In New York, on the 13th of September 2007, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was accepted by the United Nations General Assembly. A General Assembly Declaration isn’t actually a legal binding instrument under the International Law, the UN press says it does “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN’s member states to move into certain directions’. The UN portrays it as setting ‘an important standard for the treatment of indigenous peoples that will definitely be a an important tool towards wiping out human rights violations against the world’s 370 million indigenous people and assisting them in repelling discrimination and marginalisation. UNDRIP summarizes "Indigenous historical grievances, contemporary challenges and socio-economic, political and cultural aspirations". It is generations upon generations of long tiresome efforts to achieve international attention, to secure their aspirations and also to get support for their political agendas.
The Declaration enforces the individual and collective rights of all indigenous peoples, along with their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and many other issues. It also emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations. The Declaration prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples, and promotes their full and effective participation in matters that concern them. The aim of this Declaration is to inspire countries to work along with the indigenous peoples to solve major global issues such as multicultura...
... middle of paper ...
...nada, New Zealand and the United States, the United Nations officials and other world leaders showed pleasure at its adoption. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General described the moment as ‘historic’ when the Indigenous peoples and the UN Member States reconciled with their painful histories and were resolved to move forward together. Louise Arbour, who is a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, expressed satisfaction at the perseverance and dedicated hard work that had finally "borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples' rights." The Declaration was purely a success for every country that has adopted it. It has fulfilled the role that it got created to do, and the Indigenous peoples all around the world are much more recognized and it has definitely emphasized all of their rights for the rest of the world to know and to see.
Glen Coulthard’s “Resentment and Indigenous Politics” discusses the politics of recognition that are currently utilized within Canada’s current framework of rectifying its colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples. Coulthard continues a discussion on reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the state that recognizes the three main methods of reconciliation: the diversity of individual and collective practices to re-establish a positive self relation, the act of restoring damaged social and political relationships and the process in which things are brought to agreement and made consistent.
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
The term sovereignty is a broad topic that has many different definitions. The most common definition is a nation or groups ability or right to govern themselves. Sovereignty is a term and idea that goes hand in hand with Native Americans throughout history. Native American tribes were once considered sovereign nation until shortly after the arrival of European settlers. Native Americans lost their sovereignty due to the forceful assimilation into white culture by European settlers. The problem with this is that Native Americans have been in North American, acting as self-governing groups, since the beginning days. What sets Native Americans apart from other “minority groups” is that they have existed as self-governing peoples and are more than a group
First I will define the definition of terms used in this paper. When I use the word Aboriginal, I understand this as a label given from the colonizers/ Europeans to identify Indigenous peoples. Canadian legislation defines Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal, I understand this as indifferent from the dominant ideology, therefore, the colonizers named Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal. According to teachings I have been exposed to it’s a legal term and it’s associated with discrimination and oppression. However, audiences I have written for prefer the use of Aboriginal. More premise to this reference is Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Nations, Indian and Native are used interchangeable, but it should be noted these names do represent distinct differences. Furthermore, I will use Indigenous to represent an empowering way to reference a unique general culture in Canada. Under the title of Indigenous peoples in Canada, for me represents: First Nations people, Metis people and Inuit peoples. These are the two titles I will use when I reference Indigenous people from an empowering perspective and Aboriginal from a colonizer perspective.
United nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples In United Nations. General Assembly, United Nations. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Eds.), . New York: New York : United Nations, 2008.
In the video “Aboriginal Peoples -- It's time”, the main topic of the video is advocating for equity and justice for the aboriginal people. Aboriginal people is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. The Canadian constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (commonly referred to as First Nations), Métis and Inuit. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. More than 1.4 million people in Canada identify themselves as an Aboriginal person, according to the 2011
1. Explaining Indigenous and Afro-Latino Disparities in Collective Rights. Hooker explores countries of indigenous resistance and ability to organize and speculates on why Afro-Latinos are not as successful in organized and becoming recognized by their government. She suggests why formal multicultural recognition is important and what has been gained for successful groups. She claims Afro-Latinos are much less likely to gain formal recognition as only seven the fifteen Latin American countries to implement multicultural reform give collective rights to Afro-Latinos and only three give Afro-Latinos the same rights as indigenous groups.
Assess the extent to which Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in the period from 1945-present.
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second largest country in the world the geographical constraints on uniting Aboriginal people living across the country plays a significant factor. Flanagan also points to the diversity within this group; there are over six hundred bands across the ten provinces in Canada in more than 2,200 reserves. Compounding the geographical constraints facing their unity, Aboriginal bands in Canada often differ from each other significantly in their culture including language religion/customs (Flanagan 71). Many Aboriginal people now choose to live off reserve which further complicates their unity (Flanagan 73). Flanagan highlights that as many small bodies they would not be able to survive in the competition of the international community. Current international governance is extremely complex and Flanagan argues it is unlikely for poor isolated people to succeed (73). One united aboriginal voice is also highly unlikely according to Flanagan; having been freed of one power most bands would not choose to become conne...
The Indian act, since being passed by Parliament in 1876, has been quite the validity test for Aboriginal affairs occurring in Canada. Only a minority of documents in Canadian history have bred as much dismay, anger and debate compared to the Indian Act—but the legislation continues as a central element in the management of Aboriginal affairs in Canada. Aboriginal hatred against current and historic terms of the Indian Act is powerful, but Indigenous governments and politicians stand on different sides of the fence pertaining to value and/or purpose of the legislation. This is not shocking, considering the political cultures and structures of Aboriginal communities have been distorted and created by the imposition of the Indian Act.
Indigenous people have identified themselves with country; they believe that they and the land are “one”, and that it is lived in and lived with. Indigenous people personify country as if it were a person, as something that connects itself to the land, people and earth, being able to give and receive life (Bird Rose, D. 1996). Country is sacred and interconnected within the indigenous community,
The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400). The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognizes Indian sovereignty and its entitlement to land, became the benchmark for treaty making in Canada (Epp, 2008, p. 133; Isaac & Annis, p. 47, 48; Leeson, 2008, p. 226). There are currently 70 recognized treaties in Canada, encompassing 50 percent of Canadian land mass and representing over 600,000 First Nations people (Canada, 2013). These treaties usually have monetary provisions along with some financial benefits given by the Crown, in exchange for lands and its resources (Egan, 2012, p. 409). Its purpose should be an equal sharing of wealth that is beneficial for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals (Egan, 2012, p. 414).
For years we have witnessed the Indigenous population’s political struggle for recognition of rights to Australian land. At times the effort appears to be endless and achieving recognition almost seems impossible. Native Title and Land claims have become a step closer in achieving this recognition; however, for land rights to exist in an absolute form, they cannot exist as a mere Act of Parliament but must form a fundamental part of the Australian Constitution. This seemingly gigantic task is part of the incessant political struggle that the Indigenous population will continue to face. The United Nation’s is an integral part of the political struggle between the Australian government and the Indigenous people and have on many occasions fought to raise the issue of human rights violation within the Australian constitution.
Human rights are the inborn and universal rights of every human being regardless of religion, class, gender, culture, age, ability or nationality, that ensure basic freedom and dignity. In order to live a life with self-respect and dignity basic human rights are required.