document_title: Great Depression in Canada

question_text: how did the great depression start in canada

text: Great Depression in Canada

text: Economic results[edit]

text: By 1930, 30% of the labour force was out of work, and one fifth of the population became dependent on government assistance. Wages fell, as did prices. Gross National Expenditure had declined 42% from the 1929 levels. In some areas, the decline was far worse. In the rural areas of the prairies, two thirds of the population were on relief.

text: Further damage was the reduction of investment: both large companies and individuals were unwilling and unable to invest in new ventures.

text: In 1932, industrial production was only at 58% of the 1929 level, the second lowest level in the world after the United States, and well behind nations such as Britain, which only saw it fall to 83% of the 1929 level. Total national income fell to 55% of the 1929 level, again worse than any nation other than the U.S.[2]

text: Impact[edit]

text: Canada's economy at the time was just starting to shift from primary industry (farming, fishing, mining and logging) to manufacturing. Exports of raw materials plunged, and employment, prices and profits fell in every sector. Canada was the worst-hit because of its economic position. It was further affected as its main trading partners were Britain and the U.S., both of which were badly affected by the worldwide depression.[2]

text: One of the areas not affected was bush flying, which, thanks to a mining and exploration boom, continued to thrive throughout this period.[3] Even so, most bush flying companies lost money, impacted by the government's cancellation of airmail contracts in 1931-2.[4]

text: Unemployment[edit]

text: Urban unemployment nationwide was 19%; Toronto's rate was 17%, according to the census of 1931. Farmers who stayed on their farms were not considered unemployed.[5] By 1933, 30% of the labour force was out of work, and one fifth of the population became dependent on government assistance. Wages fell as did prices. In some areas, such as mining and lumbering areas, the decline was far worse.

text: Prairie Provinces[edit]

text: The Prairie Provinces and Western Canada were the hardest-hit. In the rural areas of the prairies, two thirds of the population were on relief. The region fully recovered after 1939. The fall of wheat prices drove many farmers to the towns and cities, such as Calgary, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; and Brandon, Manitoba. Population in the prairie provinces fell below natural replacement level. There was also migration from the southern prairies affected by Dust Bowl conditions such as the Palliser's Triangle to aspen parkland in the north.[6]

text: During the depression, there was a rise of working class militancy organized by the Communist Party. The labour unions largely retreated in response to the ravages of the depression at the same time that significant portions of the working class, including the unemployed, clamoured for collective action.

text: Numerous strikes and protests were led by the Communists, many of which culminated in violent clashes with the police. Some notable ones include a coal miners strike that resulted in the Estevan Riot in Estevan, Saskatchewan that left three strikers dead by RCMP bullets in 1931, a waterfront strike in Vancouver that culminated with the "Battle of Ballantyne Pier" in 1935, and numerous unemployed demonstrations up to and including the On-to-Ottawa Trek that left one Regina police constable and one protester dead in the "Regina Riot." Although the actual number of Communist Party militants remained small, their impact was far disproportionate to their numbers, in large part because of the anticommunist reaction of the government, especially the policies of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett who vowed to crush Communism in Canada with an "iron heel of ruthlessness."[7]

text: These conflicts diminished after 1935, when the Communist Party shifted strategies and Bennett's Conservatives were defeated. Agitation and unrest nonetheless persisted throughout the depression, marked by periodic clashes, such as a sit-down strike in Vancouver that ended with "Bloody Sunday." These developments had far-reaching consequences in shaping the postwar environment, including the domestic cold war climate, the rise of the welfare state, and the implementation of an institutional framework for industrial relations.

text: Women[edit]

text: Women's primary role were as housewives; without a steady flow of family income, their work became much harder in dealing with food and clothing and medical care. The birthrates fell everywhere, as children were postponed until families could financially support them. The average birthrate for 14 major countries fell 12% from 19.3 births per thousand population in 1930, to 17.0 in 1935.[8] In Canada, half of Roman Catholic women defied Church teachings and used contraception to postpone births.[9]

text: Among the few women in the labor force, layoffs were less common in the white-collar jobs and they were typically found in light manufacturing work. However, there was a widespread demand to limit families to one paid job, so that wives might lose employment if their husband was employed.[10][11][12]

text: Housewives updated strategies their mothers used when they were growing up in poor families. Cheap foods were used, such as soups, beans and noodles. They purchased the cheapest cuts of meat—sometimes even horse meat—and recycled the Sunday roast into sandwiches and soups. They sewed and patched clothing, traded with their neighbors for outgrown items, and made do with colder homes. New furniture and appliances were postponed until better days. These strategies show that women's domestic labor—cooking, cleaning, budgeting, shopping, childcare—was essential to the economic maintenance of the family and offered room for economies. Many women also worked outside the home, or took boarders, did laundry for trade or cash, and did sewing for neighbors in exchange for something they could offer. Extended families used mutual aid—extra food, spare rooms, repair-work, cash loans—to help cousins and in-laws.[13][14]

text: Women held 25-30% of the jobs in the cities.[15] Few women were employed in heavy industry, railways or construction. Many were household workers or were employed in restaurants and family-owned shops. Women factory workers typically handled clothing and food. Educated women had a narrow range of jobs, such as clerical work and teaching. It was expected that a woman give up a good job when she married.[16] Srigley emphasizes the wide range of background factors and family circumstances, arguing that "gender" itself was typically less important than race, ethnicity, or class.[17]

text: Teachers[edit]

text: School budgets were cut across the country, although enrollments went up and up because dropouts could not find jobs. To save money the districts consolidated nearby schools, dropped staff lines, postponed new construction, and increased class size. Middle-class well-educated teachers were squeezed by the financial crisis facing their employers. In Ontario, new teachers were not hired so the average age and experience increased. However, their salaries fell and men who otherwise would have taken higher status business jobs increasingly competed against women. Married women were not hired on the grounds it was unfair for one family to have two scarce jobs that breadwinners needed. Women teachers, who had made major gains in the 1910-20 era, saw themselves discriminated against.[18] The teacher's unions were practically helpless in the crisis, even in Ontario where they were strongest.[19] After prosperity returned in the 1940s, however, money was available again, there was a shortage of teachers, and the unions proved more effective. For example, in Quebec, the Corporation Général des Instituteurs et des Institutrices Catholics (CIC) was founded in 1946 (it became the Centrale de l'Enseignement du Québec (CEQ) in 1967). It sought higher pensions and salaries and better working conditions, while insisting the teachers were full-fledged professionals.[20] In remote rural areas professionalization was uncommon; local school boards tightly controlled the one-room schools, typically hiring local women with a high school education or a year at university as teachers, so their meagre salaries would remain in the community.[21]

text: Labour policy[edit]

text: Case studies of four Canadian textile firms—two cotton and two hosiery and knitting—demonstrate the range of business response to the economic crisis. Each faced a different array of conditions, and each devised the appropriate restructuring strategies. The large corporations responded by investing in more expensive machinery and automation, hiring less skilled workers to tend the automated equipment, and tweaking their product lines to changing consumer tastes. However the smaller hosiery and knitting firms lacked the capital to invest or the research needed to monitor consumer tastes. They used time-tested "Taylorized" scientific management or made piecemeal changes. Power shifted upward to management, as strikes were too risky in the early 1930s and the opportunity to find a better job had drastically narrowed.[22] By 1935, however, the influence of militant American unions spilled over the border and Canadian unions became more forceful and harmonious. The activity was most notable in Ontario's automobile factories, beginning in Windsor in late 1936, where the new Automobile Workers of America (UAW) chartered its first Canadian local at the Kelsey-Hayes factory.[23]

text: World trade[edit]

text: The Stock Market crash in New York led people to hoard their money; as consumption fell, the American economy steadily contracted, 1929-32. Given the close economic links between the two countries, the collapse quickly affected Canada. Added to the woes of the prairies were those of Ontario and Quebec, whose manufacturing industries were now victims of overproduction. Massive lay-offs occurred and other companies collapsed into bankruptcy. This collapse was not as sharp as that in the United States, but was the second sharpest collapse in the world.

text: Canada did have some advantages over other countries, especially its extremely stable banking system that had no failures during the entire depression, compared to over 9,000 small banks that collapsed in the United States.

text: Canada was hurt badly because of its reliance on base commodities, whose prices fell by over 50%, and because of the importance of international trade. In the 1920s about 25% of the Canadian Gross National Product was derived from exports. The first reaction of the U.S. was to raise tariffs via the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, passed into law June 17, 1930. This hurt the Canadian economy more than most other countries in the world, and Canada retaliated by raising its own rates on American exports and by switching business to the Empire.[24]

text: In an angry response to Smoot–Hawley, Canada welcomed the British introduction of trade protectionism and a system of Commonwealth preference during the winter of 1931-32. It helped Canada avoid external default on their public debt during the Great Depression. Canada had a high degree of exposure to the international economy, which left Canada susceptible to any international economic downturn. The onset of the depression created critical balance of payment deficits, and it was largely the extension of imperial protection by Britain that gave Canada the opportunity to increase their exports to the British market. By 1938 Britain was importing more than twice the 1929 volume of products from Australia, while the value of products shipped from Canada more than doubled, despite the dramatic drop in prices. Thus, the British market played a vital role in helping Canada and Australia stabilize their balance of payments in the immensely difficult economic conditions of the 1930s.[25]

text: Government reaction[edit]

text: At the Depression, the provincial and municipal governments were already in debt after an expansion of infrastructure and education during the 1920s. It thus fell to the federal government to try to improve the economy. When the Depression began Mackenzie King was Prime Minister. He believed that the crisis would pass, refused to provide federal aid to the provinces, and only introduced moderate relief efforts. The government's reaction to The Great Depression is the focus of the 2013 documentary Catch The Westbound Train from Prairie Coast Films.

text: New Deal[edit]

text: The Bennett Government, which defeated Mackenzie King in the 1930 election, initially refused to offer large-scale aid or relief to the provinces, much to the anger of provincial premiers, but it eventually gave in and started a Canadian "New Deal" type of relief by 1935. By 1937, the worst of the Depression had passed, but it left its mark on the country's economic landscape. Atlantic Canada was especially hard hit. Newfoundland (an independent dominion at the time) was bankrupt economically and politically and gave up responsible government by reverting to direct British control.

text: World War I veterans built on a history of postwar political activism to play an important role in the expansion of state-sponsored social welfare in Canada. Arguing that their wartime sacrifices had not been properly rewarded, veterans claimed that they were entitled to state protection from poverty and unemployment on the home front. The rhetoric of patriotism, courage, sacrifice, and duty created powerful demands for jobs, relief, and adequate pensions that should, veterans argued, be administered as a right of social citizenship and not a form of charity. At the local, provincial, and national political levels, veterans fought for compensation and recognition for their war service, and made their demands for jobs and social security a central part of emerging social policy.[26]

text: The Liberal Party lost the 1930 election to the Conservative Party, led by R.B. Bennett. Bennett, a successful western businessman, campaigned on high tariffs and large-scale spending. Make-work programs were begun, and welfare and other assistance programs became vastly larger. This led to a large federal deficit, however. Bennett became wary of the budget shortfalls by 1932, and cut back severely on federal spending. This only deepened the depression as government employees were put out of work and public works projects were cancelled.

text: One of the greatest burdens on the government was the Canadian National Railway (CNR). The federal government had taken over a number of defunct and bankrupt railways during World War I and the 1920s. The debt the government assumed was over $2 billion, a massive sum at the time, but during the boom years it seemed payable. The Depression turned this debt into a crushing burden. Due to the decrease in trade, the CNR also began to lose substantial amounts of money during the Depression, and had to be further bailed out by the government.

text: With falling support and the depression only getting worse, Bennett attempted to introduce policies based on the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the United States. Bennett thus called for a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and other such programs. This effort was largely unsuccessful; the provinces challenged the rights of the federal government to manage these programs. Some of the federal efforts were successful: the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which provided alternatives to bankruptcy for distressed businesses, were held to be constitutional by the Reference Re Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.

text: The judicial and political failure of Bennett's New Deal legislation shifted the struggle to reconstitute capitalism to the provincial and municipal levels of the state. Attempts to deal with the dislocations of the Great Depression in Ontario focused on the "sweatshop crisis" that came to dominate political and social discourse after 1934. Ontario's 1935 Industrial Standards Act (ISA) was designed to bring workers and employers together under the auspices of the state to establish minimum wages and work standards. The establishment of New Deal style industrial codes was premised on the mobilization of organized capital and organized labour to combat unfair competition, stop the spread of relief-subsidized labour, and halt the predations of sweatshop capitalism. Although the ISA did not bring about extensive economic regulation, it excited considerable interest in the possibility of government intervention. Workers in a diverse range of occupations, from asbestos workers to waitresses, attempted to organize around the possibility of the ISA. The importance of the ISA lies in what it reveals about the nature of welfare, wage labour, the union movement, competitive capitalism, business attitudes toward industrial regulation, and the role of the state in managing the collective affairs of capitalism. The history of the ISA also suggests that "regulatory unionism," as described by Colin Gordon in his work on the American New Deal, may have animated key developments in Canadian social, economic, and labour history.[27]

text: The failure to help the economy led to the federal Conservatives' defeat in the 1935 election when the Liberals, still led by Mackenzie King, returned to power.

text: The public at large lost faith in both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada. This caused the rise of a third party: the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (a socialist party that achieved some success before joining the Canadian Labour Congress in 1961, becoming the New Democratic Party).

text: With the worst of the Depression over, the government implemented some relief programs such as the National Housing Act and National Employment Commission, and it established Trans-Canada Airlines (1937, the predecessor to Air Canada). However, it took until 1939 and the outbreak of war for the Canadian economy to return to 1929 levels.

text: Liberals return[edit]

text: After 1936 the prime minister lost patience when westerners preferred radical alternatives such as the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation) and Social Credit to his middle-of-the-road liberalism. Indeed, he came close to writing off the region with his comment that the prairie dust bowl was "part of the U.S. desert area. I doubt if it will be of any real use again."[28] Instead he paid more attention to the industrial regions and the needs of Ontario and Quebec regarding the proposed St. Lawrence Seaway project with the United States. As for the unemployed, he was hostile to federal relief and reluctantly accepted a Keynesian solution that involved federal deficit spending, tax cuts and subsidies to the housing market.[29]

text: Mackenzie King returned as prime minister, serving until his retirement in 1948. During all but the last two years he was also secretary of state for external affairs, taking personal charge of foreign policy.

text: Social Credit[edit]

text: Social Credit (often called SoCred) was a populist political movement strongest in Alberta and neighbouring British Columbia, 1930s-1970s. Social Credit was based on the economic theories of an Englishman, C. H. Douglas. His theories became very popular across the nation in the early 1930s. A central proposal was the free distribution of dividends (or social credit), called "funny money" by the opposition.[30]

text: During the Great Depression in Canada the demand for radical action peaked around 1934, after the worst period was over and the economy was recovering. Mortgage debt was significant because farmers could not meet their interest payments. The insecurity of farmers, whose debts were increasing and who had no legal protection against foreclosure, was a potent factor in creating a mood of political desperation. The radical farmers party, UFA was baffled by the depression and Albertans demanded new leadership.

text: Prairie farmers had always believed that they were being exploited by Toronto and Montreal. What they lacked was a prophet who would lead them to the promised land.[31] The Social Credit movement began in Alberta in 1932; it became a political movement in 1935 and suddenly burned like a prairie fire. The prophet and new premier was radio evangelist William Aberhart (1878–1943). The message was biblical prophecy. Aberhart was a fundamentalist, preaching the revealed word of God and quoting the Bible to find a solution for the evils of the modern, materialistic world: the evils of sophisticated academics and their biblical criticism, the cold formality of middle-class congregations, the vices of dancing and movies and drink. "Bible Bill" preached that the capitalist economy was rotten because of its immorality; specifically it produced goods and services but did not provide people with sufficient purchasing power to enjoy them. This could be remedied by the giving out money in the form of "social credit", or $25 a month for every man and woman. This pump priming was guaranteed to restore prosperity, he prophesied to the 1600 Social Credit clubs he formed in the province.

text: Alberta's businessmen, professionals, newspaper editors and the traditional middle-class leaders vehemently protested Aberhart's crack-pot ideas, but they had not solved any problems and spoke not of the promised land ahead. Aberhart's new party in 1935 elected 56 members to the Alberta Assembly, compared to 7 for all the other parties.[32]

text: Alberta's Social Credit Party remained in power for 36 years until 1971. It was re-elected by popular vote no less than 9 times, achieving success by moving from left to the right.[33]

text: Social Credit in office[edit]

text: Once in office in Alberta Aberhart gave a high priority to balancing the provincial budget. He reduced expenditures and increased the sales tax and the income tax. The poor and unemployed got nothing.[34] The $25 monthly social dividend never arrived, as Aberhart decided nothing could be done until the province's financial system was changed, and 1936 Alberta defaulted on its bonds. He did pass a Debt Adjustment Act that cancelled all the interest on mortgages since 1932 and limited all interest rates on mortgages to 5%, in line with similar laws passed by other provinces. In 1937 backbenchers passed a radical banking law that was disallowed by the national government (banking was a federal responsibility). Efforts to control the press were also disallowed. The party was authoritarian and tried to exert detailed control over its officeholders; those who rebelled were purged or removed from office by the new device of recall elections. Although Aberhart was hostile to banks and newspapers, he was basically in favour of capitalism and did not support socialist policies as did the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Saskatchewan.[35]

text: By 1938 the Social Credit government abandoned its notions about the $25 payouts, but its inability to break with UFA policies led to disillusionment and heavy defections from the party. Aberhart's government was re-elected in the 1940 election, carrying 43% of the vote. The prosperity of the Second World War relieved the economic fears and hatreds that had fuelled farmer unrest. Aberhart died in 1943, and was succeeded as Premier by his student at the Prophetic Bible Institute and lifelong close disciple, Ernest C. Manning (1908–1996).

text: The Social Credit party, now firmly on the right, governed Alberta until 1968 under Manning.

text: Recovery[edit]

text: The Canadian recovery from the Great Depression proceeded slowly. Economists Pedro Amaral and James MacGee find that the Canadian recovery has important differences with the United States.[36] In the U.S. productivity recovered quickly while the labour force remained depressed throughout the decade. In Canada employment quickly recovered but productivity remained well below trend. Amaral and MacGee suggest that this decline is due to the sustained reduction in international trade during the 1930s.

text: In the midst of the Great Depression, the Crown-in-Council attempted to uplift the people, and created two national corporations: the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC), and the Bank of Canada. The former, established in 1932, was seen as a means to keep the country unified and uplifted in these harsh economic times. Many poor citizens found radio as an escape and used it to restore their own faiths in a brighter future. Broadcasting coast to coast mainly in English, with some French, primarily in Quebec, the CRBC played a vital role in keeping the morale up for Canadians everywhere. The latter was used to regulate currency and credit which had been horribly managed amongst Canadian citizens in the prior years. It was also set up to serve as a private banker’s bank and to assist and advise the Canadian government on its own debts and financial matters. The bank played an important role to help steer government spending in the right direction. The bank's effort took place through the tough years of the depression and on to the prosperity that followed into and after the Second World War.

text: Both of these corporations were seen as positive moves by the Canadian government to help get the economy back on track. 1937 was an important year in the recovery from the Great Depression. The Bank of Canada was nationalized in that year, and the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC) became the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in that same year. Both corporations were successful aids in the cultural and financial recovery of the Canadian economy during the Great depression.

text: It took the outbreak of World War II to pull Canada out of the depression. From 1939, an increased demand in Europe for materials, and increased spending by the Canadian government created a strong boost for the economy. Unemployed men enlisted in the military. By 1939, Canada was in the first prosperity period in the business cycle in a decade. This coincided with the recovery in the American economy, which created a better market for exports and a new inflow of much needed capital.


document_title: Nebula (comics)

question_text: who is nebula on guardians of the galaxy

root

text: Nebula (comics)

text: Publication history[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2013)

tag: table

text: Nebula was created by writer Roger Stern and artist John Buscema, and first appeared in The Avengers #257 (July 1985).

tag: p

text: Fictional character biography[edit]

text: A brutal space pirate and mercenary, Nebula seized control of Sanctuary II, a massive spaceship previously under the command of Thanos. Thanos was believed to be dead at this point, and Nebula claimed that he had been her grandfather. Nebula's band of mercenaries and pirates consisted of Skunge, Kehl, Gunthar and Levan.

text: Nebula asked the second Captain Marvel to join her mercenary band and aid them in conquering the Skrull Empire. However, Firelord learned that Nebula had massacred the Xandarians. Nebula used her space fleet to attack the Skrull space armada and the Avengers.[1]

text: Nebula then schemed to gain absolute power using Earth scientist Dr. Harker's atomic compressor to release vast amounts of energy that were absorbed by the Infinity Union (Although this attempt nearly triggered the end of the universe when the experiment caused a second Big Bang that came close to annihilating everything before a small group of Avengers – Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Spider-Man and Sersi – were able to escape the destruction and shut down the equipment in time to negate the unmaking of existence). She fought the Avengers, and absorbed energies from the Infinity Union through the implant in her brain. As she fought the Avengers, she lost her powers when Sersi removed the brain implant. Nebula then escaped.[2]

text: The Infinity Gauntlet[edit]

text: The newly resurrected Thanos was offended by Nebula's claims of kinship. He reclaimed his ship and almost killed her, using the Infinity Gems. He transformed her into a grotesque virtual corpse still barely alive, leaving her as a maimed and seemingly mindless zombie, burned and disfigured by his energy beams.[3]

text: When he later claimed the Infinity Gauntlet, Thanos boasted that Nebula was his greatest creation — unable to die, but not truly alive either. However, when Thanos defeated Eternity and took his place, Thanos expanded his consciousness into the universe, leaving his body comatose. Nebula managed to take the Gauntlet from Thanos, using its power to restore herself to health and banish Thanos, seeking to conquer the universe herself. Thanos agreed to help a loose band of heroes defeat Nebula. The group in question consisted of Adam Warlock, Doctor Strange, the Silver Surfer, Thor, the Hulk, Firelord, Doctor Doom and Drax the Destroyer— the only heroes that Strange had been able to locate in the time available to him. The group confronted her, and, with Thanos exploiting Nebula's inexperience with wielding the Gauntlet, she was tricked into undoing the events of Thanos's godhood and all the death and destruction Thanos wreaked with his power. The Cosmic Pantheon (which Thanos had earlier defeated) immediately appeared, and battled her. With Nebula thus distracted— lacking the knowledge to realize that they were keeping her occupied by attacking her all at once, thus preventing her from thinking of a less direct method of assault— the Surfer and Warlock were able to steal the Gauntlet from her by exploiting Warlock's connection to the Soul Gem, disrupting the unity between the Infinity Gems and forcing Nebula to drop the Gauntlet. Nebula was captured by Starfox and returned to Titan for trial, while Adam Warlock claimed the Gauntlet.[4]

text: Nebula was later confronted by Firelord in the Titanian prison. In flashback, the murder of her abusive father was depicted.[5] Nebula was later freed from prison by Geatar, and converted into a cyborg by Doctor Mandibus.[6] She attempted to free her pirate crew from the "Anvil" space prison, but was thwarted by the Silver Surfer and Jack of Hearts. She killed her crew in escaping.[7]

text: Annihilation[edit]

text: Nebula has appeared as one of Gamora's followers, 'The Graces'. In this role, she battled Ronan the Accuser alongside Stellaris. Ronan triumphed, severely wounding her.[8]

text: Powers and abilities[edit]

text: Nebula is an athletic woman and an excellent armed and unarmed combatant. She possesses a gifted intellect and is a brilliant battle strategist.

text: Nebula uses blasters worn on her wrists that fire concussive blasts of unknown energy or heat blasts that can incinerate a human being almost instantly. She also apparently wears a device that enables her to disguise her appearance, either through illusion-casting or through actual molecular rearrangement of her body and clothing.

text: Nebula was converted by Doctor Mandibus into a cyborg. She was given an artificial left eye, left arm, and left shoulder. The left upper quarter of her head and part of her right hip are sheathed in metal.

text: Nebula briefly possessed the Infinity Union, a combination of three devices that together could channel all forms of ambient energy into her which infused her with vast energies. She also briefly possessed the Infinity Gauntlet, which held six "Infinity Gems" of virtually-unlimited power, which gave her seemingly-absolute control of reality while she possessed them. However, her short sightedness meant that she often made crucial errors in judgment when wielding the power, like undoing the events of Thanos's godhood without realizing that this would revert her to her near-death state and free the imprisoned Cosmic Pantheon whom Thanos had recently defeated.

text: In other media[edit]

text: Television[edit]

text:
Nebula is featured in the two-part episode "Learning Curve" of the 1999 animated series Silver Surfer, voiced by Jennifer Dale.[citation needed]
Nebula appears in the second season of the 2009 animated series The Super Hero Squad Show, voiced by Jane Lynch.[9] This version is the older sister of Thanos, and appears in the episodes "Double Negations at the World's End", "Fate of Destiny" and "When Strikes the Surfer."
Nebula appears in the Guardians of the Galaxy TV series, voiced by Cree Summer.[10] In the episode "Origins," Gamora and Nebula were put through training by Ronan the Accuser so that they can fight for Thanos. In the episode "The Backstabbers," the death of Ronan the Accuser has left a power vacuum where Nova Prime mentions to the Nova Corps that there is competition between Korath the Pursuer, Nebula, and Gamora to see who will succeed Ronan the Accuser as Thanos' new general. Gamora pretends to betray the Guardians of the Galaxy so that she can get Nebula and her Chitauri crew into fighting Korath the Pursuer's group. Following the plan and the Guardians of the Galaxy getting away, Nebula recovers Ronan the Accuser's Universal Weapon that Drax the Destroyer threw at her ship. In the episode "Bad Moon Rising," Nebula attacks the Guardians of the Galaxy on the living moon Mandala. Using Mandala's life-giving powers and a special seed, Nebula resurrects Ronan the Accuser and gives him his Universal Weapon as Ronan the Accuser plans to pilot Mandala to Xandar in order to annihilate the enemies of the Kree there. With help from Star-Lord and Groot, Mandala broke free and uses a special magma attack to send Nebula and Ronan the Accuser flying far away from Mandala.

tag: ul

text: Film[edit]

text:
Karen Gillan portrays Nebula in the 2014 live-action film Guardians of the Galaxy.[11] She is portrayed as an adopted daughter of Thanos, and she is augmented and converted into a cyborg; at least her arms are completely mechanical, as she is shown making repairs to circuits in her forearm. Despite her familial ties to Thanos, Nebula allies with Ronan the Accuser when Ronan steals an Infinity Stone to destroy Xandar and later use against Thanos only to be defeated in combat by Gamora. When Gamora offers to save her, Nebula rejects Gamora's help and severs her trapped mechanical left hand so that she can steal a ship and escape.
Gillan reprises the role in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, released in May 2017.[12] In the film, the Guardians retrieve the arrested Nebula from the Sovereign race, as she was apprehended after trying to steal their batteries. After the Guardians crash-land the ship on a nearby planet due to the Sovereign's ambush (as Rocket was caught stealing the batteries), Rocket and Baby Groot are tasked with looking over Nebula while the rest are taken by Ego to his planet. She assists the Ravagers with a mutiny against Yondu which results in her freedom and Yondu, Rocket, and Groot's capture. Nebula convinces the Ravagers to spare the three due to the many bounties on their heads, of which Nebula wants a 10% cut. She leaves using one of their ships to track down and kill Gamora on Ego, as the torture she received from Thanos and her cybernetic body parts were a result of Gamora constantly defeating her when they were children. She arrives at Ego's planet and tries to kill Gamora, only stopping when she finally bests her sister in combat. Her desire to kill Gamora abated, the pair reach an uneasy alliance, after which they discover caverns filled with the skeletal remains of Ego's many children. She joins the Guardians in combating Ego to defend the universe from his takeover. In the process she rescues Gamora from death and the two reconcile over their shared past trauma. Despite Gamora offering her a chance to stay with the Guardians, Nebula chooses to set out alone in her quest to kill Thanos.
The character will appear in both Avengers: Infinity War and its untitled sequel, again portrayed by Gillan.[13]

text: Video games[edit]

text:
Nebula is the penultimate boss in the 1996 SNES game Marvel Super Heroes: War of the Gems.[citation needed]
Nebula appears in Marvel Super Hero Squad: The Infinity Gauntlet, with Jane Lynch reprising her voice role.[14]
Nebula appears as a villain in Marvel: Avengers Alliance. She is featured in Spec-Ops 20 which is based on the Guardians of the Galaxy film.[citation needed]
Nebula is a playable character in Marvel: Future Fight.[citation needed]
Nebula appears in Marvel Avengers Academy, voiced by Linnea Sage.[15]
Nebula appears in Lego Marvel's Avengers as an unlockable and playable character.[citation needed]
Nebula appears in Guardians of the Galaxy: The Telltale Series, voiced by Ashly Burch.[16] Following the death of Thanos, Gamora states to Star-Lord at a bar at Knowhere that a small part of her wants to see her sister Nebula again. Star-Lord will either tell Gamora that Nebula's family or that calling her could be a mistake. If it is the former, Nebula expresses anger in her call with Gamora of how the Guardians killed their father. In episode 2, Nebula attacks the location where Thanos' body is being held. Regardless on Star-Lord's choice revolving around Rocket Raccoon's trip to Halfworld, Star-Lord and Gamora fight Nebula and managed to subdue her. On the Milano, Nebula is shown to be locked up in Gamora's room. Entering Gamora's room which Nebula has been locked up in, Star-Lord and Gamora tell Nebula that they need her to translate the ancient Kree language which Nebula is reluctant to do. When Nebula tells Gamora that she still remembers Tar-Voll, Gamora draws her sword on her as Nebula orders for Gamora to leave. If Star-Lord has Gamora leave, she does so while stating to Star-Lord that she won't help him if she hears screams. Nebula states that she never cared for them. If Star-Lord agrees with Gamora, he states that Gamora's got the right idea as he pins her against the wall (Star-Lord will also have the option to spit back on her). Drax the Destroyer later tells Star-Lord that there was a device found in Nebula's skull. Star-Lord persuades Nebula into giving him the device where she states that it will tell him everything he'll want to know while stating to Star-Lord that he owes her. When Kree soldiers working for Hala the Accuser attack the ship, Star-Lord will have the option to release Nebula to help fight the Kree soldiers while warning her that the trust exercise will be over if she back-stabs them in battle. In episode 3, Star-Lord experiences Gamora's flashbacks involving Nebula back when she was being trained by Thanos. The first one has Gamora dueling Nebula. Depending on the outcome, Thanos will still favor Nebula as the winner. The second flashback has Nebula being ordered to kill Gamora as a test. After the final flashback, Star-Lord had to decide to tell Nebula to go or told her to stay. If Star-Lord tells Nebula to go at the end, she will join Hala the Accuser's forces. If Star-Lord tells Nebula to stay, she and Gamora finally reconciled.
Nebula is a playable character in Marvel: Contest of Champions.[17]


document_title: Hacksaw Ridge

question_text: who played desmond doss father in hacksaw ridge

text: Hacksaw Ridge

text: Plot[edit]

text: As a child, Desmond Doss nearly kills his younger brother Hal. This event and his Seventh-day Adventist upbringing reinforce Desmond's belief in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Years later, Doss takes an injured man to the hospital and meets a nurse, Dorothy Schutte. The two strike a romance and Doss tells Dorothy of his interest in medical work.

text: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Doss enlists in the Army to serve as a combat medic. His father Tom, a World War I veteran, is deeply upset by the decision. Before leaving for Fort Jackson, he asks for Dorothy's hand in marriage and she accepts.

text: Doss is placed under the command of Sergeant Howell. He excels physically but becomes an outcast among his fellow soldiers for refusing to handle a rifle and train on Saturdays. Howell and Captain Glover attempt to discharge Doss for psychiatric reasons but are overruled, as Doss' religious beliefs do not constitute mental illness. They subsequently torment Doss by putting him through grueling labor, intending to get Doss to leave of his own accord. Despite being beaten one night by his fellow soldiers, he refuses to identify his attackers and continues training.

text: Doss' unit completes basic training and is released on leave, during which Doss intends to marry Dorothy, but his refusal to carry a firearm leads to an arrest for insubordination. Captain Glover and Dorothy visit Doss in jail and try to convince him to plead guilty so that he can be released without charge, but Doss refuses to compromise his beliefs. At his trial Doss pleads not guilty, but before he is sentenced, his father barges into the tribunal with a letter from a former commanding officer stating that his son's pacifism is protected by an Act of Congress. The charges against Doss are dropped, and he and Dorothy are married.

text: Doss' unit is assigned to the 77th Infantry Division and deployed to the Pacific theater. During the Battle of Okinawa, Doss' unit is informed that they are to relieve the 96th Infantry Division, which was tasked with ascending and securing the Maeda Escarpment ("Hacksaw Ridge"). In the initial fight, both sides sustain heavy losses. Doss saves his squadmate Smitty as well as several wounded soldiers. The Americans camp for the night, which Doss spends in a foxhole with Smitty. Doss reveals that his aversion to holding a firearm stems from nearly shooting his drunken father, who threatened his mother with a gun. Smitty apologizes for doubting his courage, and the two reconcile.

text: The next morning, the Japanese launch a massive counterattack and drive the Americans off the escarpment. Smitty is killed, while Howell and several of Doss' squad mates are left injured on the battlefield. Doss hears the cries of dying soldiers and returns to save them, carrying the wounded to the cliff's edge and belaying them down by rope, each time praying to save one more. The arrival of dozens of wounded once presumed dead comes as a shock to the rest of the unit below. When day breaks, Doss rescues Howell and the two escape Hacksaw under enemy fire.

text: Captain Glover tells Doss that the men have been inspired by his selflessness, and that they will not launch the next attack without him. With reinforcements, they turn the tide of battle. After an ambush set by Japanese soldiers feigning surrender, Doss manages to save Glover and others by deflecting enemy grenades. Doss is eventually wounded by a grenade blast, but the battle is won. Doss descends the cliff, clutching the Bible Dorothy gave him.

text: The film switches to archival photos and footage showing that Doss was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Harry S. Truman for rescuing 75 soldiers at Hacksaw Ridge. Doss stayed married to Dorothy until her death in 1991. He died on March 23, 2006, at the age of 87.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Andrew Garfield as Desmond Doss
Vince Vaughn as Sergeant Howell
Sam Worthington as Captain Jack Glover
Luke Bracey as Smitty Ryker
Hugo Weaving as Tom Doss, Desmond's father
Ryan Corr as Lieutenant Manville
Teresa Palmer as Dorothy Schutte, Desmond's wife
Rachel Griffiths as Bertha Doss, Desmond's mother
Richard Roxburgh as Colonel Stelzer
Luke Pegler as Milt "Hollywood" Zane
Richard Pyros as Randall "Teach" Fuller
Ben Mingay as Grease Nolan
Firass Dirani as Vito Rinnelli
Damien Thomlinson as Ralph Morgan
Matt Nable as Lt. Colonel Cooney
Robert Morgan as Colonel Sangston
Nathaniel Buzolic as Harold "Hal" Doss, Desmond's brother

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: Hacksaw Ridge was in development limbo for fourteen years.[10] Numerous producers had tried for decades to film Doss' story, including decorated war hero Audie Murphy and Hal B. Wallis.[11]

text: In 2001, after finally convincing Doss that making a movie on his remarkable life was the right thing to do, screenwriter/producer Gregory Crosby (grandson of Bing Crosby) wrote the treatment and brought the project to film producer David Permut, of Permut Presentations, through the early cooperation of Stan Jensen of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which ultimately led to the film being financed.[10]

text: In 2004, director Terry Benedict won the rights to make a documentary about Doss, The Conscientious Objector, and secured the dramatic film rights in the process. However, Doss died in 2006, after which producer Bill Mechanic acquired and then sold the rights to Walden Media, which developed the project along with producer David Permut.[12] Gregory Crosby and Steve Longi served as co-producers.[13] Walden Media insisted on a PG-13 version of the battle, and Mechanic spent years working to buy the rights back.[11][14]

text: After acquiring the rights, Mechanic approached Mel Gibson, and wanted him to create a concoction of violence and faith, as he did with The Passion of the Christ (2004). Gibson turned down the offer twice, as he previously did with Braveheart (1995).[15] Nearly a decade later, Gibson finally agreed to direct, a decision announced in November 2014. The same month, Andrew Garfield was confirmed to play the role of Desmond Doss.[12]

text: With a budget of $40 million, the team still faced many challenges. Hacksaw Ridge became an international co-production, with key players and firms located in both the United States and Australia. When Australian tax incentives were taken off the table, the film had to qualify as Australian to receive government subsidies. Despite being American-born, Gibson's early years in Australia helped the film qualify, along with most of the cast being Australian, including Rachel Griffiths (Doss' mother), Teresa Palmer (Doss' wife), Sam Worthington (unit leader), Hugo Weaving (as Doss' father), Richard Roxburgh (as a colonel) and Luke Bracey (as Smitty, one of Doss' most antagonistic unit members). Rounding out the cast was American actor Vince Vaughn.[16] According to producer Bill Mechanic, Australian state and federal subsidies made financing  the film possible.[17]

text: On February 9, 2015, IM Global closed a deal to finance the film, and also sold the film into the international markets.[18] On the same day, Lionsgate acquired the North American distribution rights to the film.[19] Chinese distribution rights were acquired by Bliss Media, a Shanghai-based film production and distribution company.[20]

text: Hacksaw Ridge is the first film directed by Gibson since Apocalypto in 2006,[21][22] and marks a departure from his previous films, such as Apocalypto and Braveheart, in which the protagonists acted violently.[23]

text: Writing[edit]

text: Robert Schenkkan made the initial draft[24] and Randall Wallace, who was previously attached to direct the film, rewrote the script.[25] Andrew Knight polished the revised script. Gibson's partner Bruce Davey also produced the film, along with Paul Currie.[26]

text: Casting[edit]

text: The cast – Andrew Garfield, Vince Vaughn, Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer, Rachel Griffiths, Richard Roxburgh, Luke Pegler, Richard Pyros, Ben Mingay, Firass Dirani, Nico Cortez, Michael Sheasby, Goran Kleut, Jacob Warner, Harry Greenwood, Damien Thomlinson, Ben O'Toole, Benedict Hardie, Robert Morgan, Ori Pfeffer, Milo Gibson, and Nathaniel Buzolic, Hugo Weaving, and Ryan Corr – was announced between November 2014 and October 2015.[26][27][28][29][30] The younger Doss was played by Darcy Bryce.[31]

text: Garfield plays Desmond Doss, a US Army medic awarded the Medal of Honor by President Harry S. Truman for saving lives during the Battle of Okinawa in World War II.[12] Garfield had high regards for Doss, and venerated him for his act of bravery, hailing him as a "wonderful symbol of embodying the idea of live and let live no matter what your ideology is, no matter what your value system is, just to allow other people to be who they are and allow yourself to be who you are." He found the idea of playing a real superhero, as compared to his past roles playing Spider-Man in The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel, much more inspiring.[32] Garfield admitted that he cried the first time he read the screenplay.[33] He visited Doss' hometown and touched his various tools.[34] Gibson was drawn to Garfield the first time he saw his performance in The Social Network.[23]

text: Palmer wanted a role in the film so badly that she auditioned via phone, and sent the recording to Gibson. She heard nothing back for three months, until Gibson called Palmer to tell her in a Skype chat that he had cast her in the role of Dorothy, Doss' wife.[35]

text: Principal photography[edit]

text:
Principal photography started on September 29, 2015,[22] and lasted for 59 days,[36] ending in December of that year.[10] Filming took place entirely in Australia.[15] The film was based at Fox Studios in Sydney, after producers vigorously scouted for locations around the country.[37] Filming took place mostly in the state of New South Wales — where Gibson spent much of his early years — in and around Sydney such as in Richmond,[38] Bringelly,[39] and Oran Park.[40] Gibson moved to the state in July 2015, two months before filming began.[41] The graveyard scene was shot at a set-constructed cemetery in Sydney's Centennial Park.[42]
The grounds of Newington Armory at Sydney Olympic Park were used as Fort Jackson. Filming in Bringelly required the team to clear and deforest over 500 hectares of land, which evoked the ire of some environmentalists. However, the producers had complete approval and clearance to do so. Also conditions were imposed to replant and rehabilitate part of the land after filming ceased.[43] According to Troy Grant, New South Wales' deputy premier and minister for the arts, the film brought 720 jobs and US$19 million to regional and rural New South Wales.[44]

text: Altogether, three jeeps, two trucks and a tank were featured in the film.[15] Bulldozers and backhoes were used to transform a dairy pasture near Sydney to re-create the Okinawa battlefield. A berm had to be raised around the perimeter so cameras could turn 360 degrees without getting any eucalyptus trees in the background.[15] Gibson did not want to rely heavily on computer visual effects, either on the screen or in pre-visualizing the battle scenes. Visual effects were used only during bloody scenes, like napalm-burnt soldiers.[15] During filming of the war scenes, Gibson incorporated his past war-movie experiences, and would yell to the actors, reminding them constantly of what they were fighting for.[15]

text: Post-production[edit]

text: Kevin O'Connell, who won his first Academy Award for sound mixing in this film, stated that budget constraints forced him to utilize archival sounds of WWII-era weapons.[45]

text: Themes[edit]

text: The film has been described as an anti-war film,[46] with pacifist themes.[15] It also incorporates recurring religious imagery, such as baptism and ascension.[3]

text: Historical accuracy[edit]

text: After the war, Doss turned down many requests for books and film versions of his actions, because he was wary of whether his life, wartime experiences, and Seventh-day Adventist beliefs would be portrayed inaccurately or sensationally. Doss' only child, Desmond Doss Jr., stated: "The reason he declined is that none of them adhered to his one requirement: that it be accurate. And I find it remarkable, the level of accuracy in adhering to the principal of the story in this movie."[47] Producer David Permut stated that the filmmakers took great care in maintaining the integrity of the story, since Doss was very religious.[3]

text: However, the filmmakers did change some details, notably the backstory about his father, the incident with the gun Doss took out of his alcoholic father's hands, and the circumstances of his first marriage.[47][48] The character of Smitty, portrayed by Luke Bracey, is an amalgamation of various soldiers who tormented Doss and was created for narrative reasons.[49] Other changes to the story occur near the end of the movie when Doss is placed on a stretcher. In real life, Doss had another wounded man take his place on the stretcher. After treating the soldier, a sniper shot fractured Doss' arm and he crawled to safety after being left alone for five hours.[50] Gibson omitted this from the film because he felt that the audience would not find the scene believable.[51] The film also omits his prior combat service in the Battle of Guam and Battle of Leyte (Doss was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for extraordinary bravery in both battles),[52] and leaves the impression that Doss' actions at Okinawa took place over a period of a few days, though his Medal of Honor citation covered his actions over a period of about three weeks (April 29 to May 21).[47][53]

text: Music[edit]

text:
Hacksaw Ridge: Original Motion Picture SoundtrackSoundtrack album by Rupert Gregson-WilliamsReleased
November 4, 2016 (2016-11-04)Recorded
2016Studio
Abbey Road StudiosGenre
Film scoreLength
53:56Label
Varèse SarabandeProducer
Rupert Gregson-Williams
Rupert Gregson-Williams chronology

The Legend of Tarzan: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack(2016)

Hacksaw Ridge: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack(2016)

Sandy Wexler: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack(2017)

text: James Horner was originally approached to compose the score for the film but was replaced by John Debney after Horner's untimely death in 2015.[54] Debney was himself replaced by Rupert Gregson-Williams after his score was rejected before Hacksaw Ridge was set to premiere at the Venice Film Festival.[55] When composing the music Gregson-Williams commented: "The soundtrack is really in two parts. A lovely romance blossoms as Desmond discovers both the love of his life and his faith. The second half of the movie is brutal...We wanted to reflect his spirituality without being pious, and his bravery without celebrating violence."[56] The film's accompanying score was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in London, with an orchestra of 70 musicians and a 36-voice choir conducted by Cliff Masterson.[57]

text: All tracks written by Rupert Gregson-Williams.

text: Track listingNo.TitleLength1."Okinawa Battlefield"3:592."I Could Have Killed Him"2:203."A Calling"2:424."Pretty Corny"1:445."Climbing for a Kiss"3:476."Throw Hell at Him"1:587."Sleep"2:188."Dorothy Pleads"3:179."Hacksaw Ridge"4:2010."Japanese Retake the Ridge"4:3611."I Can't Hear You"2:5412."One Man at a Time"2:3013."Rescue Continues"3:4614."A Miraculous Return"2:5015."Praying"5:4916."Historical Footage"4:59Total length:53:56

text: Release[edit]

text: The world premiere of Hacksaw Ridge occurred on September 4, 2016,[58] at the 73rd Venice Film Festival, where it received a 10-minute standing ovation.[59] The film was released in Australia on November 3, 2016, by Icon Film Distribution, and in the United States on November 4, 2016, by Lionsgate/Summit Entertainment.[60][61] It was released by Bliss Media in China in November,[62][63] and in the United Kingdom in 2017,[64] with IM Global handling international sales.[22]

text: Marketing[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2017)

text: On July 28, 2016, Lionsgate released the only official trailer for Hacksaw Ridge which garnered millions of views.[65] In partnership with Disabled American Veterans, Gibson screened the film at both the DAV National Convention and VFW National Convention in August 2016 to raise awareness of veterans' issues.[66] Within the same month, Gibson also appeared at Pastor Greg Laurie's SoCal Harvest in Anaheim, California to promote the film.[67] A number of Seventh-day Adventist ministries offered free copies of the Hero of Hacksaw Ridge book during the film's release[68][69] as well as created promotional materials[70] to highlight Doss' faith.[71] On February 24, 2017, Reto-Moto and Lionsgate announced a cross-promotion where the purchase of a DLC pack for Heroes & Generals would also give the purchaser a digital copy of the film.[72]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Hacksaw Ridge grossed $67.1 million in the United States and Canada and $108.2 million in other countries for a worldwide total of $175.3 million, against a production budget of $40 million.[5]

text: The film opened alongside Doctor Strange and Trolls, and was projected to gross around $12 million from 2,886 theaters. It was expected to play very well among faith-based, Midwest, and Southern audiences.[73][74] It made $5.2 million on its first day and $15.2 million in its opening weekend, finishing third at the box office behind Doctor Strange and Trolls. The debut was on par with the $15 million opening of Gibson's last directorial effort, Apocalypto, in 2006.[75] In its second weekend, the film grossed $10.6 million (a drop of just 30%), finishing 5th at the box office.[76]

text: The film also opened successfully in China, grossing over $16 million in its first four days at the box office[77] and over $60 million in total.[78]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 86% based on 245 reviews, with an average rating of 7.2/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Hacksaw Ridge uses a real-life pacifist's legacy to lay the groundwork for a gripping wartime tribute to faith, valor, and the courage of remaining true to one's convictions."[79] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 71 out of 100, based on 47 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[80] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale,[81] while PostTrak reported filmgoers gave it a 91% overall positive score and a 67% "definite recommend."[75]

text: The Milford Daily News called the film a "masterpiece", adding that it "is going to end up on many 2016 Top 10 lists, that should get Oscar nominations for Best Actor, Best Director and Best Picture."[82] Maggie Stancu of Movie Pilot wrote that "Gibson made some of his most genius directing choices in Hacksaw Ridge, and Garfield has given his best performance yet. With amazing performances by Vince Vaughn, Teresa Palmer, Sam Worthington and Hugo Weaving, it is absolutely one of 2016's must-see films."[83] Mick LaSalle of SFGate called the film "a brilliant return for Mel Gibson, which confirms his position as a director with a singular talent for spectacle and a sure way with actors."[84] In The Film Lawyers, Samar Khan called Hacksaw Ridge "fantastic," and emphasised "just how wonderful it is to have Gibson back in a more prominent position in Hollywood, hopefully with the demons of his past behind him. If Hacksaw Ridge is any indication, we are poised for a future filled with great films from the visionary director."[85] The Daily Telegraph awarded four stars, and added: "Hacksaw Ridge is a fantastically moving and bruising war film that hits you like a raw topside of beef in the face – a kind of primary-coloured Guernica that flourishes on a big screen with a crowd."[86]

text: The Guardian also awarded the film four stars, and stated that Gibson had "absolutely hit Hacksaw Ridge out of the park."[87] The Australian's reviewer was equally positive, stating that, as a director, "Gibson's approach is bold and fearless; this represents his best work to date behind the camera."[88] Rex Reed of Observer rated it with four stars, and called it "the best war film since Saving Private Ryan... [I]t is violent, harrowing, heartbreaking and unforgettable. And yes, it was directed by Mel Gibson. He deserves a medal, too"[89] Michael Smith of Tulsa World called Hacksaw Ridge a "moving character study" and praised both the direction and acting: "It's truly remarkable how Gibson can film scenes of such heartfelt emotion with such sweet subtlety as easily as he stages some of the most vicious, visual scenes of violence that you will ever see. ... Hacksaw Ridge is beautiful and brutal, and that's a potent combination for a movie about a man determined to serve his country, as well as his soul."[90] IGN critic Alex Welch gave a score of 8/10, praising it as "one of the most successful war films of recent memory," and "at times horrifying, inspiring, and heart-wrenching."[91] Mike Ryan of Uproxx gave the film a positive review, praising Gibson's direction and saying, "There are two moments during the second half of Mel Gibson's Hacksaw Ridge when I literally jumped out of my seat in terror. The film's depiction of war is the best I've seen since Saving Private Ryan."[92] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film 3.5 stars, writing, "Thanks to some of the greatest battle scenes ever filmed, Gibson once again shows his staggering gifts as a filmmaker, able to juxtapose savagery with aching tenderness."[93] In contrast, Matt Zoller Seitz for RogerEbert.com gave the film 2.5 stars, and described the film as "a movie at war with itself."[94]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: Hacksaw Ridge won Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor for Garfield and Best Sound Editing at the Academy Awards.[95] The film won Best Editing and was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Garfield, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound and Best Makeup and Hair at the British Academy Film Awards.[96] The film won Best Action Movie and Best Actor in an Action Movie for Garfield and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor for Garfield, Best Editing and Best Hair and Makeup at the Critics' Choice Awards.[97] The film received three nominations at the Golden Globe Awards, including Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama for Garfield and Best Director.[9] The film won Best Actor for Garfield, Best Film Editing and Best Sound and was nominated for Best Film, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score and Best Art Direction and Production Design at the Satellite Awards.[98]


question_text: when did canada sign the un declaration of indigenous rights

text: Purpose[edit]

text: Due to the past and ongoing violence and abuse of Indigenous individuals and peoples, the UN created this non-legally binding declaration as an aspiration for how Indigenous individuals and peoples should be treated. The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also "emphasizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations".[8] It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples", and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development".[8][9] The goal of the Declaration is to encourage countries to work alongside indigenous peoples to solve global issues, like development, multicultural democracy and decentralization.[10] According to Article 31, there is a major emphasis that the indigenous peoples will be able to protect their cultural heritage and other aspects of their culture and tradition in order to preserve their heritage from over controlling nation-states.

text: The elaboration of this Declaration had already been recommended by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.[11]

text: This declaration is a resolution, meaning it is not a law bearing document. Indigenous people are not considered a country [nation - state] and do not have right to international law protection through the international court of justice. Article 40 states that Indigenous peoples have right to fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and dispute with countries or other parties, because Indigenous people cannot use the International court of justice, UNDRIP has no indication of which judicial power indigenous peoples are to bring disputes to.[12]

text: Content[edit]

text: The Declaration is structured as a United Nations resolution, with 23 preambular clauses and 46 articles. In most articles, an aspiration for how the State should promote and protect the rights of indigenous people is included (see Provision for further explanation). Major themes of the articles include:

text:
Rights of self-determination of indigenous individuals and peoples (Articles 1 - 8; 33 -34)

The difference is between the individual and people’s group

Rights of indigenous individuals and people to protect their culture through practices, languages, education, media, and religion (Articles 9 - 15, 16, 25, and 31)
Asserts the indigenous peoples’ right to own type of governance and to economic development (Articles 17 - 21, 35 -37)
Health rights (Article 23 -24)
Protection of subgroups ex. elderly, women, and children (Article 22)
Land rights from ownership (including reparation, or return of land i.e. Article 10) to environmental issues (Articles 26 -30, and 32)
Dictates how this document should be understood in future reference(Articles 38 - 46).[13]

text: Provisions[edit]

text: The opening and Article 2 of the Declaration provide that “indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples” (source). Besides asserting the rights that indigenous individuals and peoples’ have as other peoples, there are Articles (23 of the 46) pointing to how States should interact with the declaration. Most of the articles point to States working in conjunction with the indigenous peoples. Some measures countries are suggested to take are

text:
to return land (article 26), ceremonial objects (article 12), and human remains (article 12)
To place “programmes for monitoring, maintaining, and restoring the health of indigenous peoples” (article 29 )
To protect and uphold the rights of indigenous individuals and peoples (subpoint in many articles; see Declaration) [14]

text: Negotiation and adoption[edit]

text:
UN General Assembly
Resolution 61/295

Date
13 December 2007

Code
A/61/295 (Document)

Subject
Indigenous rights

Voting summary

143 voted for
4 voted against
11 abstained

Result
Adopted

text: The Declaration was over 25 years in the making. The idea originated in 1982 when the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) set up its Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), established as a result of a study by Special Rapporteur José Ricardo Martínez Cobo on the problem of discrimination faced by indigenous peoples. Tasked with developing human rights standards that would protect indigenous peoples, in 1985 the Working Group began working on drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The draft was finished in 1993 and was submitted to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which gave its approval the following year. During this the International Labour Organisation adopted the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989.

text: The Draft Declaration was then referred to the Commission on Human Rights, which established another Working Group to examine its terms. Over the following years this Working Group met on 11 occasions to examine and fine-tune the Draft Declaration and its provisions. Progress was slow because of certain states' concerns regarding some key provisions of the Declaration, such as indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples' traditional lands.[15] The final version of the Declaration was adopted on 29 June 2006 by the 47-member Human Rights Council (the successor body to the Commission on Human Rights), with 30 member states in favour, 2 against, 12 abstentions, and 3 absentees.[16]

text:
The Declaration (document A/61/L.67) was then referred to the General Assembly, which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session.[17]
The vote was, in favour 143 countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

text: Against: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States. All four member states that voted against have their origins as colonies of the United Kingdom, and have large non-indigenous immigrant majorities and thriving indigenous populations. Since then, all four countries have moved to endorse the declaration in some informal way in which it would not actually become binding law pleadable in court. Canada, under a Conservative Party leadership made official public statements against the application of the UN DRIP in Canada, e.g.

text: However, the Liberal Government elected to leadership in 2015, has unequivocally indicated Canada's support for the UN DRIP and is working on amending Canada's laws accordingly.

text: Australian government interventions have been challenged under its terms without success.[19]

text: Abstaining, 11 countries:[20] Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine. Colombia and Samoa have since endorsed the document.[21]

text: Absent:[22] Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

text: Reaction[edit]

text: Support and compromises[edit]

text: In contrast to the Declaration's initial rejection by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States over legal concerns (all 4 countries later switched their positions to accepting the declaration as a non-legally-binding document), United Nations officials and other world leaders expressed pleasure at its adoption. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described it as a "historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all." Louise Arbour, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada then serving as the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed satisfaction at the hard work and perseverance that had finally "borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples' rights."[9] Similarly, news of the Declaration's adoption was greeted with jubilation in Africa[23] and, present at the General Assembly session in New York, Bolivian foreign minister David Choquehuanca said that he hoped the member states that had voted against or abstained would reconsider their refusal to support a document he described as being as important as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[24] Bolivia has become the first country to approve the U.N. declaration of indigenous rights. Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, stated, "We are the first country to turn this declaration into a law and that is important, brothers and sisters. We recognize and salute the work of our representatives. But if we were to remember the indigenous fight clearly, many of us who are sensitive would end up crying in remembering the discrimination, the scorn."

text: Stephen Corry, Director of the international indigenous rights organization Survival International, said, "The declaration has been debated for nearly a quarter century. Years which have seen many tribal peoples, such as the Akuntsu and Kanoê in Brazil, decimated and others, such as the Innu in Canada, brought to the edge. Governments that oppose it are shamefully fighting against the human rights of their most vulnerable peoples. Claims they make to support human rights in other areas will be seen as hypocritical."[25]

text: Australia[edit]

text: The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies formally acknowledges and upholds the principles of the Declaration in both their Collection Access and Use Policy[26] and their Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies.[27]

text: Criticism, defiance and "aspirational" nullification[edit]

text: Prior to the adoption of the Declaration, and throughout the 62nd session of the General Assembly, a number of countries expressed concern about some key issues, such as self-determination, access to lands, territories and resources and the lack of a clear definition of the term "indigenous".[28] In addition to those intending to vote against the adoption of the declaration, a group of African countries represented by Namibia proposed to defer action, to hold further consultations, and to conclude consideration of the declaration by September 2007.[29] Ultimately, after agreeing on some adjustments to the Draft Declaration, a vast majority of states recognized that these issues could be addressed by each country at the national level.

text: The four states that voted against continued to express serious reservations about the final text of the Declaration as placed before the General Assembly.[30] As mentioned above, all four opposing countries have since then changed their vote in favour of the Declaration.

text: Australia[edit]

text: Australia's government opposed the Declaration in the General Assembly vote of 2007, but has since endorsed the Declaration. Australia's Mal Brough, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, referring to the provision regarding the upholding of indigenous peoples' customary legal systems, said that "There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world."[17]

text: Marise Payne, Liberal Party Senator for New South Wales, further elaborated on the Australian government's objections to the Declaration in a speech to the Australian Senate:[31]

text:
Concerns about references to self-determination and their potential to be misconstrued.
Ignorance of contemporary realities concerning land and resources. "They seem, to many readers, to require the recognition of Indigenous rights to lands which are now lawfully owned by other citizens, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and therefore to have some quite significant potential to impact on the rights of third parties."[31]
Concerns over the extension of Indigenous intellectual property rights under the declaration as unnecessary under current international and Australian law.
The potential abuse of the right under the Declaration for indigenous peoples to unqualified consent on matters affecting them, "which implies to some readers that they may then be able to exercise a right of veto over all matters of state, which would include national laws and other administrative measures."[31]
The exclusivity of indigenous rights over intellectual, real and cultural property, that "does not acknowledge the rights of third parties – in particular, their rights to access Indigenous land and heritage and cultural objects where appropriate under national law."[31] Furthermore, that the Declaration "fails to consider the different types of ownership and use that can be accorded to Indigenous people and the rights of third parties to property in that regard."[31]
Concerns that the Declaration places indigenous customary law in a superior position to national law, and that this may "permit the exercise of practices which would not be acceptable across the board",[31] such as customary corporal and capital punishments.

text: In October 2007 former Australian Prime Minister John Howard pledged to hold a referendum on changing the constitution to recognise indigenous Australians if re-elected. He said that the distinctiveness of people's identity and their rights to preserve their heritage should be acknowledged.[32]

text: On 3 April 2009, the Rudd Government formally endorsed the Declaration.[33]

text: Canada[edit]

text: The Canadian government said that while it supported the "spirit" of the declaration, it contained elements that were "fundamentally incompatible with Canada's constitutional framework",[17] which includes both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 35, which enshrines aboriginal and treaty rights. In particular, the Canadian government had problems with Article 19 (which appears to require governments to secure the consent of indigenous peoples regarding matters of general public policy), and Articles 26 and 28 (which could allow for the re-opening or repudiation of historically settled land claims).[34]

text: Former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Chuck Strahl described the document as "unworkable in a Western democracy under a constitutional government."[35] Strahl elaborated, saying "In Canada, you are balancing individual rights vs. collective rights, and (this) document ... has none of that. By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the First Nations. And, of course, in Canada, that's inconsistent with our constitution." He gave an example: "In Canada ... you negotiate on this ... because (native rights) don't trump all other rights in the country. You need also to consider the people who have sometimes also lived on those lands for two or three hundred years, and have hunted and fished alongside the First Nations."[36]

text: The Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution in December 2007 to invite Presidents Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales to Canada to put pressure on the government to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, calling the two heads of state "visionary leaders" and demanding Canada resign its membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council.[37]

text: On 3 March 2010, in the Speech From the Throne, the Governor General of Canada announced that the government was moving to endorse the declaration. "We are a country with an Aboriginal heritage. A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws."

text: On 12 November 2010, Canada officially endorsed the declaration but without changing its position that it was 'aspirational'.[38]

text: Anishinabek spiritual leader, Chief William Commanda (1908-3 August 2011) was honoured at the 21st annual week-long First Peoples' Festival held in Montreal from 2–9 August 2011, celebrating Canada's 2010 adoption of the U. N. declaration. AFN Innu representative, Ghislain Picard's tribute praised Grandfather Commanda for his work that was "key not only in the adoption of the U.N. declaration, but in all the work leading up to it throughout the last 25 years."[39]

text: In 2015, Romeo Saganash (a Cree Member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou) sponsored Private Member's Bill C-641, the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act", which would have required the Canadian government to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with UNDRIP but it was defeated on May 6, 2015.[40]

text: In 2016, Canada officially adopted and promised to implement the declaration fully. Speaking at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada minister Carolyn Bennett announced, "We are now a full supporter of the declaration, without qualification. We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution."[41] Bennett described the Declaration as "breathing life into Section 35 [of the Canadian Constitution] and recognizing it as a full box of rights for Indigenous Peoples in Canada."[41] In July 2016, Kwakwaka’wakw Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould gave a speech that stated that "adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable", due to its incompatibility with the Indian Act, the current governing statute.[42]

text: The federal government pledged on 21 June 2017 to rename its National Aboriginal Day to be consistent with the terminology used by the Declaration.[43]

text: In September 2017, British Columbia provincial government announced that it will govern in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration.[44]

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: In 2007 New Zealand's Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia described the Declaration as "toothless", and said, "There are four provisions we have problems with, which make the declaration fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand's constitutional and legal arrangements." Article 26 in particular, he said, "appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement."[45]

text: In response, Māori Party leader Pita Sharples said it was "shameful to the extreme that New Zealand voted against the outlawing of discrimination against indigenous people; voted against justice, dignity and fundamental freedoms for all".[46]

text: On 7 July 2009, the New Zealand government announced that it would support the Declaration; this, however, appeared to be a premature announcement by Pita Sharples, the current Minister of Māori Affairs, as the New Zealand government cautiously backtracked on Sharples' July announcement.[47] However, on 19 April 2010, Sharples announced New Zealand's support of the declaration at a speech in New York.[48][49]

text: United States[edit]

text: Speaking for the United States mission to the UN, spokesman Benjamin Chang said, "What was done today is not clear. The way it stands now is subject to multiple interpretations and doesn't establish a clear universal principle."[50] The U.S. mission also issued a floor document, "Observations of the United States with respect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples", setting out its objections to the Declaration. Most of these are based on the same points as the three other countries' rejections but, in addition, the United States drew attention to the Declaration's failure to provide a clear definition of exactly whom the term "indigenous peoples" is intended to cover.[51]

text: On 16 December 2010, President Obama declared that the United States would "lend its support" to the Declaration. The decision was announced during the second White House Tribal Nations Conference, where he said he is "working hard to live up to" the name that was given to him by the Crow Nation: "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land." Obama has told Native American leaders that he wants to improve the "nation-to-nation" relationship between the United States and the tribes and repair broken promises. Today, there are more than 560 Indian tribes[52] in the United States that are recognized at the federal level, with some sixty-plus tribes recognized at the state level. Many had representatives at the White House conference and applauded Obama's announcement.[53]

text: The Obama administration's decision came after three consultation meetings with Native Americans and more than 3,000 written comments on the subject.[54] The support of the government also included several interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration. In the view of the United States government, the Declaration advances "a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to indigenous peoples," which is not the same as the existing concept in international law.[54] The statement also interprets free, prior, and informed consent, "which the United States understands to call for a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken."[54]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: Speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom government, UK Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Karen Pierce, "emphasized that the Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have any retroactive application on historical episodes. National minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied."[55]

text: The UK position was also clearly intended to prevent formal appeal of Canadian decisions to UK courts: Canadian indigenous peoples never accepted the 1982 constitution in which such appeal (regarding early treaties made with the Crown of the British Empire) was cut off. Under the prior 1867 constitution, 1920s Dominion of Canada and earlier law, which continue to apply to these peoples and treaties, the UN DRIP could have been pleaded in a UK court in conflicts between treaty and Canadian law. Calls to pursue this approach have been common among Canadian natives. [6]

text: Finland[edit]

text: Finland signed the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it was originally put forward.[56][57] However the reindeer owners and Forest Administration (Metsähallitus) have a long dispute in the area of the forests.[58] The UN Human Rights Committee ordered the Finnish State to stop logging in some of the disputed areas.[citation needed]

text: Abstentions[edit]

text: Ukraine[edit]

text: Ukraine, which initially abstained from adopting the Declaration, changed its approach to indigenous issues in response to the recent annexation of Crimea, asserting that Crimean Tatars are an Indigenous people. In May 2014, the country formally endorsed the UNDRIP.[59]

text: Pacific Island states[edit]

text: Ten UN member states in the Pacific, all with indigenous majorities, were absent from the assembly at the time of the vote: Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. It is unclear whether this represents the equivalent of deliberate abstention, or whether the country delegations were absent for some other reason. The constitutions of these states typically make mention of "indigenous inhabitants" and accommodate customary laws in at least part of their modern legal systems. The constitution of Papua New Guinea, for example, has an explanatory section on the "underlying law" being based on custom, while Sch.1.2. says that "custom" means "the customs and usages of indigenous inhabitants of the country ..." (emphasis added). It may be the case, therefore, that the governments of these states took the position that their own legal systems offered sufficient protection to their own indigenous peoples. There has been no suggestion at any time since decolonisation commenced in the 1960s and the present that indigenous people are absent from any of the ten countries.

text: Nonetheless, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu are among countries in this group plagued by land grabbing in recent years.[60] Researchers have warned that as much as 12% of the land surface of Papua New Guinea has been leased without informed consultation and consent from landowners, typically suppressing customary rights for 99 years.[61] Given that land grabbing was recently ruled to lie within the remit of the International Criminal Court,[62] it is a reasonable conclusion that legal systems in the Pacific, unsupported by UNDRIP, have insufficient built-in safeguards for the protection of indigenous rights.

text: There are also significant implications in the extractive sector for these states not having signed UNDRIP. Mining companies that are members of the International Council on Mining and Metals commit to respect the ICMM's position statement on indigenous peoples. However, ambiguity surrounds how or if member companies recognise when they are dealing with indigenous peoples. For example, Barrick Gold lists only its operations in North and South America as lying on indigenous land, yet operates in Fiji and Papua New Guinea (where a subsidiary has operated the Porgera gold mine since 2007).[63] Another member, Newmont Mining, said in its 2011 Sustainability Report[64] that it had been conducting mining exploration in Papua New Guinea for three years, yet its disclosures do not show how activities in this country may have followed the ICCM's Indigenous Peoples and Mining Good Practice Guide, first published in 2010.

text: Notes[edit]