Freedom of fascist expression

Monday, December 10, 2007

Indigenous barred from UN Climate Negotiations in Bali

Indigenous Peoples Protest UNFCCC Indigenous Peoples shut out of Climate Change Negotiations

By Indigenous Environment Network

PHOTOS BY: Benjamin Powless, Mohawk, Six Nations, Ontario, Canada, IEN Indigenous Youth Network representative (Double click on photos to enlarge)

NUSA DUA, Bali, Indonesia- Indigenous peoples representing regions from around the world protested outside the climate negotiations today wearing symbolic gags that read UNFCCC, the acronym of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, symbolizing their systematic exclusion from the UN meeting.
Yesterday a delegation of indigenous peoples was forcibly barred from entering the meeting between UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer and civil society representatives, despite the fact that the indigenous delegation was invited to attend. This act is representative of the systematic exclusion of indigenous peoples in the UNFCCC process.
"There is no seat or name plate for indigenous peoples in the plenary, nor for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the highest level body in the United Nations that addresses indigenous peoples rights," stated Hubertus Samangun, the Focal Point of the Indigenous Peoples delegation to the UNFCCC and the Focal Point for English Speaking Indigenous Peoples of the Global Forest Coalition.
"Indigenous peoples are not only marginalized from the discussion, but there is virtually no mention of indigenous peoples in the more that 5 million words of UNFCCC documents," argued Alfred Ilenre of the Edo People of Nigeria.
This is occurring despite the fact that indigenous peoples are suffering the most from climate change and climate change mitigation projects that directly impact their lands.
Indigenous peoples are here in Bali to denounce the false solutions to climate change proposed by the United Nations such as carbon trading, agrofuels and so-called "avoided deforestation" that devastate their lands and cause human rights violations.
"This process has become nothing but developed countries avoiding their responsibilities to cut emissions and pushing the responsibility onto developing countries," stated Fiu Mata'ese Elisara-Laula, of the O Le Siosiomaga Society of Samoa. "Projects like REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing countries) sound very nice but they are trashing our indigenous lands. People are being relocated and even killed; my own people will soon be under water. That's why I call the money from the projects blood money," he added.
Marcial Arias of the Kuna People of Panama reminded the international community that indigenous peoples' right to participate was recognized in the Earth Summit in 1992 and reaffirmed this year. "On September 13th of this year, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [1] which enshrines the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories and environment. It is precisely these rights recognized by the UN itself that the UNFCCC is violating," he explained.

Read more ...

http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2007/12/indigenous-peoples-barred-from-un.html

Securing the Free World from Radical Christian Terrorists

Lakota Sioux Indians Declare Sovereign Nation Status

Lakota Sioux Indian representatives declared sovereign nation status on Wednesday, December 19th in Washington D.C. following Monday’s withdrawal from all previously signed treaties with the United States Government. The withdrawal, hand delivered to Daniel Turner, Deputy Director of Public Liaison at the State Department, immediately and irrevocably ends all agreements between the Lakota Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States Government outlined in the 1851 and 1868 Treaties at Fort Laramie, Wyoming.

“This is an historic day for our Lakota people,” declared Russell Means, Itacan of Lakota. “United States colonial rule is at its end!”

“Today is a historic day and our forefathers speak through us. Our Forefathers made the treaties in good faith with the sacred Canupa and with the knowledge of the Great Spirit,” shared Garry Rowland from Wounded Knee. “They never honored the treaties, that’s the reason we are here today.”

Lakota Freedom Delegation | Lakota Withdrawal Letter, December 17, 2007 | Declaration of Continuing Independence (June, 1974

JAN 1, 2008

Notice to All Foreign Governments and Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah

TO:

The United States of America;

The States of: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska;

The County and Municipal Governments Operating within the Republic of Lakotah; and All Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah

Lakotah, through its government, have appointed representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America.

Lakotah, through such representatives, have formally withdrawn from all agreements and treaties with the United States of America. The reinstitution of our freedom and independence is found in law.

Lakotah has reclaimed sovereignty as a nation and over its traditional lands.

Despite many years of repeated bad faith on the part of the United States government towards the Lakotah People, the Lakotah hold no animosity toward the American people, most of whom have had no part in the actions of their government. We wish to deal with the American people in good faith and in a win-win manner.

While we have the right to impose liens on all of the real estate in our country, we prefer to come to resolutions with you all with out resorting to such measures. Accordingly, at this time, we are only declaring liens on real estate held by governments foreign to the Republic of Lakotah, but not on real estate held by private parties.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties substantiate this freedom.

Neo Fascism

Neoliberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoliberalism refers to a political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty. The movement is sometimes described as an effort to revert to the economic policies of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberalism.^[1

The standard neoliberal policy package includes cutting back on taxes and government social spending; eliminating tariffs and other barriers to free trade; reducing regulations of labor markets, financial markets, and the environment; and focusing macroeconomic policies on controlling inflation rather than stimulating the growth of jobs




Economists remind us that free markets are theoretically efficient, not fair,^[21] and this distinction is a foundation of the critique of neoliberalism. Opponents critique neoliberalism's effects on wages, working class institutions, inequality, social mobility, working class well-being, health, the environment, and democracy. Notable opponents to neoliberalism in theory or practice include economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Robert Pollin,^[22] linguist Noam Chomsky,^[23] geographer David Harvey,^[24] the anti-globalization movement in general, including groups such as ATTAC



. “Since the 1990's activists use the word 'neoliberalism' for global market-liberalism ('capitalism') and for free-trade policies. In this sense, it is widely used in South America.”^[25] Throughout most countries in the world, neo-liberalism and globalization are considered to be tangible to one another. A lot of people often confuse the two and are so thought to be interchangeable with one another. “Free markets and global free trade are not new, and this use of the word ignores developments in the advanced economies…Neoliberalism is not just economics: it is a social and moral philosophy, in some aspects qualitatively different from liberalism.”^[26

The massive U.S. military-industrial complex adds an extra layer of repression to working class "traumatization," according to David Harvey (2005), making resistance seem unfeasible to most workers. A "traumatized" working class allows the capitalist class absolute reign, which Harvey claims – citing the economic crises of 1873 and the 1920s – to be disastrous for economies around the globe, states, and working class people; though, he points out, on average capitalists were not negatively impacted by these crises.^[34

Critics of neoliberalism examine the political foundations of the neoliberal project as well as its economic foundations. One of the most famous moments in neoliberal political history occurred when then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan's advisors had him deregulate the thrift industry. This was promoted with the claim that a gigantic bonanza of growth and investment was sure to follow. Reagan signed the deregulation bill in 1982, saying, "All in all, I think we've hit the jackpot." Columnist Joe Conason has argued that "The best reckoning of the costs of his benign intentions is a trillion dollars." ^[39] While Reagan and the United Kingdom's Margaret Thatcher laid the groundwork for what Alan Greenspan called working class "traumatization", through eliminating collective assets by sales to the private sector, enacting policies to diminish labor unions, and promoting militarization, other politicians have steadily continued the neoliberal tradition.

According to Pollin (2003), neoliberalism under the U.S. Bill Clinton administration – steered by Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin – was the temporary and unstable policy inducement of economic growth via government-supported financial and housing market speculation, with low unemployment, but also with low inflation. This unusual coincidence was made possible by the disorganization and dispossession of the American working class.^[40] Berkeley sociologist Angela Davis has argued and Princeton sociologist Bruce Western has shown that the astonishingly high rate of incarceration in the U.S. (1 out of every 37 American adults is in the prison system), heavily promoted by the Clinton administration, is the neoliberal U.S. policy tool for keeping unemployment statistics low, and stimulating economic growth through maintaining a contemporary slave population within the U.S. and promoting prison construction and militarized policing.^[41]

Harvey (2005) sums up neoliberalism as a global capitalist class power restoration project. Neoliberalism, he explains, is a theory of political-economic practices that dedicates the state to championing private property rights, free markets, and free trade, while deregulating business and privatizing collective assets. Ideologically, neoliberals promote entrepreneurialism as the normative source of human happiness. Harvey also considers neoliberalization a form of capitalist "creative destruction", a Schumpeterian concept.^[42

Harvey (2000) observes that neoliberalism has become hegemonic world-wide, sometimes by coercion. Opponents of neoliberalism argue that neoliberalism is the implementation of global capitalism through government/military interventionism to protect the interests of multinational corporations. Even neoliberal proponent Thomas Friedman has argued approvingly, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist."^[43] In its commitment to belligerent capitalism, neoliberalism is linked to neoconservatism. In fact other critics argue that not only is neoliberalism's critique of socialism wrong but that it cannot deliver the liberty that is supposed to be one of its strong points.<sup>[44

]</sup>.