jbg Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 AH, the great standard of living.....for whom?I'm not in that wealthy upper 5%, but our poor live better than the poor in most other countries. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Posit Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 I'm not in that wealthy upper 5%, but our poor live better than the poor in most other countries. That's hardly an endorsement for the benefits of western imperialism. That's like saying the beggars rummaging the dumpsters outside of 5 star restaurants eat better than those rummaging McDonald's garbage bins. Your point, however, does reinforce that corporate myths and mass societal conditioning is more readily adopted than truth and reality. Quote
noahbody Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 That's hardly an endorsement for the benefits of western imperialism. That's like saying the beggars rummaging the dumpsters outside of 5 star restaurants eat better than those rummaging McDonald's garbage bins. Your point, however, does reinforce that corporate myths and mass societal conditioning is more readily adopted than truth and reality. If you're poor in Canada you either lack skill or ambition or have a mental disability. As far as treatment of our indigenous people goes, those with ambition have the advantage of paid schooling and Equal Employer programs. They have it better than the rest of us. Jennie made the comment they lack the training for oil industry jobs. Better put, they lack the ambition to get training for oil industry jobs. Tradition and anger can keep you stuck in the past and poor. Quote
Pliny Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 If you're poor in Canada you either lack skill or ambition or have a mental disability. As far as treatment of our indigenous people goes, those with ambition have the advantage of paid schooling and Equal Employer programs. They have it better than the rest of us. Jennie made the comment they lack the training for oil industry jobs. Better put, they lack the ambition to get training for oil industry jobs. Tradition and anger can keep you stuck in the past and poor. Stuck in the past - like somewhere in the eighteenth century? The UN should go the way of the League of Nations. I vote with, Betsy. I don't know how jennie squares the circle of hating government and at the same time demanding more of it. It's kind of a love-hate relationship, I guess. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Posit Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 If you're poor in Canada you either lack skill or ambition or have a mental disability. By George you just solved the poverty problem in Canada. You have better start your campaign informing retirees, physically disabled people, single mothers, laid-off factory workers, and the working McPoor people that they are lacking skill, ambition and mental capacity. Good luck on that. Like most right wing simplistic suggestions, these ideas have never been well thought out, but like corporate myths get tossed around by simpletons as an unconscionable truth. Quote
Posit Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 Stuck in the past - like somewhere in the eighteenth century?The UN should go the way of the League of Nations. I vote with, Betsy. I don't know how jennie squares the circle of hating government and at the same time demanding more of it. It's kind of a love-hate relationship, I guess. I love how you ignore the existing laws and insert fantasy as an excuse for public policy. The UN is here and very likely to stay with Canada as a member. Now can't we all just get along? Quote
kimmy Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 The key to exploiting natural resources is to honour the rules of nature not try ignore them. Its possible to use the planet without causing it permanent damage. The question is, are politicians so interested in short term gain, willing to listen to indigenous peoples who are far more advanced in their understanding of the environment and the rules of nature then the alleged scientists and researchers behind these corporations. Are the natives really the Great Custodians of Nature? Is it genetics? It is it traditional wisdom that has been passed down from ancient times? If it is the latter, then genetics seems to be a poor method of determining who has obtained this traditional knowledge. It is also debatable how much of this traditional is applicable when modern factors have created situations that never existed before. Traditional native fishing was not done with motorized vessels and huge gill-nets, for instance. What happened when the Supreme Court decided that the west coast tribes could have their own commercial fishery? It didn't work out very well for the fish... and it resulted in situations where non-native commercial fishermen weren't allowed to fish for conservation reasons while native commercial fishermen continued. Is that the sort of model we want applied to other resources? Doesn't Article 26 of the declaration state that indigenous people should total, unfettered control of developing commercial industries in regard to sea, land, air, and all the plants and animals living there? Wouldn't that specifically preclude any sort of environmental or conservation measures the government might try to apply? Is this really a good idea? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
cynic43 Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 The UN is an ineffectual idiocracy. The general assembly is dominated by third world countries who can't lift themselves out of destitute poverty, and yet presume to tell prosperous nations how they should behave. Whether Canada accepts or opposes the UN's meaningless "declarations" is completely irrelevant. Another asinine post..... Do tell which 3rd country has veto power? Only countries which veto power have any REAL power in the UN and those are who again? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 Another asinine post.....Do tell which 3rd country has veto power? Only countries which veto power have any REAL power in the UN and those are who again? All the more reason to move on to something better. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jbg Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 By George you just solved the poverty problem in Canada. You have better start your campaign informing retirees, physically disabled people, single mothers, laid-off factory workers, and the working McPoor people that they are lacking skill, ambition and mental capacity. Good luck on that.Like most right wing simplistic suggestions, these ideas have never been well thought out, but like corporate myths get tossed around by simpletons as an unconscionable truth. Maybe you should pause, count to thirty, and decide if the suggestions have some merit. I believe they are not just "tossed around by simpletons as an unconscionable truth". I do believe in helping those that cannot help themselves, not those that will not. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Posit Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 Are the natives really the Great Custodians of Nature? Is it genetics? It is it traditional wisdom that has been passed down from ancient times? If it is the latter, then genetics seems to be a poor method of determining who has obtained this traditional knowledge. It is also debatable how much of this traditional is applicable when modern factors have created situations that never existed before. Traditional native fishing was not done with motorized vessels and huge gill-nets, for instance. What happened when the Supreme Court decided that the west coast tribes could have their own commercial fishery? It didn't work out very well for the fish... and it resulted in situations where non-native commercial fishermen weren't allowed to fish for conservation reasons while native commercial fishermen continued. Is that the sort of model we want applied to other resources? Doesn't Article 26 of the declaration state that indigenous people should total, unfettered control of developing commercial industries in regard to sea, land, air, and all the plants and animals living there? Wouldn't that specifically preclude any sort of environmental or conservation measures the government might try to apply?Is this really a good idea? -k Are the natives really the Great Custodians of Nature? Generally speaking, yes. They are closer to non-obstructive harvesting and living in harmony than we are. For Chr$t sake we are still pi$in and crapin' in our drinking water. Don't you just love ingesting all those antibiotics and birth control hormones being recycled in our water sources? It is it traditional wisdom that has been passed down from ancient times? It is something like that. The discovery that certain stupid practices have long term consequences was developed over generations. On the other hand our industrial age has only been a little over a hundred years and although we see catastrophic effects (love canal, Bopal, India, climate change etc.) we are still to arrogant to change our practices and curb the devastating effects on our children. In tribal societies, when one group refused to admit their harm they were often quarantined and outsiders refused to deal with them. The result would have been their own death. Unfortunately, what your company does and what you promote in the name of greed has an effect on us and we can't quarantine you. In fact when we stand by our native brothers and sisters and try to stop your foolish behaviors by holding protests or blockades, the force of the courts is reigned upon us and our rights to protest our government's stupid actions are denied by the courts. And so the natives take a course of economic disruption in an attempt to bring the issues to the public conscience and even when the majority of Canadians support then, the courts still deny their rights and arrest, charge and jail their outspoken. As far as ancient wisdom goes, many natives I have met can trace their teachings in a direct line 7 generations and every generation before them could do the same thing. So information isn't hearsay like we pretend it is, because generally speaking the majority of Canadians are too stupid or too inept at remembering things with any kind of accuracy. Even the science is flaw to a certain degree because the science industry has come only to care just about as long as the politicians to control their budgets care - about 1 term. And when they do start to look beyond the single term and start raising the alarm bells, most of you are quick to say "WTF? Harper never told me this so it must not be true...." What happened when the Supreme Court decided that the west coast tribes could have their own commercial fishery? The fact is that the Supreme Court never "decided" they could have their own fishery. They ruled that commercial fishery was a pre-existing right under our Charter and Canadian law couldn't stop them from pursuing it. And when it came to exercising the right, the fishery was neither ruined or canceled because of native overfishing. Rather the science that predicted a decline was flawed and legitimate scientists determined that from the outset and the temporal reduction in migration was a result of the interference of the fishery by non-native trawlers sucking the life out of the ocean long before the fish ever arrived for spawning. And like I said previously, when the sht hit the fan, the government had no choice but to shut down the commercial fishery of the rivers (save and except the native commercial fishery) because one there was a demonstrated effect caused by the trawlers, and because they don't have the authority under Canadian law because it wasn't a conservation matter in the first place. You said earlier that nothing contained in the declaration would have an effect on anything we do in Canada, remember? So the SCoC says that the government can shut down a fishery, or other resource IF there is a legitimate conservation issue. And I don't doubt that long before that, the native fishery would have been curbed to prevent it. So if the declaration has no effect, and we already have laws in place to maintain resource harvesting if they are in danger of collapse, then what is your fear? That natives will get something you and your cadre have denied them? Is that it? Otherwise you have no legitimate argument and the quasi-racist one you are hiding behind the air of concern is irrational. And Harper is refusing to go along, it is simply because his ego is a sphincter to intelligent and rational thought. Quote
jbg Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 Are the natives really the Great Custodians of Nature? Is it genetics? It is it traditional wisdom that has been passed down from ancient times?One should read the book by Mann called 1491 before concluding that pre-Colombian natives were great custodians of nature. They weren't.I will be happy to e-mail anyone a PDF of the Atlantic Magazine article, written by Mann, that presaged the full version of the book. PM me if you want it. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jennie Posted September 9, 2007 Author Report Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Maybe I overstated the case by wanting to go back to the 18th Century, but on the Anglosphere, what other group of countries has provided such a decent standard of living and extensive good, democratic government to so many? The question is not "which countries" but "how have they done it". Does colonizing, wiping out millions of inhabitants and stealing their land and their children while hypocritically signing peace treaties with them in bad faith sound like a proud foundation for "a decent standard of living and extensive good, democratic government to so many" What about the "few" who are left out? ... those whose land PROVIDES our decent standard of living ... top o'the world, in fact, while Indigenous Peoples of Canada 'enjoy' a standard of living in 63rd place in the world. 'Pride' in the illegal and immoral 'conquest' of Indigenous lands and resources in Canada is the pride of sociopaths. It is the kind of 'pride that goeth before the fall'. Edited September 9, 2007 by jennie Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Pliny Posted September 9, 2007 Report Posted September 9, 2007 I love how you ignore the existing laws and insert fantasy as an excuse for public policy. Fantasy would serve us better than some of the existing laws. Glad you liked that. The UN is here and very likely to stay with Canada as a member. I wouldn't count on that. They are a body of bureaucrats convinced of their own self-importance and their role in global affairs as well as how to best profit from their activities for themselves and their friends. They are a level of pseudo-government and they last less longer than most sovereign governments Now can't we all just get along? Sounds like as long as things go your way we can. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
jennie Posted September 9, 2007 Author Report Posted September 9, 2007 Maybe you should pause, count to thirty, and decide if the suggestions have some merit. I believe they are not just "tossed around by simpletons as an unconscionable truth". I do believe in helping those that cannot help themselves, not those that will not. And you believe in Canada we are helping those who "will not"? What evidence can you provide to support your assertion? Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
jbg Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 What evidence can you provide to support your assertion?The abundance of jobs requiring primarily manual labor in Alberta going begging for one. And as far as disabilities go I don't count an addiction to "fire water" as one beyond people's control. Sorry. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jennie Posted September 10, 2007 Author Report Posted September 10, 2007 The abundance of jobs requiring primarily manual labor in Alberta going begging for one. And as far as disabilities go I don't count an addiction to "fire water" as one beyond people's control. Sorry. Ok ... where is your evidence that there are people available and able to do those jobs who are simply not willing? Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
jennie Posted September 10, 2007 Author Report Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) Just an update on the thread topic ... Canada and the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...=N&start=10 The headlines tell the story: Canada bruised in rights fight Canoe.ca, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 By CP OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed ... Canada slammed over UN declaration Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Canada blasted over policy on natives Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA–Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Elisa Burchett: Major Shift in Outlook for UN Declaration on ... UN Observer - Sep 6, 2007 2007-09-06 | “We analyzed the document and we believe that this does not fall below existing international human rights standards. ... Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... UN set to adopt native-rights declaration (anyway, regardless of Harpers melodramatics.) Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA — The United Nations is set to adopt a new Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People despite what critics say was aggressive opposition from Canada. ... I wonder if Harper thought the UN would just do what nice little Canada said. What an idiot. Now he has made us look like aggressive human rights violators to the whole world. Since it is true, I think this is a good thing! The UN will be scrutinizing his every move wrt Indigenous Peoples. This can only be helpful to Canada in the long run, to make sure that we are handling land repatriation legally and honourably. OK ... imo this is a good outcome. Harper did what Bush told him to do and it backfired, resulting in a GREATER likelihood that we will have to act within the law. Do you think perhaps that this was Harper's agenda all along? Nah ... couldn't be ... he's not that smart. Edited September 10, 2007 by jennie Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
noahbody Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 Just an update on the thread topic ... Canada and the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples:http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...=N&start=10 The headlines tell the story: Canada bruised in rights fight Canoe.ca, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 By CP OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed ... Canada slammed over UN declaration Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Canada blasted over policy on natives Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA–Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Elisa Burchett: Major Shift in Outlook for UN Declaration on ... UN Observer - Sep 6, 2007 2007-09-06 | “We analyzed the document and we believe that this does not fall below existing international human rights standards. ... Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... UN set to adopt native-rights declaration (anyway, regardless of Harpers melodramatics.) Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA — The United Nations is set to adopt a new Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People despite what critics say was aggressive opposition from Canada. ... Notice you conveniently skipped over this one: http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Que...08/4478792.html Quote
jennie Posted September 10, 2007 Author Report Posted September 10, 2007 Notice you conveniently skipped over this one: http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Que...08/4478792.html It wasn't in the google search when I did it. Joe Quennell is an off-reserve person advocating for his own rights, which is fine. However, there is no reason to imply that collective rights take away from individual rights because they don't. Unfortunately, our governments use divide and conquer strategies that have set off-reserve people against those on reserve. There is no contradiction or competition between collective rights and individual rights because collective rights are just the rights of individuals to assemble in whatever groups serve their purpose. We all have the right to be a 'collective'. There are NO NEW HUMAN RIGHTS in the Declaration. It is simply a Declaration of the human rights that we ALL have, stipulating clearly that these same human rights MUST be applied to Indigenous Peoples too. Human Right for All: NO EXCEPTIONS! Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
fellowtraveller Posted September 10, 2007 Report Posted September 10, 2007 Just an update on the thread topic ... Canada and the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples:http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...=N&start=10 The headlines tell the story: Canada bruised in rights fight Canoe.ca, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 By CP OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed ... Canada slammed over UN declaration Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA -- Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Canada blasted over policy on natives Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 7, 2007 OTTAWA–Canada was cast yesterday as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... Elisa Burchett: Major Shift in Outlook for UN Declaration on ... UN Observer - Sep 6, 2007 2007-09-06 | “We analyzed the document and we believe that this does not fall below existing international human rights standards. ... Canada ripped for opposing UN declaration Toronto Star, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA – Canada was cast today as a bad actor that aggressively campaigned alongside countries with tarnished human-rights records in its failed bid to ... UN set to adopt native-rights declaration (anyway, regardless of Harpers melodramatics.) Globe and Mail, Canada - Sep 6, 2007 OTTAWA — The United Nations is set to adopt a new Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People despite what critics say was aggressive opposition from Canada. ... I wonder if Harper thought the UN would just do what nice little Canada said. What an idiot. Now he has made us look like aggressive human rights violators to the whole world. Since it is true, I think this is a good thing! The UN will be scrutinizing his every move wrt Indigenous Peoples. This can only be helpful to Canada in the long run, to make sure that we are handling land repatriation legally and honourably. OK ... imo this is a good outcome. Harper did what Bush told him to do and it backfired, resulting in a GREATER likelihood that we will have to act within the law. Do you think perhaps that this was Harper's agenda all along? Nah ... couldn't be ... he's not that smart. Primary sources: the Toronto Star and the Grope and Flail, both papers with a deep and pathological hatred of Harper and anything not Liberal. Kind of like you. I can understand the appeal of the connection.. Quote The government should do something.
jennie Posted September 10, 2007 Author Report Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) Primary sources: the Toronto Star and the Grope and Flail, both papers with a deep and pathological hatred of Harper and anything not Liberal. Kind of like you. I can understand the appeal of the connection.. Well I tried to find coverage of this important national issue in the NATIONAL Post, but a search of "indigenous" revealed only stories about mining (effects of those pesky Indigenous people, living on their own land and interfering with mining profits!!)... and a few travelogues extolling the virtues Indigenous culture!!!) Oh how I love the irony! Edited September 10, 2007 by jennie Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
kimmy Posted September 11, 2007 Report Posted September 11, 2007 There are NO NEW HUMAN RIGHTS in the Declaration. It is simply a Declaration of the human rights that we ALL have, stipulating clearly that these same human rights MUST be applied to Indigenous Peoples too.Human Right for All: NO EXCEPTIONS! These are not "rights that we ALL have." Have you had special lands set aside for you? Have you received financial compensation for lands that used to belong to your ancestors but have been settled upon by others? Do you have rights to enjoy natural resources without government regulation? Do you have the right to cross international borders without restrictions? I don't know about you, but I don't think I had any of these rights last time I checked. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
jennie Posted September 11, 2007 Author Report Posted September 11, 2007 (edited) These are not "rights that we ALL have." Have you had special lands set aside for you? Have you received financial compensation for lands that used to belong to your ancestors but have been settled upon by others? Do you have rights to enjoy natural resources without government regulation? Do you have the right to cross international borders without restrictions? I don't know about you, but I don't think I had any of these rights last time I checked. -k We have the right to inherit property, as individuals or collectives, as we also have the right to form collectives if we choose. As for what lands remain of their inheritance, that is what the land claims system is working through right now, by considering the documentation ... the evidence of ownership. If you belonged to a collective that had its inherited property taken by the government without compensation, and if you have documents and proof, then yes you could. You have that right. I believe some Jewish people and other people who were occupied or displaced by German expansion are still getting reparations for property taken from them in Europe during WWII, based on whatever evidence they can provide. They have that right. You have that right. As for government regulation, it is a question of "Whose government?" Canada has never recognized 'Status Indians' as citizens, so that kinda blows that issue right out the door! (Gone.) Fact is, as unconquered peoples who have become minorities in their own land, through colonization and domination by 'others', they have the same right to determine their own governance as you and I would in that situation. They are not required to become Canadian unless by choice, under International law: Canada cannot force them. This has happened to other peoples in the world, besides Indigenous peoples. That is why those conventions already existed in UN documents. All of these conventions come from UN human rights documents that apply to everyone who needs them. None are specific to Indigenous Peoples. They are just gathered together in this one document now as an educational and monitoring tool to promote equal human rights for Indigenous Peoples too. This is necessary because their human rights are often violated all over the world, and Canada is no exception. So ... check again ... you have all the rights they do. You just haven't inherited the property they have. Edited September 11, 2007 by jennie Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
jennie Posted September 12, 2007 Author Report Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp You can watch the vote in the UN General Assembly live on Thursday, 10 am, as the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples passes, with or without Canada's support. kimmy? Any further comments on the Declaration and individual rights? Edited September 12, 2007 by jennie Quote If you are claiming a religious exemption from the hate law, please say so up front. If you have no religious exemption, please keep hateful thoughts to yourself. Thank you. MY Canada includes Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.