CANADA VOTES Sept 13: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopl

[Posit]

So let me put it into perspective.

Hunting, fishing and and land rights are Charter Rights under Canadian law. That's the same as basic human rights. However, their rights haven't been extended beyond the rest of us in the Charter. The reality is that our rights to fish and hunt and live on certain lands have been suspended by the Crown under law or in the case of land and property rights were never extended to us or our ancestors. "Crown Law" or domestic law cannot apply to people of sovereign nations and that's where it gets complicated.

Native people are by law not citizens of Canada. The only way they can become citizens is to willfully and deliberately give up their rights to their aboriginal heritage. So by default while they are not citizens in many cases through treaties and through our fiduciary responsibility they are "like" citizens. The Courts have consistently upheld that those rights acquired through treaties, or by pre-existing aboriginal title must be respected. There isn't a whole lot anyone can do with that.

Now while it hasn't been fully tested to date, native people do have collective property rights - something we as citizens have never held - and insofar as the SCoC has interpreted to mean that Natives must not only be consulted when development or resource harvesting takes place, but their grievances must be accommodated, as well. This means that in protecting the environment or curbing unrelentless unfettered development and destruction of sensitive and historically significant lands. For those of us wishing an end to urban sprawl, our native friends can be our allies. Many of us have joined with them to not only advance their claims and force our government to comply with treaty law and aboriginal right but to also be a unified voice against rural conversion. Alone it wouldn't be possible to make even a dent against the corporate trains running rough shod over farms and sensitive wetlands. So with our friends and allies we have a strong position.

That said their rights exceed ours in some areas. That to me is a good thing - something that if we want some form of equality we should be demanding from our government to raise us under the Charter, not dragging them down.

[Wilber]

I see. Well ... treaties are not the issue here anyway ... you brought them up.

It is interesting how the UN developed the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples ...

It simply consists of human rights from other UN documents.

Well there is the problem, I don't believe in a Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At least not one that infers that it is a human right. The only declaration of human rights I believe in includes all peoples. If native people have been excluded from the human rights that other Canadians enjoy, that is wrong. Hunting and fishing rights may be rights under the Charter but that does not make them human rights. They are Charter Rights and they only apply to Canada. They have nothing to do with the UN. A right cannot be a human right unless it includes all humans. If a right only applies to indigenous people it is not a human right because it excludes other humans.

[Posit]

Obviously you haven't read the Declaration or you would understand that it is talking about basic human rights for aboriginal people who have been oppressed by the dominant society.

[Wilber]

Obviously you haven't read the Declaration or you would understand that it is talking about basic human rights for aboriginal people who have been oppressed by the dominant society.

Why should there be a declaration affirming basic human rights for aboriginal people? They are humans and therefore entitled to the same rights as any other humans. I don't believe in singling out groups when it comes to something as fundamental as human rights. You are not entitled to human rights because you are an aboriginal, you are entitled to them because you are a human.

There are groups all over the world oppressed for racial, religious and other reasons. Should there be declarations for all of them?

[jennie]

Why should there be a declaration affirming basic human rights for aboriginal people? They are humans and therefore entitled to the same rights as any other humans. I don't believe in singling out groups when it comes to something as fundamental as human rights. You are not entitled to human rights because you are an aboriginal, you are entitled to them because you are a human.

There are groups all over the world oppressed for racial, religious and other reasons. Should there be declarations for all of them?

Wilber the Declaration is a collection of existing human rights, from UN documents, applicable to ALL people, as you require.

It is simply drawn together to highlight the fact that these fundamental human rights must apply to Indigenous Peoples too.

It is an educational tool: "HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL ... NO EXCEPTIONS"

You will likely find that the groups oppressed all over the world are largely Indigenous, and that industrial encroachment and environmental degradation are common concerns.

http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/indigenous_peoples/index.asp

http://www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/no_excepti...9aug2006pdf.pdf

The Canadian government, which led the opposition to the Declaration at the Human Rights Council, has said that the Declaration could lead to criticism of how Canada has treated Indigenous land rights in the past. The USA has strongly opposed the very notion of an international human rights standard by which the treatment of Indigenous peoples might be judged.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

There are groups all over the world oppressed for racial, religious and other reasons. Should there be declarations for all of them?

Ummmm yaaaaaa!

As jennie mentions, indigenous people are oppressed all over the world. The UN Declaration states the obvious that their rights must be protected against territorial expansion and colonially imposed corporate interests. I would suggest that you read it since as of this moment, you officially don't know what you're are talking about.......

Edited September 4, 2007 by Posit

[Wilber]

Ummmm yaaaaaa!

As jennie mentions, indigenous people are oppressed all over the world. The UN Declaration states the obvious that their rights must be protected against territorial expansion and colonially imposed corporate interests. I would suggest that you read it since as of this moment, you officially don't know what you're are talking about.......

No. when it comes to "human" rights, there can only be one declaration for all humans whether they be indigenous, gay, straight, white, black, yellow or mimes. No particular groups should be mentioned or singled out. I don't have to read it. Call these rights what you want, just don't refer them to human rights if you are referring to the rights of a particular group that don't apply to all humans. These people may require some special protections but I object to the term human rights when it comes to any special protections or agreements.

[Riverwind]

Obviously you haven't read the Declaration or you would understand that it is talking about basic human rights for aboriginal people who have been oppressed by the dominant society.

Does that mean it is ok for aboriginal people who are the dominant society should be allowed to oppress non-aboriginals (e.g. the Chinese minority in Indonesia or the Black minority in the US)? Most countries have mixtures of ethnic groups and cultures. Most societies have some amount of power imbalance between the different groups. I see no reason to single out people aboriginals for special treatment - human rights are human rights and the same declaration should be enough for all.

[jennie]

Does that mean it is ok for aboriginal people who are the dominant society should be allowed to oppress non-aboriginals (e.g. the Chinese minority in Indonesia or the Black minority in the US)? Most countries have mixtures of ethnic groups and cultures. Most societies have some amount of power imbalance between the different groups. I see no reason to single out people aboriginals for special treatment - human rights are human rights and the same declaration should be enough for all.

Exactly... human rights are human rights, as is the case with the declaration:

The Declaration is a collection of existing human rights, from UN documents, applicable to ALL people. There are no 'special' rights for Indigenous people.

It is simply drawn together to highlight the fact that these fundamental human rights must apply to Indigenous Peoples too.

It is an educational tool: "HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL ... NO EXCEPTIONS"

[jennie]

CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO THE DECLARATION ON INDIGENOUS RIGHTS TO ACCOMMODATE 51 AFRICAN NATIONS AND ALLOW THE DECLARATION TO PASS AT THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY SEPT 13, DESPITE CANADA'S 'NAY' VOTE.

THE CHANGES ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY 40 INDIGENOUS GROUPS.

THIS IS A RESPONSE FROM ONE, first one I have seen, LAKOTA NATION USA:

...........

Owe Aku Position on the Declaration

Owe Aku acknowledges the enormous efforts and resources committed by our leaders and elders over these many years in drafting a Declaration that acknowledges our histories, our cultures, our relationship with our territories, our treaties, and, of course, the sovereignty of our nations.

We acknowledge their spirit and faith in human rights.

We acknowledge their wisdom in a seeking a just and balanced approach that would bring our peoples to international forums.

Following our leaders and elders, we have participated in good faith, believing the words of the non-Native world that said we were a part of the process.

Time and time again, we supported the compromises in the Declaration's preambular paragraphs and articles and finally agreed to the Declaration as passed by the Human Rights Council and submitted to the General Assembly.

However, we know of no process that allowed Indigenous representatives to participate in any fair, equal or just process in the events leading to the present compromise being called the "9 changes."

We have had no opportunity to comment, to accept or reject the changes, or to even discuss them with our people. The "9 changes" were, in fact, presented as a fait accompli, again with a series of "promises" attached to this latest surrender..

As people of the Lakota Nation, we see a continuation of the colonial process in which terms are dictated to us with the same outcome as the Doctrine of Discovery and the Law of Nations.

Indeed, we were given information about 48 hours ago forcing us to support, oppose or passively agree to the changes. In our history, we have seen this tactic used many times. When colonizing powers want lands and resources our leaders have been isolated, cut off from the peoples' point of view and forced into accepting dictated terms.

Since this is a Declaration of standards which, in effect, is a suggestion of best practices, and member nations cannot see their way clear to granting Indigenous peoples the same rights granted to all other peoples and acknowledge our equality as peoples;

We therefore OPPOSE submittal of any version of the Declaration to the General Assembly other than the version of the Human Rights Council passed with the participation of Indigenous peoples.

Kent Lebsock

Owe Aku

International Justice & Human Rights Project

917-751-4239

iamkent AT verizon DOT net

lakota1 AT gwtc DOT net

http://www.bringbacktheway.org

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie