[DRAFT] Indigenous Peoples Protection Act

[Drew Durrnil]

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

The World Assembly;

Respecting the cultures of indigenous peoples;

Distraught that since the repeal of [resolution=GA=328]GA #328 "Rights of Indigenous Peoples"[/resolution] there has been no World Assembly legislation protecting these peoples from discrimination and injustice from non-indigenous peoples;

Determined to protect the rights and cultures of indigenous peoples;

Hereby:

1. Defines "indigenous peoples" as ethnic minorities that are/were the inhabitants of a landmass before the arrival of now-dominant peoples, and the original inhabitants' descendants;
   
2. Forbids WA member states from:
   
   1. Trying to forcibly impose their culture on indigenous peoples without the indigenous' consent;
   2. Forcibly removing indigenous peoples from their native land without the indigenous' consent;
   3. Forcibly removing indigenous peoples' and their ancestors' artifacts without the indigenous' consent;
   4. Trying to eradicate or reduce indigenous peoples' cultures without the indigenous' consent;
3. Demands that member states offer indigenous peoples restitution for previous violations of section 2;
   
4. Declares that previous WA resolutions take precedent before this proposal.

[Heidgaudr]

It's not good to plagiarize definitions from the very same resolution you reference in your draft.

[Tinhampton]

It's not good to plagiarize definitions from the very same resolution you reference in your draft.

And now the draft "defines "indigenous peoples" as it is defined in GA #328." Is it a violation of the House of Cards rule to reference repealed resolutions - as opposed to active resolutions (that are therefore merely at risk of repeal) - in your active clauses?

[Drew Durrnil]

It's not good to plagiarize definitions from the very same resolution you reference in your draft.

And now the draft "defines "indigenous peoples" as it is defined in GA #328." Is it a violation of the House of Cards rule to reference repealed resolutions - as opposed to active resolutions (that are therefore merely at risk of repeal) - in your active clauses?

i changed it

[Attempted Socialism]

The definition sounds like the indigenous peoples were those who were first there, originally. So for instance the first people who came over the Bering Strait, and who have been dead for 11.000+ years. If you mean their descendants that would mean that if, say, several migratory waves has occurred, the first (presumably extinct) peoples count as indigenous, but none of the later (or their descendants) do.

I gave the following advice on a draft similarly trying to protect indigenous peoples, and where the definition also proved problematic. I have edited out the most draft-specific comments, but if you read "indigenous peoples" instead of "tribe", I think you can see where I am going with it.

We come back to the question that I posed originally: What definition of "tribe" works to include only those extant groups we agree should be included, and not, for instance, nations, conquerors, and long-since dead tribes? In the real world we don't use a single definition, it's far more an individual judgement, adapted to each situation, country, continent, or epoch. The UN, in its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, sidesteps the very hard task of defining what indigenous people are, and addresses the trauma they share:

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,
Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,
Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,
Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

(My cursive)

The flaw here is that what is shared between UN members is not necessarily shared among WA members. UN members are all nations of humans with a history of being on Earth, which means we to some extend can apply a sort of "call them as we see them"-test (Though all the battles over the edges should tell you that it's fraught with difficulty as well). The UN also has a bureaucracy that can develop rules, but in the WA just getting a committee to define a tribe is a cop-out.

I suggested this before, and I am only more convinced of the merits now, that your definition should draw more firmly on the historical reference. You want to protect groups that share these traits in common: Ethic groups 1) currently disempowered and in the minority; 2) who have been subject to conquest, settlement, and displacement; and 3) who are not disposed to integration or assimilation. Again, this would not be perfect -- just to give an example, this is in part because an ongoing conquest where the victims are not yet in the minority would not be recognised under a definition using the criteria I outlined, but IMO that is more acceptable because their plight is not one of tribal self-governance but rather one of traditional liberation -- but it would get you closer to something where longwinded, pseudointellectual, pedantic douchebags like I can't plausibly claim that your definition either protects nobody or everybody and nothing in-between.

[Potted Plants United]

3. Forbids WA member states from:
a. Trying to forcibly impose their customs on indigenous peoples without the indigenous' consent;

*snip*

5. Declares that previous WA resolutions take precedent for things not explicitly said in this proposal.

OOC: Are you trying to claim that previous WA resolutions cannot be enforced on indigenous people? Fairly sure that's not going to work.

[Drew Durrnil]

3. Forbids WA member states from:
a. Trying to forcibly impose their customs on indigenous peoples without the indigenous' consent;

*snip*

5. Declares that previous WA resolutions take precedent for things not explicitly said in this proposal.

OOC: Are you trying to claim that previous WA resolutions cannot be enforced on indigenous people? Fairly sure that's not going to work.

no

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Are you trying to claim that previous WA resolutions cannot be enforced on indigenous people? Fairly sure that's not going to work.

no

OOC: Then the text needs editing.

[Drew Durrnil]

no

OOC: Then the text needs editing.

ok, changed "customs" to "culture"

[Drew Durrnil]

/bumping this to bring it up to the front page

[Attempted Socialism]

/bumping this to bring it up to the front page

I posted a bit of feedback that you may have missed.

The definition sounds like the indigenous peoples were those who were first there, originally. So for instance the first people who came over the Bering Strait, and who have been dead for 11.000+ years. If you mean their descendants that would mean that if, say, several migratory waves has occurred, the first (presumably extinct) peoples count as indigenous, but none of the later (or their descendants) do.

I gave the following advice on a draft similarly trying to protect indigenous peoples, and where the definition also proved problematic. I have edited out the most draft-specific comments, but if you read "indigenous peoples" instead of "tribe", I think you can see where I am going with it.

We come back to the question that I posed originally: What definition of "tribe" works to include only those extant groups we agree should be included, and not, for instance, nations, conquerors, and long-since dead tribes? In the real world we don't use a single definition, it's far more an individual judgement, adapted to each situation, country, continent, or epoch. The UN, in its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, sidesteps the very hard task of defining what indigenous people are, and addresses the trauma they share:

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,
Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,
Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,
Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

(My cursive)

The flaw here is that what is shared between UN members is not necessarily shared among WA members. UN members are all nations of humans with a history of being on Earth, which means we to some extend can apply a sort of "call them as we see them"-test (Though all the battles over the edges should tell you that it's fraught with difficulty as well). The UN also has a bureaucracy that can develop rules, but in the WA just getting a committee to define a tribe is a cop-out.

I suggested this before, and I am only more convinced of the merits now, that your definition should draw more firmly on the historical reference. You want to protect groups that share these traits in common: Ethic groups 1) currently disempowered and in the minority; 2) who have been subject to conquest, settlement, and displacement; and 3) who are not disposed to integration or assimilation. Again, this would not be perfect -- just to give an example, this is in part because an ongoing conquest where the victims are not yet in the minority would not be recognised under a definition using the criteria I outlined, but IMO that is more acceptable because their plight is not one of tribal self-governance but rather one of traditional liberation -- but it would get you closer to something where longwinded, pseudointellectual, pedantic douchebags like I can't plausibly claim that your definition either protects nobody or everybody and nothing in-between.

Edit: and it's only now that I realise the spelling mistake. "Ethic" should be "ethnic".

[Chipoli]

"We don't see this as an issue that affects every member state. Oftentimes, the original habitants of the land are the ethnic majority today, such as Chipoli. We believe the member states affected should be responsible for protecting their Indigenous Peoples." -Stefan Savych, Chipolian Ambassador to the World Assembly.

[Drew Durrnil]

/bumping this to bring it up to the front page

I posted a bit of feedback that you may have missed.
-snip-


Edit: and it's only now that I realise the spelling mistake. "Ethic" should be "ethnic".

i fixed the definition so it covers up many of the loopholes you described

"We don't see this as an issue that affects every member state. Oftentimes, the original habitants of the land are the ethnic majority today, such as Chipoli. We believe the member states affected should be responsible for protecting their Indigenous Peoples." -Stefan Savych, Chipolian Ambassador to the World Assembly.

that's why the strength is mild

[Kenmoria]

“I am not certain of the utility of clause 2. Every clause of this proposal would be enforced by the WACC, pursuant to GA #440, anyway, so this clause simply generates another committee to do the same job. I am also left confused as to how the WAIRC would handle contact with uncontacted tribes, since there is no detail in the proposal.”

[Drew Durrnil]

“I am not certain of the utility of clause 2. Every clause of this proposal would be enforced by the WACC, pursuant to GA #440, anyway, so this clause simply generates another committee to do the same job. I am also left confused as to how the WAIRC would handle contact with uncontacted tribes, since there is no detail in the proposal.”

ok, removed redundancy and added more detail on how uncontacted tribes would be handled

[Tinhampton]

Why do we suddenly feel the need to make uncontacted tribes... not?

[Vexilia]

Why do we suddenly feel the need to make uncontacted tribes... not?

I was wondering the same thing... Shouldn't we just agree to keep them uncontacted? We needn't try to reachout to them. Couldn't a clause just be as simplistic as to protect their status? (obviously worded a lot better than I could)

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t understand clauses 3a, 3c, and 4d. Why is communication in signed language necessary? If it is empirically demonstrated that an indigenous people uses solely verbal language in its everyday communications, then signed language, though immensely helpful generally, is of no particular use. Clause 3c likewise seems odd. Interaction with a pacifistic people would not be benefited by training in disarming, nor would interact with a people that uses almost entirely ranged weapons, or fights entirely unarmed. 4d is also displeasing to me. Why can somebody not act in self-defence against serious bodily harm? Or non-lethal torture? Or in the defence of another’s life?”

[Drew Durrnil]

“I don’t understand clauses 3a, 3c, and 4d. Why is communication in signed language necessary? If it is empirically demonstrated that an indigenous people uses solely verbal language in its everyday communications, then signed language, though immensely helpful generally, is of no particular use. Clause 3c likewise seems odd. Interaction with a pacifistic people would not be benefited by training in disarming, nor would interact with a people that uses almost entirely ranged weapons, or fights entirely unarmed. 4d is also displeasing to me. Why can somebody not act in self-defence against serious bodily harm? Or non-lethal torture? Or in the defence of another’s life?”

ok, made sign language + martial arts training no longer mandated and changed the "no attack" clause, as well as added a clause encouraging wa member states to maintain the status quo of uncontacted tribes

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t understand clauses 3a, 3c, and 4d. Why is communication in signed language necessary? If it is empirically demonstrated that an indigenous people uses solely verbal language in its everyday communications, then signed language, though immensely helpful generally, is of no particular use. Clause 3c likewise seems odd. Interaction with a pacifistic people would not be benefited by training in disarming, nor would interact with a people that uses almost entirely ranged weapons, or fights entirely unarmed. 4d is also displeasing to me. Why can somebody not act in self-defence against serious bodily harm? Or non-lethal torture? Or in the defence of another’s life?”

ok, made sign language + martial arts training no longer mandated and changed the "no attack" clause, as well as added a clause encouraging wa member states to maintain the status quo of uncontacted tribes

(OOC: “In retaliation from harm” means that someone needs to wait to be actually harmed before responding. That excludes situations where an attack is obviously going to occur within a few moments. I suggest just using the wording of “except in self-defence or in defence of another”.)

[Drew Durrnil]

ok, made sign language + martial arts training no longer mandated and changed the "no attack" clause, as well as added a clause encouraging wa member states to maintain the status quo of uncontacted tribes

(OOC: “In retaliation from harm” means that someone needs to wait to be actually harmed before responding. That excludes situations where an attack is obviously going to occur within a few moments. I suggest just using the wording of “except in self-defence or in defence of another”.)

fixed, thanks

[Wallenburg]

"This proposal seems to be suffering an identity crisis. Is it about indigenous peoples or about uncontacted tribes? These are entirely different subjects, and cramming them together as if they belong does little good. Rather, it seems the authoring delegation has some rather patronizing assumptions about the nature of uncontacted tribes, one that I suspect carries over to all indigenous peoples. Section 9 stands out as a particularly bad case of this infantilizing attitude.

"Notwithstanding the issue of disjointed scope, section 6 is absolutely unacceptable. First, the nature of uncontacted tribes is that they are uncontacted, and those people whom no other person alive has ever contacted are typically unknown to those other persons. Contact might be made intentionally by professional explorers, but more likely it will occur accidentally by someone simply exercising their right to travel. It is entirely unreasonable to expect these individuals to suddenly manifest full WAUTC training. Second, your patronizing attitude continues here, where it obviously assumes uncontacted tribes to be meek and defenseless people either unable or unwilling to commit violence. This is not the case. They are people just like anyone else, which makes them entirely capable of lethal violence at no apparent provocation. Most are familiar with the dominant concept of warfare. The combination of sections 6.c and 6.d functions to prohibit contact altogether on pain of death, by rendering those who make contact defenseless against acts of violence.

"My home nation, certainly, will be exercising its section 5 privileges, given how poorly structured committee requirements are. My office will not be supporting this proposal in its current state."

[Barfleur]

"Clause 7 sticks out to me, ambassador, like the proverbial sore thumb. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons for which the status quo regarding uncontacted tribes ought to be changed, including if doing so would be beneficial to that tribe. Suppose there has been a natural disaster on or near such a tribe's self-governed land, causing a vast humanitarian catastrophe. In that case, while the status quo would be 'leave it alone,' I think both the tribe and the nation as a whole would prefer for the flow of emergency assistance to be unhindered as much as possible. Or suppose a nation enacts a generally applicable law, which does not in theory or in practice discriminate against any person or group of people, and wishes to enforce it upon the lands of an uncontacted tribe. Would law enforcement be allowed to make contact, or must the 12-year-olds keep being married off?"

[El Lazaro]

Indigenous is an adjective, not a noun. Uncontacted tribes would not know ASL, and this isn't an appropriate use of martial arts. More substantially though, this whole thing seems like a useless novelty program which was uncalled for in the first place and would only encourage governments to behave irresponsibly--despite its discouragement of contacting unknown tribes for shits and giggles, the entire bill creates a law enforcenment agency to do exactly that at member-states' behest.

[Tinhampton]

Uncontacted tribes would not know ASL

It gets worse: Article 4 refers to "proficiency in sign language," even if the language being signed is not one commonly used by non-indigenous peoples in the surrounding areas.