United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Smoke]

On Thursday, the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (Text here.)

Stories here and here.

Have you read the Declaration? What do you think?

The Declaration was rejected by the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Do you think those countries had valid concerns about the Declaration?

If you had a vote, how would you have voted?

 

[MaddLlama]

Your link doesn't work.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The united nations are just one more step towards a one world government. They are a paper tiger with no teeth. All we need now is a one world currency.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A good first step.
it is impossible to deny that Indigenous people should have Rights.
The four countries against, profit too much by resisting this to agree willingly.

 

[Smoke]

Your link doesn't work.

I think I've got it fixed. Let me know if it still doesn't work.

 

[Smoke]

The united nations are just one more step towards a one world government. They are a paper tiger with no teeth. All we need now is a one world currency.

The subject of this thread is not the United Nations generally, but the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically.

 

[Mathematician]

Never too late to help. From what I've read through the article it's a good step forward.

 

[greatcalgarian]

All the four nations that objected to the declaration is simply because those in power (those in charge of the government) will stand to loose their advantage of money, money, money if the natives are given their right place in these four countries. Majority of those in power are white immigrants who rob the natives of their rights, and will not give up those money they are now having. It is a matter of fight between the have and have not, where the have acquired illegally those things that originally belonging to the have not.

 

[Zephyr]

I suppose it'd be ok depending on what they consider "Indigenous Peoples." I haven't had a chance to read it as your link doesn't work, but we'll see.

 

[Smoke]

I haven't had a chance to read it as your link doesn't work, but we'll see.

Okay, I'm tired of screwing around with the UN ODS website. Since it was released without a copyright notice, I've just placed it on the RF website as an article. See here.

 

[Zephyr]

Okay, I'm tired of screwing around with the UN ODS website. Since it was released without a copyright notice, I've just placed it on the RF website as an article. See here.

Thanks. That's a lot easier to read. Pdfs take forever to load on my computer for some reason.

Anyways, I skimmed through it, and it seems mostly harmless, although I didn't really see anywhere defining what qualifies as indigenous peoples. Is there any solid definition in there that I was too impatient to find?

One part I can really agree with is the right to autonomy. It's about time that groups like the Sami or the Afrikaners or the Frisians (although they seem to be doing just fine) have the right to their own countries.

 

[Smoke]

Is there any solid definition in there that I was too impatient to find?

No. There was a deliberate decision not to define "indigenous peoples" on the grounds that "historically, indigenous peoples have suffered, from definitions imposed by others." However, the UN has elsewhere defined indigenous peoples to include pre-colonial peoples and isolated and marginal societies. See Definitions and identity of indigenous peoples.