adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

King Charles: Will the Royal Family embrace reconciliation

Published

 on

On June 11, 2008, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized on behalf of Canada, for the many abuses Indigenous children suffered in residential schools.

On June 3, 2019, Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepted the findings of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which found Canada guilty of historic and ongoing genocide against Indigenous peoples, and particularly against Indigenous women and girls.

Last year, Pope Francis travelled to Canada to finally issue an apology to Indigenous peoples for the Catholic Church’s role in residential schools and then again in 2023 he officially repudiated the doctrine of discovery.

Reconciliation appears to be in full swing, except for the deafening silence from Queen Elizabeth II. With the coronation of King Charles III coming up, one has to wonder if the Royal Family will embrace reconciliation and offer a meaningful apology?

All this begs the question – should they apologize? To answer that question, it is important to remember that British officials had a major role to play in the violent colonization of what would later become Canada and engaged in wars to protect the lands and resources for their exploitation.

This so-called right of discovery was empowered by several papal bulls, or decrees, that authorized Christian nations to claim any non-Christian lands it “discovered,” later interpreted by American courts as a legal “doctrine of discovery.”

While there were a number of pre-confederation treaties signed between the Crown and Indigenous Nations, colonial officials acting on authority of the Crown, engaged in genocidal acts such as scalping bounties, starvation policies, and trapping “Indians” on reserves.

‘VAST WEALTH ACCUMULATED BY THE CROWN’

The Crown was the authority at that time and retained varying degrees of control and benefit for several hundred years thereafter. In fact, the vast wealth accumulated by the Crown was based on the theft of Indigenous lands and resources in all its colonies.

This massive theft was never authorized in any of the pre-Confederation treaties signed between Indigenous Nations and the Crown.

A United Nations study on treaties and agreements with Indigenous peoples found that European nations knew that by entering into treaties they were making an agreement with sovereign nations. It further concluded that an unbiased court would not hold up the alleged land surrenders, given the lack of informed consent.

In fact, the Dominion of Canada was not officially created until July 1, 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, and the Queen (and Kings and Queens before her) was considered the head of state for Canada and leader of the Church of England.

Even so, it’s important to remember that Canada was only granted independence from the British Parliament on April 17, 1982.

That means the Crown still had a significant amount of control over “its” colony for another 115 years.

Although Canada attempted to carve out its independence much earlier, by creating the Supreme Court of Canada in 1875, appeals could still be heard at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until 1949. That is not to say that Canada is absolved of responsibility for its genocidal laws, policies, and practices, instead it shares that responsibility with the Crown. In other words, they are jointly culpable.

  • The coronation of King Charles III reopens old wounds over slavery and colonialism

Indigenous Nations and the Crown entered into pre-Confederation treaties that contained provisions for the Crown-Indigenous relationship to continue into perpetuity, which included protection, support and other rights for their heirs and the heirs of their heirs forever.

Contrary to modern-day contract law where the length of a contract is specifically noted, in pre-Confederation treaties, there were no legal provisions by which either party could unilaterally end the treaty.

So, despite Britain granting Canada independence in 1982 under the assumption that treaty rights would respected, neither party fully recognized or respected Indigenous rights, which would kickstart decades of litigation against Indigenous peoples exercising those rights.

Yet, the issue of Indigenous-Crown relations was never truly resolved. It’s true that, in relation to these treaties between the Crown and Indigenous Nations, Lord Denning of the English Court stated that Canada’s Parliament should not “do anything to lessen the worth of these guarantees. They should be honoured by the Crown in respect of Canada.”

However, even Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, has acknowledged that treaty rights have been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

‘REPARATIONS ARE CLEARLY DUE’

So, treaties are unfinished business both in terms of the unilateral decisions made and the failure to uphold them. Reparations are clearly due.

Canada is on its path to reconciliation. It made an apology, authorized the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to conduct an inquiry into the abuses at residential schools and made a settlement agreement to provide some level of compensation.

Canada also authorized the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, accepted their findings and committed to an action plan to implement them – though apparently at a snail’s pace. It is hoped that there will be an apology and compensation for these women as well.

Even the Pope came to Canada and apologized, though the Vatican has not yet outlined their reconciliation plan or when and if reparations will be included.

It looks doubtful given their failure to even pay the amounts agreed to in the settlement agreement, but we will see. So, what about the new King? Will he start a new period for the Royal Family by apologizing for genocide committed against Indigenous peoples and provide reparations? In the words of the Magic 8 Ball – outlook not so good.

It’s not just Indigenous peoples here in Canada that have called for an apology and reparations. Barbados removed Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and became a republic two years ago. In 2022, Jamaica signalled its intention to become a republic by 2025.

After the Queen’s death, Caribbean islands have renewed their calls for reparations, especially in regards to slavery.

Other countries like the former British colony of India (undivided) want reparations for the drain of wealth from their country – to the tune of US$45 trillion.

Whether genocide, war, slavery, or theft of lands and resources or the vast wealth stolen by Britain in the name of Kings and Queens, it is long past time for reconciliation, apologies, and financial reparations.

The coronation ceremony for the new King will be held soon, in what could be an important opportunity to show some humility and speak to reconciliation moving forward.

Pamela Palmater is a Mi’kmaw lawyer specializing in Indigenous and human rights law. She is the chair in Indigenous governance at Toronto Metropolitan University.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Arizona voters guarantee the right to abortion in the state constitution

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters have approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access up to fetal viability, typically after 21 weeks — a major win for advocates of the measure in the presidential battleground state who have been seeking to expand access beyond the current 15-week limit.

Arizona was one of nine states with abortion on the ballot. Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion-rights supporters prevailed in all seven abortion ballot questions in 2022 and 2023, including in conservative-leaning states.

Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the state campaign, gathered well over the 383,923 signatures required to put it on the ballot, and the secretary of state’s office verified that enough were valid. The coalition far outpaced the opposition campaign, It Goes Too Far, in fundraising. The opposing campaign argued the measure was too far-reaching and cited its own polling in saying a majority of Arizonans support the 15-week limit. The measure allows post-viability abortions if they are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.

Access to abortion has been a cloudy issue in Arizona. In April, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the enforcement of a long-dormant 1864 law banning nearly all abortions. The state Legislature swiftly repealed it.

Voters in Arizona are divided on abortion. Maddy Pennell, a junior at Arizona State University, said the possibility of a near-total abortion ban made her “depressed” and strengthened her desire to vote for the abortion ballot measure.

“I feel very strongly about having access to abortion,” she said.

Kyle Lee, an independent Arizona voter, does not support the abortion ballot measure.

“All abortion is pretty much, in my opinion, murder from beginning to end,” Lee said.

The Civil War-era ban also shaped the contours of tight legislative races. State Sen. Shawnna Bolick and state Rep. Matt Gress are among the handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents in competitive districts who crossed party lines to give the repeal vote the final push — a vote that will be tested as both parties vie for control of the narrowly GOP-held state Legislature.

Both of the Phoenix-area lawmakers were rebuked by some of their Republican colleagues for siding with Democrats. Gress made a motion on the House floor to initiate the repeal of the 1864 law. Bolick, explaining her repeal vote to her Senate colleagues, gave a 20-minute floor speech describing her three difficult pregnancies.

While Gress was first elected to his seat in 2022, Bolick is facing voters for the first time. She was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to fill a seat vacancy in 2023. She has not emphasized her role in the repeal vote as she has campaigned, instead playing up traditional conservative issues — one of her signs reads “Bolick Backs the Blue.”

Voters rejected a measure to eliminate retention elections for state Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.

The measure was put on the ballot by Republican legislators hoping to protect two conservative justices up for a routine retention vote who favored allowing the Civil War-era ban to be enforced — Shawnna Bolick’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and Justice Kathryn Hackett King. Since the measure did not pass, both are still vulnerable to voter ouster, though those races hadn’t been decided by early Wednesday morning.

Under the existing system, voters decide every four to six years whether judges and justices should remain on the bench. The proposed measure would have allowed the judges and justices to stay on the bench without a popular vote unless one is triggered by felony convictions, crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, personal bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Voters back Nebraska’s ban on abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy and reject a competing measure

Published

 on

 

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska voters supported a measure Tuesday that enshrines the state’s current ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy in the state constitution, and they rejected a competing measure that sought to expand abortion rights. Nebraska was the first state to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to decide for themselves. The dueling measures were among a record number of petition-initiated measures on Nebraska’s ballot Tuesday.

What were the competing abortion measures?

A majority of voters supported a measure enshrining the state’s current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the state constitution. The measure will also allow for further restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed the 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman.

Voters rejected the other abortion measure. If they had passed it by a larger number of “for” votes than the 12-week measure, it would have amended the constitution to guarantee the right to have an abortion until viability — the standard under Roe that is the point at which a fetus might survive outside the womb. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Abortion was on the ballot in several other states, as well. Coming into the election, voters in all seven states that had decided on abortion-related ballot measures since the reversal of Roe had favored abortion rights, including in some conservative states.

Who is behind the Nebraska abortion measures?

The 12-week ban measure was bankrolled by some of Nebraska’s wealthiest people, including Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who previously served as governor and donated more than $1.1 million. His mother, Marlene Ricketts, gave $4 million to the cause. Members of the Peed family, which owns publishing company Sandhills Global, also gave $1 million.

The effort was organized under the name Protect Women and Children and was heavily backed by religious organizations, including the Nebraska Catholic Conference, a lobbying group that has organized rallies, phone banks and community townhalls to drum up support for the measure.

The effort to enshrine viability as the standard was called Protect Our Rights Nebraska and had the backing of several medical, advocacy and social justice groups. Planned Parenthood donated nearly $1 million to the cause, with the American Civil Liberties Union, I Be Black Girl, Nebraska Appleseed and the Women’s Fund of Omaha also contributing significantly to the roughly $3.7 million raised by Protect Our Rights.

What other initiatives were on Nebraska’s ballot?

Nebraska voters approved two measures Tuesday that will create a system for the use and manufacture of medical marijuana, if the measures survive an ongoing legal challenge.

The measures legalize the possession and use of medical marijuana, and allow for the manufacture, distribution and delivery of the drug. One would let patients and caregivers possess up to 5 ounces (142 grams) of marijuana if recommended by a doctor. The other would create the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which would oversee the private groups that would manufacture and dispense the drug.

Those initiatives were challenged over allegations that the petition campaign that put them on the ballot broke election rules. Nebraska’s attorney general said supporters of the measures may have submitted several thousand invalid signatures, and one man has been charged in connection with 164 allegedly fraudulent signatures. That means a judge could still invalidate the measures.

Voters also opted Tuesday to repeal a new conservative-backed law that allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund private school tuition.

Finally, they approved a measure that will require all Nebraska employers to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to their employees.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Abortion rights advocates win in 7 states and clear way to overturn Missouri ban but lose in 3

Published

 on

WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.

Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.

The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states.

They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action.

In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame.

But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment.

“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement.

Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases.

Bans remain in place in three states after votes

Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.

The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure.

The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away.

“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.”

In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it.

Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights.

Other states guaranteed abortion rights

Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced.

In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it.

It’s a similar situation in Montana, where abortion is already legal until viability.

The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care.

A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure.

The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates

Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.

The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral.

Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans.

The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor.

The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found.

___

Associated Press reporters Hannah Fingerhut and Amanda Seitz contributed to this article.

___

This article has been corrected to reflect in the ‘other states’ section that Montana, not Missouri, currently allows abortion until viability.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending