an eight-minute version of the Going Home Star ballet which yet again left me moved and in awe of the power of the arts to convey emotion, truth and beauty all at once.

For me, the invitation was a call for deep reflection. What would I say to an international audience about this history we are trying to come to terms with?

For the past six years, much of my own work has focused on documenting Canada at its worst. The work of statement gathering and document collection for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission placed me in front of thousands of survivors — most of whom recounted terrible stories of abuse, neglect, pain and suffering. The documentary history we collected revealed long-standing knowledge that the residential school system was broken, mismanaged, misguided and deeply unethical.

Yet the residential school system endured for over 160 years.

We, as a country, are just now starting to come to terms with the sobering realization that the systematic destruction of indigenous cultures, languages, family structures, lands and ceremonies amounted to cultural genocide.

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Truth Commissions, Do they improve human rights?

(Article continued from left column)

The cold hard truth is that Canada has failed indigenous peoples miserably.

Instead of protecting Indigenous rights, for many years our country eroded, attacked and beat those very rights out of Indigenous peoples. My own nation — the Metis nation — had guns turned against it when they sought to protect their way of life. Other nations have suffered the same. And we need remember that the attack on indigenous peoples through the residential schools attacked the most sacred of all bonds that exists in this world — that between parent and child.

What was I to say to an international audience with these historical realities of genocide and mass human rights abuse so deeply enmeshed in who we are as a nation?

I said that I remained proud to be a Canadian.

I remain proud to be a Canadian not because of who we were, but because I see us growing and embracing the calls for reconciliation that are now ringing out across the country.

Through the leadership of visionaries like Phil Fontaine, Paul Martin and Frank Iacobucci, massive achievements such as the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement were made possible. The TRC Commissioners have brought us further down the path and additional truths will emerge from the critically important inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Yesterday we heard a tearful prime minister state that Survivors of the schools would never be forgotten and that a total renewal of the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples is needed.

Through words like these and the powerful leadership of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I sincerely believe we are reaching a tipping point where we as a nation are really beginning to take that long hard look in the mirror with new eyes.

Across the country, educators are rallying to the cry to incorporate a more accurate and fuller picture of the contributions of indigenous peoples in Canadian history. Universities are embracing indigenous achievement and inclusion, the courts are recognizing Indigenous rights time after time, and we now have a government actively listening to Indigenous peoples. We are transforming reconciliation from the leadership of a few to the collective will of the many.

Our nation’s treatment of Indigenous peoples should not and can not be a source of pride for us as a country. We need to address this and the work ahead of us is great.

But change is possible. We can change, we are changing, and I am very hopeful that this momentum we have collectively generated will continue.

I am excited about the future that lies ahead of us and I am proud to be part of this country that is embracing this cry for change and reconciliation.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article and video by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now (reprinted according to provisions of Creative Commons)

The fight over income inequality gained national attention when fast-food workers walked off the job in hundreds of cities across the country on Tuesday demanding a $15-an-hour minimum wage and union rights. Some “Fight for $15” protesters rallied outside the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee. During the debate, billionaire Donald Trump and other Republican contenders rejected calls to increase the minimum wage. We speak to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of the new book, “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity.” “We’re saying something is wrong with the way our economy is working,” says Stiglitz. “The fact that at the bottom, minimum wage is as low as it was 45 years ago, a half-century ago, says something. … It’s not a living wage.”

Video of Stieglitz interview

TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn right now to Joe Stiglitz, to the Nobel Prize-winning economist.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The fight over income inequality gained national attention when fast-food workers walked off the job in hundreds of cities across the country on Tuesday demanding a $15-an-hour minimum wage and union rights. Some “Fight for 15” protesters rallied outside the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee. During the debate, billionaire Donald Trump and other Republican contenders rejected calls to increase the minimum wage.

DONALD TRUMP: Taxes too high, wages too high, we’re not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard, and they have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can’t do it.

AMY GOODMAN: We end today with Part 2 of my interview with the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz and his plan to address income inequality. He has written a new book called Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity. I asked him what an agenda for growth and shared prosperity would look like.

(Article continued on right side of page.)

(Article continued from left side of page.)

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, it is about rewriting the rules in a fairly comprehensive way. I mean, the basic—

AMY GOODMAN: Who writes them?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, that has to be done by Congress, and it has to be with a lot of popular support. And in a way, we’re beginning to do that. You know, the Fight for 15 movement, raising the minimum wage, that’s one of the rules. But one of our points is that we need a more comprehensive agenda than just raising the minimum wage, and that if we make—and the two words there, for “growth” and “shared prosperity,” so our view is that the only sustainable prosperity is shared prosperity and that one of the problems is that the way the rules have been rewritten since the beginning of Reagan has been to actually slow the American economy.

And let me give you one example. When you have corporations having a very shortsighted view, paying their CEOs such outrageous monies with less money spent on investment, of course you’re not going to make long-term investments that are going to result in long-term economic growth. And at the same time, there’s going to be less money to pay for ordinary workers. And paying that low wages to ordinary workers, not giving them security, not giving them paid, you know, family leave, all that results in a less productive labor force. So what we’ve done is we’ve actually undermined investments in people, investments in the corporation, all for the sake of increasing the income of the people at the very top. So there’s a really close link here between the growing inequality in our society and the weak economic performance.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re in the midst of an extended election year. But that goes to the issue of how we govern ourselves in this country, a very critical point. Let’s talk about what underlies these elections: campaign finances. How does campaign finance reform fit into rewriting the rules of the American economy?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, it’s actually absolutely essential. And, you know, the problem is that we’ve gone basically from a political system with “one person, one vote” to “one dollar, one vote.” And, you know, Citizens United made that worse. So, the only way that you can combat the force of money is, you might say, people power, people coming out. And we’ve seen this work. I mean, we’ve seen it work in raising the minimum wage. You know, just—we couldn’t do it in Congress, because the gridlock there, the money there, so we’ve done it in city after city—Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, in New York. So, we’ve actually been able to see that this kind of uprising can work, even in a political system with money making so much difference.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

… HUMAN RIGHTS …

An article by Tyler Kingkade for the Huffington Post (reprinted according to fair use principle)

Columbia University trustees voted (June 22) Monday to divest from for-profit prison companies because of concerns about mass incarceration, becoming the first major university to do so.

Photo from Columbia Prison Divest/Facebook

Columbia, in New York, owned more than 230,000 shares of Corrections Corp. of America, the largest private prison company, headquartered in Nashville, Rolling Stone reported last year. The school no longer owns those shares, law professor Jeff Gordon disclosed in April. The school still holds shares in G4S, a British prison and security services company.

The trustees’ vote pledges Columbia will not invest its endowment of more than $8 billion in for-profit prisons in the future. It follows a recommendation this year from the school’s Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing, and was endorsed by university President Lee Bollinger.

“This action occurs within the larger, ongoing discussion of the issue of mass incarceration that concerns citizens from across the ideological spectrum,” Columbia trustees said in a statement. “We are proud that many Columbia faculty and students will continue their scholarly examination and civic engagement of the underlying social issues that have led to and result from mass incarceration.”

Gordon, chair of an advisory subcommittee, said the group is considering whether Columbia should divest from fossil fuel companies as a stand against global warming.

Students protested for months to get Columbia to divest from for-profit prisons, citing alleged violence and human rights abuses.

An article in The Guardian described a G4S facility in England as rife with drugs and alcohol. An American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit accused a Corrections Corp. of America-owned prison as permitting excessive violence and prison guards who laughed as they declined to treat prisoners’ injuries.

According to the ACLU, “several studies suggest that prisoners in for-profit prisons face greater threats to their safety than those in publicly-run prisons.”

Question related to this article:

Divestment, is it an effective tool to combat the violation of human rights?

Readers’ comments are invited on this question and article. See comments box below.