NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic States of Hirota, having observed the mistreatment of Indigenous peoples (such as Bigtopians) in other nations, are determined to bring this matter to the forefront and seek to bring about a satisfactory resolution on this matter.

It is for this reason that my government has directed me to submit a draft proposal on the Rights of Indigenous societies and peoples for your consideration.

Thank you for your time
***************
SECOND DRAFT - REPLACED FIRST PUBLIC DRAFT ON 29th December 2004
THIRD DRAFT - REPLACED SECOND PUBLIC DRAFT ON 6th January 2005
FOURTH DRAFT - REPLACED THIRD PUBLIC DRAFT ON 7th January 2005
FIFTH DRAFT - REPLACED FOURTH DRAFT ON 10th January 2005
SUBMITTED ON 12th January
***************
Rights of Indigenous peoples (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Indigenous)
***************
Determined that the UN has a role to play in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in rights to all peoples, recognizing the rights of all peoples to be different, to be free from discrimination

Concerned indigenous peoples have been deprived of human rights & fundamental freedoms

Recognizing the need to respect & promote the rights of indigenous peoples, notably the rights to territories & resources, which stem from political, economic & social structures

Recognizing that indigenous peoples have the right to determine relationships with States in a spirit of coexistence & respect

Proclaims the following:

§1 Defines Indigenous peoples as the descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a state wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame & reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who now live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs & traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates the national, social & cultural characteristics of other segments of the majority population

§2 Indigenous peoples are free & equal to other peoples in dignity & rights, have the right to be free from discrimination

§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext

§5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics, including the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such

§6 Indigenous peoples shall not be forced from their lands or territories, no relocation shall occur without free & informed consent of the indigenous peoples and agreement on just & fair recompense

§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to protection & safety in times of conflict

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

§9 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons

§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

§11 Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity & diversity of cultures, traditions & aspirations shown in education & public information

§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes

§13 States shall take effective steps, in discussion with indigenous peoples concerned, to give effect to this Resolution
***************

HOT LINK (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Indigenous)

First note, without reading the content - it's too long. FAR too long. MS Word shows it as 6895 characters, and somebody recently posted that the limit is either 2730 characters or 3500 characters, I forget which.

Do some trimming, then re-offer, please.

Looks good after my first glance. But what is "religious and spiritual property?"

-A. Thompson, UN Ambassador

We want to see a definition of 'indigenous' for use in this proposal.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

First note, without reading the content - it's too long.I know, but I'd trimmed it down as much as I could for the time being, and was going to further reduce it once I'd seen input from others.

We want to see a definition of 'indigenous' for use in this proposal. The defintion I have been working towards comes from Here (www.iaa.gov.sk.ca/aboriginal/html/Common/glossary.htm): Generally used in the international context, "indigenous" refers to peoples who are original to a particular territory. This term is very similar to Aboriginal and has a positive connotation. I appreciate that incorporating this into any proposal would be important.

Looks good after my first glance. But what is "religious and spiritual property?" I presume you are referring to article 10? I would define religous and spiritual property as anything that is considered holy or spirtual to the indigenous peoples. Examples I can think of which would be considered religious or spiritual would include temples, cemetaries, and churches.

I've just realised that article 11 is thus redundant however, so will cut that out of draft mk2! I've also cut out article 16, and article 17, so ignore them.

Ecopoeia is following the passage of this proposal very closely; detailed commentary will follow.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: no time at the mo! back on the 30th, merry Xmas to all in the meantime.

The second draft of this proposal has now been submitted in the first post in this topic.

I am aware this is still well over the limit (whatever it is), and will reduce it in further drafts till it reaches an acceptable (and more digestable) size.

the silence on this topic is depressing.....

I've done yet another draft on this proposal - which is much smaller, and is in the first entry on this topic as well as this one:

Rights of Indigenous societies and peoples - older drafts have been removed.

Ah, silence. Usually means a combination of 'no news is good news' and 'no news means they've forgotten about you'.

I like this. Gets the Ennish Tick of Approval.

It's still too big, but it's getting there.

Thanks for the thumbs up Enn.

You have our support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I'll definitely support this. I've read enough literature to prick my sympathy when indigenous peoples are forcibly removed from their lands due to damming projects and the like. This is an apparently overlooked humanitarian request for cooperation on protecting these enclaves, but I wish this luck on reaching quorum.

Oh, and one thing: It crossed my mind that there ought to be some appeasement in this proposal for those nations that might view indigenous people as an economic obstacle. I would be interested if there would be provisions about possible services these indigenous people would be allowed to offer to those nations who are more economically-driven. I've read that often indigenous groups are able to remain where they are because they harvest Brazil nuts for companies. It's just a thought on the matter.

It's still too big, but it's getting there.

Thanks for the thumbs up Enn.

One trick to cut it down a bit more would be to take your double sentence articles and convert them into run-ons or compound sentences.

Current Draft:

"9
Indigenous children have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State. All indigenous peoples also have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their culture."

Change to:
"§9. Indigenous children have the right to all levels and forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum appropriate to the needs and consistent with their culture.”

I'd really advocate adding that § character in there. It adds a flavour to the text and will allow you to put the white space between articles, but maybe cut down the scroll length a bit.

It is long, but I've honestly have a hard time identifying what to really cut out.

It is a great idea, and well done.

p.s. one of the best movies I saw in 2004 was "Rabbit Proof Fence". :)

We don't see a use for this proposal. Indignous people are no more special than your average citizen. As a country that has evolved from a totalitarian dictatorship to a full-fledged democracy with ample civil rights, we do not see the merit in such a law. It would in fact discriminate against those who do not fall into this group of people, as they, based on the context of this law are not eligible for the protection of rights it endorses.

I don't see a use for this. My entire nation is considered either indiginous or nonindiginous, depending on how you look at it. Either way, worthless to me and has no affect.

Indignous people are no more special than your average citizen. You missed out a couple of important words in that sentance....You should have said "In Kryozerkia, Indignous people are no more special than your average citizen." My point is that while your nation might have equal rights for indigenous peoples (and kudos for that), other nations have - either historically or presently - had a long history of human rights abuses towards indigenous peoples. The supremely democratic states of Hirota, in it's early history as a petty city state had an abysmally poor record concerning the treatment of indigenous peoples. Whilst we have learnt the errors of our ways, we are aware other nations are not fully aware of the effects they have on indigenous peoples.It would in fact discriminate against those who do not fall into this group of people, I fail to see how. If a peoples was not indignous, and were part of the culture which "absorbed" the indignous peoples, then it should be protected by the state?

I've found a much better definition for indiginous peoples which I'm inclined to use:

The existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them and, by conquest, settlement, or other means reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who today live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates mainly the national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.My entire nation is considered either indiginous or nonindiginous, depending on how you look at it. Use the above definiton to determine if you are indiginous or not. I suspect not.
Either way, worthless to me and has no affect. Maybe not for you, but it would certainly benefit indiginous peoples elsewhere :)It is a great idea, and well done. Thanks Mik, I'll rewrite the proposal taking your suggestions on board - it only needs a little trimmed off I think!

I've managed to get a fourth draft completed - mainly reducing the size of the document further. It is now down to 3318 characters (including spaces).

Thanks to Mik for the tip on reducing the size of this draft
***************
Rights of Indigenous societies and peoples (DRAFT 4)
***************
Emphasizing that the UN has an important role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples
Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in rights to all other peoples, while recognizing the rights of all peoples to be different, and to be free from discrimination
Concerned indigenous peoples have been deprived of their human rights & fundamental freedoms, such as the colonization and the denial of their territories & resources
Recognizing the urgent need to respect & promote the rights of indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their territories & resources, which derive from their political, economic & social structures and from their cultures, traditions, histories & philosophies
Recognizing also that indigenous peoples have the right to determine their relationships with States in a spirit of coexistence, mutual benefit & respect
Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration concerning the Rights of Indigenous societies and peoples:
§1 Indigenous peoples are free and equal to other peoples in dignity & rights, and have the right to be free from any discrimination
§2 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their political, economic, social & cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State
§3 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of indigenous minors from families & communities under any pretext
§4 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics, including the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such
§5 Indigenous peoples shall not be forced from their lands or territories, no relocation shall take place without free & informed consent of the indigenous peoples and agreement on just & fair recompense
§6 Indigenous peoples have the right to protection & safety in times of conflict
§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice their cultural traditions & customs, and the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies
§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop their histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for places & persons
§9 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum appropriate to the needs & consistent with their culture
§10 Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity & diversity of their cultures, traditions & aspirations reflected in education & public information
§11 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop contacts, relations & cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with other peoples across the borders
§12 States shall take effective & appropriate actions, in discussion with the indigenous peoples concerned, to give full effect to this Resolution

I will be submitting this next monday if no other suggestions are submitted for improving this proposal.

So what is the character limit again? Because though you've done a great job getting it down to size, I was going to suggest adding semicolons at the end of each phrase and then a hard return to bring more white space back.

In all of my resolutions I've had to go back in remove a preambulatory clause to reach the limit. I like what you have in yours, but I'd suggest that white space for one preambulatory clause might be called for. White space gives the reader a chance to digest each article one at a time. It is how we write paragraphs and text here too. :)

I'd like to, and I'd also like to add something defining Indigenous peoples, but size is a big issue, and if I put that stuff in, something would have to come out.

I am still looking at the proposal, trying to weed out more chaff, and space would be one of the things I would need to include, if I can. :)

It's 3428 (including spaces) I have a draft which I will put on on monday which will be under the limit (if I can remove 93 characters.....)

Try removing any "and" you have after a comma.

So


§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice their cultural traditions & customs, and the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs,


becomes


§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice their cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs,

I fail to see how. If a peoples was not indignous, and were part of the culture which "absorbed" the indignous peoples, then it should be protected by the state?
I'll tell you why it discriminates.

It gives someone extra rights not given to the majority.

Just because you're a minority, it affords you no extra rights. Why do minorities get rights the majority doesn't? Because they think they're so damned special just because they aren't the majority...

Equal rights are spoken of, but when in practice, it is hardly equal when you start giving special status to certain groups of people becuse they are a minority or indigenous. True equality means granting everyone the same rights.

I'll tell you why it discriminates.

It gives someone extra rights not given to the majority.

Just because you're a minority, it affords you no extra rights. Why do minorities get rights the majority doesn't? Because they think they're so damned special just because they aren't the majority...

Equal rights are spoken of, but when in practice, it is hardly equal when you start giving special status to certain groups of people becuse they are a minority or indigenous. True equality means granting everyone the same rights.

My sentiments exactly. Don't get me wrong; Florida has quite a history when it comes to abusing indigenous peoples, and my heart goes out to them. The Seminoles were once a mighty, majestic people when Florida was just a cluster of swampy badlands; you hardly hear about them now, because the majority of them were wiped out in Jackson's genocidal quest to eradicate Indians from the South. It was an unfortunate series of events, and I truly wish I could go back in time and change something.

But despite the lack of Seminoles in present-day Floridian society, their rights are now protected, just like any other minority's rights. While the author is most noble for bringing forth such a proposal, it's really nothing more than micromanagement. If you're legitimately concerned about the abuse of indigenous peoples, you need look no further than the Universal Bill of Rights, a resolution passed quite some time ago. It covers all your concerns quite nicely.

But despite the lack of Seminoles in present-day Floridian society, their rights are now protected, just like any other minority's rights. While the author is most noble for bringing forth such a proposal, it's really nothing more than micromanagement. If you're legitimately concerned about the abuse of indigenous peoples, you need look no further than the Universal Bill of Rights, a resolution passed quite some time ago. It covers all your concerns quite nicely.

I highly recommend you watch the Austrailian film Rabbit-Proof Fence (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/) (2002).

The existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them and, by conquest, settlement, or other means reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who today live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates mainly the national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.

The delegate from Necros-Vacuia respectfully points out that the majority of our population are just such a people. The Necros-Vacuian people have lived there since before remembrance; and the minority groups of our nation are all those who formerly attempted to colonize us (the Hammani, the Hispan-Ashkenazi), or the descendants of those who once ruled us as kings (the Vyrnn).

Under this proposal, you would be granting the majority of our population special rights; and as we believe all people are equally born to serve the Dominion, we cannot ask our regional delegate to endorse you.

--Ellion Kev, Ambassador to the UN, Dominion of Necros-Vacuia
"Death is not an excuse to cease serving us, worm."

The Necros-Vacuian people have lived there since before remembrance; and the minority groups of our nation are all those who formerly attempted to colonize us (the Hammani, the Hispan-Ashkenazi), or the descendants of those who once ruled us as kings (the Vyrnn).If you consult the second half of the definition you will observe that since your native Peoples are not living under the national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population, then your native people would not fall under this definition.If you're legitimately concerned about the abuse of indigenous peoples, you need look no further than the Universal Bill of Rights, a resolution passed quite some time ago. It covers all your concerns quite nicely. Why bother with any other resolutions then?

I'm now just 14 characters away from a submittable proposal....and I've managed to get the definition included as well.....

I've now managed to get a submittable size of under 3428 characters, copy below:
***************
Rights of Indigenous societies and peoples
***************
Determined that the UN has a role to play in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in rights to all peoples, recognizing the rights of all peoples to be different, to be free from discrimination

Concerned indigenous peoples have been deprived of human rights & fundamental freedoms

Recognizing the need to respect & promote the rights of indigenous peoples, notably the rights to territories & resources, which stem from political, economic & social structures

Recognizing that indigenous peoples have the right to determine relationships with States in a spirit of coexistence & respect

Proclaims the following:

§1 Defines Indigenous peoples as the descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a state wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame & reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who now live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs & traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates the national, social & cultural characteristics of other segments of the majority population

§2 Indigenous peoples are free & equal to other peoples in dignity & rights, have the right to be free from discrimination

§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext

§5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics, including the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such

§6 Indigenous peoples shall not be forced from their lands or territories, no relocation shall occur without free & informed consent of the indigenous peoples and agreement on just & fair recompense

§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to protection & safety in times of conflict

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

§9 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons

§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

§11 Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity & diversity of cultures, traditions & aspirations shown in education & public information

§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes

§13 States shall take effective steps, in discussion with indigenous peoples concerned, to give effect to this Resolution
***************

Vastiva will support this proposal.

First, there were no indiginous people where we are, and we accept all newcomers easily. So there will be no effect on us, directly.

Second, we see the need for this sort of protection elsewhere. Particularly as it will increase the net artwork available for importation and museum trades.

And third, we really want to hear the explosion this one should make.

We continue to support this proposal. For your information, Ecopoeia's indigenous population, the Vanu'a, were all but exterminated under our former colonial masters.

Unless any suggestions or input prompt an adjustment, I intend to submit this proposal within the next 4 hours.

Unless any suggestions or input prompt an adjustment, I intend to submit this proposal within the next 4 hours.

:) It looks great to me as is.

Consider it submitted!

HOT LINK TO PROPOSAL (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Indigenous)

at least it would be, if it has not disappeared......I'm having problems finding it. :mad: :mad: :mad:

resubmitted - hopefully whichever tinpot moderator deleted it would explain their reasoning???!

resubmitted - hopefully whichever tinpot moderator deleted it would explain their reasoning???!

I got one their helpful "Voice of Mod" telegrams which, "Next time try resubmitting it in the right category."

Though there are many reports of Barada and their telepathic abilities, I myself am Miervatian, and was unable to depiher the hidden code. :(

Let's see if we can *guess* why it was deleted here, and then consider making a minor change.

I've found an answer of sorts (if it can qualify as an answer) after posting it here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388762)....disappointed is the kindest word I can think of.

I have resubmitted it for the third time under it's original category of human rights. Lets see if whichever mod in their infinite wisdom(?) decides to delete it again. It does make me wonder who polices the police.

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies


I think there should be an amendment to this clause to indicate that although indigenous peoples should be allowed to practice their cultural traditions and customs, these customs and traditions should still be held to all existing UN legislation in that they can not use cultural arguments to justify the suppression of women or sexual minorities, etc, or any other breach of human minorities.

I think there should be an amendment to this clause to indicate that although indigenous peoples should be allowed to practice their cultural traditions and customs, these customs and traditions should still be held to all existing UN legislation in that they can not use cultural arguments to justify the suppression of women or sexual minorities, etc, or any other breach of human minorities.

If it fails to pass on it's first submission, then I'll consider making a change. :)

However, it is already on 42 endorsements after ~20 hours, so it's going well so far!

That's 50 after 24 hours - I have telegrammed most of the delegates, and will be going back over the others tommorrow for additional canvassing, but it's well on track thus far!

the proposal has reached 90 at this time, and thus has proven it has a level of support within the UN. Even if it fails on it's first submission, I will be resubmitting in the future.

However, I will now be making a second sweep of the smaller regions for additional endorsements - at first I only contacted the larger regions.

On it's last day, and needs only 19 to reach quorum.....And is on page 1 of the list.

If you have not endorsed it already, please do so :)

Only 8 more needed! :)

Yay! Quorum reached! :)

I declare a world fluffle day. :fluffle:

Hurrah for Hirota!

Just popped on to check....And I'm happy to see it has reached quorum.

Thanks to the various delegates who chosen to endorse this proposal, and the regulars on these boards who provided suggestions and input that made it workable :)

Excellent news. Congratulations, Hirota. We'll have some of that fluffle action, Makatoto.

Excellent news. Congratulations, Hirota. We'll have some of that fluffle action, Makatoto.

So you like the fluffle, eh?

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

this topic has been bounced to enable UN members to discuss their views on the proposal at vote.

Lot's of good intentions, but the resolution has little substance...
§1 Defines Indigenous peoples as the descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a state wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame & reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who now live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs & traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates the national, social & cultural characteristics of other segments of the majority population
The definition of indigenous peoples is always tricky... What about the Zulu of South Africa? They're not indigenous, but do have their own distinct culture... But that's not the problem of this resolution.
§2 Indigenous peoples are free & equal to other peoples in dignity & rights, have the right to be free from discrimination

§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext

§5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics, including the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such

§6 Indigenous peoples shall not be forced from their lands or territories, no relocation shall occur without free & informed consent of the indigenous peoples and agreement on just & fair recompense

§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to protection & safety in times of conflict
§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture
How much of the above is left, when I replace 'indigenous people' with 'everyone'? Everyone should have the rights described above, don't you agree?
§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

§9 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use & develop histories, languages, traditions, philosophies, writing systems & literatures, to designate and retain their own names for places & persons
§11 Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity & diversity of cultures, traditions & aspirations shown in education & public information
Again, this is tricky... What if cultural traditions do not fit well with modern times? For example things like whale hunting, female circumcision, use of drugs etc. Some of these traditions cannot or should not take place anymore.
§13 States shall take effective steps, in discussion with indigenous peoples concerned, to give effect to this Resolution
Effective steps... Kind of weak, don't you think? There is no way to enforce this resolution, there is no institution that will oversee if the discussion with indigenous people indeed takes place...

This is an extremely weak resolution, much talk but no meat to the bones. For me, the only point that really means something is §12:
§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes
And again, no backing of these rights, no agency that can check whether these people can indeed cross national borders...

The government of Elishire feels unale to support this bill. While the objectives of this bill are noble, we feel that it is incomplete.

This bill, if our legal experts are right, would allow indegenous people to carry on with any practive on the basis of it being a part of their culture. So if it was part of their cultre to use dangerous drugs, hunt endagered species, engage in acts which endanger their live or the lives of others the State would be bound to protect those rights.

As the bill cannot be revised at this stage,we will not be supporting this bill and will urge all of nations in our region to vote agaist the bill.

Council Trliki, UN ambassador for Elishire

The government of Big Nessie is happy to support this resolution as we are ourselves the indigenous population. We also help this will protect us should our agressive southern neighbours covet our lands. Perhaps this is wishful thinking :rolleyes:

This bill, if our legal experts are right, would allow indegenous people to carry on with any practive on the basis of it being a part of their culture. So if it was part of their cultre to use dangerous drugs, hunt endagered species, engage in acts which endanger their live or the lives of others the State would be bound to protect those rights. 1. Indigenous peoples already have the right to traditional hunting of endangered species (specifically whaling). It's not a huge jump in logic to extend the spirit of the resolution "Ban Whaling" to other areas.
2. Whilst some acts might prove undesirable to you or me, neither of us are qualified to judge the standards of another culture.
3. This proposal does leave open the option to legislate on such matters via UN resolutions - indeed if you are concerned about such matters, and given that there are almost undoubtedly do participate in such acts, then you would be strongly advised to submit a proposal which condemns such acts.

2. Whilst some acts might prove undesirable to you or me, neither of us are qualified to judge the standards of another culture.


But what if the acts that they want to do involve the ritual murder of children from the local village (where my friend and her daughter live). Should I be permitted to judge at that point?

But what if the acts that they want to do involve the ritual murder of children from the local village (where my friend and her daughter live). Should I be permitted to judge at that point?First of all, the proposal directs nations to discuss the implementation of the resolution with the peoples in question, in a spirit of coexistence & respect. Compromise is the buzz word. It's impossible for a resolution to legislate on every act or tradition for every indigenous peoples in the world given the limitation of space.
Besides, if it involves the ritual murder of someone from your village, outside of their culture and within your own, then it's murder. But the example is poor, because if they were to indulge in ritual murder then normally the victim is part of the same culture, and is aware of the act, and it's reasons why.

The definition of indigenous peoples is always tricky... What about the Zulu of South Africa? They're not indigenous, but do have their own distinct culture... Actually, the proposal does cover your example. Present day Zulu's could easily be considered "as the descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a state wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame & reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation."
The definition applies.How much of the above is left, when I replace 'indigenous people' with 'everyone'? Everyone should have the rights described above, don't you agree?yes, and in an ideal world it should. But indigenous peoples have been almost totally overlooked by the UN in comparison to other groups Effective steps... Kind of weak, don't you think? There is no way to enforce this resolution, there is no institution that will oversee if the discussion with indigenous people indeed takes place...I'm not a big fan of raising taxes to bring in additional bureaucratic nonsense. If you want to raise taxes just to have more civil servants wasting time and piling up paperwork, go ahead.
Moreover, look at RL UN resolutions, the language of this proposal is in line with what could be expected by the RL UN. But whilst people have the luxury of ignoring the UN in RL, we have no such luxury. I don't need to write it in stronger tones, because if it passes, you'll fulfil your obligations regardless of if you like it or not.

I have voted against this resolution. I don't like the idea of the indingenous people having their own names for things in Chikatopia, it would confuse the locals.

I think people should get with the times.

This is ridiculous. This is 2005, NOT 1805. 99.9% of all civilized nations indiginous peoples ALREADY have the same rights and privelages as everybody else. This is nothing more than yet another UN PC grab for power and serves no purpose other than giving UN bureaucrats another club to beat otherwise law-abiding nations over the head with whenever they get the whim to do so! This deserves being defeated, even though I am unfortunately fairly certain that the NS PC Yes-Lemmings will vote it in.

(edited for spelling, but I probably still missed some anyhow.)

This is ridiculous. This is 2005, NOT 1805. 99.9% of all civilized nations indiginous peoples ALREADY have the same rights and privelages as everybody else. This is nothing more than yet another UN PC grab for power and serves no purpose other than giving UN bureaucrats another club to beat otherwise law-abiding nations over the head with whenever they get the whim to do so! This deserves being defeated, even though I am unfortunately fairly certain that the NS PC Yes-Lemmings will vote it in.

(edited for spelling, but I probably still missed some anyhow.)
Not all nations are at the same 'level'.

And just because people don't vote with you doesn't mean they don't think.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I would agree that this proposal does, in some of it's provisions, guarantee certain rights to Indigenous peoples that are not guarenteed to all peoples. better wording should include language insuring equal rights

example:

§10 Indigenous children shall have equal rights to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to their needs & consistent with their culture

also the language in some of the sections (such as §10) is discriminatory against non-indigenous peoples. we cannot fight discrimination with discrimination.

with a little alteration this would be an excellent proposal, though many of it's best points are already covered by UN resolution 27 "The Universal Bill of Rights". http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27

for the time being I urge member nations to vote against it, until a better worded version is drafted.

More explanation is needed regarding this resolution. There must be an understanding that Jews are the indigenous peoples of both Israel and "Palestine". Unless such a guarantee is presented to my nation, Zhukhistan, I will vote against the resolution.

I have two problems with this legislation:

First the definiton of and indegnous people creates a huge grey area, who will have the responsibility of actually determining who is and is not indegnous. Also can a religion be considered indegenous, b/c in many regions people that share the same religion are considered the indegnous population when they are not really from that area.

Second
§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies.

This creates several problems, especially in my country. My indegenous people are canibals, and use many drugs that are illegeal in my country. They also committ ritualistic murders. I will not let this happen in my country, it is against the law, and other UN resolutions. Before this bill is passed there needs to be clarification that they can practice their culture as long as it does not violate current law, or at least violate the rights of others. Untill that is done it creates a loophole that allows human rights violations.

More explanation is needed regarding this resolution. There must be an understanding that Jews are the indigenous peoples of both Israel and "Palestine". Unless such a guarantee is presented to my nation, Zhukhistan, I will vote against the resolution.
OOC:This is not the real world.

I voted in support of this. As it does not affect me, I flipped a coin and the coin decided the vote.

I agree with Liberal Empire. There are many dangerous grey areas in this that could open the way to ethnic conflict. Therefore, I will probably vote against the resolution.

First of all, the proposal directs nations to discuss the implementation of the resolution with the peoples in question, in a spirit of coexistence & respect. Compromise is the buzz word. It's impossible for a resolution to legislate on every act or tradition for every indigenous peoples in the world given the limitation of space.
Besides, if it involves the ritual murder of someone from your village, outside of their culture and within your own, then it's murder. But the example is poor, because if they were to indulge in ritual murder then normally the victim is part of the same culture, and is aware of the act, and it's reasons why.

I am still not convinced we should be telling people they can go round murdering each other as long as it is part of a ritual. Even with all due respect to cultures, tradtions and "the old ways" I (personally) believe there should be limits.

But that is just me :}

§2 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their political, economic, social & cultural characteristics, as well as their legal systems, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State

Does the development of the Indigenous peoples legal system take higher standing then that of the states legal system if such a "group" wanted to have the right to create thier own legal system?

§3 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of indigenous minors from families & communities under any pretext

Does this exclude those children who may suffer abuse of any kind from thier families or others in there Indigenous Communities? My understanding is that in this article of the law, the state would not be allowed to remove a minor from a family or communities even if the childs life may be in serious peril.

§7 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice their cultural traditions & customs, and the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

Some cultures perhaps still practice questionable religous practices, such as the taken of a human life, taken the life of an animal, as well as personal mutalation. Would we as the state have to stand by and possibly allow, death, torture, animal rights, and mental / physical harm to go on in the name of religion and not allowed to stop such practices from happening to do this article?

With all do respect to my fellow nations, this is a law I must admit is interesting, but contains loop holes of which I have mentioned. To vote for and allow this type of thing would be a dangerous choice. The ability for the state to take children out of a abusive home would be denied, if a death has taken place within the "peoples" religous beliefs 'ie. Taken the Life of a Minor to please thier gods' the state could not step in to disallow such things do to the fact it was a religous exercise.

I would suggest you take the time to look over the law once again, and decide what you vote shall be. To simply vote for it simply cause you "flipped a coin" as earlier mentioned should be grounds for expulsion from the U.N as well as a review to a further date of your reapplication to the United Nations.

well... it looks like what I wanted to say has been said in the past several quotes.

I would also like to point out one other thing.... why the focus on indigenous people? I know for a fact that the UN has passed resolutions on human rights... guaranteeing (somehow that looks like it's spelled wrong) basic rights for all humans regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.

Why is it that we must make indigenous people special? Why guarantee their rights in particular? Does this reveal that at one time that you mistreated your indigenous people and are just taking affirmative action?

(an aside: note that not all countries are like European exploitative nations :P)

I would be For this, except we should be able to arrest native people's if they break the law, just like everyone else.

Just because they were here first doesn't mean they should be above everyone else.

Aware of the many grey areas this resolutions holds and the views expressed this may seem very petit but I approach it with some concern and feel it worth some consideration.

I have just written a letter to the proposer of the current UN resolution under debate. A number of clauses are given but numbers 2 and 5 contradict each other in my opinion. Below are the two clauses along with my argument:

"§2 Indigenous peoples are free & equal to other peoples in dignity & rights, have the right to be free from discrimination

&

§5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & develop their distinct identities & characteristics, including the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such

In §2 you are saying that the indigenous peoples have the right to be free from discrimination. This suggests that the indigenous people should not be singled out from everybody else. However in §5 these same indigenous people have the right to be identified as indigenous and to be known as such. Which suggests that these indigenous people (who -§2- should not be discriminated by others) may -§5- maintain their own identity & characteristics themselves, causing a necessity for special indigenous recognition/discrimination by all people. How then can those of non-indigenous backgrounds avoid discrimination against such indigenous peoples (§2)? Especially when these peoples are deliberately maintaining their own identities & characteristics and have the right to be known as such (§5). As I hope you can see from this §2 and §5 do clash."

I echo the opinions of earlier discussions that the language element is not clear. If so, begs the question "how would such a resolution be effectively administrated by every nation to the benefit of all people including the indigenous people?"

Not all nations are at the same 'level'.

And just because people don't vote with you doesn't mean they don't think.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I don't have a problem with people vote differently than I and who have well reasoned opinions. The ones I have a problem with, the "NS PC Yes-Lemmings" as I call them, are the ones who only glance at the title of the proposal, if they even do that much, decide its wonderfully liberal and therefor "the right thing to do" regardless of the consequences and vote it in.

If you have a well thought out opinion, I am always willing to listen.

Unfortunately, it seems all YOU wish to do is quibble.............

I strongly support this resolution, however, isn't this area covered in a previous resolution?

Only promblem is redundancy that I see, so why not affirm the logic that we have and make doubly sure that there is freedom and equality?

I believe it is covered in more than one previous resolution, which is one of the things that makes this one so superfluous. All it accomplishes is to add yet another level of useless, empire-building, money hungry bureauocracy to the UN when such is not needed.

Whats next? "the Rights of left-handed avian descended humanoids proposal"? ;)

I don't see a use for this. My entire nation is considered either indiginous or nonindiginous, depending on how you look at it. Either way, worthless to me and has no affect.

For once, I agree with DLE. This resolution doesn't do anything...

Kingdom of Donega
The Penguin Region

This is ridiculous. This is 2005, NOT 1805. 99.9% of all civilized nations indiginous peoples ALREADY have the same rights and privelages as everybody else. This is nothing more than yet another UN PC grab for power and serves no purpose other than giving UN bureaucrats another club to beat otherwise law-abiding nations over the head with whenever they get the whim to do so! This deserves being defeated, even though I am unfortunately fairly certain that the NS PC Yes-Lemmings will vote it in.

(edited for spelling, but I probably still missed some anyhow.)

Well said.

This has many loopholes. For one the indigenous people in my country have ritual murders and canibalism. There is no way I will ever alow this to happen.

This has many loopholes. For one the indigenous people in my country have ritual murders and canibalism. There is no way I will ever alow this to happen.

You misspelt allow.

I suggest a change at the proposal:

"§3 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain & strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics, while retaining the right to take part in the political, fiscal, social & cultural life of the State"

Except in cases which are against the humain rights or the laws at the nation. For example, torture, death punishment, etc.

I don't have a problem with people vote differently than I and who have well reasoned opinions. The ones I have a problem with, the "NS PC Yes-Lemmings" as I call them, are the ones who only glance at the title of the proposal, if they even do that much, decide its wonderfully liberal and therefor "the right thing to do" regardless of the consequences and vote it in.

If you have a well thought out opinion, I am always willing to listen.

Unfortunately, it seems all YOU wish to do is quibble.............

That is the problem though, by calling anybody who voted YES a PC Lemming, you are also denying the possibility that there are other nations that always vote NO without thinking. It is the use of labels that is putting others on a defensive stance with respect to your comment.

My government voted yes on this resolution, but that is because my government participated in the long committee discussions for the draft proposal.

One of the many arguments against this legislation has been the idea that indigenous people's are already protected by equal rights laws. My government feels that while this may be true, that it doesn't hurt to take a break in our normal UN debates and re-iterate a few ideas that haven't been discussed fully.

There is little doubt that over time the differences between many of our socities will change. In some cases this differences will go away, as technology may seem to enable us to better exchange ideas (and perhaps people). In other cases some differences may increase. But it seems to my government that in either case, globalization could lead towards one or even a few cultures sometimes stepping on the toes of others that aren't nearly as widespread.

I think perhaps another way to look at it would be with respect to income and educational opportunities. Going to college is difficult. Going to college and having to work full time can be extremely difficult. A student that can count of a scholarship, grant, or even low-interest loan, can often focus on school and do well enough to learn enough to get a job and later repay the loan. Governments understand this and will offer *special* grants to poor students in an effort to actually put into practice equality as it relates to educational opportunities.

In the case of this resolution, it is nothing really other than a polite reminder that in order to put into practice the equality of *thought* and *religion* that other resolutions have agreed upon, that sometimes we need to call out special cases where our governments need to offer special protections.

This is a case in my "moderate" opinion, where this is a general statement that hasn't been directly addressed and is worth voting for.

This proposal seems to promote a sense of "seperate but equal" and I see no need for it.

Copy and paste of what I posted to my region's forum in an effort to urge them to vote against this proposal:
Current resolution at hand. IMHO, it steps a couple boundries and places unreasonable burden on the government to cater to the "indigenous peoples" as described. It seems to hide behind the more agreeable clauses guaranteeing equality and piles on extra requirements for the government. I personally have problems with the following clauses:

§6 Indigenous peoples shall not be forced from their lands or territories, no relocation shall occur without free & informed consent of the indigenous peoples and agreement on just & fair recompense

I myself am a fan of eminent domain. In the USA, if the government needs land for the public they can take it from citizens provided that they give just & fair recompense - They just don't need consent. It seems like this would tie the government's hands and impede their ability to serve the people.

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

Once again. This forbids the government from using land of historical significance to the indigenous peoples. The needs of the public are greater than the preservation of historical sites.

§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

Another plea for pandering. The last bit says that governments needs to develop an exclusive curriculum for the minority - undue and unreasonable onus on the state.

§11 Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity & diversity of cultures, traditions & aspirations shown in education & public information

Not entirely sure what this means, but it seems to be forcing the state to portray the indigenous culture in a positive manner, which is absurd. There shouldn't be laws that dictate how the government should force their people to think.

§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes

National borders are the concern of the bordering nations, and the united nations have no place passing edicts on how they should interact on those borders. One again, it prefaces with nigh unopposable requests such as allowing cross border cooperation for spiritual and cultural reasons, but then slips in more in the form of wanting economic interaction as well. It is up the government how nations interact on an economic level, and they should be free to regulate whether or not and how people across borders are allowed to interact in that manner.

In general, this resolution seems to have a lot of good intentions, but has snuck in NUMEROUS questionable loop holes under the guise of those good intentions.

We applaud the many fine posts from countries who are concerned that some indigenous people's customs may include practices that some consider atrocious. Because those customs and practices seem to be allowed by the draft in its present form, we must vote against it. The citizens of Sloanvakia are violently against...ah...violence and stuff.

One concern we have not seen addressed involves the disposition of archeological sites. We consider these sites to be treasures not only indigenous people but of the world at large. We worry that anthropologists and archeologists would be unable to continue the vital work of uncovering and interpreting our collective past if even well meaning nonscientists among native peoples choose to forbid the study of these sites and the remains found there.

For these reasons Sloanvakia cannot support this resolution.

I’m conflicted on this one. I voted FOR, changed it to AGAINST and I think that’s where I’m staying…

On the face of it, rights for indigenous people is a fantastic idea that is still relevant. Unfortunately, the following really concerns me :

“§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs… ”

This clause effectively says that even if a government completely condemns barbaric behaviour (e.g. female circumcision), so long as you are “indigenous” and can show a tradition of abusing your children or subjugating your women, you can continue to do so without risk of legal redress.

Obviously female circumcision is unlikely to be tolerated in a UN nation due to Article 5 of the Universal Bill of Rights which prevents torture or cruel or inhumane treatment. But to me, the spirit of this resolution implies indigenous people are free to choose whether to live within the law of the current government of the nation. Likewise, as indigenous people haven’t chosen to join the UN, they aren’t covered by The Universal Bill of Rights and other UN resolutions. This is the same as any non-UN nation which is free to treat its citizens as it sees fit.

So to me, this resolution gives indigenous leaders (who are likely to be the ones deciding what is a ‘cultural tradition’) much greater freedom of choice, but it does not necessarily improve the human rights of individuals within the indigenous society (who can no longer be protected by the government or UN and may be subjected to the whims of an indigenous tyrannical leader) nor does it improve the human rights of nations as a whole (where female circumcision was once condemned but must now be tolerated amongst indigenous peoples).

But I guess the opposite point is that nations can withdrawn from the UN if the UN outlaws something that is intrinsic to their culture, so maybe indigenous people deserve the same right… I feel like I’m clutching…

The irony! Demanding the rights of tribal and native populaces...as long as they are "good people!" The U.N. seeks to not only demand that which is almost universal, but then to tell the very peoples it "supports" how they can live their lives!
Claiming to protect an ethnic group and then regulating their way of life reeks of globalization. This regulation creates nothing more than enclaves of sub-cultures that will differ from their surrounding peoples only by their choice of faith, diet and fashion (to summarize a list). Why even bother? Why not simply abolish their rights to seperate lands and go ahead and intermix them with their surrounding cultures.
As a people who rose from subjugation and wiped their oppressors from the face of the land, the Damacians have faced such subtle censorships and snide subjugations. We will not support this. We oppose your decree at every chance, at every point. Let those who will take their destinies into their own hands do so. The rest have laid down their right for control of themselves.

I’m conflicted on this one. I voted FOR, changed it to AGAINST and I think that’s where I’m staying…


So to me, this resolution gives indigenous leaders (who are likely to be the ones deciding what is a ‘cultural tradition’) much greater freedom of choice, but it does not necessarily improve the human rights of individuals within the indigenous society (who can no longer be protected by the government or UN and may be subjected to the whims of an indigenous tyrannical leader) nor does it improve the human rights of nations as a whole (where female circumcision was once condemned but must now be tolerated amongst indigenous peoples).

But I guess the opposite point is that nations can withdrawn from the UN if the UN outlaws something that is intrinsic to their culture, so maybe indigenous people deserve the same right… I feel like I’m clutching…

Instead of looking at indigenous cultures, lets look at the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has long maintained that homosexuality is a sin. That seems to be part of Catholism's "culture" and tradition. That doesn't mean that government's can't make laws stating the opposite.

The question really comes in how a priest might treat an openly homosexual person. If that priest advocates physical harm to that individual, then perhaps the government should step in.

There was in fact a story at the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam (in English) about a Muslim cleric whom was advocating that homosexuality was a diease. He was arrested, but maintained that he was only advocating that which he believed by his religion, and claimed that freedom of religion and speech permitted him to advocate this so long as he didn't go out and kill anyone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1917905.stm

OOC: It is a rather interesting (and difficult) dilemma ... interestingly enough that is to me really the point of the game. The easy issues are just that. Easy. You think about them quickly, click and move on (or in some cases yell at other people whom clicked differently than you). But on these issues I find myself turning to real world examples and looking to how courts have weighed the arguments (which rarely say, "Add another newbie to the list of people who haven't read X") from both sides to see how I'm weather vaning it at the moment. :)

Here is what the Dutch have done longer term in response to the growing cultural clash:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2525407.stm

This is a huge deal in some societies. Now the leap here is looking past immigrants to people whom actually have been and are a part of your society! In the case of immigrants, these people did travel into another society. In the case of idigenous people's these people were in reality absorbed by society. If it helps any of you, to me this is the key difference and why I'm thinking these rights are different ... and why I'd say that a cultural assimilation course is something that this resolution would frown upon in the case of idnigenous peoples.

Again, I also highly recommend the Australian film: Rabbit-Proof Fence. (I think that is the correct name.) This is a hard issue, but ultimately if this measure passes it is up to our individual nations to police what is protecting a civil right vs. what is protecting a culture. Nobody said being a leader is easy, but it certainly challenges us to think.

While I agree Indigenous people should be given back something that has been taken from them, this proposal will exempt them from many laws that nations may have. If they are given the right to go across boarders at a whim then whats to stop them from smugling drugs or weapons, and if there is a part that says they can develope new traditions or something like that. What if they use this to their advantage to change anything they want?

Frankly most of this proposal is good but it grants to much freedoms that could spell disaster

More explanation is needed regarding this resolution. There must be an understanding that Jews are the indigenous peoples of both Israel and "Palestine". Unless such a guarantee is presented to my nation, Zhukhistan, I will vote against the resolution.First of all that's a real world example which this proposal is not qualified to seek an answer to the Palestinian/Isreal dispute.
However, if we were going to try and apply it to the dispute, I'd say that both groups could be considered indigenous, having both been ousted by the other group at some point or another. So I suppose (with the qualification above) if the definition was applied, then yes, Jews could be considered indgenous.

Miktivity has really hit the nail on the head with regards to the balance between cultural traditions vs law. I can appreciate it is a difficult concept to grasp, (and a even harder concept to put clearly into words).

Why is it that we must make indigenous people special? Why guarantee their rights in particular? Does this reveal that at one time that you mistreated your indigenous people and are just taking affirmative action? What makes any particular group worthy of the UN's attention? The UN has legislated on other groups, so why not indigenous peoples?

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext


There has been some concern raised about this article, in that it would not permit governments to remove children from homes where they are being abused or mistreated.

Now I realise it says "guarantees against genocide", which would imply that you can't remove children just as a way to screw up the indigenous people, but the phrase "under any pretext" implies that you can't remove them at all.

So what if the children of Mr Smith are being abused, and it would be in their best interests to put them in to care? Would that be forbidden under this act?

Please note: this resolution does NOT give indigenous groups carte blanche to perform FGM or any other such abuse, since prior UN resolutions have already outlawed such actions in ALL cases.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Please note: this resolution does NOT give indigenous groups carte blanche to perform FGM or any other such abuse, since prior UN resolutions have already outlawed such actions in ALL cases.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

AND It will not override any future resolutions unless specifically mentioned.

Which is why I'm drafting a resolution condemning female circumcision, thanks to the observations by one poster on this topic.

Article #1
Defines Indigenous peoples as the descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a state wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame & reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation; who now live more in conformity with their social, economic and cultural customs & traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part, under State structure which incorporates the national, social & cultural characteristics of other segments of the majority population


TRANSLATION
We won, they lost, F**K 'EM :sniper:

I have voted AGAINST this silly, useless and damaging piece of garbage.

AND It will not override any future resolutions unless specifically mentioned.

Which is why I'm drafting a resolution condemning female circumcision, thanks to the observations by one poster on this topic.

We already have a resolution condemning the practice. :) I'll update my UN resolution sujbect index tonight to reflect that.

We already have a resolution condemning the practice. :) I'll update my UN resolution sujbect index tonight to reflect that.Do we? Ahhh...splendid. That saves me some time :)

The Honorable Principality of Williamus considers this legislation to be a gross infringement of national sovereignty. We do not confer certain rights to one group and not to another. Our enlightened nation should not be subjected to the draconian legislation of the UN because of the abuses of a barbaric few.

The UN delegate from Williamus has been instructed to vote against this proposal.

I see no reason not to vote for this resolution. I think it adresses a very important issue.

Do we? Ahhh...splendid. That saves me some time :)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030178&postcount=63

I'd have to pull up my files, but I recall that it passed by a significant majority ...

In fact, it had 92% of the votes cast in favour, making it the most supported NS UN resolution to date. :)

The median of support is only 72%, and I really don't see another resolution breaking 90% any time soon. <-- I could explain why I feel this is the case, but I don't have any hard numbers to support what I'm observing in the proposal queue, but I do feel that the NS UN is in a conservative swing at present, and would describe this as being in part related to the ability to repeal resolutions.

Please note: this resolution does NOT give indigenous groups carte blanche to perform FGM or any other such abuse, since prior UN resolutions have already outlawed such actions in ALL cases.
Not quite. In fact, it's ambiguous whether this resolution should take priority over the earlier resolutions; this resolution doesn't specifically say that it should not. One of the normal presumptions in statutory construction is that, when two pieces of legislation apparently conflict, the last one passed takes priority if a construction can be devised that gives effect to both of them.

Thus, the normal resolution of a conflict between a prior FGM resolution and this resolution would be to create an exception to the FGM resolution with respect to the "cultural traditions & customs" of indigenous people. In fact, since this resolution makes no reference to the treatment of prior UN resolutions with which it conflicts, it appears to me that this bill would create an exception to ALL previous UN resolutions if they conflict with the "cultural traditions & customs" of the indigenous group.

Since that seems (1) to be the correct interpretation and (2) crazy, I voted against this resolution.

Article 2 and article 3 seem to controdicte each other. If i missed this discussion please excuse and direct
Thanks

This legislation seems dangerous to me. Could you explain to me why would you want to grant special protection to any one group of citizens? Laws which allow for this type of exclusivity based on ethnicity smack of the Nazi Party.

*agrees with Squirrelmania and Ansai*

Silent Truth votes NO!

This legislation seems dangerous to me. Could you explain to me why would you want to grant special protection to any one group of citizens? Laws which allow for this type of exclusivity based on ethnicity smack of the Nazi Party.

The spirit of the resolution is not to grant 'special' protection to any one group of citizens. This is just the point, often indigenous peoples are not regarded as citizens. The resolution is to put in place across the UN safety nets to ensure that all indigenous peoples have the rights which the rest of society take for granted.

The people and government of Alextasia have therefore voted for the resolution and urge all members of the UN to do the same. We have found that an equal society which takes into account the views, needs, cultures and the taxation possibilties of all it's peoples will grow as one nation.

Florida has quite a history when it comes to abusing indigenous peoples, and my heart goes out to them.

Slanderous.

Florida has a history here since 27 Nov 2002, and has done no such thing.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=display_nation/nation=Florida

In any event, Florida is not a member of the UN, as we would not give up sovereignty to indigenous peoples or the misguided voters of the UN. A specific objection to this resolution is here:

§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes

What nations to trade and to have diplomatic relations with are up to those nations themselves, and should not be usurped by those who are not democratically elected, or may not share the ideals of the people. They may not even share the ideals of the UN, yet the UN is ready to grant them national status.

Florida respects its indigenous peoples, and has passed the issue that involves them, as it should be up to the individual nations to do or not do so.

Not quite. In fact, it's ambiguous whether this resolution should take priority over the earlier resolutions; this resolution doesn't specifically say that it should not. One of the normal presumptions in statutory construction is that, when two pieces of legislation apparently conflict, the last one passed takes priority if a construction can be devised that gives effect to both of them.

Thus, the normal resolution of a conflict between a prior FGM resolution and this resolution would be to create an exception to the FGM resolution with respect to the "cultural traditions & customs" of indigenous people. In fact, since this resolution makes no reference to the treatment of prior UN resolutions with which it conflicts, it appears to me that this bill would create an exception to ALL previous UN resolutions if they conflict with the "cultural traditions & customs" of the indigenous group.

Since that seems (1) to be the correct interpretation and (2) crazy, I voted against this resolution.
Since new resolutions can't override previous resolutions unless a repeal has been passed, I think this is a non-issue. On reflection, some passages should perhaps have been caveated with something like '...except where this would contravene a prior UN resolution..."; sadly, this didn't come up in the drafting process and is pretty much a given anyway, so I think its significance is minimal.

Well, from what I'm seeing, people can't go around murduring people from their culture now, but the resolution is still very controdictory in some places.

On reflection, some passages should perhaps have been caveated with something like '...except where this would contravene a prior UN resolution..."; sadly, this didn't come up in the drafting process and is pretty much a given anyway, so I think its significance is minimal.

Plus I would not have been able to fit it in!

***************
§10 Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

***************


umm, unless i'm reading this wrong, it is stating that i should change the school curriculum for there culture, as in stuff like, "some ppl belive that humans are born when a man and a women..." "but some believe that the Moon Goddess Klickity-Klack spinkles magic frog powder on lily pads, and babies mystically appear." Obviously one of them is right, and the other is ludicrously wrong, but according to this law i can't teach the correct one, as it goes againts their culture. I believe that if they come to OUR schools, they can learn what WE are teaching. If they dont like, they can make there OWN school.

other than that i support it. im still undecided on whether or not ill vote for it though.

Since new resolutions can't override previous resolutions unless a repeal has been passed, I think this is a non-issue. On reflection, some passages should perhaps have been caveated with something like '...except where this would contravene a prior UN resolution...";
The Theocracy of the Holy Word congragulates the delegate from Ecopeia for, as always, showing an indepth and detailed knowledge of the internal workings of the UN.

And you are indeed correct. No resolution can overide a previous one. However, UN resolutions do overide the internal laws of a nation. In other words, this part of the motion:

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

would forbid any nation to outlaw a cultural practice, no matter how barbaric or morally reprehensible it might be, unless that cultural practice has been specifically outlawed by a UN resolution.

I know that appeals to the sanctity of national soverignty don't normally hold much water among many UN delegates. However, surely forcing nations to allow barbaric practices to take place until a resolution can be placed before the UN is a step too far?

sadly, this didn't come up in the drafting process

I'm afraid the honourable delegate is incorrect:

I think there should be an amendment to this clause to indicate that although indigenous peoples should be allowed to practice their cultural traditions and customs, these customs and traditions should still be held to all existing UN legislation in that they can not use cultural arguments to justify the suppression of women or sexual minorities, etc, or any other breach of human minorities.

If it fails to pass on it's first submission, then I'll consider making a change.

While I don't think the delegate from Gwenstefani goes far enough, for the reasons I've outlined, it is clear that this subject was brought up with the delegate from Hirota and, with the greatest possible respect, he didn't consider the issue important enough to amend the motion.

Indigenous people's get enough rights and protections, i'm voting against because the more we give the more they'll exploit their louder voice in democracy to stir up trouble. I believe that all men are equal in a state and that they shouldn't get a louder voice or get better treated than the average joe just because of their skin or heritage.

Proposals like this just encourage them to make trouble.

thanks,
Owenarcia

While I don't think the delegate from Gwenstefani goes far enough, for the reasons I've outlined, it is clear that this subject was brought up with the delegate from Hirota and, with the greatest possible respect, he didn't consider the issue important enough to amend the motion.Actually, I had already submitted. If it had failed to reach quorum, then I would have tinkered with it to reflect these suggestions.

Besides, the draft had been floating around here for 2 or 3 weeks before submission, so there was plenty of time for people to suggest it.

Is the assumption I am working under that 'people who are indigenous are human' a falacy?

I don't think it is anyway. But then don't basic human right's which have been accepted/adopted by the UN kind of nullify certain aspects of this resolution? Particularly the second proclaimation.

But then this whole resolution makes no sense and would actually cause more division than unity.

Your first request could of simply been summed up by saying "A country complying with UN regulation must refer to a dictionary for a definition of 'Indigenous'". The problems on defintion lay not on what 'indigenous' means but defining exactly who is indigenous or not and what claim that leads to.

The second request makes a division between the rights of an indigenous person and their basic human rights. These liberties are already acknowledged in other resolutions.

Third request will probably just guide these people into the same course of action as San Marino or Pays Basque.... should they of course retain or gain any land to reside on. Unless you are suggesting a multiply layed infrastructure with different economies within the same land; which wouldn't quite make sense in this format and barely works at themeparks.

Then all the other requests could be covered by my points on your second request.

In fact it is only through this resolution being suggested that the rights of these people are considered exempt from their rights which have already been acknowledged as humans via other resolutions.

Actually it's from the division created that these people may use there own culture as an excuse or justification for stepping on the civil and human rights of others in their own ethnic group.

For instance while on the one hand you have certain laws upholding the human rights of these people as I have already said. But then these proposals can also work to counter act those laws as the rights of indigenous people are allowed to protect aspects of their culture.

Basically all this does is create loopholes for these minorities to exploit and use to keep practicing any immoral acts within their culture. Or didn't anyone else notice this? Apparently not looking at the vote count.
Should these protocols not pass then upholding basic human rights won't be a problem. You can't assert someone's rights and freedom twice. Because you have segregated indigenous people you elevate their rights as an individual above those that are not indigenous. Providing of course those that are indigenous relinquish that individualism by adhering to and practicing whatever culture they orignate from.

Also I think a clear distinction between indigenuity/race and culture needs to be addressed in this resolution. One is part of you from birth and the other is learnt after. As someone of the same race for all sense and purposes could be considered to be indignenous could claim the same culture and therefore exempt themselves from responsibities of upholding human rights by claiming adherence to a religion.

But then at it's core this really suggests that a person's culture can justify a course of action should it be acknowledged as justifiable within that culture. So whether the acts of a culture are justified or not does not rely on global positioning even if a group of people have resided there since their time began. So suddenly being indigenous doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to claims that immoral aspects of a culture should be allowed to continue should they be practiced by indigenous peoples.

But to further highlight the vagueness of this resolution; request #12 just describes the rights of a country such as Denmark which already has these rights as a nation with boarders which contains indigenous people. As I believe that they have certainly been in that area for long enough to be considered indigenous, as only those in Africa could be considered truly indigenous. But still Africa is a big place and tribes have been known to move throughout history.
But these resolutions could be bent so that they apply to groups a lot larger than I suspect these resolutions are aimed to help.

Is the assumption I am working under that 'people who are indigenous are human' a falacy?


No. But it is also true to say "people who are indigenous are sometimes not considered human" - they are considered "lesser beings" and treated as such.

edit
Savages!!! That was the word I was looking for!!!
/edit

- they are considered "lesser beings" and treated as such.

So are some immigrants.

All this does is create division between groups by reasserting a person's rights so that they seem elevated above the rights of others.... even though being the same. For the increased bias stimulated that upholds the rights of these people, it also in turn stimulates the bias that decreases the rights of these people being upheld.

Really this effort should just be focussed on the rights of everyone being upheld with no real segregation between what those rights are actually because they are universal applying to all.

All that is really up for discussion is how those rights are upheld and not which of those rights are emphasised.

So are some immigrants.

All this does is create division between groups by reasserting a person's rights so that they seem elevated above the rights of others.... even though being the same. For the increased bias stimulated that upholds the rights of these people, it also in turn stimulates the bias that decreases the rights of these people being upheld.

Really this effort should just be focussed on the rights of everyone being upheld with no real segregation between what those rights are actually because they are universal applying to all.

All that is really up for discussion is how those rights are upheld and not which of those rights are emphasised.

But then we come back to the arguement that I have had over gay rights - no one appears to need telling that straight people deserve rights. It is just assumed they have the right to kiss, cuddle and marry at will.

And no one appears to need telling that those who invaded/colonised a new country deserve rights. They jus assume they have them since they are the "civlized people" and the people who were there first are the "savages".

Rights need to be enforced for those who are perceived not to have them, whether they actually have them or not. So I think this does that, and makes sure that if I go over and colonise the land that I can't just abuse the people who live there already (which is, it appears, the assupmtion that most countries work on)

Rights need to be enforced for those who are perceived not to have them, whether they actually have them or not.

We're not enforcing these rights here. We are stating and acknowledging what rights are. Their rights have been defined already.

What the issue should be about is how those rights are enforced not what rights these groups have.
For instance; because these indigenous people are of course native to that country, when their status as a culture is catalogued in a national consensus it is incorporated into what is considered the countries own social culture. As opposed to the status that they give to other ethnic minorities that are not indigenous. Then obviously when poll testing of nation takes place filtering of each group is used as a percentage of the population of each group is tested and an average is calculated.

Now if these indigenous cultures are included within the group of national social cultures then those individuals will more often than not slip through the system because 1) they are further diluted from being included within the greater populous of the nation, and 2) it's possible that these groups are conveniently ignored totally because of simply where they live and that area not being chosen for testing.
So ultimately their inclusion in society is not represented within these pollings of national levels of education, welfare, health et cetera.

If there is no consciouness of the standard of the lives of these people, then how can the UN ever come to the decision of aid or intervention if we don't know about anyone being in need of such an act?

These are the aspects of rights that need addressing, not what rights a person has because that has already been agreed upon.

Indigenous are getting far too many rights. I think they should have the same as the other people in the country, but not be put first ahead of all others welfare. I mean aren't everyones rights supposed to be equal?

PS: the proposal is of a good length :)

My government voted yes on this resolution, but that is because my government participated in the long committee discussions for the draft proposal.

One of the many arguments against this legislation has been the idea that indigenous people's are already protected by equal rights laws. My government feels that while this may be true, that it doesn't hurt to take a break in our normal UN debates and re-iterate a few ideas that haven't been discussed fully.


I completely understand where you are coming from but I just don't think this resolution is necessary. First of all, it doesn't actually DO anything, and secondly, these freedoms have already been included in previous resolutions. This is an empty resolution with no impact.

The proposal is way to vague in many instances. It essentially creates a shadow society with its own currency, own economy, own education system, and section 7 leaves it more open ended than I am comfortable with as to whether or not they can raise their own army. Passage of this would lay the groundwork for those who consider themselves 'indigenous' to decide that there is a conflict and already have an organized, armed resistance in place. It would create more unrest, not more stability. Also, it gives rights to 'indigenous' people at the expense of the rights of others. And, to top it all off, the preambe to the prop contradicts itself, saying that indigenous people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, but that eveyone has different rights, and later saying that indigenous people should decide on their own how to coexist with their parent nation. The prop is a good idea, but it tries to encompass to much, and in doing so compromises its own integrity. Please, for the stability of all thirty-two some odd thousand member nations in the UN, vote against this prop. Let's come at the issue again from a different angle.

Brish

Indigenous are getting far too many rights. I think they should have the same as the other people in the country, but not be put first ahead of all others welfare. I mean aren't everyones rights supposed to be equal?
If we did assume everyone had the same rights, then we might as well get rid of all future human rights proposals. Besides, other groups have had their rights protected in the past, this one is no different.
Secondly, this proposal is not giving them more rights, it's bringing their rights into balance.

The proposal is way to vague in many instances. It essentially creates a shadow society with its own currencyIn RL many indigenous cultures have their own currency already.own education system, What is wrong with that? and section 7 leaves it more open ended than I am comfortable with as to whether or not they can raise their own army.No, it just means they have the right to be protected in a conflict. Some nations have in the past tended to leave indigenous peoples unprotected and concentrate on their own peoples in conflict. Passage of this would lay the groundwork for those who consider themselves 'indigenous' to decide that there is a conflict That is frankly ridiculous. In RL, do we see Native Americans partipating in civil unrest? Do we see Aboriginals in Australia trying to take the fight to the Australians? This is scaremongering at it's most uneducated, unjustified level.

It's also very funny when other nations say this proposal does nothing, and you are saying this proposal would bring about civil war worldwide.....Honestly, some people just look at the extreme, theatrical implications of any proposal rather than actually consider that they might be wrong, and the actual answer might be inbetween the two extreme, opposing views?Also, it gives rights to 'indigenous' people at the expense of the rights of others. No, it doesn't. Where do you think it says that.the preambe to the prop contradicts itself, saying that indigenous people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, but that eveyone has different rights,You mean "Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in rights to all peoples, recognizing the rights of all peoples to be different, to be free from discrimination"....well if that's what you think that means.... :rolleyes: ....It does not say anywhere that indigenous peoples have different rights. and later saying that indigenous people should decide on their own how to coexist with their parent nation. No it doesn't - coexistence is a mutual thing, States can already decide if they want to leave indigenous peoples alone, and indigenous peoples should have exactly the same right.but it tries to encompass to much, and in doing so compromises its own integrity. Oh, it covers a lot, but it's integrity is still very much intact - although nations understanding appears to be sadly lacking.

If we did assume everyone had the same rights, then we might as well get rid of all future human rights proposals. Besides, other groups have had their rights protected in the past, this one is no different.
Secondly, this proposal is not giving them more rights, it's bringing their rights into balance.


Finally, I found the main thread. Sorry for posting elsewhere.

Another way to look at this is that, when those of us who aren't "indigenous people" arrived wherever we are, did we acknowledge the rights of the indigenous people to have themselves and their homeland treated with respect, the way we would expect to be treated by someone arriving on our own shores? Or did we disregard their humanity and treat them as though they were no more than the beasts of that particular land?

If we had treated them the way we would expect to be treated ourselves, we would have respected their sovereignty, and accepted their right to have their own laws, customs, and other rights. There would be no issue to debate and this resolution would be unnecessary.

If we've treated them without respect for their sovereignty, we have disregarded their rights. In this instance, this resolution doesn't "give" them anything new, it just restores to them the rights we'd taken from them earlier. It's long overdue.

Folks, I am not debating the principle, but everyone has been ignoring my posts so I am going to back up my statements by quoting existing UN Resolutions.

Rights of Minorities and Women:
Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

Fairness and Equality Act:
Fair Administration and Non Discrimination

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

Most importantly, however, I direct your attention to UN resolution #26, The Universal Bill of Rights. While I will not list all of the articles here, the most relevant to this discussion is the following:

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

We have several redundant Resolutions already on the books, and before we add any more, I suggest we evaluate the ones we currently have and see if they need to be repealed, ammended, or updated before we create new ones.

Again, this resolution does not DO anything except state the same thing other resolutions have already covered; this resolution simply inserts the term “indigenous” and claims this is something new.

If we've treated them without respect for their sovereignty, we have disregarded their rights. In this instance, this resolution doesn't "give" them anything new, it just restores to them the rights we'd taken from them earlier. It's long overdue. Exactly! Honestly, it's not been easy to find people who actually understand this proposal!

Thank you! :D

Again, this resolution does not DO anything except state the same thing other resolutions have already covered; this resolution simply inserts the term “indigenous” and claims this is something new. Personally, I think it does more than what you think. What do you think of the nations who seem to think this will cause civil war, destroy their economy and their educational systems? Surely you'd agree this proposal will not acomplish any of those?

In RL many indigenous cultures have their own currency already. OOC: This isn't RL. That argument's redundant when people are arguing about the structure of the NS UN so it logically follows that it's redundant now.

What is wrong with that?It makes the goal of total integration into society an impossibility.

No, it just means they have the right to be protected in a conflict. Some nations have in the past tended to leave indigenous peoples unprotected and concentrate on their own peoples in conflict. I agree that the Delegate from Brish has misinterpreted that part of the proposal,

That is frankly ridiculous. In RL, do we see Native Americans participating in civil unrest? Do we see Aboriginals in Australia trying to take the fight to the Australians?
OOC: This isn't real life. (And if it were I'd point out that it has happened in history. And more recently in the US with AIM. And even arguably the IRA).

This is scaremongering at it's most uneducated, unjustified level. While I think the delegate from Brish is possibly guilty of hyperbole, I don't think that kind of undiplomatic language raises the level of debate either. What does cause concern is this section of the proposal:

§12 Indigenous peoples divided by national borders, have the right to maintain & develop cross border relations & cooperation, for spiritual, cultural, economic and social purposes

What is to stop that relations and co-operation becoming a movement for a homeland? Surely you can recognise the detrimental effects that could have on the internal stability of a country.


It's also very funny when other nations say this proposal does nothing, and you are saying this proposal would bring about civil war worldwide.....Honestly, some people just look at the extreme, theatrical implications of any proposal rather than actually consider that they might be wrong, and the actual answer might be inbetween the two extreme, opposing views?The 'moderate correct' view naturally being the one held by the delegate from Hirota and his supporters and the 'extremists' being any of us which oppose this motion.

I don't think this motion will "bring about civil war worldwide". I also incidentally fail to see that claim in the speech made by the delegate from Brish. I merely see a suggestion this motion may cause conflict. And I think that's entirely feasible. This part of the motion:

§8 Indigenous peoples have the right to practice cultural traditions & customs, the right to maintain, protect & develop the past, present & future expression of their cultures, such as archaeological & historical sites, designs, ceremonies & technologies

undoubtedly says that Indigenous people have the right to practice their cultural traditions and customs, with no provision made for any exceptions. The only exceptions will be, as always, those customs and traditions already forbidden by previous UN motions. In other words (taking into account the fact that UN motions override national laws) any practices not already expressly forbidden by the UN are permitted by this motion. Whatever they might be, or whatever valid reasons there might be for forbidding them. I make no apologies for considering implications of this motion that the delegate from Hirota failed to.

Oh, it covers a lot, but it's integrity is still very much intact - although nations understanding appears to be sadly lacking.Oh, it is certainly consistent in my book. I'll give it back. But the lack of understanding of the implications involved seems to extend to the supporters of this motion.

OOC: This isn't RL. That argument's redundant when people are arguing about the structure of the NS UN so it logically follows that it's redundant now.Okay....In HIROTA, our indigenous peoples (what few there are, mostly confined to our north) already have their own currency - and our economy has not crashed or suffered.It makes the goal of total integration into society an impossibility.Good, we don't want a one-world vision.There is great strength in diversity.I agree that the Delegate from Brish has misinterpreted that part of the proposal,Splendid!OOC: This isn't real life. (And if it were I'd point out that it has happened in history. And more recently in the US with AIM. And even arguably the IRA).Okay.....In HIROTA, our indigenous peoples already enjoy many of the rights within the proposal, and if anything civil unrest has decreased.What is to stop that relations and co-operation becoming a movement for a homeland?The fact that this proposal will permit indigenous people to have such freedoms should lessen the need for a homeland. But of course, we can have peoples wanting their own homeland who are not indigenous, so it's not as if we are suddenly going to have Bigtopians demanding their own nation more than any other particular group.The 'moderate correct' view naturally being the one held by the delegate from Hirota and his supporters and the 'extremists' being any of us which oppose this motion.Well, when I see two entirely different perspectives on the opposite ends of the arguement, and the proposal does neither, then it suggests to me that it is closer to being a moderate solution than either party would suggest - the two main arguements almost balance themselves out.The only exceptions will be, as always, those customs and traditions already forbidden by previous UN motions. In other words (taking into account the fact that UN motions override national laws) any practices not already expressly forbidden by the UN are permitted by this motion. Not entirely. Nations have been invited to discuss with indigenous peoples - hopefully set down some ground rules and keep things civil. Besides, whilst they might have the right to practice them, does that mean they will be legal? Not neccessarily - perhaps "decriminalised" is the correct word....as long as the practice remains within their culture, and does not affect others, and does not break UN law, I see nothing wrong with this. I make no apologies for considering implications of this motion that the delegate from Hirota failed to.Actually, most of them have been considered. I've not yet seen something posted which has really made me have to reconsider anything so far...But the lack of understanding of the implications involved seems to extend to the supporters of this motion.1. A majority of the active supporters on here were involved in the process from the start - this has floated on the boards since early december.
2. I'm the one who submitted the proposal - I think I know what it's meant to do, I've spent a long time on this.

Okay....In HIROTA, our indigenous peoples (what few there are, mostly confined to our north) already have their own currency - and our economy has not crashed or suffered.OOC: Thank you. Don't feel I was singling you out. I have that particular rant about RL examples every couple of months. ;)

What levels of trade are there between your indigenous peoples and the rest of the nation? How do you overcome currency differences in trade within the two groups? Do you think it's a possibility that this motion would present more problems for you if your nation had a more substanstial number of indigenous peoples?

Good, we don't want a one-world vision.There is great strength in diversity.
Absolutely, but is it unreasonable to want a unified nation?

Okay.....In HIROTA, our indigenous peoples already enjoy many of the rights within the proposal, and if anything civil unrest has decreased.The fact that this proposal will permit indigenous people to have such freedoms should lessen the need for a homeland. But of course, we can have peoples wanting their own homeland who are not indigenous, so it's not as if we are suddenly going to have Bigtopians demanding their own nation more than any other particular group.It may lessen the need. I don't think it will necessarily follow that it will lessen the demand. And the difference will be that non-indigenous people will not have a right enshirined in law to work with homeland activists from another country. I feel that leads to problems. Even if the indigenous peoples of a nation are peaceful, it could lead to infiltration by outside agitators.
Well, when I see two entirely different perspectives on the opposite ends of the arguement, and the proposal does neither, then it suggests to me that it is closer to being a moderate solution than either party would suggest - the two main arguements almost balance themselves out.
Equally, the idea that the vast majority of this proposal's opponents believe it will lead to world-wide civil war is a caricature of the opposing arguments.
Not entirely. Nations have been invited to discuss with indigenous peoples - hopefully set down some ground rules and keep things civil. Besides, whilst they might have the right to practice them, does that mean they will be legal? Not neccessarily - perhaps "decriminalised" is the correct word....as long as the practice remains within their culture, and does not affect others, and does not break UN law, I see nothing wrong with this. Absolutely. But the proposal makes clear that, should discussions break down, the bottom line is that indigenous peoples have an exclusive right to practice their customs, with no exception apart from previous UN motions. I take your correction on legalisation, we are talking more about decriminalisation. However, if a nation has stringent animal welfare laws, or if it has human rights concerns about a specific practice not expressely outlawed by the UN, should it not have a right to outlaw them throughout its country? As citizens of a nation surely indigenous peoples have responsibilitys as well as rights.

A majority of the active supporters on here were involved in the process from the start - this has floated on the boards since early december.Absolutely, but they were all supporters, so naturally they may not have seen all the problems that could arise. Not seeing the woods for the trees. I don't mean to malign anyone's intellect. I think that's an unfortunate fact of human nature.
2. I'm the one who submitted the proposal - I think I know what it's meant to do, I've spent a long time on this.Oh, I accept you know what it's meant to do, and I appreciate the work you've put in on this. However, that doesn't mean that's how it will be implemented. I know you don't like looking at worse case scenarios, but neither you nor I are responsible for enforcing UN law. And where there is law there is lawyers. And I think we always have to bear in mind how a lawyer could interpret a resolution.

Your section 4 states that minors may not be removed from the family for any reason. But that also means that if the family abuses their child the state can do nothing to stop this, it should be altered to somehow word it so that it gives them the same rights as normal citizens.

Your section 4 states that minors may not be removed from the family for any reason. But that also means that if the family abuses their child the state can do nothing to stop this, it should be altered to somehow word it so that it gives them the same rights as normal citizens.

That has already been brought up and debated, and it turns out that this does not cover general abuse. It mentioned genocide - in this case the forced removal of children to destroy the society - and acts of violance. And pre-text means that you are doing as an excuse, without evidence and so forth.

I don't think it is that much of an issue, but I could be wrong.

According to the traditions of most indigeonous populations in North America, indigeonous means people that were here before Columbus. Also, according to most Native North American traditions prior to federal blood quantum, anyone who was adopted as family by Indians was Indian. (see Russell Means, Where White Men Fear to Tread "we were enslaved as Indians, we'll be free as Indians" before anyone reacts to that. I agree with the resolution in principle and voted for it, however, the nut cut comes in the form of it being carried out. What, is the UN going to police the world? Will it or can it really be carried out or is it just an attempt at feel better legislation? Resolutions won't change much, simply treating the indigeonous as human beings and granting them cultural and political autonomy as the separate nations that they are is about the only thing that will make the indigeonous content. Not some political rhetoric that sounds good.

According to the traditions of most indigeonous populations in North America, indigeonous means people that were here before Columbus. Also, according to most Native North American traditions prior to federal blood quantum, anyone who was adopted as family by Indians was Indian. (see Russell Means, Where White Men Fear to Tread "we were enslaved as Indians, we'll be free as Indians" before anyone reacts to that. I agree with the resolution in principle and voted for it, however, the nut cut comes in the form of it being carried out. What, is the UN going to police the world? Will it or can it really be carried out or is it just an attempt at feel better legislation? Resolutions won't change much, simply treating the indigeonous as human beings and granting them cultural and political autonomy as the separate nations that they are is about the only thing that will make the indigeonous content. Not some political rhetoric that sounds good.

Actually the UN doesn't need to police the world. Any resolution passed can not be ignored in the member nations. So once this passes, all member nations will have to implement it. I realise there is a difference between thought and actions (you can act with respect and act without discrimination even if you don't think that way) but this is still a good start.

Um... this may have already been stated, but why do indigenous poeple deserve special treatment? Equal rights for them should be covered in the previous proposition that passed, all this does is contradict that by favouring one group over another. If indigenous people want the rights of citizens, they should become citizens.

Personally, I think it does more than what you think. What do you think of the nations who seem to think this will cause civil war, destroy their economy and their educational systems? Surely you'd agree this proposal will not acomplish any of those?

Since I don't think this resolution actually accomplishes anything (or at the very least, it's nothing that hasn't already been covered), then yes, I would agree this proposal will not cause civil war or destroy their economy and educational systems.

-Hirota-

You correctly quoted me in saying:

"This ill formed and vague act makes it possible for nations to deny their responsibilities to children within their borders in cases of abuse, maltreatment, educational standards and more."
But then responded with this comment:

"A completely opposed point of view to Brishes...regarding education...The real answer is actually inbetween these two hugely opposing, hugely inaccurate, hugely distorted understandings."

Now.. regardless of intent, or whatever warm fuzzy feeling is obtained by this draft as a whole, contrast your previous quote with the actual text from the draft:

§4 Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace & security as distinct peoples and to guarantees against genocide & acts of violence, including the removal of minors from families & communities under any pretext

Doesn't poor educational standards, physical, and sexual abuse fall under the terminology of "under any pretext?" Sure the intent is there on the whole, but this document is not ready to be passed. It provides a very dangerous loophole for nations to deny their responsibilities to children within their borders. This fact is not vague, this is not inaccurate or distorted. Are you so willing to blindly push your agenda to help these important people that you will actually forsake their most important treasure.. their future and their children? Let's clean this draft up and pass it in a respectable form. No responsible nation should support a resolution with a "turn a blind eye" loophole in it like this.

I do not mean to offend you, because I do see the intent of this document! I am only trying to make it stronger. I wish I had been a member during the earlier stages of this process. Our nation would actively support a stronger and more responsible version of this resolution.

(Other nations, please read my posts in the other thread regarding this issue to get up to date on the status of my nation's arguments regarding this resolution)

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Last UN Decision

The resolution Rights of indigenous peoples was passed 12,699 votes to 5,088, and implemented in all UN member nations.

About time it was removed from the table. Now we can get on with the next discussion, and this time about something I actually may be affected by.

About time it was removed from the table. Now we can get on with the next discussion, and this time about something I actually may be affected by.

Well if that is what you are looking for, you may very well continue to search in vain. As a matter of fact, is it not true that none of the resolutions will directly affect you? For it has come to this Nation's attention that "The Interplanetary Empire of DemonLordEnigma" is not even a member of the United Nations.

Above all, congratulations to Hirota on the passing of this fine resolution!

Well if that is what you are looking for, you may very well continue to search in vain. As a matter of fact, is it not true that none of the resolutions will directly affect you? For it has come to this Nation's attention that "The Interplanetary Empire of DemonLordEnigma" is not even a member of the United Nations.

Actually, the Empire is in the UN. The nation of DemonLordEnigma (I'll change it to something else after this to reflect the differences between the two), which is the ruling nation of the DemonLordEnigma Empire, is not a member. But Tiamat Taveril, which is one of the annexed nations of the DemonLordEnigma Empire, is in the UN and is the DLE nation that represents the entirety of the empire.

Actually, the Empire is in the UN. The nation of DemonLordEnigma (I'll change it to something else after this to reflect the differences between the two), which is the ruling nation of the DemonLordEnigma Empire, is not a member. But Tiamat Taveril, which is one of the annexed nations of the DemonLordEnigma Empire, is in the UN and is the DLE nation that represents the entirety of the empire.

Thank you for this clarificiation. Our intelligence ministry will be sure to include this with the other information we have in our DLE Dossier!

Thank you for this clarificiation. Our intelligence ministry will be sure to include this with the other information we have in our DLE Dossier!

You need to have your intelligence ministry shot. The information is public information available in the DLE factbook, which is published in most known languages and available in more nations than I can count.

If players have puppets that are in the UN and are advocating for or against a proposal, PLEASE consider using your puppets to do so.

Another alternative might be to create a signature file that points to your UN Member.

To do something else is confusing to many players. While non-UN members are certainly welcome to post, using your actual UN nation will help those whom don't want to spend the time understand who is who (not everybody LIVES on NationStates like I and others do, and checking the UN status on nations isn't easy, because it can change) and focus the debate on the topics and not UN members.

Second, telling somebody to have their intelligence ministry shot is a pretty questionable thing to do. It will put players on the defensive and may very well lead to flaming on either side.

In either case, I'm a strong advocate that peaceful bodies like the UN work best when everybody is forth right and up front about what their opinions are and whom they are representing. Using a non-UN puppet might not be intentionally misleading, but it does increase tensions and promotes mistrust.

For example, look at the anger over the North Pacific Delegacy during the Repeal Legalize Prostitution debates. It was seen as a possible political move against the UN. (I think it really had nothing to do with the UN, as the players behind that typically have ignored the UN in my year in the game and during my 6 months in the North Pacific.) But in any event, even the accusation is enough to enrage UN critics. We have enough problems with the UN's image via poorly worded and quickly drafted UN resolutions as it is ... I think we can counter that by maintaining a very open dialog here and by sharing information <--- which is reason I founded the United Nations Organizations ... we need to treat the UN like a democracy and be very public about things.

These are just suggestions, but if you are not placing the nation that you frequently use in the UN forum discussions, in the UN itself, it can be confusing to others and it is obvious you are interested in the UN.

I appreciate nations pointing out whom their puppets are, but not everybody has the time to find the 1 out of 200 posts where that is listed.

A final alternative might be for somebody to create a list of UN members and their affliated non-UN allies (aka puppets). Just an idea.

Last UN Decision

The resolution Rights of indigenous peoples was passed 12,699 votes to 5,088, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Hurray! Another useless, unimaginative resolution gets passed!!!

Hurray! Another useless, unimaginative resolution gets passed!!!

Actually I liked it and thought it was very well written, but since you didn't, would you mind telling us which resolution you liked? This is a sincere request, because perhaps if more of us that author UN resolutions had a better feeling for what others liked, we could make more resolutions like those.

To Whom It May Concern:

Our nation finds this resolution to be abundantly substandard as stated previously in our unreplied to posts on this thread...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8002502&postcount=134

We will act in everyway possible to challenge it, and to have it repealed. Any nations that have similar interests/concerns please contact our president immediately for consultations. This resolution is an irresponsible quick-fix. It must be repealed!

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

To express my opinions I will copy what I said in our regional forum:

Oh my God another outrageous UN resolution. In my nation all people are treated the same. I will not pass any law that gives indigenous people more rights than my own citizens, and if their children don't speak the national language, I will not begin teaching class in theirs. This will take money that could be used for more important things, and if they want they can take a course in the national language and earn honors credits.
Nor will our schools begin teaching that indigenous basket-weaving is more important than the civil wars and revolutions our colonists fought to earn independence as a nation.

If the indigenous claimants believe that they were at some point wronged by the current racial majorities, then they may take up the issue in our courts or to the UN if needs be. But the current government will not make such settlements as this law will make for.

Not to mention that whole cross-borders discussion. I will not have the natives crossing into hostile borders and smuggling in enemies or embargo'd goods to my nation. If they want to go to pray then they can take the time and money to purchase passage across just like everybody else. Technically the human race began in Africa, so does that mean the government must give me free passage to the Congo every time some UC Berkeley proffesor invents a false religious Holiday?
I think not.
As for the title "indigenous"; where does the classification end? Are you classified as indigenous when you are 1/2 indigenous? 1/4? 1/10? 1/10000? Even if the logic behind the bill were moral and good intending, which it's not, the classification of an indigenous person is too loose.

You need to have your intelligence ministry shot. The information is public information available in the DLE factbook, which is published in most known languages and available in more nations than I can count.

Well, between you and me (because I trust the DLE Empire very much), the intelligence ministry is merely a decoy to obscure the operations of the highly covert EEIODoD.

In short, we know more than you think we do. (And this is true even though I have blown the cover of the the "incompetent" intelligence ministry).

Technically the human race began in Africa, so does that mean the government must give me free passage to the Congo every time some UC Berkeley proffesor invents a false religious Holiday?


I'm assuming you are talking about Kwanzaa ...
because Dr. Karenga has never had any formal connection with UC Berkeley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Karenga

California higher eduction was designed to have three tiers:

1. University of California system
2. California State system
3. local community colleges

Research and PhD programs typically are given priority at the UC schools, which community colleges focus on providing low cost alternatives to the UC and CS campuses.

Having taught as a graduate teaching assistant at a UC campus I can attest to how challenging they are, and a few of my friends who are now teaching as faculty members at all three of the above, I think they all have some great strengths and can offer quality programs.

As for Dr. Karenga himself, he is to say the least a colorful historical figure. Like him or not, his holiday is not leaving any time soon. Furthermore, many Christian holidays were in fact inventions created to surplant Pagan holidays. Take Christmas which is timed near the tribal / pagan German holiday: Yule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule

In the case of Christmas, many people actually believe that Jesus was not even born in the winter!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Christmas" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm) offers a starting-point for Christmas, which does not appear among the earliest lists of Christian feasts, those of Irenaeus and Tertullian. The earliest evidence of celebration is from Alexandria, about 200 A.D., when Clement of Alexandria says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign not just the year but the actual day of Christ's birth., on 25 Pachon (May 20) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus.

My point is most holidays are "False", and I wouldn't base my arguments on that.

What exactly is your point?

Oh never mind I see your point, and would like to reiterate that that my point about fake holidays was by no means at all the basis of my argument, as you would see if you read my entire post.

Well, between you and me (because I trust the DLE Empire very much), the intelligence ministry is merely a decoy to obscure the operations of the highly covert EEIODoD.

In short, we know more than you think we do. (And this is true even though I have blown the cover of the the "incompetent" intelligence ministry).

:Signs his understanding and agreement about the decoy being good:

Wha? My ears seem to be a little bad right now. I think the implants are malfunctioning.

Well, as long as no harm from my comment has come, things are alright.

Well, as long as no harm from my comment has come, things are alright.

King Solomon admits he was taken aback at first, but seeing as how it seems DLE intended no harm, then things are alright, indeed!

But he would suggest that DLE try to be a bit more courteous in his comments, as the King suffers from bouts of severe irascibility from time to time. It's a medical condition.

Oh never mind I see your point, and would like to reiterate that that my point about fake holidays was by no means at all the basis of my argument, as you would see if you read my entire post.

I did.

But the fact that you singled out a holiday that actually has cultural significance as being fake while not addressing Christmas or Easter or any of the other Christian holidays lead me to suspect that if the tables were turned that you might not feel the resolution was so bad afterall.

"Fake" or not isn't the point of a holiday. Holidays exist to give the people living today something to reflect on (while enjoying a nice day at home). (They also tend to keep companies like Hallmark in business.) ;)

Personally I think Kwanzaa is pretty damned silly and that Dr. Karenga likely deserved a bit of his jail time. But I also believe that he actually did something meaningful and important while in jail and what I consider silly other people might put a lot of stock into.


In 2002 when I was at a club in Germany, I ended up hanging out with some of the locals. It was fun, but I also remember a girl of African ancestry coming and telling me how envious she was of me for growing up and living in the United States. She went on to talk about how horribly racist Germany was (I'm not saying it was ... just repeating her opinions), and how she was planning to move in with her aunt whom immigrated to the US. She said that though most people wouldn't show contempt for her, that she never felt welcomed in Germany.

OK, now my opinion on Germans. I love them. They are friendly and serious when it counts and silly when needed to lighten the mood. While I've met some extremely racist / closed minded Germans, I've also run into plenty of Americans and Dutch that really need to put those attitudes where they belong, in a history book of the 17th century or earlier. :( Racists exist everywhere and I'm not about to fault one society for having a few bad apples.

I was surprised to here this German girl of African ancestry diss her country (I probably should add that her English was exceptional, so I'm guessing her folks were well educated and traveled).

But the take home message to me was that something in Germany wasn't welcoming to her and she should have had the right to feel that. I told her that the US has a host of problems, including racism as well, but that if she was unhappy that she should at the very least visit her American aunt for a month. :)



Kwanzaa, Christmas, Easter, and this very resolution are exactly about finding that balance. Giving people something out of the ordinary and to help them find a sense of belonging. Agreeing or disagreeing with the individual holidays or culturals and how they impact you (or in NationStates your culture) is one thing ... but I think you'll find that many therapists will argue that many humans not only build communities, but wish to feel a part of them.

Ultimately I would say that diversity and exploring different culturals and value systems is an important self discovery process, and in counter to your opinion, I felt that some well reasoned defense of something like a policy of regonizing individual cultures and the value in protecting them from a "mono-culture" ~~can~~ be a good thing too!

I think if somebody creates a fake holiday and others embrass it, we really need to wonder: Why would they do this?

So where you see something promoting division, I see something that gives people a sense of belonging and better yet ... another opportunity to explore their relationship with a different value system.

There is a reason I leave the United States every year to travel to another country. It is because I find it fascinating how people do things in other places.

What does learning about other cultures have to do with this proposal? Do you know how much trouble it will be to teachers and students and tax-payers to pay for an almost entirely new education system just for the benefit of a small minority? How many benefits will go to people just because their great-great-great grandparent on their mother's side was a native? I see your point, but I am afraid laws do not make people change their opinions of others. All laws like this do is give racists more of a reason to be so, and move moderate tax-payers further to their cause. All that this law does is give people rights that they already have, and make more laws which benefit people slightly at a large expense.

Congratulations on passing the most useless, biggoted, sack of crap resolution I have ever seen. My faith in the UN has now hit an all time low.

Actually I liked it and thought it was very well written, but since you didn't, would you mind telling us which resolution you liked? This is a sincere request, because perhaps if more of us that author UN resolutions had a better feeling for what others liked, we could make more resolutions like those.

It was well written and I liked it in principle but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, these items in this resolution we covered in previously passed and implemented resolutions. There was absolutely no reason for this proposal, as it did nothing new.

This NationStates forum, while not real life, has, I feel, I real opportunity to propose some real creative, impactful resolutions. Instead, we chose to debate the same old polarizing topics covered in the real world.

Some of the resolutions that have passed that I feel were creative and worth while are Hydrogen Powered Vehicles, Ending Slavery, Elimination of Bio-Weapons, Universal Bill of Rights, Common Sense Act II, Global AIDS Initiative, Oceanic Waste Dumping, and Alternative Fuels to mention a few of them. There are, however, just as many redundant resolutions like Child Labor and the Child Protection Act or this Indigenous Species and the Universal Bill of Rights.

I just feel we need to be more selective of the resolutions we propose and it is up to the UN members to make sure we are not spinning our wheels and re-hashing the same things over and over. Here's a tip: NOT EVERYTHING SHOULD PASS!

Though I thought this resolution was somewhat of an outrage, I couldn't say I disliked it more than the Global Library act.