And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EXCERPTS FROM
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:02:46 -0400
From: LISN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: League of Indigenous Sovereign Nations of the Western Hemisphere
Subject:
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:19:33 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Forwarded by John Hirzy/DC/USEPA/US on 05/20/99 10:19 AM
---------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/19/99 12:33:50 PM
NEWS RELEASE
May 19, 1999
Contact: Jeff Green
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
2425 Third Avenue,
San Diego, CA 92110
Los Angeles Citizens
(800) 728-3833
For Safe Drinking Water
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.O. Box 55335
Sherman Oaks, CA 91413
(818) 780-3330 -- Paul Borraccia
Potential for Fluoride Poisoning Affects
Everyone in Fluoridated Countries
L.A. Avoids Court Confrontation
Claims to Abandon Fluoridation Until August
With last-minute action on the eve of a hearing for a temporary
restraining order, attorneys for the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power claimed that the DWP has abandoned their May 24 implementation
date for fluoridation, indicating that fluoridation of L.A.'s public
water supplies will not begin until August.
The May 17 action by the DWP would appear to eliminate the urgency
requirement necessary for granting a temporary restraining order
requested by the Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water that was
to be heard on May 18 by Judge John H. Reed in Los Angeles Superior
Court.
However, adding to further confusion for citizens concerned about the
adverse effects and ever-increasing total fluoride exposure from all
sources, including what is already present in sodas and juices and
cereals, the consumer department of DWP continues to tell customers that
fluoridation began as early as February 24 in some areas, including
Sherman Oaks and Chatsworth.
Attorney William Dailey, representing the L.A. Citizens for Safe
Drinking Water, indicated that he has withdrawn his request for a
temporary restraining order based on the representations made by the
attorneys for the DWP because sufficient time would then be available
for the court to hear the case in more depth; but was quick to say that
should these representations be found to be misleading or false, that he
would not hesitate to seek immediate relief from the court.
The request for a temporary restraining order is part of a legal process
to stop fluoridation by Los Angeles Citizens for Safe Drinking Water,
which filed a Complaint for Validation and Injunctive Relief against the
L.A. City Council and DWP on March 22, citing more than 20 causes of
action.
Attorneys for the Los Angeles City Council and DWP responded with a
Notice of Demurrer to be heard by the Court on May 28, which in effect
challenges the legal basis for the lawsuit without consideration of the
specific merits.
The Citizens request for injunction charges that the defendants failed
to review and consider new medical and scientific safety data that
contradicts the data that was made available to the State Legislature in
1995 when they passed the unfunded AB733 calling for fluoridation of
water systems with more than 10,000 connections.
The lawsuit further charges that the defendants' fluoridation plan
discriminates against minorities, lower income, the ill, uninsured,
children, elderly, and other disadvantaged persons, and that the
defendants failed to evaluate the likelihood of fluoride causing brain
damage and lower IQ in children.
Several citations of the complaint address L.A. City Council and DWP
actions which provided insufficient notice to the public, and withheld
availability of documents concerning the actual substance the defendants
intend to add to the water, which now is known to be industrial
hazardous waste hydrofluosilicic acid.
"Once again," said Citizens spokesman Paul Borraccia, "our city council
is
making the same mistake of attempting to take the decision about what we
eat and drink out of the hands of the people. In 1975, 213,000 voters in
a citywide referendum rose up and said that we are just not going to
convert our public water supply into a mass medication system, or a
dumping ground for hazardous waste.
"There is no doubt that thousands of toothpaste advertisements touting
fluoride have lulled a portion of our population to sleep when it comes
to an appropriate due diligence over adding anything to the water, but
had the City given proper notice and revealed the truth to the public
about the total content of the toxic waste they mean to put in our
water, or the total exposure we are already receiving from all other
sources, you would see even a greater uprising than happened in 1975."
Other cities and water districts in California have considered the more
current information and have taken formal steps in the last two months
to prohibit the addition of fluoride to their water.
The cities of Santa Cruz and Escondido, No. 12 and No. 4 on the State's
fluoridation priority list, passed ordinances defying the State law by
prohibiting the addition of any substance to the public water, including
fluoride, intended to treat humans rather than treat the water.
Helix Water District, No. 1 on the priority list, passed a resolution to
prohibit fluoridation and to not accept any financial grant that was
intended for fluoridation.
The cities of La Mesa and El Cajon, and water districts Lakeside and
Riverview passed similar resolutions of support for prohibiting
fluoridation.
The cities of San Diego (#18) and Sunnyvale (#81) have long-standing
laws
prohibiting fluoridation which precede the State law.
30-30-30
http://www.lisn.net/healthissues-fluoridation.htm#health
http://www.fluoride-journal.com
http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride
http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/fluoride.htm
http://www.SaveTeeth.org
http://www.aap.org/policy/00781.html
http://www.enviroweb.org/pen/issues/fluoride/index.html
http://www.nofluoride.com
http://www.ia4u.net/~sherrell
http://www.bruha.com/fluoride/html/virtual_library.htm
================================================================
Subject: Historic Decision
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:07:30 -0700
From: Tehaliwaskenhas-Bob Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Historic decision for off reserve Indians!
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against an appeal by the
Government
of Canada and the Batchewana Indian band in the so-called -Corbiere-
case.
The high court has ruled that members of Indian bands who live off
reserve
have the right to vote in on reserve elections.
This strikes down the Indian Act regulating elections and allowing only
those Indians living on reserve the right to vote.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS IN APPEALS AND LEAVE APPLICATIONS
25708 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AND
NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA - and -
BATCHEWANA INDIAN BAND - v. - JOHN CORBIÈRE, CHARLOTTE SYRETTE, CLAIRE
ROBINSON and FRANK NOLAN, each on their own behalf and on behalf of all
non-resident members of the Batchewana Band - and - ABORIGINAL LEGAL
SERVICES OF TORONTO INC., CONGRESS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES, LESSER SLAVE
LAKE INDIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL, NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA and
UNITED NATIVE NATIONS SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (F.C.A.) (Ont.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory,McLachlin,
Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.
The appeal is dismissed and the remedy is modified by striking out the
words "and is ordinarily resident on the reserve" in s. 77(1) of the
Indian Act and suspending the implementation of the declaration of
invalidity for 18 months, with costs to the respondents. The restated
constitutional questions are answered as follows:
Question 1. Do the words "and is ordinarily resident on the reserve"
contained in s. 77(1) of the Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5,
contravene
s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, either
generally
or with respect only to members of the Batchewana Indian Band?
Answer: Yes, in their general application.
Question 2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is s.
77(1)
of the Indian Act demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit pursuant
to
s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Answer: No.
------------
Turtle Island Native Network
Your Aboriginal News and Information Network
on the Internet
http://www.turtleisland.org
Winner - 1999 Aboriginal Media Arts Award.
"Let's do it before we don't do it!"
Tehaliwaskenhas - G.R.(Bob) Kennedy
INFOCOM Management
1 - 1986 Glenidle Road, Sooke, BC V0S 1N0
Phone: (250) 642-0277 Fax: (250) 642-0278
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.turtleisland.org
================================================================
League of Indigenous Sovereign Nations of the Western Hemisphere
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LISN Web Site | http://www.lisn.net
Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
doctrine of international copyright law.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
