site created by noosworx.com
Licence Links
Submit
Licence Links
Submit
site created by noosworx.com
Williams Lake Tribune - May 14, 2012
Editor:
The word is out that the CEO of Taseko Mines has asked that during the upcoming New Prosperity hearings that First Nations be somewhat tempered in their drumming.
One problem that I note with spontaneous drumming is that there is no explanation regarding the purpose of the drumming, at the recent New Prosperity presentation, without warning or prior explanation, and unexpectedly and again without warning outside the door of the Gibraltar Room. The drumming very loudly interrupted the presentation. We are told that this drumming is part of First Nations spiritual heritage. This is fair and quite understandable. As with all groups there are differing ways to request that a guiding spirit be present with such a presentation.
Most non-natives are in the dark, however, and do not understand what exactly the drummers are drumming about, or exactly why. If drumming is a spiritual prayer, understandable to First Nations culture, First Nations, prior to such drumming need to have a person share an explanation and enlighten those in attendance exactly the purpose of the drumming.
As a comparison, at any public function should an individual stand up and make a loud boisterous religious preaching scene, spiritual or otherwise, that individual would very likely be ejected from the proceedings. How does unexpected drumming differ?
It seems to me that it be only fair to all who attend public functions where First Nations may be inclined to drum, including the upcoming New Prosperity hearings, that prior to the start of the drumming that someone from the First Nations explain the purpose of the drumming, prior to drumming, so that all in attendance can better understand the spiritual significance of their drumming, and that the drumming prayer not be so long that it overtly stifles or interferes with normal and acceptable democratic proceedings.
In this predominantly Christian world, most people would understand, and if not bow their heads, at least would sit quietly and respectively during the process of a drumming prayer. It behooves the First Nations to make it clear by spoken word prior to spontaneous drumming what exactly they are praying or drumming about, or for.
Doug Wilson
Williams Lake
Williams Lake Tribune - May 14, 2012
Editor:
Russell Hallbauer’s recent letter submitted to the environment minister projects more than caution, but desperation, paranoia, and fear.
It reflects the colonizing efforts made by the company to reduce indigenous people’s participation in the process.
Of the two arguments established, the first focuses on the extent that First Nations are categorically biased and can never be objective; the second implies that the previous panel gave “priority status” to First Nations perspectives, which influenced the decision.
First, Taseko Mines already requested Ms. Nalaine Morin be recused from the former panel for her advocacy role with the Talhtan Heritage Resources Environmental Assessment Team, saying she may be “biased.” An independent law firm reviewed this and the report determined that a bias did not exist with the evidence filed. While Hallbauer’s doubt lingers, it exists also amongst First Nations, who believe that panel members who have benefited financially from mining before may be tainted as biased towards the industry they once profited from. So it’s near impossible to rely on pure objectivity.
Second, Hallbauer raises concerns that the panel may have given special treatment to the Tsilhqot’in and Secwepmec communities. Considering prayers and songs before a meeting has been a long-standing custom.
It seems disrespectful for an outsider, whether the panel members or Taseko Mines executives, to come into a host community and demand unilaterally what the formalities should be. As if Hallbauer knew anything about aboriginal rights, it appears he somehow forgot that the Crown is legally obliged to accommodate the interests of First Nations through every step of the decision-making process.
While this rarely comes to fruition with satisfaction, the accommodation of the host country’s customs should be welcomed.
Hallbauer’s letter reflects his colonizer status, and it appears he hopes to convince the minister that domination and bullying is normal. It appears again that Taseko Mines is not interested in any relationship with the people who belong to the land.
Russell Myers
Williams Lake
Keeping Watch: Prosperity Mine - May 11, 2012
Helping oppose Taseko Mines’ proposed Prosperity Mine in the Southwest Chilcotin.
10. Plenty of Non-Fish Mine Proposals In The Stream Already
There are many other more worthy projects to be pursued – the vast majority of which, if not all will require working with aboriginal communities. Natural Resources Canada estimates there is $350 billion-$500 billion worth of such potential projects in Canada. Governments, industry and investors do not need to go backwards by pushing this confrontational proposal and rebuffing efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system that would benefit everyone in the long run.
http://prosperity-mine-vs-fish-lake.blogspot.ca/2012/05/prosperity-mine-more-things-change.html
100 Mile Free Press - May 9, 2012
To the editor:
Expecting a piece that would at least acknowledge the wide range of stakeholders and concerns associated with the proposed Prosperity Mine, I instead found the Free Press April 25 cover story, headlined Prosperity meeting packed Valley Room, to read more like a Taseko Mines press junket than an example of competent journalism.
The article amounts to little more than pro-mine propaganda: 10 paragraphs solely devoted to re-enforcing the rhetoric of a mine representative, including suggestions as absurd as that of Taseko Mines caring about the interests of British Columbians over those of its own shareholders.
This was followed by reactions mostly from individuals who, as owners of The Hills Health Ranch or Cedar Crest apartments, presumably hope to make direct financial gains should the mine proceed.
After reading the article again several times, I couldn’t find a single sentence that wasn’t completely aligned with the interests of the Prosperity mine.
The inarguable bottom line is Prosperity’s overarching purpose is to make its shareholders lots of money through the exploitation of B.C.’s natural resources. Local residents seldom factor highly in this sort of capitalism.
The format of the meeting, one that attempted to keep community members, such as Gordon Hoglund, from expressing their concerns publicly, clearly demonstrates that Taseko Mines was not trying to engage in an earnest discourse with meeting attendants, but rather to manipulate them to suit its own goals.
Undoubtedly, other 100 Mile residents, including the ones who prevented Mr. Hoglund from meaningfully participating in the community “meeting,” also hope to cash in through some abstract promise of trickle-down profit sharing.
Though they selfishly ignore the aboriginal, environmental, and long-term socioeconomic implications of the Prosperity proposal, it is their right to so.
However, it is completely unacceptable for the 100 Mile House Free Press to publish articles that stoop to a similar level of bias.
Canadian, non-editorial journalism is based on fundamental guidelines of fairness and impartiality. This article is an example of a blatant violation of these ethical standards in the name of the shortsightedness and greed that is not the solution to the Interior’s economic problems, but rather the root cause of them.
Andrew Packham
100 Mile House
Williams Lake Tribune - May 6, 2012
Editor:
Esk’etemc Nation is shocked and disappointed at Taseko’s call to the government to ban any exercise of aboriginal cultural and spirituality during the New Prosperity federals review panel.
The behaviour of Taseko Mines demonstrates a fundamental lack of willingness to understand First Nations concerns about the effects of the New Prosperity project on aboriginal rights and title.
Taseko’s call to the Crown to ban First Nations’ prayers and ceremonies from the federal review panel is not just offensive to First Nations but is an attempt to belittle the sacred relationship First Nations have with our lands, which provides us with our identity as aboriginal peoples. It is also another attempt by Taseko to proceed as if we weren’t even here.
At the most basic level our ability as First Nations people to survive is dependent on the lands and waters providing us with the necessities of life. How we govern our communities comes from a place of thanksgiving to the Creator for providing us with the lands and resources we need to exercise our rights for survival.
The attempted interference by Taseko with First Nations’ participation in the review, however, is nothing new to the aboriginal communities involved in the fight to protect their lands and waters from destruction. For Esk’etemc, the comments made by Taseko simply display the reason that the New Prosperity project is doomed to fail from the aboriginal perspective: Taseko has again designed the project without talking to First Nations, and is acting as if First Nations don’t exist. The EIS is soon to be done, but Esk’etemc Nation has yet to be asked by Taseko for its views on how the project will affect its rights.
Taseko’s approach is based on the false presumption that the project will not devastate our culture, and will not result in significant losses which cannot be accommodated. Instead, Taseko is content to ignore the impacts to our ability as aboriginal peoples to maintain a spiritual connection to our lands and waters, which is integral to our concepts of ownership and the exercise of our rights. There is no honour in that.
Chief Fred Robbins
Esk’etemc
This Earth Focus report sheds light on the struggle of the Tsilhqot’in and Xeni Gwet’in people of British Columbia, Canada to stop the construction of Prosperity Mine, a gold and copper mine proposed by Taseko Mines Ltd. The mine would destroy Fish Lake (Teztan Biny), a body of water held held sacred by the Tsilhqot’in and Xeni Gwet’in people. The Lake is part of a pristine watershed that runs to the Fraser River. Featuring the film Blue Gold made by Canadian filmmaker Susan Smitten and her team to document the impact of the proposed mine on the environment and the cultural heritage of British Columbia’s native people. An Earth Focus original report in collaboration with R.A.V.E.N (Respecting Aboriginal Values and Environmental Needs), a Canadian charitable organization.
<iframe src=”http://archive.org/embed/linktv_earth2012012017” width=”640” height=”480” frameborder=”0”></iframe>
Helping oppose Taseko Mines’ proposed Prosperity Mine in the Southwest Chilcotin.
Compensation for 2009Salary$450,000.00 Bonus$0.00 Restricted stock awards$0.00 All other compensation$0.00 Option awards $$1,356,550.00 Non-equity incentive plan compensation$225,000.00 Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings$223,960.00 Total Compensation$2,255,510.00
In a letter to federal environment minister Peter Kent, Taseko president Russell Hallbauer complained last November that the “fairness and objectivity” of that the first panel review was tainted by allowing a first nations activist to sit on the panel.The panel gave “priority status to the interests and perspectives” of first nations by allowing aboriginal prayer ceremonies at the opening of the hearings, he wrote. And science was given short shrift when the panel allowed a group of kindergarten children to present a play “in which the children wore fish cut-outs on their heads, moved around the floor, and then all fall over simultaneously, symbolizing the death of the fish.” Globe and Mail
thestar.com - April 17, 2012
