Natives have right too says Canada

[William Ashley]

All I can say is wow. For real?

Natives have way way more rights than the average Canadian now, and I mean WAY more rights according to the declaration.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/890186--canada-endorses-un-stance-on-indigenous-rights?bn=1

It can be seen here:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

Article excerpts I find notable are below:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.

. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.

. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.

. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.

2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

Article 41

The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them shall be established.

Article 42

The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the country level, and States shall promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness of this Declaration.

Edited November 14, 2010 by William Ashley

[bbice]

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

Now, if that little tidbit of information been available in our less noble time, then that would have avoided alot of problems. However, I don't entirely agree with giving Natives such a higher status. I am well aware that they are one of the most impoverished groups in Canada (note I said "one of"). Their history is alot longer here, but then again, the only way for us to truly end things like this level of segregation that still exists, is to treat every Canadian like a Canadian. It should not matter what your heritage is. After all, my family is French-Canadian, does that mean that I should have the right to not serve anyone in English (I only speak English fluently, just making a point). The only way for us to move on is to forgive the past and learn from it. I even read in an article the other day that the RCMP makes exceptions for Aboriginals by lowering the entrance standards. There is a difference between encouraging diversity and racism.

Cheers,

bbice

[CANADIEN]

All I can say is wow. For real?

Natives have way way more rights than the average Canadian now, and I mean WAY more rights according to the declaration.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/890186--canada-endorses-un-stance-on-indigenous-rights?bn=1

It can be seen here:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

Article excerpts I find notable are below:

Yep, they have so much more rights than other Canadians, and as a result they live in conditions far better than the rest of us.

[bbice]

This is one of the unfortunate problems concerning this beautiful country. We seem to be the only country that was born out of colonialism to have not fogiven and forgotten. People make mistakes, even the government (tongue in cheek). I just hope theres sometime on our horizon where a Canadian is a Canadian, and only a Canadian. The truth is, the natives were defeated (regardless of the methods used) and so were the French. And yet both groups are still looking for higher status because they were defeated. What happened to, "life isn't fair".

[Bob]

The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is just leftist garbage. We already have the CCRF, guaranteeing the freedoms and liberties of all Canadians. We don't need some document which adds some sort of special status to an ambiguously defined concept known as "indigenous people". This document only serves to increase legitimacy, albeit symbolically via a non-binding agreement, to requests from certain groups of people for an elevated status and special treatment. In the Canadian context, this document contains many subjective, unnecessary, and open-ended tenets that seek only to be vehicles through which certain Aboriginals can continue to try to milk taxpayer money.

On a tangent, I see this declaration being used at rhetorical ammunition by anti-Israel groups to proclaim Palestinians as "indigenous" people who were displaced by the Jewish people when many of us returned to our homeland.

This document also feels like a leftist method to romanticize primitive and backward cultures, simply because they are "indigenous". It also will certainly be used as a vehicle to take more money from prosperous states and funnel and give it to primitive, and/or poor, and/or enemy countries who don't share our values.

[CANADIEN]

This is one of the unfortunate problems concerning this beautiful country. We seem to be the only country that was born out of colonialism to have not fogiven and forgotten. People make mistakes, even the government (tongue in cheek). I just hope theres sometime on our horizon where a Canadian is a Canadian, and only a Canadian. The truth is, the natives were defeated (regardless of the methods used) and so were the French. And yet both groups are still looking for higher status because they were defeated. What happened to, "life isn't fair".

Some of the First Nations will argue, and rightly so, that they were never defeated. And, once again rightly so, that treaties signed with them are binding.

As for French-speaking Canadians, since when is equality of rights a form of higher status?

Edited November 14, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Bob]

Here are links to the EU's own anti-Western and pro-barbarian version of this UN resolution, although these were written and passed in '98.

Working Document of the Commission of May 1998

COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 30 NOVEMBER 1998

[CANADIEN]

The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is just leftist garbage.

Of course, it HAS to be. Imagine the audacity - considering indigenous people as exactly that - people - with the inherent right to makes for themselves decisions that affects them.

We already have the CCRF, guaranteeing the freedoms and liberties of all Canadians.

Yep, including treaty rights. And there is nothing in the UN documents that adds significantly to that.

This document also feels like a leftist method to romanticize primitive and backward cultures, simply because they are "indigenous".

Nope. Simply as a way of recognizing the self-evident - that they and they alone can determine their own future.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Here are links to the EU's own anti-Western and pro-barbarian version of this UN resolution, although these were written and passed in '98.

Working Document of the Commission of May 1998

COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 30 NOVEMBER 1998

Pro-barbarian? Nice.

Edited November 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[CANADIEN]

Here are links to the EU's own anti-Western and pro-barbarian version of this UN resolution, although these were written and passed in '98.

Working Document of the Commission of May 1998

COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 30 NOVEMBER 1998

Oh imagine the barbarism... Stating that indigenous people, like any other people, should be able to participate in decisions that will affect them. We cannot have that, now can we?

[CANADIEN]

Pro-barbarian? Nice.

Looks to me like the Barbarians could be construed as those who think that non-Westernized populatins should not even be allowed to be involved in decisions that affect their livelyhood and their future.

[Bob]

Of course, it HAS to be. Imagine the audacity - considering indigenous people as exactly that - people - with the inherent right to makes for themselves decisions that affects them.

Yep, including treaty rights. And there is nothing in the UN documents that adds significantly to that.

Nope. Simply as a way of recognizing the self-evident - that they and they alone can determine their own future.

First of all, who is and who is not indigenous? I have a friend, for example, his parents are Russian immigrants, yet he was born in Canada. Is he an indigenous person? How about another friend of mine, whose mother's family goes back to the 1800s, with an immigrant father from Algeria. Is she an indigenous person? The point I'm making here is that all people are already protected by the CCRF. There is something very strange about seeking to set a separate distinction for "indigenous people" (who are they, exactly?), when Canadian protections are already extended to all Canadians.

Let's assume we can clearly define "indigenous persons", what about "non-indigenous persons"? Are they also to be afforded special and unique rights and protections and entitlements? Should they receive a fancier title that "non-indigenous persons"? Do you see what I'm getting at? It was stupid of Canada and every other free and prosperous and moral country to join on with the political-leftist garbage.

It is very strange, and suspicious, to have such an elaborate declaration for the rights of such an ambiguous collection of peoples. Who is indigenous? Who isn't?

[Bob]

Oh imagine the barbarism... Stating that indigenous people, like any other people, should be able to participate in decisions that will affect them. We cannot have that, now can we?

Who are indigenous people in the European context? What about non-indigenous people? Who are they?

[Melanie_]

This is one of the unfortunate problems concerning this beautiful country. We seem to be the only country that was born out of colonialism to have not fogiven and forgotten. People make mistakes, even the government (tongue in cheek). I just hope theres sometime on our horizon where a Canadian is a Canadian, and only a Canadian. The truth is, the natives were defeated (regardless of the methods used) and so were the French. And yet both groups are still looking for higher status because they were defeated. What happened to, "life isn't fair".

The aboriginal people of Canada weren't defeated, though. Instead, the government entered into treaties with them. The treaties basically said they would give the government of Canada certain lands, and in exchange the government would provide them with health care, education, housing, etc etc. So, as long as the government of Canada is in possession of those lands, it has an obligation to uphold those treaty rights.

I agree, I also would like a Canadian to simply be a Canadian. But until the government is willing to settle the land claims, and deal with their negligence in carrying their end of the bargain, we can't move forward.

[CANADIEN]

First of all, who is and who is not indigenous? I have a friend, for example, his parents are Russian immigrants, yet he was born in Canada. Is he an indigenous person? How about another friend of mine, whose mother's family goes back to the 1800s, with an immigrant father from Algeria. Is she an indigenous person? The point I'm making here is that all people are already protected by the CCRF. There is something very strange about seeking to set a separate distinction for "indigenous people" (who are they, exactly?), when Canadian protections are already extended to all Canadians.

Let's assume we can clearly define "indigenous persons", what about "non-indigenous persons"? Are they also to be afforded special and unique rights and protections and entitlements? Should they receive a fancier title that "non-indigenous persons"? Do you see what I'm getting at? It was stupid of Canada and every other free and prosperous and moral country to join on with the political-leftist garbage.

It is very strange, and suspicious, to have such an elaborate declaration for the rights of such an ambiguous collection of peoples. Who is indigenous? Who isn't?

There are many variations of the concept of indigenous people, and indeed the UN declaration should have been clearer on the definition. Most definitions have one thing in common though - indigenous people are those people (as in groups of people) that have existed prior to colonial conquest and have maintained a distinct identitiy. Immigrant groups are not indigenous people.

There is nothing in the UN Declaration that gives indigenous people rights not enjoyed by sovereign nations - or their population where democracy exists. Unless you want to argue that Canada does not have a legal right to chart its own future or being party to decisions that affects it.

As for the notion of morality. There is nothing moral whatsover in preventing indigenous people from charting their own course for the future.

Edited November 14, 2010 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

No one is "giving" or "affording" indigenous peoples extra rights. The declaration, as well as the Charter recognizes and affirms inherent and existing rights previously recognized and affirmed by the Royal Proclamation 1763 or by continuous application. The point is that we do not own or control indigenous people. They are independent and autonomous self-determining people, and most of Canada (the state) exists on their land.

Canada authored much of the UN Declaration, and Harper was not forced to sign it. In fact he has resisted signing it, and only when it was pointed out that it is fully consistent (and does not over-ride) the Charter did he agree to sign it.

So is it a "leftist document"? I don't think so, when it is freely and willingly endorsed and now underwritten by a right wing government.

While it does not over-rule the Charter, or add to it, it will certainly frame the future interpretations made by the Supreme Court....and rightfully so...

[Bob]

There are many variations of the concept of indigenous people, and indeed the UN declaration should have been clearer on the definition. Most definitions have one thing in common though - indigenous people are those people (as in groups of people) that have existed prior to colonial conquest and have maintained a distinct identitiy. Immigrant groups are not indigenous people.

There is nothing in the UN Declaration that gives indigenous people rights not enjoyed by sovereign nations - or their population where democracy exists. Unless you want to argue that Canada does not have a legal right to chart its own future or being party to decisions that affects it.

As for the notion of morality. There is nothing moral whatsover in preventing indigenous people from charting their own course for the future.

Are you trying to suggest that those who you define as indigenous people (Aboriginals) in Canada have a right to independence and statehood? Are they entitled to autonomy within Canada? Are these indigenous people distinct from the vast majority of Canadians legally, do they have special rights separate from other Canadians (many of whom who are born here and have roots in this country going back many generations, who you have labelled as non-indigenous)?

[g_bambino]

We seem to be the only country that was born out of colonialism to have not fogiven and forgotten.

Spend some time in Australia.

[Bob]

No one is "giving" or "affording" indigenous peoples extra rights. The declaration, as well as the Charter recognizes and affirms inherent and existing rights previously recognized and affirmed by the Royal Proclamation 1763 or by continuous application. The point is that we do not own or control indigenous people. They are independent and autonomous self-determining people, and most of Canada (the state) exists on their land.

Canada authored much of the UN Declaration, and Harper was not forced to sign it. In fact he has resisted signing it, and only when it was pointed out that it is fully consistent (and does not over-ride) the Charter did he agree to sign it.

So is it a "leftist document"? I don't think so, when it is freely and willingly endorsed and now underwritten by a right wing government.

While it does not over-rule the Charter, or add to it, it will certainly frame the future interpretations made by the Supreme Court....and rightfully so...

Just because Harper deferred to it doesn't mean it isn't a leftist document. You say that Canada does not control "indigenous" people, does Canada control non-indigenous people? If indigenous people are distinct and independent, then they do not belong to the Canadian nation, right? Are they both Canadian and Aboriginal? Are non-indigenous Canadians, such as myself and 95% of Canadians, not entitled to sub-independence? Can the Chinese people of Canada become independent? What about the French?

Do you not see how it is silly to afford special protections and entitlements to "indigenous peoples" in a free country like Canada? Canada is virtually the freest country on earth, what could "indigenous people" possibly want emancipation from? Without they own country, which I'm quite certain we can all agree will never happen, the days of running around as savage nomads a la Dances With Wolves are over. Why not simply take part in Canada, as they currently are able to, and thrive as so many other communities in beautiful Canada?

[Shwa]

Are you trying to suggest that those who you define as indigenous people (Aboriginals) in Canada have a right to independence and statehood?

Possibly.

Are they entitled to autonomy within Canada?

Posssibly.

Are these indigenous people distinct from the vast majority of Canadians legally, do they have special rights separate from other Canadians (many of whom who are born here and have roots in this country going back many generations, who you have labelled as non-indigenous)?

Yes. Are you not familiar with Indian Treaties? Here is a link for further information:

Indian Treaties - The Canadian Encyclopedia

[charter.rights]

Are you trying to suggest that those who you define as indigenous people (Aboriginals) in Canada have a right to independence and statehood?

They already do under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Are they entitled to autonomy within Canada?

That is yet to be fully determined. Canada is a state that sits belong the right aboriginal self-government. However Canada has tried to create new treaties which recognize that self-government would only exist within the Canadian Constitution order. I wold suggest that the Declaration recognizes that this arrangement is not automatically assumed.

Are these indigenous people distinct from the vast majority of Canadians legally...

Yes.

...do they have special rights separate from other Canadians (many of whom who are born here and have roots in this country going back many generations, who you have labelled as non-indigenous)?

The rights are recognized, not because of their indigenous status, but because their indigenous status was recognized before the Royal Proclamation 1763, and those rights have been recognized and maintained since that time. Are they special rights? I wouldn't say they are, because in essence they are rights not controlled by or modified by our presence here as a colonial state. Rather those rights are inherent and inalienable and so the best we can do is to recognize them as being extraneous to the limitations we have set out for ourselves in the social contract of Canada.

Edited November 14, 2010 by charter.rights

[bbice]

As for French-speaking Canadians, since when is equality of rights a form of higher status?

If they wanted to be on par with the rest of Canadians in terms of equality of rights, they would have signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact that they are the sole province in the country that is allowed to only provide service in one language is, imo, a form of higher status and far from equality of rights. I understand their meaning behind it, but there is always a balance.

The aboriginal people of Canada weren't defeated, though. Instead, the government entered into treaties with them.

The Aboriginal People of Canada, were defeated in the sense that they lost the high ground in negotiations. I believe that in a scenario where you sign a document that effectively seals your fate, I would count that as still a defeat. For example, the Munich Accord back in the 30's with Nazi Germany. Chamberlain was defeated in the long run, mainly because he signed a document that effectively commited the world to a global conflict. Obviously, this is more an extreme example, but it was more context.

[bbice]

Double Post.

Edited November 14, 2010 by bbice

[Bob]

Let's get right down to basics. Does Aboriginal independence and self-determination depend on statehood? Can their desires be actualized within the existing Canadian framework? We have many sub-communities who are distinct from the rest of Canadians living within Canada. Although not necessarily important, many of these sub-communities are significantly larger than the Aboriginal populations of Canada. Do French-Canadians deserve the same independence and autonomy? What about Canadians who identify themselves as Chinese? If not, you are affording special recognition, rights, and entitlements to Aboriginals over other Canadians (not that that is inherently bad, by the way). Let's at least be open and honest about it.

It just seems to me that the primary objective of independence and self-determination for a population is the preservation and continued development of a culture. Can this not be realized by Aboriginals within Canada as it is? In my view, I just can't see why anyone would want independence from Canada, a beautiful, wealthy, and free country. If it isn't beautiful, wealthy, or free enough for Aboriginals to realize their needs, however, that is something entirely different. I am not being sarcastic with that last statement, by the way.

[Bob]

Possibly.

Posssibly.

Yes. Are you not familiar with Indian Treaties? Here is a link for further information:

Indian Treaties - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Thanks for the links. And no, I am certainly not familiar with these treaties to any degree. I never studied them at any level, academically or casually.