[PASSED] Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Frisbeeteria]

Human Rights, Mild


Current Draft

Recognizing the existence of indigenous peoples within member states of the World Assembly and the possible existence of indigenous peoples who have yet to be contacted but may eventually live in the territory of member states;

Defining indigenous as culturally-distinct peoples who inhabited a country before the arrival and their knowledge of a now-dominant culture or cultures;

Acknowledging that non-indigenous cultures may offer assistance and aid to the indigenous peoples they come in contact with, and vice versa;

Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered or will suffer injustices and discrimination at the hands of dominant culture(s), despite the possible illegality and immorality of such actions;

Seeking to not only maintain the cultural rights of indigenous peoples, but also to provide for their well-being;

Urges member nations to cooperate with indigenous peoples in a peaceful and respectful manner, and to seek to obtain indigenous peoples’ consent before engaging in any measures that may affect them;

Recommends member nations allow indigenous peoples to own and maintain their artifacts and their ancestors' artifacts;

Implores member nations to permit uncontacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their native lands, and to permit contacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their lands if they presently are doing so, unless a legitimate governmental need requires such land and no reasonable alternative exists, in which case the indigenous peoples in the area affected shall be given fair compensation and adequate time to prepare for their relocation to reasonably close and similar lands;

Prohibits member nations from forcibly assimilating indigenous peoples, or eradicating, reducing, or limiting their culture, with exceptions provided in cases in which existing international law prohibits specific practices of the indigenous peoples;

Encourages member nations to provide access to healthcare, education, employment, and representation for indigenous peoples.







First Draft

RECOGNIZING the existence of indigenous peoples within member states of the World Assembly;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the possible existence of indigenous peoples who have yet to be discovered;

DEFINING “indigenous” as culturally-distinct peoples who inhabited a country before the arrival and their knowledge of a now-dominant culture or cultures;

CONCERNED that indigenous peoples have suffered or will suffer injustices and discrimination at the hands of dominant culture(s), despite the possible illegality and immorality of such actions;

URGES member nations to cooperate with indigenous peoples in a peaceful and respectful manner, and to seek to obtain indigenous peoples’ consent before engaging in any measures that may affect them;

REQUIRES that member nations permit indigenous peoples to live within their native lands, unless a legitimate governmental need requires such land and no reasonable alternative exists, in which case the indigenous peoples in the area affected shall be given fair monetary compensation and substantial time to prepare for their eviction to a reasonably close and similar area;

FURTHER REQUIRES that member nations to not, in any way or form, forcibly assimilate indigenous peoples, or to eradicate, reduce, or limit indigenous culture, especially in the areas of religion, language, and customs;

FURTHER REQUIRES that member nations allow indigenous peoples to own and maintain their or their ancestors’ cultural sites and artifacts.

---

Resources / Inspiration:
viewtopic.php?p=414#p414
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=167047
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=288063
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=250596
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio ... us_Peoples
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/doc ... IPS_en.pdf

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: The WA =/= US or Australia. Not every nation conquered their territory from native tribals. By your definition the "native" Gauls of France could make claims against the descendents of the invading Franks who conquered it after the the Romans left, or the native Brittons (modern day Welsh) make claims against the invading Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans.

IC: We ARE the indigenous people of our nation. We also don't see how this is "significant" strength. Perhaps an argument could possibly be made for mild, at best.

[Vancouvia]

OOC: The WA =/= US or Australia. Not every nation conquered their territory from native tribals. By your definition the "native" Gauls of France could make claims against the descendents of the invading Franks who conquered it after the the Romans left, or the native Brittons (modern day Welsh) make claims against the invading Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans.

IC: We ARE the indigenous people of our nation. We also don't see how this is "significant" strength. Perhaps an argument could possibly be made for mild, at best.

I don't think this could be misconstrued to say the Gauls could make claims against the French, because it would be practically impossible for the Gauls to identify as culturally distinct from modern-day France. I would argue the Gauls have been assimilated so far into French culture that the Gaul culture no longer exists. After long periods of time, culture shifts, gets merged with other cultures, and dies out. This resolution is aimed at easily recognizable (culturally-distinct) peoples.

I was under the impression the strength is based on the verb language i.e. requires vs. requests.

Thanks for your help.

[Defwa]

We are supportive of measures to curtail cultural erasure, but under the provisions of this currently, worshipers of the ancient wizard Garon could lay claim to about a third of our capitol city. That land also historically belonged to the wizards Hern, Borot, Defwa and at least six other more minor wizards.

Defwa was once ruled by people claiming to be wizards that would form city-states and land frequently changed owners either by war or just death. Today, some people treat these wizards sort of as saints, each a subgroup of a larger religion and independently identifiable.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The writing of this clause doesn't make a lot of sense:

FURTHER REQUIRES that member nations to not, in any way or form, forcibly assimilate indigenous peoples, or to eradicate, reduce, or limit indigenous culture, especially in the areas of religion, language, and customs;

"Aside from the grammatical error (no need for "that"), if a nation is required to not do something "in any way or form", then singling out particular acts "especially" doesn't really square.

"Furthermore, the clause is simply too absolute. As written it might even contradict existing international law on, for example, female genital mutilation.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the possible existence of indigenous peoples who have yet to be discovered;

"I'm curious as to why this is in the preamble given the operative section makes absolutely no reference to uncontacted peoples.

"In general, we think a problem with this proposal is that it's based on assumptions of a fairly limited regime of international law, whereas the WA in fact has very broad, expansive powers. Why should anyone be subject to forced population transfer or desecration of culture, regardless of whether they are "indigenous" or not?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Vancouvia]

Thanks for your feedback.

Defwa: I've clarified the language in such a way that your wizard-followers wouldn't have any legal claim on your city.

Daisy Chinmusic: I've fixed your grammatical finds and clarified some of the language to reflect protection for both undiscovered and known peoples.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Daisy Chinmusic: I've fixed your grammatical finds and clarified some of the language to reflect protection for both undiscovered and known peoples.

"And ignored my other concerns.

"The use of "undiscovered" rather than, as I suggested, "uncontacted", introduces new problems (especially for those who take a literalist approach to compliance). If the people are truly "undiscovered", how can a member nation actually enforce any obligations towards them? They don't know that they exist!"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Vancouvia]

Addressed your concern.

[Lovable Alien Overlord]

This resolution is simply to broad to be effective, and worse, it infringes on the rights of nations to deal with their citizens. I believe that it should not go any further than this forum.

[Vancouvia]

This resolution is simply to broad to be effective, and worse, it infringes on the rights of nations to deal with their citizens. I believe that it should not go any further than this forum.

I disagree. It specifically targets four areas: cooperation, right to native lands, non-assimilation, and artifact-rights, all of which are of primary concern to indigenous peoples.

Almost all WA resolutions "infringe" on governmental "rights." They do this to protect the people within those nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would like to implore all people who read this message to vote AGAINST this resolution, since it fails to account for three major poings:

1. The exercise of barbaric or horrid practices by the indigenous peoples. Since there does not exist specific WA legislation against those practices, member nations cannot take action against it — as such does not fall into the requirements of the exception clause in the resolution.
2. The prohibits clause also prevents any actions against practices which must be curtailed for such things as public health. The 'Prohibits member nations from ... limiting their culture' is so broad and unclear that nearly any actions taken by a government fall into this trap.
3. It is immoral to increase the rights of one group by reducing the rights of another group. This goes against the central tenets of modern freedom, that all people are equal. Saying that some people are 'more equal than others', as this resolution does, is something which should not be supported by the World Assembly.

OMPELS member nations to permit uncontacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their native lands, and to permit contacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their lands if they presently are doing so, unless a legitimate governmental need requires such land and no reasonable alternative exists, in which case the indigenous peoples in the area affected shall be given fair monetary compensation and substantial time to prepare for their eviction to a reasonably close and similar area;

'Alright. How are we to administer this untamed land without the division of its parts into reasonably administrable zones?'

REQUIRES member nations to not forcibly assimilate indigenous peoples, nor to eradicate, reduce, or limit indigenous culture;

The Ambassador summons the ghost of Robert Rhodes (also known as Cecil Clive, and OOC: it's Robert Clive and Cecil Rhodes, the embodiment of the devil's advocate for Imperialism [raise high the colours!]), now 200 years dead, who speaks in a booming voice,

'What of the savage peoples in these lands who have not yet heard the light of civilisation?! It is the duty and the right of our great Empire to teach them the path towards civilisation, industrialisation, and our burden as torchbearers to beckon to them the advances which we have made for the human condition'. The ghost continues, 'If their culture be an impediment to their own progress and to the future of civilisation, so be it'.

FURTHER REQUIRES that member nations allow indigenous peoples to own and maintain their or their ancestors' art[e]facts;

Robert Rhodes, again speaking, 'What if they, due to their backwards and savage nature, are unable to properly care for and protect these artefacts? Then must we let them degrade their own histories and allow their most prized artefacts to fall into ruin and dust out of malfeasance of behaviour general?'

EDITED to reflect political requirements of the voting period. Original post spoilered.

[Vancouvia]

This proposal does not seek to establish any law concerning the administration of indigenous lands; that is up to the individual member nations. This only provides for their right to continue to live there unless a legitimate government need is present.

I would expect imperialistic nations would vote against this proposal, as it seeks to limit their power. There is also a difference between assimilation and providing services like education and employment.

It's reasonable to assume that any peoples who have artifacts have been caring for the artifacts before contact with a new culture, and are therefore capable of caring for the artifacts after contact.

((Artifacts is the American spelling; I don't know if you're trying to say that I spelled it wrong.))

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would expect imperialistic nations would vote against this proposal, as it seeks to limit their power. There is also a difference between assimilation and providing services like education and employment.

Robert Rhodes: 'How about the general cultural mandate that persons require a high school diploma or such, and then, the savages do not like the idea that we require them to have accreditation for their skills before hiring for labour? How about the fact that we have a tradition for hanging people who burn their widows? These heathen cultural practices strike at the heart of the civilised nations of the world. They make shambles of peace and prosperity by abridging freedoms and rights of all men. It is our duty, Ambassador, to restrain the savage and to enlighten him with civilisation'.

It's reasonable to assume that any peoples who have artifacts have been caring for the artifacts before contact with a new culture, and are therefore capable of caring for the artifacts after contact.

Rhodes: 'When I was travelling through the heart of darkness, the savage lands of the Upper Quildonian valley, I did not see any museums with climate controlled atmospheres. Unless you believe that preservation of artefacts can be done by setting it up haphazardly in a shack, they are not cared for. Your proposal would ban our government's actions to preserve these artefacts from natural destruction. The fact that the savages attacked our colonists in an attempt to preserve their culture only underlined how uncivilised and shortsighted they were before the creation of the Colony of Upper Quildonia.'

((Artifacts is the American spelling; I don't know if you're trying to say that I spelled it wrong.))

OOC: <sarcasm>English is English. Stop your imperialist attempt to take over our language.</sarcasm> Though, please do note that I am playing devil's advocate here.

[Vancouvia]

I really see your point, and it's difficult to address. Should governmental laws be blanketed over new cultures that are discovered? This proposal doesn't seek to determine the line between cultural practices and governmental laws, as that would depend on a wide variety of factors, like how extreme the practices are, for example.

I understand your point on preservation, also. I would argue that after contact is made it is up to the indigenous peoples to decide whether they want to use another culture's preservation techniques. If they do, then they can; if they don't, then they most likely have a legitimate reason for doing so. Perhaps their artifacts, such as an idol for example, are meant to be recreated by new generations and their preservation isn't of high importance. This proposal does not ban government actions to attempt to preserve artifacts; it places the power in the hands of the people who rightfully own the artifacts to do so what they wish with them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I really see your point, and it's difficult to address. Should governmental laws be blanketed over new cultures that are discovered? This proposal doesn't seek to determine the line between cultural practices and governmental laws, as that would depend on a wide variety of factors, like how extreme the practices are, for example.

To a Hindu priest which protested the British prohibition of sati in the 1840s or 50s, "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." —Sir Charles James Napier

"So perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to be misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another." —Sir Charles James Napier

Rhodes: "Since burning widows alive and mismanaging countries is something which cannot be acceptable from a humanitarian perspective, we must take decisive action to preserve lives and protect the wild chaps of the world from themselves."

[Vancouvia]

Every culture's definition of morality is different. If imperialistic nations wish to pose their laws onto indigenous peoples then how they do that shouldn't be micromanaged by the WA. The WA should, however, install some basic rights for these vulnerable peoples.

If you're suggesting I qualify their right to practice their culture, then I would be open for suggestions on how best to go about this in order to protect those cultural rights, but still have ethical limits.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Every culture's definition of morality is different. If imperialistic nations wish to pose their laws onto indigenous peoples then how they do that shouldn't be micromanaged by the WA. The WA should, however, install some basic rights for these vulnerable peoples.

If you're suggesting I qualify their right to practice their culture, then I would be open for suggestions on how best to go about this in order to protect those cultural rights, but still have ethical limits.

Summoning some old priest from about 250 years ago, after some cajoling, (especially since he's never seen this Imperial flag behind him before) he starts speaking, 'Now young boy, how is telling widows to burn themselves in their husband's funeral pyres not ethical?! The gods demand it! It is a fundamental property of honour! By burning themselves, they ascend into the heavens to be venerated by their descendants!'

[Hirota]

IC: We ARE the indigenous people of our nation.

DEFINING indigenous as culturally-distinct peoples who inhabited a country before the arrival and their knowledge of a now-dominant culture or cultures;

Since "we" are presumably also the dominant culture in your nation, your peoples would not satisfy the definition of indigenous under this proposal.

I've not reviewed the body of the proposal, but will add feedback shortly.

[Czesc]

Nvm

[Vancouvia]

You can't control the way countries control their people though

Are you serious?

[Imperium Anglorum]

You can't control the way countries control their people though

That, Sir, is what the World Assembly is about. Everything we do is about controlling the way countries control their people. I will say that if one were to take that kind of philosophy and make it into a coherent thought system, it would rival Gatesville.

[Goddess Relief Office]

REQUIRES member nations to not forcibly assimilate indigenous peoples, nor to eradicate, reduce, or limit indigenous culture;

This clause is a bit clunky.

Suggest:

PROHIBITS member nations from assimilating indigenous peoples, or eradicating, reducing, and limiting their culture;

[Ardchoille]

Take a glance at #114, On Female Genital Mutilation, where the WA has very firmly repudiated a specific cultural practice. From the ACKNOWLEDGING clause onward, you may pick up some ideas about the ground you could cover, exceptions, boundaries on intrvention, remedies, health concerns, etc. (Don't copy any of it, of course; plagiarism gets your nation kicked out.)

[Vancouvia]

Goddess Relief Office: Thanks, I like that a lot better, too.

I've edited it a lot, but the main change was a switch to Mild, which I believe is more realistic for this kind of resolution, and have therefore edited the verbs down a bit. I've also added the acknowledging and seeking clauses to better convey what I'm going for here. I've added the encourages clause to also clarify the general spirit of the proposal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: You know, when two people who at the moment don't seem to be able to agree on the colour of the sky separately bring up female genital mutilation, it really might be worth considering addressing. Your clause on "culture" is still far too expansive.