U.S. District Court-Reno will rule on Western Shoshones case against Canada's Barrick Gold Corporation and the U.S. Department of Interior

On 12 November 2008 the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management published a Record of Decision and approved a Plan of Operation for a large gold extraction operation on Mt. Tenabo in Nevada.  In response Western Shoshone bands have filed a complaint pleading for relief in the U.S. District Court-Reno. The Shoshone, which practice a land-based religion, alledge that Mt. Tenabo is a sacred religious site. Nevada's economy is experiencing a downturn and with gaming revenues down the new mining operation may seem like good news to many people in Nevada and Washintgon, D.C.

In October 2008 the U.S. Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management published in the Federal Register the Notice of Availability in accrodance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq).

Notice of Availability

In November 2008 the U.S. Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management published a Record of Decision permitting the opening for one of the largest open pit cyanide heap leach gold mines in the United States.   

Record of Decision and Plan of Operation Approval

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) has published two papers relevant to indigenous peoples under the heading of "Identities, Conflict and Cohesion".

The papers are:
Natural Gas, Indigenous Mobilization and the Bolivian State

Transnational Governmentality and Resource Extraction: Indigenous Peoples, Multinational Corporations, Multinational Institutions and the State.

Both papers can bee downloaded from the UNRISD website.
Download is free, but requires user registration.

Upcoming United States Supreme Court decision may have serious consequences on Indigenous Women who are victims of domestic violence in the US

The United States Supreme Court has recently heard oral argument in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family (2008), and an unthoughtful ruling may have unintended consequences. While this is a case involving bank loans by a non-Indian corporation to members of an Indian tribe, the outcome could seriously affect the ability of tribes to deal with domestic violence by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country. This situation is due in part to the Supreme Court's Montana decision setting forth a test in determing if a tribe has civil jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian Country.

Professor Melissa Tatum published an op-ed piece in the Tulsa World (reprinted in Native American Times) regarding the issue of how the ruling in the Plains case could have negative, unintended impacts on Indigenous battered-women in the United States. Tatum, formerly Co-Director of the University of Tulsa's Native American Law Center, is Associate Director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy (IPLP) Program at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law replacing James Anaya who has been named the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples.

Tatum states in her article, "[d]omestic violence is a widespread problem, and it is particularly acute for Indian women. U.S. government statistics show that Indian women are two and one-half times more likely to be the victim of violent crime; one in three American Indian women will be raped in their lifetime; three of four will be physically assaulted, and Indian women are stalked at a rate more than double that of any other population. Well over 75% of the perpetrators of these crimes are non-Indian."

Read her op-ed piece here.
The Plains case court transcript can be found here.
Listen to oral arguments here.

Read Amnesty International's Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Violence here.

United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs holds oversight hearing to examine Federal declinations to prosecute crimes in Indian Country

Watch this oversight hearing held on 18 September 2008. Hear about an issue in the United States regarding the federal justice system's struggle to deal effectively with crime in Indian Country. The federal government is under the self-proclaimed duty to handle criminal cases of non-Indians (and some Indians) committing crimes on indian lands. It has become a difficult situation made possible by two certain actions taken by the United States government.

The Congress (with signature from the President) played a major role in the usurping of tribal jurisdiction over crimes that happen on their territory. The Major Crimes Act of 1885 (18 U.S.C. § 1153 or MCA) declared to the tribes they could no longer handle serious offense cases no matter the Indian v. non-Indian distinction. Many felonius crimes, such as murder, kidnapping and robbery, occurring on the reservation would now be federal responsibility. Many say this was done because the government did not believe tribes were prepared to handle liberal criminal procedure.

A century later the United States Supreme Court decided Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) finding Indian tribes cannot prosecute or sentence non-Indians committing any crime in Indian Country (regardless of its seriousness). Generally, that is still the rule.

The link here takes you to the Video Webcast of the important oversight hearing held by the Senate in fall of 2008 where two Panels made of six witnesses give testimony on their post-MCA and Oliphant experiences. Some panelists believe there should be more jurisdiction recognized in the tribe, another makes the case there is no problem with how the federal government is handling their responsibility and that there is not widespread declining of criminal cases from Indian Country.

Indigenous peoples and the HDI in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States

A research article, entitled "Indigenous well-being in four countries: An application of the UNDP's Human Development Index to Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States" is available online. The article compares the HDI, based on health (life expectancy), education (literacy) and economic standard of living (GDP per capita) between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in the four countries. It finds that there is a significant gap in all four countries, although the gap has narrowed somewhat in Canada, New Zealand and the United States. However, the HDI gap widened in Australia between 1990 and 2000.

The paper is available on the BMC International Health and Human Rights website.

Collective land rights in Panama

The Commission on Indigenous Isues of the Panamanian National Assembly approved law no. 411, which recognizes collective land rights of indigenous peoples in 48 municipalities. According to an article in prensa.com (see link below), this legislature will benefit the Kuna, Emberá, Wounaan, Ngöbe and Buglé peoples.

Tierras colectivas van para segundo debate

Inuit Language Protection Act approved in Nunavut

The Inuit Language Protection Act was approved on 18 September 2008 by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.

News Release from the Government of Nunavut
Backgrounder
News item from CBC Canada