Sunday February 17, 2008, 8:35 am
How is the conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights supposed to be handled ?
eg. self determination of an "indigenous population" seems to violate article 7. of the universal rights.

"Art 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

If the indegenous individuals have the right to have other laws, does that not violate the rights of all other citizens of the state ?

And what about article 13 ?

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

If "indigenous people" can claim land as theirs without holding titles to it how can they then prevent other
citizens of the state from living on "their" land without violating art. 13 ?

Sunday February 17, 2008, 10:22 pm
Indigenous people owned all the land before, and then invaders came and stole that land. The declaration of Indigenous rights merely returns some of their rights to that land to them. It's the same as if someone came and stole YOUR land. Your human right is to have that stolen land restored to you.

By the way, that right of freedom of movement you mention is not unlimited. (Certain rights limit other rights.) People don't have freedom of movement to trespass on land that someone else owns. And if Indigenous people own it, then that is the same as anyone else owning it.

The major difference for Indiogenous people is that invaders have stolen their land, and much of it has yet to be restored.

If we don't give this equal right for Indigenous people, then we are legitimising the theft of land, effectively saying that "if enough time passes after the theft, then that theft becomes legitimate."

ALWAYS WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE: ABORIGINAL LAND!!!

Sunday February 17, 2008, 10:47 pm
So well put Simon ... I had actually been struggling to answer in a productive, non-aggressive manner (hehehe noise, if you will) ... so I am grateful for your eloquent and honest reply.

Monday February 18, 2008, 1:53 pm
If we don't say that land taken from someone becomes legally yours if you can hold onto it long enough, then endless war would result.

In most cases the people the land was last taken from took it from someone else, who in turn took it from someone else and so on.. If you do not regard right by conquest as valid the who owns what ? And why should current owners suffer from events they have had no influence on ?

If we take an area like England that has really been fought over a lot, the who owns that land ?
The Picts ?, The Angles ?, The Saxons ?, The Romans ?, The Danes ?, The Normans ? somebody else ?

I also note that for some odd reason I do not count as indeginous despite the fact that I am a Dane (member of the tribe of the Danes) living in the ancestral homeland since prehistoric times of my tribe (Denmark) - why does it make my tribe less indigenous that we have had the strength to keep our land ?

Now if the Australian government wants to sign over the titles to some governement owned land to the Aborigines, thats their business (and their voters), but what about the 20-21 million non-aboriginal Australian citizens - should we regard all their titles as invalid ?
I bet they would fight to keep the land they regard as theirs.
Where should those 20-21 million people relocate to ?

Sorry, but I don't believe in special rights to certain groups of people in society - I believe in equal rights to all people in society.

Also note that in other threads I have always stood up for the rights of the groups classified as indiginous in Danish territory (Greenlanders and Faerose) against the wishes of a wast majority of other care2 members - not because I regard them as having special rights, but because I regard them as having the same rights as everybody else to live of the resources found in their environment - and because they are just as much citizens of the Danish State as I, despite not being members of my tribe.