Barrick Gold and the Western Shoshone: Millstone Award for April

Barrick Gold, a Canadian mining corporation, is conducting gold mining operations in Nevada. There is a problem: they are mining on the sacred lands of the Western Shoshone people, without their permission. In fact, they are also doing this in contravention of a recommendation by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), issued in early March.

An article posted on Oneworld reveals that CERD told the Canadian government to take "appropriate legislative or administrative measures to prevent the acts of transnational corporations on indigenous territories."

In addition,

The United States recognized Shoshone rights to their land under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the pact gave Washington trusteeship over tribal lands.

The federal government justified its position by saying that tribe members had abandoned traditional land tenure and practices and cited "gradual encroachment" by non-natives as evidence to claim much of the land as federal territory.

The Western Shoshone, in their petition to the UN panel, countered that "gradual encroachment" in fact took place as part of a U.S. policy to steal their lands, and that this constituted racism.

The Geneva-based panel agreed with the Shoshone by noting that Washington's claim to the land "did not comply with contemporary international human rights norms, principles, and standards that govern determination of indigenous property interests."

The Western Shoshone Defense Project posts an article discussing how Harry Reid and James Gibbons, both Nevadans, pushed the Western Shoshone Distribution Bill through the House on July 7, 2004. The Bill gave the Western Shoshone peoples $145 million in exchange for forcibly subsuming the rights to 24 million acres of land.

From Straightgoods, Canada's "leading independent online newsmagazine, "the US government has declared most of Shoshone territory to be federal public land open to resource extraction and other commercial activities. The treaty protecting the original Western Shoshone territory some 60 million acres from southern Idaho to California's Mojave Desert is still valid, but the government has gotten around the treaty by invoking a principle it calls "gradual encroachment." This legal tautology has been discredited by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, but the United States has ignored those findings...."

Reid, a Democrat, and Gibbons, a Republican, have much to answer for, as do all their colleagues in Congress who passed this bill. Christians, especially, cannot allow indigenous peoples' rights to be trampled upon, and their land siezed. We claim spiritual relationship to the Jews, who were forcibly removed from their native lands to Egypt, and systematically exploited. Our missionaries to the Americas, Carribean, and the Pacific Islands have been especially complicit in allowing, or even facilitating, the exploitation of the native peoples of those regions. We have helped make them strangers in their own lands. We must never forget, we are the immigrants here. And the least we can do is to hold ourselves, our corporations, and our leaders responsible.

Oxfam America has a link where you can email Barrick Gold here. While you're at it, Oxfam is involved in relief in Darfur, and could use donations and prayers. Read about it here.

Meanwhile, I realize I've been behind in the Millstone awards. This month's award goes to Barrick Gold and all the other gold mining corporations involved in mining operations on stolen native lands, and to the governments who facilitate that theft (here, the US and Canadian governments).

Millstone award for March: the Exxon Mobil corporation, the American Enterprise Institute, and Lee Raymond

The only hard part about this decision was stopping myself from moving the March award to very early in February, when the articles were posted. However, March's Millstone Award goes to Exxon Mobil, the American Enterprise Institute, and Lee Raymond. Raymond is the ex-CEO of Exxon Mobil, who got a $400 million handshake. He is also the vice-chair of the board of trustees of the AEI, which has received $1.6 million from Exxon Mobil.

I've previously posted articles indicating that there are signs of hope at Exxon Mobil. The company had previously funded some quack science groups that questioned the premise of global warming. They stopped funding some of these groups.

I also posted an article about a damning report on global warming released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They state that there is a 90% chance that global warming is caused by human activity.

The AEI is a conservative, pro-business think tank. I myself am pro-business. However, I also support human rights and environmental protection. These idiots do not. And it has come to light that the AEI tried to bribe IPCC scientists so that they would question the methods used in the climate change report. Ian Sample, the Guardian's science reporter, has this to say:

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

"The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012."

"The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."

"The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report."

Steve Hargreaves, a CNN Money staff writer, interviewed an Exxon Mobil spokesman, who had the gall to say that the company continues to donate to the AEI, but does not control what the group does, and that in fact, many corporations give to the AEI.

Well, I tell you what. I will call fire and judgment on ALL corporations or corporate-linked foundations who have given money to the AEI. But our friends at Exxon Mobil get the first blast.

According to Right Web, the following corporations/foundations are donors to these people as of late 06:
"According to People for the American Way, corporate donors to AEI have included the General Electric Foundation, Amoco, Kraft, Ford Motor Company Fund, General Motors Foundation, Eastman Kodak Foundation, Metropolitan Life Foundation, Procter & Gamble Fund, Shell Companies Foundation, Chrysler Corporation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, General Mills Foundation, Pillsbury Company Foundation, Prudential Foundation, American Express Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Corning Glass Works Foundation, Morgan Guarantee Trust, Alcoa Foundation, and PPG Industries. Wal-Mart is also a major contributor to AEI."

Finally, the AEI is also reputed to be very close to the Bush administration. Whereas the Iraq Study Group that Bush convened, and then ignored, tried to push in the direction of a diplomatic solution, the AEI's armchair generals pushed to send more troops. Bush is listening to them, although Congress may deny him.

Let's pray that they do, and let's pray that Exxon Mobil and the AEI come to face justice.

Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/02/a_bush_in_the_hand_is_priceless_for_aei.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?section=money_latest

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1431

Prayers for domestic partner benefits in Michigan, and the Millstone Award for February

In the 2004 elections, citizens of Michigan voted for Proposal 2: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

The first part of the proposal is already problematic. The second could have been read to ban domestic partner benefits. Right-wing legal groups later sued several public universities, seeking to get them to end DP benefits. The ACLU sued the state, seeking clarification. Ingham county's Circuit Court ruled that the amendment did not bar DP benefits. However, the right-wing people appealed, and our Appeals Court, which is known to lean conservative, ruled that the amendment: “prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose,” including the provision of employee health benefits.

Opinion polls generally reveal that Americans are perfectly OK with domestic partner benefits, although a majority want to keep marriage for opposite-sex couples. In other words, the amendment's results are NOT what ordinary Americans generally want. I am pretty sure that the people who worded the amendment did so knowing that this could happen, or intending that it happen.

Therefore, February's Millstone Award goes to the Michigan Family Forum, a primary supporter of Proposal 2. On their FAQ page (http://www.michiganfamily.org/special-protectmarr/documents/faq-prop2.htm), they claim the following:

"Q. Will this take away existing health benefits from children of same-sex partners?

A. No. While opponents claim this will be a significant problem, no child is in danger of losing benefits."

They were either stupid or lying. In fact, if they were lying, they possibly contradict themselves two questions later: "A. Legal experts disagree on how much this may restrict public universities. The Michigan Constitution grants universities significant autonomy to govern themselves through their elected Boards. It is reasonable to assume that state funds will be prohibited from from going to same-sex partner benefits while other funding sources, such as tuition, fees or donations, will be allowed to pay for same-sex partner benefits."

First, the case is going to the MI Supreme Court. Second, if I understand the law correctly, private businesses and organizations will not be prohibited from offering DP benefits; however, it is not certain how many choose to do so, and it's likely that public organizations are leading the way.

Meanwhile, people are likely to be deprived of domestic partner benefits. For reasons dating back to WWII, health insurance in the US is linked to employment. This arrangement is dysfunctional, and exists in no other industrialized country. Medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy, and bankruptcy can happen even to those with insurance.

As a result, this is a human rights issue. And so, whether they intended this or not, the Michigan Family Foundation and their allies receive February's Millstone Award.

Ordinary citizens of Michigan, frankly, are NOT off the hook. I know there is a lot of information out there, and that politics is very hard to keep track of. However, this amendment only got passed because people voted for it, and carelessness is no excuse. Citizens need to educate themselves and stay engaged and aware. If they don't, fiascoes like this one happen.

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/us/03michigan.html?ex=1171256400&en=50980921eb08869d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Back to fire and judgment: the monthly Millstone Awards
Millstone Award for January: Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria

Matthew 18:6 (NRSV): "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea."

As might be obvious, one major purpose of this blog is to call fire and judgment on violators of human rights and etc. Therefore, inspired by Playboy, I intend to write a monthly exposé on a person or group who has violated human rights etc, giving priority to people of faith.

And of course, an easy target is Peter Akinola of the Church of Nigeria. Akinola has been excoriated on this blog before, for supporting a bill that would criminalize any form of advocacy on by or on behalf of the LGBT community in Nigeria. More recently, an article was posted in the New York Times that gives further insight into Akinola's mind:

'The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done.

Archbishop Akinola, the conservative leader of Nigeria’s Anglican Church who has emerged at the center of a schism over homosexuality in the global Anglican Communion, re-enacted the scene from behind his desk Tuesday, shaking his head in wonder and horror.

“This man came up to me after a service, in New York I think, and said, ‘Oh, good to see you bishop, this is my partner of many years,’ ” he recalled. “I said, ‘Oh!’ I jumped back.”'

I believe that the person in question is Louie Crew, a long-time Episcopalian, advocate for LGBT rights in our church, and partnered for several decades with Ernest. In an article for The Witness, he elaborates on the incident:

'In July 2002, I was a lector at the Enthronment of Peter Akinola (Archbishop of the Anglican Province of Nigeria)at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York. Mark Sisk (Bishop of New York) invited Ernest and me, among many others, to his home to meet the archbishop at a reception afterward. The archbishop dashed to the other side of the room when I introduced him to Ernest at the punch bowl. Later in the reception Cathy Roskam (Bishop Suffragan of New York) called me over to engage the archbishop in conversation with me. Looking like a deer in headlights, he summoned an aide across the room and abruptly ended the conversation. Ernest had watched the latter scene from the doorway. "What did you say to him that put him into a panic?" he asked. "Nothing. He does not know you and me and he wants to keep it that way. Otherwise, he might have to feed my sheep."'


Based on this incident, I argue that Archbishop Akinola is engaging in a form of willful blindness. The definition of the legal theory of willful blindness as given by Wikipedia is as follows:

'Willful blindness is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable. For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were, and therefore lacked the requisite intent to break the law. Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package, and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out before delivering it.'


All Christians know that Jesus told us to love your neighbor as yourself. However, one does not love one's neighbor in a vacuum. You have to know someone before you love them. If they are from a heavily stigmatized group, as the Samaritan that Jesus used as an example of "neighbor" was, you have to get to know them past the stereotypes that you've learned.

Akinola is happy to contribute to the stigmatization of the LGBT community: "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things." Asked whether consecrating a bishop in the US violated the rules of the Anglican Communion (it most certainly does), he replied that he was merely sending a bishop to serve Anglicans where there is no church to provide one - the Episcopal Church isn't a church in his eyes. He has apparently tried to blame Islam for some of his actions: "The church is in the midst of Islam. Should the church in this country begin to teach that it is appropriate, that it is right to have same sex unions and all that, the church will simply die.”

And yet, he deliberately refuses to engage with the people who he thinks are violating God's commands. He runs from them, so that he won't have to feed their sheep. He treats children of God like an infestation, and tries to dehumanize them.

When the Syro-Phoenecian woman challenged Jesus, he came to see that she was just as much a child of God as anyone else. Akinola could have done the same with Louie Crew, but he willfully declined. Jesus deliberately touched and healed women with conditions that made them ceremonially unclean; he touched and healed lepers, which made him ceremonially unclean and put him at an actual health risk. Akinola could have followed Jesus' example, and stayed to talk to Louie. He chose to dehumanize Louie by running. He lost the opportunity that God gave him to engage with Louie as a real human being, with real needs.

If he gets another opportunity, I pray he takes it. If he does not, I don't think it will go very well for him on the Day of Judgment. Willful ignorance didn't work for Ken Lay in the Enron trial.

But whatever happens on the Day of Judgment, that day isn't now. Until then, we must break down stereotypes by educating those who have never met a gay person, or a person of color, or a person of whatever group. And we must pray for and challenge people like Peter Akinola.

http://www.thewitness.org/agw/crew042804jim.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/africa/25episcopal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=aead195648b4ea8e&ex=1167714000&emc=eta1

Credit to Father Jake's blog for citing both articles.