User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 31
  1. #1
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,628
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default UN Victory for Indigenous Folk

    Reported by Martin Khor in "The Star", 17 September 2007, some extracts:

    "Last week the world's 370 million indigeous people won a victory when the UN adopted a Declaration on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, which recognises their rights to land, resources and cultural traditions, after a long and often emotional series of meetings and negotiations lasting almost 25 years.

    140 countries, including Malaysia and all Asian countries (except Bangladesh, which abstained), voted for the declaration.

    Only four countries, the United Staes, Canada, Australia and New Zealand voted against while 11 abstained.


    The Human Rights Council had adoped the declaration in June last year, but a vote at the General Assembly was deferred last year at the request of African countries that wanted to re-examine certain parts. After another year of intense negotiations, and a few changes to the text, an overwhelming majority of countries voted in favour.

    General Assembly President Shiekha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa warned that indigenous peoples still faced marginalisation, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival and suffered from a lack of access to health care and education..."


    (So much said about their belief in democracy and human rights by the first-world countries who voted against the declaration! )
    Last edited by Loh; 09-17-2007 at 02:48 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why then are the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ against this resolution? It doesn't make sense for champions of human rights to not accord their indigenous population their basic rights.

  3. #3
    Regular Member wilfredlgf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    2,579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Why then are the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ against this resolution? It doesn't make sense for champions of human rights to not accord their indigenous population their basic rights.
    Several reasons I can think of.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    WWAAO
    Posts
    2,106
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it creates some problems. any indigenous can then just come out and claim that this land is theirs because it belonged to their forefathers.
    US have the indians
    Australia have the aboriginals
    NZ have the Mauri
    i dont know what Canada have

    Malaysia have the bumiputras

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,511
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Easy for the other countries to vote since they have little to no aboriginals on their lands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    (So much said about their belief in democracy and human rights by the first-world countries who voted against the declaration! )

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llpjlau View Post
    it creates some problems. any indigenous can then just come out and claim that this land is theirs because it belonged to their forefathers.
    US have the indians
    Australia have the aboriginals
    NZ have the Mauri
    i dont know what Canada have

    Malaysia have the bumiputras
    Malaysia have the Sakais, among many other indigenous tribes. China has countless number of indigenous people and they do enjoy some special rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llpjlau View Post
    i dont know what Canada have
    Eskimo / Inuit

    For 23 years Canada was a staunch supporter of the declaration.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...6/s1947116.htm

    see also
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...14/2032792.htm
    and the comments attached
    Last edited by Neil Nicholls; 09-17-2007 at 11:18 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member wilfredlgf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    2,579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An ex-Canadian co-worker (now back in New Foundland) mentioned that calling them 'eskimo' is akin to calling the African Americans "ni'a".

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Kingston, ON
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this indiginous thing will start a slew of land claim which in the end would create problem and wasted money for most former colonial country. so what if it happened over 100 years ago? will it make any difference? maybe not.

    they should fight for the right of immigrant. eskimo is the name for inuit before they decide we don't like that name (eskimo= starnger inuit=resident or something like that). indian is the name for the native in americas because someone tought that they've found India and don't want to look stupid because he knows it's not India, so they called the inhabitant indian. negro is the skin colour of the africans. negro=black and still being used in a lot of country to describe colour.

    malaysian IS the indiginous resident of the malay peninsula. for sarawak and sabah is the many of dayak tribes.

    I'm sorry, but being a visible minority in predominantly "white" area, it's me that feel discriminated because of skin colour and other differences. I don't understand why it is so hard to describe ppl according to what exactly is the fact. A lot of moronus ignoramus white ppl too. (I hate being called Philipino...because I'm not! because then they try to speak tagalog with me...lol no offense to the philipinos , you guys are fun to be around).

    and I hate hearing another landclaim on the news because it make me wanna mow down the native reserve or any body who claim they have native blood in them (even if you're 1/16 of a native and looks like just another white guy live in suburb, you're entitled to a lot of benefit if you show your native card). they already got sooo many privilages and tax breaks. we the immigrant who built the country get so little credit. this is hold true for canada because practically almost everyone here is originally from another country.
    Last edited by Double_Player; 09-17-2007 at 02:15 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    294
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Why then are the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ against this resolution? It doesn't make sense for champions of human rights to not accord their indigenous population their basic rights.
    In Canada, "Indigenous Peoples' Rights" isn't about basic human rights, it is about rights (the better word is "priviledges") beyond what normal citizens get. For example, like not being required to pay tax, when all other citizens and residents are required to, including the minimum-wage-triple-jobing-recent-immigrant.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think individual country has their own history, and old deals with the Indigenous people. U can't pass a blanket declaration for all of them. The undeveloped countries dont have much to lose but developed countries do. Is it fair to have somebody come back centuries later and take your producing gold mines and old fields?

  12. #12
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Hmm, IMO..

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    (So much said about their belief in democracy and human rights by the first-world countries who voted against the declaration! )
    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Why then are the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ against this resolution? It doesn't make sense for champions of human rights to not accord their indigenous population their basic rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Double_Player View Post
    we the immigrant who built the country get so little credit. this is hold true for canada because practically almost everyone here is originally from another country.
    ..it holds true also for those 4 countries which voted against the constitution...I think, perhaps the main reason is, those 4 countries' populations are largely made up of immigrants (non-indigenous people) that their total populations outnumber the actual indigenous people itself...Btw, here's more info to Loh's post:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...genous_Peoples
    Last edited by ctjcad; 09-17-2007 at 04:33 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Look, almost every country on this planet started with indigenous people. Even today, almost every country have indigenous people. According to the UN there are 400 million indigenous people in the world.
    Even in China there are at least 50+ indigenous groups, who have special rights that Han Chinese don't get. You find them in Africa, Japan, Russia, Europe, South America, North America, Greenland (belongs to Denmark), Central Asia, India, Australia, everywhere.
    BTW Malays are not the indigenous people of Malaysia. They are 'sons of the soil', a political definition. The Sakais, Penans, Kadazans, Bajus, Suluks, Cocos Malays, etc are the real indigenous peoples of Malaysia.
    Now, what is it that the US, Canada, Australia and NZ find it so difficult to protect the rights of their own indigenous peoples when almost all other countries have the decency to do so? Saying that doing so will mean surrendering the land to the indigenous peoples is ridiculous-it is just an excuse because you can pass laws that will respect and protect their basic rights and still not have to surrender your land.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    OMG, that will not work here!!! You might as well not open the can of worms.

    [quote=taneepak;664821]Now, what is it that the US, Canada, Australia and NZ find it so difficult to protect the rights of their own indigenous peoples when almost all other countries have the decency to do so? Saying that doing so will mean surrendering the land to the indigenous peoples is ridiculous-it is just an excuse because you can pass laws that will respect and protect their basic rights and still not have to surrender your land.[/quote]

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe the recent UN "Decalaration on Indigenous Peoples' Rights" is a non-binding resolution and that it contains a provision that says that nothing in this resolution should impair or adversely affect the sovereign integrity of states. So the Australians shouldn't worry that their aboriginals would take back a big slice of their land and declare it as another sovereign state. It is now more of a local and internal problem-just give them their dues. At the end of the day what really counts is that the indigenous peoples share the fruits of their country equally-quality of life, standard of living, education, political and economic power, etc. You can have the best human rights laws in the world but they will be meaningless if your indigenous peoples die younger, live more in poverty vis-a-vis the others, commit more crimes, have disproportionately less representation in the political and economic field/pie, etc.
    Any unfounded fear of losing all to the indeginous peoples will only worsen this great divide.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,628
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As reported, it took almost a quarter of a century for this Declaration to be accepted by a great majority of UN members.

    It is not legally binding but its acceptance meant that more governments and their citizens recognize the fact that indigenous people, often in the minority, should be treated with due respect, and accorded their rightful place in society.

    It seems to me that hitherto most of them were deprived of many rights and privileges (as reported) such that they continue to lag behind the rest of the society. Surely their land and other possessions should not be taken away by the more superior immigrants.

    Of course it is the government's duty to look after the interests of the country and her people, but this should also extend to the indigenous people who form part of its citizenry. Just because they are in the minority now does not give the majority immigrants the right to displace them in whatever form, as this would cause irreparable damage to the social fabric in the long run.

    In order that an equitable solution be found, discussions with the representatives of the indigenous groups should be fostered and amicable agreements be set in writing in the form of laws, etc. This is necessary so that all parties concerned are put on notice regarding their rights and privileges and that going beyond the boundaries is not permitted by law.

    The law then takes over to look after the interests of all and no one should then quarrel again and take things into their own hands.

    It takes a long time and a large amount of patience and understanding, but each individual country must look into its own unique position to satisfy the needs and demands of both indigenous people and immigrants who came and develop the country and generated prosperity. All should also participate and share in the wealth of the country and make democracy and human rights a living thing.

    Nobody says it is easy as it has taken 25 years for UN members to accept the Declaration but a start is necessary to ignite the process. The implementation of the Declaration will certainly take much more effort and time.

    But being champions of the higher things in life, why then that the four first world developed countries not sign the Declaration and set a good example? There are many other industrially advanced countries which are signatories. Selfish interest? Whose?
    Last edited by Loh; 09-18-2007 at 02:57 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My additional 2 cents..worth..

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Now, what is it that the US, Canada, Australia and NZ find it so difficult to protect the rights of their own indigenous peoples when almost all other countries have the decency to do so? Saying that doing so will mean surrendering the land to the indigenous peoples is ridiculous-it is just an excuse because you can pass laws that will respect and protect their basic rights and still not have to surrender your land.
    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    At the end of the day what really counts is that the indigenous peoples share the fruits of their country equally-quality of life, standard of living, education, political and economic power, etc. You can have the best human rights laws in the world but they will be meaningless if your indigenous peoples die younger, live more in poverty vis-a-vis the others, commit more crimes, have disproportionately less representation in the political and economic field/pie, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    But being champions of the higher things in life, why then that the four first world developed countries not sign the Declaration and set a good example? There are many other industrially advanced countries which are signatories. Selfish interest? Whose?
    ...IMO, it's most likely has something to do with politics,within those 4 respectable countries...(which we can steer away from )..

    It's definitely true that equal rights should be something that the U.S., and all nations in the world, should strive for. And, yes, we are still stuggling with it.
    But as far as i know, from the U.S. perspective, even the American Indians are being treated equally.
    For example, some of us probably know that the U.S. government (even the Canadian govt) provides lands to the native American Indians (called reservations, which also didn't have a smooth history), not to be touched nor developed in any ways by non-Indians. Our Phoenix-based bro Quasimodo, in Arizona, can probably chime in a bit about this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation (anyone can read more abt it)..
    But as far as my knowledge, most of them, esp. those American Indians who live in the reservations can hardly develop anything with those lands, if at all positive. Speaking also from experience, yes, i've passed by those American Indian reservations in Arizona before, all i saw were lands being left as they are, mostly undeveloped, and in some case built for casinos..Those casinos themselves also have their own "set of problems"..
    Here in the Southern California region, there's also an American-Indian owned casino, the Morongo:
    http://www.morongocasinoresort.com/pr.cfm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Morongo
    http://www.morongocasinoresort.com/

    Thus, if speaking from the U.S. perspective, the equal rights are definitely there, esp. for the American Indians (U.S.' indigenous population).

    Now, the questions that come to me now are:
    1. Why would there need to be a different set of treaty if everyone is given an equal treatment?..and..
    2. Say, if this treaty allows the native American Indians (America's indigenous population) to have "much more advantage" than normal Americans, then wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of U.S.' equality-for-all belief?

    So, my feeling is, there must be something in the treaty, some written clauses that aren't clear to those 4 countries Whether as to what they are referring to or what they are requiring. Again, politics is definitely a big possibility in their decision making.

    Btw, speaking of human rights, here in the U.S., there is also another big struggle of human rights (but something different then what is being brought up; it has more to do with the moral value that is still part of the majority of the U.S. people). Here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights
    Last edited by ctjcad; 09-18-2007 at 08:30 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sweetest victory
    By venkatesh in forum General Forum
    Replies: 26
    : 01-13-2010, 03:37 AM
  2. Shuttler Chong Wei cruises to victory
    By ants in forum Asian Badminton Championship 2006
    Replies: 0
    : 03-29-2006, 08:24 PM
  3. Hoping for a Peter Victory!
    By DaN_fAn in forum China Masters 2005 / Indonesian Open 2005
    Replies: 5
    : 08-31-2005, 08:18 PM
  4. Yao Jie is sure of Chinese victory
    By qhappiness in forum Sudirman Cup 2005
    Replies: 0
    : 05-13-2005, 06:42 AM
  5. Victory by Default?
    By Bbn in forum Thomas/Uber Cups 2004
    Replies: 5
    : 02-25-2004, 04:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •