John Barry And Kerri Woods: The Importance Of Sustainability

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

The concept of social justice, and the environment have always been under great threat. However is it possible to mend the two, combine them together, in order to create an equal atmosphere and a sustainable society? The majority of the population have always wanted to prevent the minority in gaining their rights in fear of losing their power, and the nature conquerors have disregarded the wilderness’ needs in fear of losing their profit. Environmental activists and advocates have sought to bridge the gap between the complicated and divisive relationship between the natural world and the advancing technological world. Rebecca Solnit, Wendell Berry, and John Muir all recognize the explicit relationship between social justice and the respect for the natural world.

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal people have changed significantly during the 20th century after facing many years of neglect and inequalities. In that time, change in indigenous rights and freedoms was brought about as a result of government policies, political activism and legal changes.

One of Canada’s priorities in regards to Arctic Sovereignty should be to protect the Inuit people not only because they are experiencing a loss in culture, but the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty also declares that the Inuit have rights to the resources and the land upon which they live on.

Human rights - they are an ongoing issue in the world today, with the constant struggle against violation. The United Nations has accepted 30 articles on human rights, which help protect millions from political, social, and legal abuses (UDHR). Even with the insistence from the world’s leaders to follow and honor these rights, violation is common and provides a serious threat to people all over the world. One example of a violation of human rights such as equality and safety in possessions is shown through the issue of Japanese American internment camps (UDHR).

Environmental justice links a number of social movements—anti-racism, Aboriginals rights, and the mainstream environmental movement—and addresses the problem of environmental racism (Gosine & Teelucksignh, 2008, p. 11). The concept of environmental justice in the U.S was associated with the struggles over toxic waste sites and the call for equal treatment of all communities, radicalized or not (p. 9). It was about looking at human health rather than preserving areas deemed as “playgrounds for the rich.”

The First Nations people of Canada have a long list of treaty rights, as well as many undefined aboriginal rights, from their right to hunt and fish on their land to housing and annuities. However, it’s not all gift-giving and sunshine; while the government of Canada is supposed to respect their rights to hunt on their land and the right to hold title to their land, there are many disputes such as the Ron Sparrow case and the Oka Crisis that show that the Aboriginal peoples’ inherent rights are not always respected, with cases such as that of Don Marshall that show that the government might not exactly be on the First Nation’s side.

Certain environmental justice frameworks attempt to turn the dominant environmental paradigm on its head and seek to prevent environmental threats before they occur. This paradigm is known as the Precautionary

According to this article, aboriginal societies are being greatly affected by climate change and global warming. Many small tribes are in serious danger, faced with a choice to either move and become assimilated into the urban culture, or stay where they are and die out. Neither of these options are particularly appealing, which means something else needs to be done, on a larger scale.

A few decades ago, the notion that nature had legal standing with the same rights as people existed on the fringes of the environmental movement. But as a recent spate of legal decisions show, attitudes towards ecological systems are changing.

Human rights are the rights one has simply by virtue of being human. They are the “highest moral rights, they regulate the fundamental structures and practices of political life, and in ordinary circumstances they take priority over other moral, legal, and political claims” (Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice, 2003). A right must be recognized by other people to exist, and must be secured through human action. It is an entitlement premised on a widely held set of beliefs about the nature of the entitlement; even if it is not recognized in law, a right emerges from a moral or ideological belief (Berger, 1981). One of the most sophisticated human rights legal law in the world has been established by Canadians. Canadians largely defined rights as civil liberties during the 1940s and 1950s, which meant fundamental freedoms such as speech, association, assembly, religion, press, due process and voting were recognized. Rhetoric surrounding discrimination was largely confined to racial, religious and ethnic discrimination at this time. Today however, the language of rights has now been broadened and appropriated to include an extraordinary range of issues. Discrimination is now banned in Canadian human rights law on the basis of race, religion, color, creed, sex (sexual harassment, pregnancy), age, place of origin, nationality, physical and mental disability, marital status, pardoned conviction, sexual orientation, family status and others. The rights of Aboriginal

This Thursday, I was asked to read and present on Humphreys' chapter 2. I hope to bring forth some things that were not said in discussion, but some repetition is necessary to recap the main argument. Essentially, Simon Caney, the author of this piece, argues that a human rights approach is a useful way to think about climate change, and that it covers territory that other approaches do not. He spends some time talking about what human rights are, defining them as: "moral thresholds to which all individuals are entitled, simply by virture of their humanity, and which override all other moral values." This is a satisfactory defintion, and fits what we have discussed in class. Caney also talks about positive vs negative rights. Negative means the government cannot infringe, positive means the

In the peer-reviewed journal, “Indigenous Peoples and Multicultural Citizenship: Bridging Collective and Individual Rights,” Cindy L. Holder and Jeff J. Corntassel discuss the revaluation, problems, and restrictions of existing human rights instruments while examining the liberal-individualist and corporatist perspectives. This journal was written in response to the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was “ …. a milestone for universal legal protection of individuals” (Holder and Corntassel 126). When the existing human right means were reexamined due to the anniversary, there were several problems that arose. First, there is the absence of promoting universal acceptance of group rights when compared to

Robert Solow precisely talks about the irony of definition and the conflicts it represents in the case of definition presented by UNESCO and other entities. In the paper he says that "sustainability is an essentially vague concept, and it would be wrong to think of it as being precise, or even capable of being precise." He quotes “Pretty clearly the notion of sustainability is just about a moral obligation that we are supposed to have for future generations.” But you can’t be morally obligated to do something that is not feasible. The best solution- is to conduct ourselves so that we leave to the future the option or capacity to be as well off as we are. Sustainability-does not mean not satisfying ourselves by impoverishing our

Both examples illustrate the unique challenges climate change creates for indigenous people and traditional ways of life. As sovereign nations, these indigenous communities have the power to adopt or ratify climate agreements without the approval of the United States which would alter the protections afforded to them. There is also the potential that members would be considered refugees rather than internally displaced persons, if they are forced out of traditional tribe borders.