Talk:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre-2008 comments

The entry on the UN Declaration says nothing about the relationship between it and ILO Convention 169 on indigenous peoples. I think this is an important omission.

Awesome! I love the UN. Brutannica 08:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole notion of singling out a ethnicity within a democracy is extremely regressive. I give it 2 generations before widespread dissatisfaction with type of feel good but detrimental policy sparks intense anti-indigenous people sentiment.206.75.33.118 09:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for everyone, this is not the place for your silly opinion. Sad mouse 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it the place for yours. 69.140.94.158 21:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Singling out an ethnicity is what started the whole mess. By granting rights to the group targeted by the majority for exploitation, this minority group may see that democracy you keep flaunting. (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Starting over with New Deals may be up to the majority of participating voters. The least states could do is Honor Treaties already made. Maybe 21st century thinking will figure out that man is one race, woman the other. (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sad Mouse," writing that Wikipedia talk pages aren't for value-based exchanges of opinion would have sufficed. Instead you had to infect it with typical bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.129.3 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This “declaration” is not worth the paper it is printed on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.234.226 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it certainly doesn't cut where it really bleeds - money and admitting the sins of our fathers. But it may be a hopeful sign of things to come. 62.216.207.158 13:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Elaborating Australia's objections to the Declaration

Senator Marise Payne elaborated the Australian governments objections to the Declaration to the Australian Senate on the 10th of September 2007.

The full speech can be found here: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2481341&TABLE=HANSARDS

And the relevent section of the speech is as follows:

"I will identify the six key concerns we have with the text as it currently stands. Notwithstanding Senator Bartlett’s observations about the drafting of the language in article 46, we still have concerns about the references to self-determination and the potential for misconstruing those. I do not see any particularly significant problem with trying to get clarity around that so that as many people as possible support the declaration. There are other states which have the same concerns.

On the question of land and resources, we are concerned that the provisions on those areas in the text ignore the contemporary realities of many countries which have Indigenous populations. They seem, to many readers, to require the recognition of Indigenous rights to lands which are now lawfully owned by other citizens, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and therefore to have some quite significant potential to impact on the rights of third parties.

Intellectual property is the third point we would raise. We believe that, as our laws here currently stand, we protect our Indigenous cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression to an extent that is consistent with both Australian and international intellectual property law and we are not prepared to go as far as the provisions in the text of the draft declaration currently do on that matter.

We also have concerns about the inclusion in the text of an unqualified right of free, prior and informed consent for Indigenous peoples on matters affecting them, which implies to some readers that they may then be able to exercise a right of veto over all matters of state, which would include national laws and other administrative measures. That would obviously be of concern to any sovereign government.

Further on the question of third-party rights, in seeking to give Indigenous people exclusive rights over intellectual, real and cultural property, the draft text does not acknowledge the rights of third parties—in particular, their rights to access Indigenous land and heritage and cultural objects where appropriate under national law. That should not be a big stumbling block, but it is a matter which we wish to see addressed. The text in its current form fails to consider the different types of ownership and use that can be accorded to Indigenous people and the rights of third parties to property in that regard.

I also want to make a note about matters of customary law. There are concerns about the way the text is currently drafted on the question of customary law and whether that may place Indigenous customary law in a superior position to national law. We understand in talking about customary law that it is a law based on culture and tradition and is not one which is expected to override national laws and is certainly not one which should be used selectively by certain Indigenous communities where it is possibly convenient to permit the exercise of practices which would not be acceptable across the broad."

I will add an elaboration to Australia's objections based upon Senator Payne's speech. ---58.173.50.13 07:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)---

"The United Nations General Assembly signs a non-binding Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples intended to combat human rights violations against 370 million members of indigenous peoples worldwide." This was taken from the main page as of 17/09/07; should it not state something to the effect of " [...] intended to combat alleged human right violations [...] " ?

A Synopsis

Perhaps some work should be done to this article to describe current political setting. In the future it may be of anthropological value to have a relevant global perspective at the time of the Declaration's conception. This may be especially helpful should some event alter our cultural landscape in the future.
This is intended to be a helpful encyclopedia after all.

Nonbankfiddle 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just about to edit to remove this from 3.2.5: "Indigenous White people in the UK were now second-class citizens in their own country by order of the UK government she stated. The United Kingdom had, however, long provided political and financial support to the socio-economic and political development of indigenous peoples in other countries but not their own"

Not a quote from the Ambassador, a likely edit from a UK BNP supporter [they claim the word "indigenous" for white people in the UK, quite wrongly given the various definitions given on the relevant Wiki pages and by world authorities]. 92.62.2.239 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A new section?

Under the section titled "Negotiation and adoption," it states that 11 countries abstained from voting. Perhaps there should be a section discussing reasons why those countries abstained.Cortes30 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag in criticism section

I've removed the neutrality tag from the criticism section. It doesn't appear to me to compromise the article's neutrality, especially considering that the nations in question all appear to have eventually signed it. I'm also guided by the instructions at Template:POV not to indefinitely leave a neutrality tag on an article.

If others disagree, however, I'll be glad to hear suggestions for how you would rather organize the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)