NationStates Jolt Archive

This is totally unethical.

Since when did it become "fair and equal" to draft legislation that grants special privillages and protections to specific minorities? When you begin to make allowances for seperate and unequal treatment of a given demographic, you open up a can of worms that we've spent the last fifty years trying to close. It's true that the culture of a place and the people who occupied it need to be preserved, but not at the expense of another emerging population. Laws which attempt to create a static society are inherently prone to failure and will only cause more friction between groups. Government should not be designed with exclusivity clauses, elsewise you create a facist totalitarian system, and that's bad.

This legislation is redundant. It assumes that my country is racist. It also assumes that my country was founded by an invading ethnic group that nearly wiped out a previous one. This resolution might be suitable for a select few countries, but it is useless for mine. We already have equal rights in previous resolutions; why do we need to assure equal rights again?

I am not sure about NS, but in the real world most minorities or indigenous people lack basic rights and are treated like crap. For example the US treates the Native Americans like Crap. I don't think it is assuming you are being racist, but it is simply making sure that in countries that do not take care of the indigenous people that will begin to look after and care for these people.

Once more my biggest problem with this is there is no clear to enforce or implement what is being said in the resolution.

What I dislike most is their being allowed to make the curriculum compatible with their own culture. Also the fact that they are allowed to continue any rituals they have, no matter if these are homicidal, barbaric, dangerous or all three. Gets a vote against from me, but it seems that everyone votes on the UN with a knee-jerk reaction.

What I dislike most is their being allowed to make the curriculum compatible with their own culture. Also the fact that they are allowed to continue any rituals they have, no matter if these are homicidal, barbaric, dangerous or all three.1. Post in the main topic please.

2. This resolution does not override legislation placed in law. Have a look at the main topic and see the posts by Miktivity - he really hit the nail on the head with that (and saved me the headache of trying to write a full explaination). I appreciate not everyone is going to be able to understand the concept, but it's not there to override the legal systems in place.Gets a vote against from me, but it seems that everyone votes on the UN with a knee-jerk reaction.You don't know everyone who votes, so you cannot with any degree of accuracy say that.

Clause 10 states that "educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture". If we take this clause to imply what it would imply if it was indeed gramatically correct, this would lead to ultra-PC crap (pardon my French) about how we can't teach just about anything that "interferes" with their culture:


Teacher: OK, class, open your English textbooks to page 203--

Student: *spoken in an obscure dialect of a foreign language* Sorry, Teach, no can do--it's against my culture to speak, never mind study, any language but the sacred words of Poka-Poka!

Teacher: Very well--open your science textbooks to--

Student: *still in Poka-Pokan* Never! The ancient gods of Tookland have spoken that all were created in the giant sandstorm that engulfed the world! It is against my culture to learn your obscene theories of evolution!


Is THIS what we want our teachers having to obey? Never! We cannot let this act pass!

Listing the rights of indigenous people makes it sound like they are limited to those rights, when that should not indeed be so, for we never know what issues might arise in the future that the writer of this resolution didn't think of now. Also, this is only applicable to a few countries, and so need not be dealt with in the UN, but should be a private issue

I agree that this should not be a matter dealt with by the UN. Not all nations are populated by invaders. I am even confidant that there are countries out that solely have native people. So I have cast my vote against this proposition. I encourage other nations to do so as well due to the fact that this is exclusive to oppressed indigenous peoples.

I must say this raises an interesting issue. Though we must acknowledge that some, in the case of United States, did win the land by invasion of the indigenous people and therefore are responsible for causing them discomfort and relocation, we should not believe that the sins of a father are passed down to the son. In one hand, it is not our fault therefore why should we be apologetic and feel giult.
As well, the Indigenous Peoples' Act is also seperating the people ethnically. To do this would be discriminating against the sons of the invading country therefore making it unequal, as I believ some groups are set out to do. (But that is neither here nor there).
I do believe that the Indigenous people should never forget, but to forgive the sons of the father's sin and come to the realization that it is not thier fault. So, I, the Emperor of Kornel, disagree completely with the Indigenous Peoples' Act for trying to pry an already seperated mass of people.

From Kornel,
Emperor Gideon I

As for the United Nations, I do believe it should concern itself completely in this matter. Our job as a global director is to deal with such issues so that the two sides discussing the matter do not do anything to hasty. I believe we have sat back to long and allowed such issues to escalate into such things as war and discrimination. If we allow ourselves to once again slip between the cracks of callousness, then what use our we then a bunch of old faces debating on issues we have no plan in taking part of.

From Kornel,
Emperor Gideon I

I think we should vote against this resolution. It is a feel-good bureaurcrat-speak resolution that achieves nothing more that that covered by previous human rights resolutions such as Universal Human Rights etc.

It is a waste of time and legislation designed to make those who vote for it feel good about themselves whilst not actually doing anything.

The resolution currently at vote in the UN must not be passed. While it looks like it would aid harmony in member nations, it would create unacceptable conditons in favor of the cessesion of indigenous peoples. Particularly the vagueness of sections 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. To legally recognize a second economy in a nation would put at risk all of the member states econonmic welfare, just as forcing member states to develop a secondary education system specifically for indigenous peoples would undermine our ultimate goal of educating our populi. Section 7 allows for the right to protection and safety during conflict, but doesn't specify who will provide either, and could easily be miscontrued and force civil war to break out, as it also doesn't define conflict or who decides what is a conflict. The passage of this resolution will make is neccessary for Brish to resign from the UN. Please take this into consideration before making your vote.

i think that if you care about holding your countrytogether you will vote yes and make sure that the natives are protected by law.

My oppinion is to vote against this, and my oppinion is all that matters. It's human nature to destory old cultures and make way for new ones. We can't progress if we hold onto the old. We have to openly embrace change, and throw out old thinking. My ancestors may have been Druids, but you don't see me outside dancing around a fire wearing animal skins. We must destroy old cultures and make way for a new one. A universal culture.

I won't reiterate the well thought statements in opposition to this resolution. I agree with them all. However, the specific sections listed by Brish previously leave so much to interpretation that it makes the resolution unenforceable. If you look at the history of the U.S. many aspects of the resolution make the assumption that indigenous peoples are some monolithic group that can be treated in a uniform manner. However, the vague policies listed would end up causing a balkanization of the very groups the resolution seeks to protect. For example, the Native Americans that were indigenous to the U.S. are not a monolithic group and have very different aspects to their culture. Plus, how do you define indigenous. It makes a difference in some countries.

Finally, while I don't know every nation who votes I can easily see that this is a warm good hearted effort to address some wrongs done throughout history. Unfortunately, it will not be enforceable as written, and is so vague that implementing it becomes unworkable.

Samsonish

To fellow UN members, greetings!
I can see that this draft resolution was well-meant, but, with all due respect to whoever drafted it, surely we should be looking at rights and responsiblities of all ethnic and cultural groups. This sort of resolution is merely going to cause a right-wing backlash (as in Australia in the real world).
So come on folks, a vote against a resolution isn't a vote against indeginous people, it's just a recognition that more work needs to be done on thinking through a multi-sided compact between the all the peoples of our countries, rather than just passing a headline-grabbing flawed resolution now.

The Indigenous Peoples Act cannot be passed. 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. Meanwhile it also threatens the very sovereignty that many of the members that voted "yes" enjoy. Border control is one of such issues. The 1000 Islands Delegate has voted against this act. In support of the 1000 Islands vote, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE (UN Membership Pending) would like to ask other MORAL leaders to live up to their responsibilities to children, of all origins, within their nation. Not to turn a blind eye to thier Indigenous peoples and leave them to their own devices, stranded and without the resources of modernity and enlightenment. This act cannot be passed by civilized moral nations that believe in the freedoms of each person to excel and to prosper not just physically. Join our proud nation in decrying the tactic of turning a blind eye to the needs of Indigenous People. Lets have a call to rewrite this act in a responsible way so that it reflects the best of humanity, not the worst!

-President Ethan of The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

Well, i personally think that this decision needs to be expanded and elaborated, though its a generally good idea, but what im more concerned about is the treatment and/or compensation for already abused indigenous people. for example, the native americans have a fraction of their former territory, an a lot of their culture has been assimilated and mocked, what do they get from this agreement?

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Wentworthian Hegemon,
This proposal may seem to be beneficial but it is not. In fact this is nothing more than a tool for modern nations to deny Indigenous Peoples the right to things like land compensation. This act perpetuates the philosophy of leaving Indigenous Peoples to their own devices.. if your nation supports this attitude in resolution form, then what type of compensation would one expect to get? Does your nation want a resolution that voids your responsibility to the general welfare of Indigenous children within your borders? I certainly would hope not. it needs to go back to the drawing board.

President ethAn, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

[COLOR=DarkRed]leave them to their own devices, stranded and without the resources of modernity and enlightenment. This act cannot be passed by civilized moral nations

-President Ethan of The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE


-an interesting quote comes to mind:

As a child I understood how to give, I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized.

do you know who on nationstates said this? no one on nationstates said this. this was said by a native american, an indigenous person of america, named
"Luther Standing Bear - Oglala" whom lived around the end of the american civil war.
-who are you to say what a nation is required to give anymore than you are to say what indigenous people want? "civilized"? who are you to judge?

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Wentworthian Hegemon,
This proposal may seem to be beneficial but it is not. In fact this is nothing more than a tool for modern nations to deny Indigenous Peoples the right to things like land compensation. This act perpetuates the philosophy of leaving Indigenous Peoples to their own devices.. if your nation supports this attitude in resolution form, then what type of compensation would one expect to get? Does your nation want a resolution that voids your responsibility to the general welfare of Indigenous children within your borders? I certainly would hope not. it needs to go back to the drawing board.

President ethAn, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE


by the way, i havent actually voted on this un resolution yet

-The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

You are taking words and applying your own meanings to them. By "civilized" i'm only using that in the way people use indigenous. As a discription, but not a measurement. I have the utmost respect for native peoples. The fact that you would suggest otherwise is personally troubling to me. In the midst of your attack of my personal motives, you neglected to answer my point. This resolution is an excuse for advanced/ modern /civilized nations (self proclaimed or not) to say that they are mandated to turn a blind eye to problems of indigenous peoples. It's plain and simple in the language. This must be rewritten to represent what I believe is it's underlying intent.. Cultural protection and respect. Do not attack my country's motives by playing word games. This is a matter that we take very seriously.

President ethAnTkE

You are taking words and applying your own meanings to them. By "civilized" i'm only using that in the way people use indigenous. As a discription, but not a measurement. I have the utmost respect for native peoples. The fact that you would suggest otherwise is personally troubling to me. In the midst of your attack of my personal motives, you neglected to answer my point. This resolution is an excuse for advanced/ modern /civilized nations (self proclaimed or not) to say that they are mandated to turn a blind eye to problems of indigenous peoples. It's plain and simple in the language. This must be rewritten to represent what I believe is it's underlying intent.. Cultural protection and respect. Do not attack my country's motives by playing word games. This is a matter that we take very seriously.

President ethAnTkE

-first of all if you dont want me to attack you with "word games" then choose your words more carefully
-second of all i totally agree with you, in the sense that it might have alteriroir motives that arent in a indigenous groups best interest, and that revisions are necessary. however i doubt that these alterior motives where intended when it was written, because everyone who proposes an idea in the UN usually only does so to make the "world" a better place (emphasis on the 'usually'). yes, revisions are needed, either that or the resolution should be passed and then amended until its suitable and apropriate. i agree with you, however, that wasnt why i came to this forum. i came to this forum to discuss what formerly abused natives would get from this resolution, and to propose that topic as a revisional concept.
-third of all, on an unrelated note, i like your style. your polite. keep that up, because there arent many polite people in the forums nowadays (other than us ^_^).

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

I am glad that you, also, see the consequences of the language that could be adopted. I hope that it is revised.
The topic of what formerly abused natives would get from this resolutionis a great revisional concept. I will be sure to follow this to see what develops.

We cannot have this pass. This law would cause chaos. I mean this. A child in school would not have to learn the required lessons just because they don' t belive in them. That means children of the school would come out of school without the facts they need to survive in the out side world. Also, this would mean schools and work would have to set out time for prayer everyday. This would distract non praying students from work.

I am glad to see that so many of us agree that this prop was poorly written, however, with only 2 days left to vote, the numbers are clearly against us. We need to communicate with those UN members in our regions to ask for a vote against the prop, and also our regional delegates. To vote the prop down we need to make up nearly 3000 votes, so we have alot of work to do. Please help out, I feel, as you do, that the our failure to defeat this prop would be disasterous. At the same time, someone should prepare to write a repeal prop. It would be good to have all of our bases covered.

Correction, we need about 5000 votes, not 3000. Alot of work, and not alot of time, we need to light a fire and get going. I have already begun sending messages to delegates who voted for the prop, now we need to keep going and try to change some minds. please help out.

As I said earlier in this topic, and as I said in every topic apart from the original - post in the original topic please I could have made it much bigger, more louder, but I'm hoping you can read something and understand it.... :rolleyes:

Anyway, since I'm nice, I'll try and deal with one general issue at a time in here for your enjoyment. First of all - education and childrenClause 10 states that "educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture". If we take this clause to imply what it would imply if it was indeed gramatically correct, this would lead to ultra-PC crap .… about how we can't teach just about anything that "interferes" with their culture:How a government brings this section into effect is impossible to legislate upon given the many different cultures within the UN, and their various levels of integration into state society. If schools were to educate indigenous and non-indigenous simultaneously, then I could imagine either the school could promote differing perspectives on such matters, or hold different classes for each group on certain subjects. Indeed, schools should already be doing this on an individual basis already (in RL I work in education, and I know that schools should respect the wishes of parents for cultural or religious matters

That’s why I added Clause 13 – States should discuss with indigenous peoples how such things are handled.just as forcing member states to develop a secondary education system specifically for indigenous peoples would undermine our ultimate goal of educating our populi.Except as I just replied - it does not force you. It does force you to strike up a discussion with the indigenous peoples to discuss how it should be enforced.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.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.That means children of the school would come out of school without the facts they need to survive in the out side world.Consult my previous replies on this matterAlso, this would mean schools and work would have to set out time for prayer everyday. This would distract non praying students from work. What makes you think indigenous peoples pray??? It is exactly this kind of ignorant presumptious twaddle that encouraged me to add article 13 in the first place - clearly you don't know what your indigenous peoples might or might not do in terms of religon.

The rogue nation of mr oni will vote against this proposition because it feels it a threat to its sovereighnity. We will not be bullied in the way we treat our peoples.


Mr Oni

Secondly - human rights (and the fantasy of civil war)..


Listing the rights of indigenous people makes it sound like they are limited to those rights, when that should not indeed be soWhich is not the case - otherwise it would repeal other resolutions (which it does not - or it would have been deleted by the mods). for we never know what issues might arise in the future that the writer of this resolution didn't think of now. Irrelevant - we could say the same for every resolution ever made by anyone in the past.Also, this is only applicable to a few countries, and so need not be dealt with in the UN, but should be a private issueAgain, Irrelevant - the scale of the problem does not weaken the arguement for the solution presented.I agree that this should not be a matter dealt with by the UN.What should the UN be here for if not to protect human rights?Not all nations are populated by invaders.And not all nations have access to the sea - although we have voted in resolutions before. I am even confidant that there are countries out that solely have native people.Then they are not affected by this proposal - check the definition in article 1.I encourage other nations to do so as well due to the fact that this is exclusive to oppressed indigenous peoplesIrrelevant - All resolutions have some degree of exclusivity.To do this would be discriminating against the sons of the invading country therefore making it unequal, as I believ some groups are set out to do.There is already discrimination against the indigenous peoples in some nations by the state - this proposal will balance against that.It is a feel-good bureaurcrat-speak resolution that achieves nothing more that that covered by previous human rights resolutions such as Universal Human Rights etc So you think the proposal does nothing.....To legally recognize a second economy in a nation would put at risk all of the member states econonmic welfare, just as forcing member states to develop a secondary education system specifically for indigenous peoples would undermine our ultimate goal of educating our populi. Section 7 allows for the right to protection and safety during conflict, but doesn't specify who will provide either, and could easily be miscontrued and force civil war to break out, as it also doesn't define conflict or who decides what is a conflict .....and you think that this proposal will destroy your economy, your education system and encourage civil war..... :rolleyes:

These two views have one thing in common - they are united in their ridiculousness, in their inaccuracy, in their lack of knowledge on the subject.

Oh and a definition on conflict is very easy to find. Look here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-20,RNWE:en&q=define%3Aconflict)

The passage of this resolution will make is neccessary for Brish to resign from the UN. Please take this into consideration before making your vote. A complete loss I'm sure. :rolleyes: how many times have I seen a new nation, full of naivety and ignorance quitting the UN because they did not get their own way? Trust me, you are unremarkable in your "threat."We must destroy old cultures and make way for a new one. A universal culture. I wondered when a one-worlder comment would pop up. Fact is nations already have the right to determine their own form of government, so the one-worlder arguement does not hold up.surely we should be looking at rights and responsiblities of all ethnic and cultural groups. One step at a time - if I had made it broader, the proposal would have been really vague.This act cannot be passed by civilized moral nations Moral by whose standards I wonder? Not by mine.

And finally, the other unlinked issues, and a closing summary.

The rogue nation of mr oni will vote against this proposition because it feels it a threat to its sovereighnity. **Adds nations name to the ever growing list of people who do not read the FAQ**for example, the native americans have a fraction of their former territory, an a lot of their culture has been assimilated and mocked, what do they get from this agreement? and In fact this is nothing more than a tool for modern nations to deny Indigenous Peoples the right to things like land compensation. It was in the first few drafts of the proposal - but was removed due to space issues, and also to soften the impact on some nations. I would really have liked to have kept it in, but it's about trying to bring about a proposal that is acceptable to the majority of UN members. But I'd love to help on a resolution which proposes compensation to indigenous peoples.I am glad to see that so many of us agree that this prop was poorly written, except none of you can agree on your understanding of the proposal (as shown by the extreme, inaccurate understandings shown). If you understood the proposal then I could perhaps understand your objections, but as they are - I just think a majority of them are plain dumb.

If maybe there was a complete consenus on the objections, then I could perhaps understand, but there are two distinct, almost opposite camps of opposition - which suggests to me that the proposal is somewhere inbetween, and does not have any serious problems.

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. If they don't like living in my country i'll give them a little piece of land and they can create their own country and leave us alone.

thanks,
Owenarcia

Indigenous people's get enough rights and protections,You mean, In Owenarcia, Indigenous people's get enough rights and protections.
Just because your nation might does not mean Indigenous peoples get enough rights in general.i'm voting against because the more we give the more they'll exploit their louder voice in democracy to stir up trouble.I disagree with that statement at the most fundamental level.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.But should have their rights and culture respected - which is what this does.

I must say this raises an interesting issue. Though we must acknowledge that some, in the case of United States, did win the land by invasion of the indigenous people and therefore are responsible for causing them discomfort and relocation, we should not believe that the sins of a father are passed down to the son. In one hand, it is not our fault therefore why should we be apologetic and feel giult.
As well, the Indigenous Peoples' Act is also seperating the people ethnically. To do this would be discriminating against the sons of the invading country therefore making it unequal, as I believ some groups are set out to do. (But that is neither here nor there).
I do believe that the Indigenous people should never forget, but to forgive the sons of the father's sin and come to the realization that it is not thier fault. So, I, the Emperor of Kornel, disagree completely with the Indigenous Peoples' Act for trying to pry an already seperated mass of people.

From Kornel,
Emperor Gideon I

I'd better start by clearing up what I think is a bit of confusion. It probably isn't possible to feel guilt for something we didn't do ourselves, unless and until we recognize how we are connected to those who did do the thing. Therefore I don't think we should get involved with your comment, "therefore why should we ... feel giult". "Feeling guilt" isn't the point of this resolution, and talking about guilt just obscures things. Apologizing isn't necessarily the same thing as feeling guilt, although this isn't the point of the resolution either. Introducing these ideas merely misrepresents the intentions and content of Hirota's resolution, and obscures the whole matter.

Amazingly, this resolution doesn't even ask for restitution or any kind of justice for what has gone before; it is no more or less than an attempt to stop future exploitation where it already is taking place, and to prevent exploitation where it isn't. Hirota has explained why restitution is absent from this though, and on reflection I agree with him("her"?) about it.

However, let's look at your points solely for the perspective on indigenous peoples which they show. It may be useful in understanding the underlying issues behind our thinking about this subject.

Taking your point about the sins of the father, on the purely legal aspect of this, I also will refer to RL since you referred to the United States. It is difficult to have to flip back and forth between RL and NS, but since you've done it, we'll work with that. In any case, I've a suspicion that RL concerns may be part of the reason for this resolution, so perhaps it's for the best that we talk about that side of it.

You also could have cited Meso-America, South America, Canada, Africa, Australia and most of the islands around it, Indo-China, and the Indian sub-continent. In fact, in RL it is not possible to make a case that indigenous peoples have ever been given fair treatment for any sustantial period of time in the entire history of the occupation by the invading immigrants. The best any indigenous people could hope for was that the invading immigrants didn't know about them or couldn't find them. I mention this because it illustrates two tendencies of human nature which make such legislation necessary: the human willingness to exploit for one's own gain those who appear to be inferior, weak or different, and the human capacity to carry out such exploitation without the significant operation of innate limits such as humaneness, decency or respect for the victims.

In RL, it is a common point both of law and of ancient custom among pre-juridical cultures that criminals should not be allowed to profit from their crimes. Thus, for example, drug dealers don't only go to prison; their ill-gotten gain is confiscated, property stolen by burglars is returned to the original owners whenever possible, and so on.

There is also a precedent for recognizing that "profiting from their crimes" can include the enrichment of a criminal's posterity; the Nazis were not only brought to justice, but the money and possessions they looted from their victims has been recovered wherever possible in an attempt to return it to the rightful owners. Where the loot was lodged with the families or descendants of those Nazis, it has been confiscated, and where the legal owners of the loot also were murdered by the thieves, it has been returned to their survivors. The historical failure to apply this principle uniformly does not negate it. Rather, it underlines the necessity of enshrining this principle in law wherever possible, and then applying the law without exception wherever applicable, and it demonstrates the injustice of ignoring this principle.

Just because the original criminals appear to have "gotten away with" genocide, cruelty, enslavement, widespread theft, routine injustice on a massive scale and racism, does not mean their descendants ought to be allowed to perpetuate those crimes to their own further enrichment. At some point, such iniquities need to be rectified. Justice needs to be done for the victims, and restoration needs to take place; the sooner, the better, for all concerned. Asking the surviving victims of wholesale slaughter, brutality and discrimination to forgive a lifetime of crimes for which you deny even their right to a formal apology, and for which no adequate attempts at restitution have ever been made, is adding callous insult to grievous injury. As long as the bread I eat or the clothes I wear or the luxuries I enjoy are mine by virtue of my ancestors murdering, stealing, raping or enslaving others, I am living on the assets of crimes against humanity. This may not make me a criminal, but it does make me "accessory after the fact". Worse, by accepting what amounts to "blood-money" in the form of stolen lands, assets and the stolen future of a whole people, I am giving my tacit approval of my ancestors having committed these gratuitous crimes for my convenience. There is neither apology nor restitution to the victims while that is the case.

To make it plain: if I were your dad, and I said to you, "Do you like this house we've been living in? And do you like our car? Well, we didn't buy any of it, you know. I killed the geezer who owned them, and his wife and kids, so we could have them. A couple of his kids got away, but they won't bother you -- or else. Here are the keys. Now the house and car are yours." What would you do? What should you do? And if we turn the illustration around, so that it's your parents and siblings who were murdered, and someone else's kid is living in what was your house and driving what used to be your dad's car, what would you consider justice then? Would you want the house and car back? Would you say, "That's alright, pal, best of luck to you" and walk away? And how would you feel about the way your family had been murdered? What would you consider justice concerning their murderers? Would you really not even want a sincere apology?

What we're referring to here as "indigenous peoples" are most often the survivors, or the descendants of the survivors, of crimes that would fill you and me with rage against what we would consider grave injustice, if they were done to us. Justice is Justice, not only when we're the victims but also when we're the perpetrators or the benificiaries of crime.

The histories of so many RL nations (the British Commonwealth nations and its former colonies including the USA, the former French, Spanish, and other European nations' colonies, etc) are built on the unspoken but implicit lie that the indigenous peoples were somehow just another obstacle to be removed from the path of progress and human achievement, like trees or mountains that needed to be cleared to build the railways and roads. They were not. They were people, with their own cultures, governments, laws, customs, economics, and everything else that goes along with the fact that they were human. They were what we once had been, and had we left them alone, or had we treated them more appropriately, we would have watched them growing into what we are now. Instead, we ravaged their civilizations and reduced them to the fringes of our societies and the footnotes of our history books.

I am inclined to agree that it would be unsafe to emphasize ethnic distinctions unnecessarily, but I disagree with your conclusion. When you are faced with people who have been victimized, it is only justice to distinguish the victims from the perpetrators with regard to the administration of justice and restitution. They must not be treated identically while matters of justice and restitution remain unaddressed. Of course, once justice is done fully, the distinction may not be necessary. But can we really say justice has been done yet? It is only in the last 40-50 years in RL that we've begun to recognize what we've done, and except in a very few places like Australia and South Africa, we haven't even tried to carry out restitution beyond some fairly superficial cosmetic gestures.

I have read that this resolution somehow would give the descendants of indigenous people the upper hand against the invader-immigrants who took their lands and their lives. It would not. It simply would begin to equalize the power-balance which for too long has been against indigenous peoples.

Now, it seems to me that this proposal recognizes what we're like in RL, and perhaps it is an attempt to do better here than we've done in RL. It also seems to me that this resolution is moderate and reasonable. If anything, I would complain that it ignores the issues of restorative justice I've described. Reconciliation of victim with perpetrator presupposes that justice has been done.

Personally I wish there could be a way to amend some very minor shortcomings of writing style and infelicities of expression. Also, I find some inexactitude in places, as others have also mentioned, but these may in fact be a way of avoiding over-legislating (see Hirota's post below). On reflection, much of what I first regarded as faulty I now see as necessary, even as strengths in the resolution. In any case though, emendation is not presently allowed in NS, so that's that.


As may be inferred from what I've written, I would argue that the indigenous peoples have a right to far more than this resolution asks for, as well as everything it asks for. It doesn't require a certain solution to all the problems, but it does require that the problems be acknowledged and solved. Also, this resolution doesn't try to address the question of whether or not any particular group of indigenous people have been harmed in the past; it only works from a general recognition of a human tendency, and it addresses possible future problems accordingly.

On that basis, it seems to me to be excessively mean-spirited to deny them even this minimum protection from future exploitation. I say we should vote in favour of it.

Sometime in the future, I would like to see a serious (and well-considered, well-written) attempt to address the issues of restitution and compensation, in order to see real justice done fully and finally -- but then, I'd also like to see world peace...

-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 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.

President ethAnTkE, The Democratic Republic of ethAnTkE

I agree, I think that if another culture has established themselves in the territory of the original culture, they must allow that culture to remain a self-governing, independent entity. If a culture is passing legislation from their perspective upon another culture, they are opressing them. Oppression does not require the gore and emotion we commonly relate it to. Even the smallest forced influences upon another culture are acts of oppression of that culture's traditions.

This resolution differs from affirmative action and other such direct means of putting an oppressed groups interests above others, and it differs from the philosophy of "seperate but equal". I think that this resolution would create an independent AND equal environment, thus ensuring prosperity of both cultures. One major concern would be that the independence of the two cultures could drive them apart and cause territorial dispute and isolationism. Therefore friendly relations between the cultures would have to be maintained.

While I realize I am new to this body, and so am not entitled to be listened to, I think it's important to realize that in those countries where an indigenous people have been overtaken by an "invading" culture, it is important that the rights of these people be preserved. It is too often that the culture of an indigenous race has been subverted, uprooted, and subjugated because the dominant "invading" race feels that those cultural practices are barbaric, silly, unneccessary, or even and most often unprofitable for those in power. It is incumbent upon an international body to see to it that ALL cultures are protected for future study and learning, not simply those that conform to mainstream western standards. It is wrong to try to assimilate one culture into another, especially if said culture is far older and in its own way just as sophisticated as the new culture. Owenarcia says that "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." Well what he fails to realize is that while this is true, indigenous people DO NOT have the same rights or equal protection, no matter what the letter of the law might say. They have a smaller voice in society and in the hearts and minds of society's leaders, and this legislation will not give them a larger voice, but an equal voice. This is about making a stand and saying that each and every culture has a legitimate and equal claim to international protection. It will not save all indigenous people's, the barriers in the minds of the more narrow minded nations will remain in tact, but it will be a meaningful step by the UN towards encouraging ALL nations to change their ways. The process towards equality will be slow, and difficult, but I think we can all agree that in the end it is worth the effort.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
the motivation for this legislation is buried in the definition of
indigenous people - "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 ..."

this definition is: (1) vague, (2) dangerous, (3) flawed and
(4) prejudicial.

(1) upon some minor reflection, this definition could be applied to
all sorts of peoples in any country. people none of whom may have
been the earliest inhabitants. indeed, this definition may be applied
to only the second most recent inhabitants of a country.

attempts to prove the validity of an indigenous people has been
legally prevented in other countries by those very people claiming
to be indigenous. scientific analysis prevented. and thus, those
claiming to be indigenous close the door on any possibility of
clarifying the issue. indigenous people who at other times allow
scientific analysis to be done for activities such as forensic
analysis. we, the republic of the chosen souls, find this no more
than oppurtunistic and fundementally contradictory.

even if the research were to prove the antiquity of said remains,
it still isn't by any means proof of settlement by race nor that
said remains were indeed indigenous by the above definition. a little
fireplace and remains of a makeshift hut being proof of residence?
what if the people were nomadic? with no basic permanent settlement
anywhere? what then?

(2) this definition can and if made law should be applied to a former
people whose brutality and domination knew no bounds. it is therefore
the unintended consequence of this legislation to acknowledge such a
people. we have such an unfortunate history in our own country. this
legislation would require us to acknoledge those descendents to "maintain
& strengthen their economic, social & cultural characteristics of
those people." the author of this legislation knows not what the
consequences are to this.

(3) this definition assumes that all indigenous people around the
world were innocent of any flaw. history shows this not to be
the case. indeed, many of the early people were at war with each
other on a regular basis. and thus, such issues should be proceeded
on a case by case basis by the tools we already have at our disposal.

(4) cross border activities forces members of the UN to allow said
people and only said people the freedom to come and go as they
please while at the same time all sorts of requirements, forms,
checks and balances of other people crossing the border are in place.
this is nothing more than contradictory state sanctioned prejudice.

we the republic of chosen souls allow our citizens to celebrate their
individual heritage within legal bounds. for instance, our sect of
the bruni people are a peaceful people rich in culture. but, obviously,
they are not allowed to perform their traditional human sacrifice
and subsequent feasting on the corpses as dictated by their age old
customs. but, we will not sanction by state law one people in particular
and to the exclusion of all others.

it may appear that currently a country treats its indigenous peoples
unfairly. but, one must remember that some indigenous people enjoy a
"soveriegn nation" status above and beyond the regular citizenry.
this is a rather special distinct and seperate status of an indigenous
people. it is by law a distinct and seperate nation. the burden of caring
for the people under such a status should fall directly upon those so
sanctioned. and so it is that some economic activities are allowed
such as gambling for those people whereas it is illegal for those
who do not enjoy a sovereign nation status. if such a status is
detrimental to those so sanctioned, those people can make way to
have it remanded and thus removed. but i see no such effort coming
any time soon.

and thus, this and many more issues come forth from such legislation.

many of the items within this legislation, i proud to announce, are
already recognized as similar laws to ALL our citizens within our own
country. and underneath all laws within our country is the fundemental
precept that the crimes of a criminal are not inherited by his family.

finally, if basic human rights of a population under a gov't are being
violated and that gov't who is a member of the UN, then actions should
be taken to correct the matter *no matter* who settled that country
long ago by tools we already have.

i could continue on, but i think i have said enough.

we conclude that this legistation is not only unnecessary redundant
and superfluous, but also prejudicial at its most fundemental level.

Dosset Asha - Counsel of Counsels
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean, In Owenarcia, Indigenous people's get enough rights and protections.
Just because your nation might does not mean Indigenous peoples get enough rights in general.I disagree with that statement at the most fundamental level.But should have their rights and culture respected - which is what this does.

*Adds Hirota to the ever-growing list of people who ignore the "Universal Bill of Rights".

The idea is mainly that to achieve total equality in the world, there must be a sameness among its' peoples. Indegidious peoples should get the same amount of rights as any other citizen in the country. It's only fair.

The idea is mainly that to achieve total equality in the world, there must be a sameness among its' peoples. Indegidious peoples should get the same amount of rights as any other citizen in the country. It's only fair.


"You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it."

Big Dan Teague, O Brother, Where Art Thou

----------------------------------------------------------------------
if the Indigenous Peoples Act is only with regard to equal rights,
it should say only that. but the way the act is currently written,
the majority of it is an attempt to legislate a functional definition
of what constitutes an indigenous person. that is not only a poor use
of legislation but isn't the purpose of legislation at all.

any law shouldn't be about what one can do. it should be about what
one can't do. when laws of a gov't move from restriction to allowance
with it's people, the power shifts from the gov't being a servant of
the people to the people serving the gov't. that is very bad.

it is good to be concerned about peoples rights. all people. but with
this legislation, no one has discussed nor answered how this will be
enforced. i doubt anyone who is for this legislation can.

exactly what are the triggers for enforcing this legislation? and what
exactly is the result of such enforcement? outright invasion of the
accused country with an overthrow of the gov't?

suppose some indigenous People in some country wish to build some
construction that is against current building code. and the
construction of said building is blocked. what then? according to
the strict wording of the Indigenous Peoples Act, that country is
in direct violation and should be punished. or, do we conduct some
lengthy investigation only to discover it's simply a building code
violation.

when the United States passed the Federal Communication law back in
the 1930's, there was no branch of the gov't in place to enforce it.
and thus the reason why the Federal Communications Commission was
created.

are we currently in the same situation? do we need to have an
Indigenous Peoples Commission with a rapid deployment force available?
how will this be funded? on a progessive scale of the members of UN?
and what is the commitment of the members for logistics and strategics?
and who will be in charge of such a thing? if there is to be any
action done, how is that decided?

does the accused country get warned first? how many times? and how
long does the country have to correct the situation? and if at the end
of it all, nothing is done? what then? outright invasion?

if a member country disagrees and doesn't commit any troops or help to
the incident, what then? we invade them? ban them from the UN?

as far as enforcement and enactment of this act, it was not carefully
thought out. it's useless.

Dosset Asha - Counsel of Counsels
----------------------------------------------------------------------