Donna Dillman will be proceeding with her hunger strike on Thanksgiving Monday, October 8, 2007.
It was decided yesterday that it would be beneficial to have Donna stay right at the site, outside of the gates, to draw more attention to the centre of the protest. It is important to know that Donna has not passed through the gates of the site and what she is doing is well within her legal rights, as she will be camping on the road allowance.
Some people were wondering if Donna was welcome to stay at Parliament Hill. Know that the OPP and RCMP were willing to discuss accommodating Donna and that her choice to keep the hunger strike at the protest site, in no way suggests a lack of cooperation on the part of the police. Donna is allowing for the possibility of moving her protest to Parliament Hill if needed.
NOTE FROM DONNA…
As I set up to begin my hunger strike at noon on Monday, please know that this effort will not be successful in isolation. It is not about me. The hunger strike is a focal point. With our voices, our pens and the internet, each of us can reach out to as many other people as possible, and as each of them to do the same. The media will not win this for us. With our individual efforts we can take this issue around the world overnight and it might take that to bring me back home.
At a meeting at the site last night, Chris Reid, one of the lawyers for the First Nations said that he "could feel it in his bones" that we could win this, With the momentum that has already been built by the Natives and by the non-native community, we CAN win a moratorium.
Thank you for the numerous offer of prayers, and various kinds of support. I know that I am not, in fact, doing it in isolation and appreciate all of you for the efforts you have made and continue to make.
Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving.
We have much to be thankful for.
Donna
BACKGROUND
LOCAL GRANDMOTHER STARTS HUNGER STRIKE
At 12 pm on the 8th of October, Donna Dillman started her hunger strike outside of the gates of the uranium protest site. She is calling for a moratorium on uranium mining in Eastern Ontario and is asking people to show their support by contacting local politicians and media outlets. Many people have expressed their concern about Donna’s actions but after speaking with her directly most come away with an understanding and appreciation for the position she has taken. Thank you for all of the letters of support.
DONNA DILLMAN’S BLOG DAY ONE
We can go a long time without food, but clean water is essential to all life. With that in mind and with the rain holding off, I arrived at the site at noon, today, feeling a bit of trepidation and some anticipation. A short time later my home away from home arrived and the good folks at the site got busy and moved me in. I am indebted to the people who donated the tent camper and those on my support team. Without them, and other supporters, this would not be happening, as they are vital to the success of this campaign.
My debut into the public eye came about when a Global TV reporter and Jeff Green, from Frontenac News, arrived on site for interviews. Harold Perry officially welcomed me and thanked me for what I am doing here and I was able to share with him how much I appreciate the sacrifice that the First Nations have made in keeping our water safe. Some time later, I was also interviewed by a student from Loyalist College.
I’ve been getting lots of response to my action and I want to thank each of you for your comments and prayers. Please know that I am not doing this in isolation and that whatever you can do to help me get the message out is appreciated. Please call, write or email your elected officials. Tell them you want a moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in Eastern Ontario. Or start an action of your own – a women in N.S. is organizing a coalition of grandparents to protest with us (wouldn’t it be grand if that went coast to coast, with people protesting in communities across the country) and some raging grannies are visiting the site on the weekend – or donate as you can, so that the people working on the issue can keep on keeping on. If you can come by the site, please do, as visits go a long way to keeping the moral up here.
Blessings
Donna
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Legitimacy versus Legality
Bruce H. Moore is the Director of the International Land Coalition, an alliance of intergovernmental and civil-society organizations working together to promote secure and equitable access to and control over land. The ILC Secretariat is hosted by the United Nations in Rome, Italy. For more information go to
http://www.landcoalition.org/
ARTICLE BY BRUCE H. MOORE
Uranium Mining - Legitimacy versus Legality
Global demand for minerals, fuels and forest products is a daily headline around the world. On the surface, the promise of jobs and the projections of bull markets appear full of hope for workers and investors alike. However, the story below the surface may be different. Conflicts over natural resources are rising. Growing numbers of local land owners and traditional users increasingly fear that they will loose their land and resource rights to the powerful corporate forces of international mining, energy and forestry.
Extractive industries, such as Frontenac Ventures, outside of Canada’s capital Ottawa, have filed their prospecting claims, seemingly on the classical arguments of the mining sector – that the law provides them with sub-surface rights; a mine, in this case uranium, will contribute to economic growth; and, today’s mining practices are safe. And, in the case of uranium, the latest boost to the claims of the mining industry, links nuclear power to climate change – it’s carbon-free and unlike gas and oil, uranium is located in friendly places like Australia and Canada.
Competing resource claims are difficult policy issues. From a global vantage point, these are not new issues. There is a wide body of worldwide experience and evidence that can be used to establish public policies to legislate and regulate who has he right to use which resources, for which purposes, and under which conditions. These are the essential components for ensuring sustainable resource use. The emerging confrontation around uranium mining in Canada can benefit from this knowledge and the lessons that have been learned elsewhere.
The Canadian case, seeming to hinge on a law from the 1800s, raises the same question that has come to the surface in resource conflicts in other countries. Is the law legitimate? For the International Land Coalition and similar organizations concerned with peoples’ resource rights, it is commonly recognized that governments have a responsibility to ensure that their laws are both coherent within their jurisdiction and consistent with international agreements to which they are a party. In legitimacy versus legality approach to public policy, governments are frequently found to have not harmonized old laws with the new, both within and across ministries. Is this mining law from the 19th century in harmony with related federal and provincial laws of the 21st century?
Around the world, legislative reform of the natural resource sector is undergoing rapid reform in respect to environmental protection, nuclear safety, and the downstream natural resource and watershed effects, resulting from chemical leaching, including mining residues. Canada has a mixed reputation in the mining sector. On the one hand Canada is recognized as an international leader in promoting environmental impact monitoring. On the other, Canadian mining companies operating abroad are frequently cited as examples of policies not being matched in practice.
The current land rights conflicts in Canada and rampant resource debates around the world, point to the need for a mining law that reflects the full body of resource and environmental laws and safeguards, including Canada’s voluntary or ratified international agreement in these domains. Furthermore, when approaching resource reform, it is noteworthy that the principles of free, prior and informed consent are increasingly considered as the basis for protecting the resource rights of landowners, users and tenants.
From press stories covering this Canadian situation, communities may be at risk of becoming divided over the economic promise that mining may offer. Yet, studies have indicated that mining generally results in only low levels of employment due to its high tech nature. The real increase in jobs is not where the mine is located but where the minerals are used, while the environmental consequences remain. Road building and infrastructure are one time investments and trucking generates few jobs. And, the few on-site jobs can quickly disappear due to the high price volatility of minerals. Additionally, a 2001 study found that Canadian taxpayers subsidized the mining industry by $13,095 per job created, funds that may have been used to stimulate alternative opportunities.
Mining is not neutral; it affects the entire territory – especially where the mineral is uranium. Mining on average takes 20 years to come on stream and may be postponed or cancelled if mineral values change or competition from richer deposits or lower labour costs makes other mining locations more attractive. For these twenty years other opportunities are likely to suffer. In a highly valued recreational area with a burgeoning property market, as in the case of this region of Canada, property values are likely to decline thus lowering the tax base. Whereas, the current growth in full-time residents, seasonal cottage owners and vacationers would seem to be a sustainable stimulant to the local economy. This appears to be the alternative to an uncertain, financial volatile, environmentally risky and socially divisive force among neighbours and local business people alike.
Climate change is among the international issues that are gaining much required attention. It would seem unimaginable that policy makers would be taken in by corporate “spin-doctors” suggesting that they should use risky technology to counter greenhouse gases when safe technologies exist.
This Canadian mining confrontation is of rising global interest. Whose interests will rise to the surface – the citizen or the corporation?
ARTICLE IN THE KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD
Lawyers attempt to force hand of justice; Want to see protesters brought to trial
Posted By Sue Yanagisawa
The Kingston Whig Standard October 5, 2007
Lawyers are still attempting to forestall contempt charges against protesters occupying a uranium-prospecting claim north of Sharbot Lake.
This morning, lawyers representing the Algonquins occupying the claim and Frontenac Ventures Corp., the company that holds rights to explore the area's mineral potential, will meet at Frontenac County Court House to try to broker a deal.
Late last week, Justice Douglas Cunningham endorsed the injunction sought by the company upholding Frontenac Ventures' "immediate, unfettered and unobstructed access to the subject property."
Within days, Frontenac Ventures filed notice it was seeking an order holding the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, five of their community leaders, Christian Peacekeeper David Milne of Belleville, local landowner Frank Morrison and unidentified Johns and James Doe in contempt of his order "by failing to end the occupation and/or leave the subject property."
As of yesterday, Cunningham's injunction was still in draft form.
Although Cunningham's injunction hadn't yet been filed with the court, after some preliminary discussion to tweak its terms, Frontenac's lawyer, Neal Smitheman, asked to proceed directly to trial on the allegations of contempt, which were first raised in relation to an interim injunction granted in late August by another judge.
Cunningham asked if it would be better to wait and proceed, if necessary, on his order: "It has not been issued. It has not been entered [with the court] and there's no direction to enforce," he pointed out.
Smitheman told him the parties were aware of his endorsement and said, "your endorsement has not been followed. Your endorsement is being ignored."
At previous court hearings where the prospect of contempt charges was raised, it was estimated that a trial would take five days. Neither of the lawyers representing the Algonquins came to court anticipating that they'd even be spending the night in Kingston.
Lawyers Christopher Reid, who represents the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Stephen Reynolds on behalf of Shabot Obaadjiwan, told the judge they weren't prepared to begin a trial immediately.
Reynolds said that Smitheman was "trying to jam through a contempt motion," on short notice and argued that his clients are entitled to call witnesses in their defense. He also told Cunningham that he hadn't prepared to cross-examine the police witnesses.
Smitheman proposes to call three members of the OPP's Aboriginal Response Team (ART), a recent initiative developed out of the Ipperwash Inquiry and aimed at building trust between native communities and the police force. Concerns have already been expressed for the future of the initiative if its members are compelled to testify.
Cunningham rose abruptly around 11:15 a.m. and directed the lawyers to join him in the jury deliberation room adjoining the courtroom.
Spectators in the courtroom were left for the rest of the day to speculate on what was happening behind closed doors.
For more of this article go to…
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=722502&auth=Sue+Yanagisawa
http://www.landcoalition.org/
ARTICLE BY BRUCE H. MOORE
Uranium Mining - Legitimacy versus Legality
Global demand for minerals, fuels and forest products is a daily headline around the world. On the surface, the promise of jobs and the projections of bull markets appear full of hope for workers and investors alike. However, the story below the surface may be different. Conflicts over natural resources are rising. Growing numbers of local land owners and traditional users increasingly fear that they will loose their land and resource rights to the powerful corporate forces of international mining, energy and forestry.
Extractive industries, such as Frontenac Ventures, outside of Canada’s capital Ottawa, have filed their prospecting claims, seemingly on the classical arguments of the mining sector – that the law provides them with sub-surface rights; a mine, in this case uranium, will contribute to economic growth; and, today’s mining practices are safe. And, in the case of uranium, the latest boost to the claims of the mining industry, links nuclear power to climate change – it’s carbon-free and unlike gas and oil, uranium is located in friendly places like Australia and Canada.
Competing resource claims are difficult policy issues. From a global vantage point, these are not new issues. There is a wide body of worldwide experience and evidence that can be used to establish public policies to legislate and regulate who has he right to use which resources, for which purposes, and under which conditions. These are the essential components for ensuring sustainable resource use. The emerging confrontation around uranium mining in Canada can benefit from this knowledge and the lessons that have been learned elsewhere.
The Canadian case, seeming to hinge on a law from the 1800s, raises the same question that has come to the surface in resource conflicts in other countries. Is the law legitimate? For the International Land Coalition and similar organizations concerned with peoples’ resource rights, it is commonly recognized that governments have a responsibility to ensure that their laws are both coherent within their jurisdiction and consistent with international agreements to which they are a party. In legitimacy versus legality approach to public policy, governments are frequently found to have not harmonized old laws with the new, both within and across ministries. Is this mining law from the 19th century in harmony with related federal and provincial laws of the 21st century?
Around the world, legislative reform of the natural resource sector is undergoing rapid reform in respect to environmental protection, nuclear safety, and the downstream natural resource and watershed effects, resulting from chemical leaching, including mining residues. Canada has a mixed reputation in the mining sector. On the one hand Canada is recognized as an international leader in promoting environmental impact monitoring. On the other, Canadian mining companies operating abroad are frequently cited as examples of policies not being matched in practice.
The current land rights conflicts in Canada and rampant resource debates around the world, point to the need for a mining law that reflects the full body of resource and environmental laws and safeguards, including Canada’s voluntary or ratified international agreement in these domains. Furthermore, when approaching resource reform, it is noteworthy that the principles of free, prior and informed consent are increasingly considered as the basis for protecting the resource rights of landowners, users and tenants.
From press stories covering this Canadian situation, communities may be at risk of becoming divided over the economic promise that mining may offer. Yet, studies have indicated that mining generally results in only low levels of employment due to its high tech nature. The real increase in jobs is not where the mine is located but where the minerals are used, while the environmental consequences remain. Road building and infrastructure are one time investments and trucking generates few jobs. And, the few on-site jobs can quickly disappear due to the high price volatility of minerals. Additionally, a 2001 study found that Canadian taxpayers subsidized the mining industry by $13,095 per job created, funds that may have been used to stimulate alternative opportunities.
Mining is not neutral; it affects the entire territory – especially where the mineral is uranium. Mining on average takes 20 years to come on stream and may be postponed or cancelled if mineral values change or competition from richer deposits or lower labour costs makes other mining locations more attractive. For these twenty years other opportunities are likely to suffer. In a highly valued recreational area with a burgeoning property market, as in the case of this region of Canada, property values are likely to decline thus lowering the tax base. Whereas, the current growth in full-time residents, seasonal cottage owners and vacationers would seem to be a sustainable stimulant to the local economy. This appears to be the alternative to an uncertain, financial volatile, environmentally risky and socially divisive force among neighbours and local business people alike.
Climate change is among the international issues that are gaining much required attention. It would seem unimaginable that policy makers would be taken in by corporate “spin-doctors” suggesting that they should use risky technology to counter greenhouse gases when safe technologies exist.
This Canadian mining confrontation is of rising global interest. Whose interests will rise to the surface – the citizen or the corporation?
ARTICLE IN THE KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD
Lawyers attempt to force hand of justice; Want to see protesters brought to trial
Posted By Sue Yanagisawa
The Kingston Whig Standard October 5, 2007
Lawyers are still attempting to forestall contempt charges against protesters occupying a uranium-prospecting claim north of Sharbot Lake.
This morning, lawyers representing the Algonquins occupying the claim and Frontenac Ventures Corp., the company that holds rights to explore the area's mineral potential, will meet at Frontenac County Court House to try to broker a deal.
Late last week, Justice Douglas Cunningham endorsed the injunction sought by the company upholding Frontenac Ventures' "immediate, unfettered and unobstructed access to the subject property."
Within days, Frontenac Ventures filed notice it was seeking an order holding the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, five of their community leaders, Christian Peacekeeper David Milne of Belleville, local landowner Frank Morrison and unidentified Johns and James Doe in contempt of his order "by failing to end the occupation and/or leave the subject property."
As of yesterday, Cunningham's injunction was still in draft form.
Although Cunningham's injunction hadn't yet been filed with the court, after some preliminary discussion to tweak its terms, Frontenac's lawyer, Neal Smitheman, asked to proceed directly to trial on the allegations of contempt, which were first raised in relation to an interim injunction granted in late August by another judge.
Cunningham asked if it would be better to wait and proceed, if necessary, on his order: "It has not been issued. It has not been entered [with the court] and there's no direction to enforce," he pointed out.
Smitheman told him the parties were aware of his endorsement and said, "your endorsement has not been followed. Your endorsement is being ignored."
At previous court hearings where the prospect of contempt charges was raised, it was estimated that a trial would take five days. Neither of the lawyers representing the Algonquins came to court anticipating that they'd even be spending the night in Kingston.
Lawyers Christopher Reid, who represents the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Stephen Reynolds on behalf of Shabot Obaadjiwan, told the judge they weren't prepared to begin a trial immediately.
Reynolds said that Smitheman was "trying to jam through a contempt motion," on short notice and argued that his clients are entitled to call witnesses in their defense. He also told Cunningham that he hadn't prepared to cross-examine the police witnesses.
Smitheman proposes to call three members of the OPP's Aboriginal Response Team (ART), a recent initiative developed out of the Ipperwash Inquiry and aimed at building trust between native communities and the police force. Concerns have already been expressed for the future of the initiative if its members are compelled to testify.
Cunningham rose abruptly around 11:15 a.m. and directed the lawyers to join him in the jury deliberation room adjoining the courtroom.
Spectators in the courtroom were left for the rest of the day to speculate on what was happening behind closed doors.
For more of this article go to…
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=722502&auth=Sue+Yanagisawa
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Our soul energy
Now it all seems to come together, even here, out in the boonies, like my friend Marge jokes about the quietude, peace and the feeling of being totally cut-off in this area - even if standard offers won't be more than barely half a loonie per kilowatt hour for electricity produced by solar panels and communities still waste their money in paying off the dept of monopolistic and outdated energy suppliers - at least the media are now reporting on successful renovation and restructuring of a former almost monopolistic energy market - you guessed it, I am - once more - going to refer to my country of origin (I swear, when I left that place, I would have lol just thinking on how many times I would point it out as a role model in terms of change - now that thought will amuse many of my old-world friends), Germany. The CBC has just started to poke around, and I recommend their articles as a very good outlook from a Canadian point of view.
If you wanted to feel the heat as it comes up, you gotta move closer, though - this is my #1 Canadian change blog, Clean Break, refreshingly down to earth and non-ideological. Good ideas, ready for the market or not, as well as clear words addressing the political dimension of this game, every day. Click now and you will know what house you want to build, even if you never felt that you wanted one at all.
In case the Canadian public manages to be outraged enough (which is pretty unlikely but possible if you get the Irish going in the right direction), the uranium drilling nonsense north west of Perth and the completely over-projected 30 new nukes for Ontario may just be a catalyst for a quicker and more consequent move towards renewables, like wind, solar and so forth. Nuclear is not an option any more, as it never has and will never be affordable by its way of eradicating our natural supply once and for all and having the taxpayer foot the bill for incompetence or worse, in case of so many political representatives, ignorance, who really could have avoided the mess and still can, for instance by updating the mining legislation and giving home owners control over their land - not just its surface (how schizophrenic can the law get, or was somebody on the board of, let me guess, a mining company?)
The purpose of nuclear energy never seems to have been an abundant supply for everybody, just for the powerful few, who, in Germany, invested all that tax free reserve money dedicated to the safe deposit of nuclear waste (which is now leaking into a salt stock end dump in Gorleben, established at the time by incredibly ignorant politicians against better knowledge expressed in numerous geological discussions and street fighting resistance of the entire republic) - we're talking billions here - in the creation of cell phone companies - It seems in that way, much rather to resemble fascism: The accumulation of money and power in order to control everybody else. Good thing, that people are not that complacent any more.
Call it personal vanity, but I thought I'd share something else with you guys. This is from the home page of my band. I wrote that passage about 18 month ago, and with this nuclear discussion going on, it seems so right to have a close look at how renewables are about to avalanche into transforming society in a dimension, that may just well up tears in any freedom fighter's eyes. Only now, my fellow Ontarians, is the time to SPEAK UP. You are so close to catching up to the real deal, don't let anybody burden you with this supply panic. You have watched the sun beat down on even the coldest, driest January day - THAT is the only reliable source of energy on earth.
How about attending this fall's vote in Ontario (agencies open with the 27th of August, more info is here and here) and actually voting for a more proportional voting system (is it dawning on you now, that there is the referendum vote in a addition to the provincial polls)? The alternate voting system favors a second count of all votes together, so that small parties like the green party, who never have won any direct mandate, could still work in a parliamentary coalition - you will not be surprised to have me refer to Germany one more time here: Because that is exactly the way, how these ideas, which now account for the outlook of Germany being entirely powered by renewables by 2040, got introduced into the working committees of the German democracy.... and trust me, that used to be one resilient, slow grinding apparatus over there.
Got your Mojo running? Have fun reading some more then.
Modern technologies have incorporated the energy-efficiency demonstrated by mother nature. Renewable energy beats the fossils (good word, ain't it? ;) ) in many ways. Now is the time to educate the skilled trades to apply these life saving technologies. WHY? The least perceived is probably the fact, that THEY ARE ALL MORE EFFICIENT than the oldsters. The most political is, however, that THEY DECENTRALIZE THE CREATION OF ENERGY.
Now that is some powerful stuff. And the powerful realize that. It is quite immanent in human nature to see them fight their grounds. We just have to see it for what it is (doesn't the entire-oil-coal-nuclear-lobbyists-and-oh-so- willing-political-counter-parts-complex look like a dying dragon-dinosaur, which refuses to follow the flow of an ever changing evolution without condemning anybody and anything that came after it to die with it?). After all those years, still, we can't get no satisfaction from the bull crap that you call life, when after all, it's your life and that of the other corporations that is sucked right out of us.
It's been right from the sixties on to stand up for a better world. Now we know that THAT will be the only way to SAVE THIS PLANET for future generations. Looking at it, there's one thing to note about this second generation of hippies:
WE STILL WANT THE WHOLE F...ING BAKERY!"Remember - I can't vote here. So many others can't either. You can. The right to vote is a privilege - exercise it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)