US Senate Committee holds controversial hearing on UN Indigenous Declaration

UPDATE June 15, 2011:

Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council voices
opposition to bogus Senate hearing:
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2011/06/black-hills-treaty-council-voices.html

Speacial Rapporteur James Anaya

By Brenda Norrell
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/

WASHINGTON -- The US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs conducted a controversial hearing on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on Thursday. Few people in Indian country who were responsible for the creation, or who are pressing for implementation of the Declaration, were informed or invited to testify.

The hearing began with a controversial address by Sen. Al Franken of Minn. pointing to Indian country's natural resources and the need to develop energy. It indicates that some view the Declaration as a means to pursue the exploitation of natural resources, which includes power plants, mining and drilling in Indian country.

Sen. Franken said Indian country represents 5 percent of the land mass and has 10 percent of the nation's natural energy resources. Sen. Franken said there are opportunities for wind, solar and conventional resource development. He said tribal leaders tell him of hurdles in financing and regulatory hurdles in carrying out energy development.

The testimony comes as many American Indian councils continue to exploit natural resources, while grassroots Indian activists strive to protect Mother Earth. Indigenous grassroots groups point out how Indian coal-fired power plants are a cause of the melting of Arctic ice and global warming. They oppose the continued widespread damage from oil and gas drilling, coal mining and toxic dumping in Indian country.

Native grassroots groups are opposing tribal governments now selling water rights and allowing power plants to use excessive amounts of water, on the Navajo Nation and elsewhere. Further, they point to a century of poisoned water, air and soil and expose the scam of the carbon credit market. For the most part, their voices were not heard at the Senate hearing.

American Indian leaders did urge the implementation of the Declaration, protection of sacred places, hunting and fishing rights, protection of culture and language and the right to self governance. The hearing examined the need for new federal laws that are required to implement the Declaration.

An excellent video proclaiming that Geronimo was not killed in Pakistan was shown during the hearing. Referring to the code-name Geronimo used during the Osama bin Laden attack, the film included faces from throughout Indian country, including Ponca Casey Camp, Navajos and others. It was produced by filmmaker Ryan Red Corn, Osage from Oklahoma, and Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network.

During his testimony, Red Corn described how Indian women are being pressured to become sterilized. Describing land jurisdictions and crime which makes lives difficult, Red Corn said he wants to live during an era of human rights. He also described how film and media are increasingly beneficial to American Indians.

Red Corn offered hope for implementation of the Declaration. "I would like to see teeth put into it, so I can feel the effects of it at home."

Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, chair of the Senate Committee, began the hearing, with a reference to Red Corn’s film “Smiling Indians" and discussed images which portray Indigenous Peoples. “As Native people it is important to tell our own stories." He spoke of Indigenous rights and “holding ourselves and the world accountable.”

Quinault President Fawn urged funding to attend global climate conferences so that Native Americans can have an impact on the future of this planet. Fawn also urged using the Declaration to uphold hunting and fishing rights in the northwest and to ensure the right to free, prior and informed consent.

Frank Ettawageshik, executive director of the United Tribes of Michigan spoke on climate change, cultural teachings and inherent sovereignty. He said the forces of nature must be respected and the consequences of actions much be considered for the next seven generations.

Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission Chairperson Duane 'Chili' H. Yazzie called for the protection of sacred places in accordance with international law.

“There is a notion in the federal government that they know best for Native America. That is not the case.”

“The Declaration recognizes Native Americans possession of distinct rights to sacred sites since time immemorial, whereas the U.S. recognizes a few rights post-colonization.”

Yazzie spoke on the need to protect the sacred mountain, Dook’o’osliid, San Francisco Peaks in Arizona. Referring to snow making from sewage water for Snowbowl tourists, Yazzie described how polluted water would affect medicine plants on the mountain which medicine men gather for healing ceremonies.

“Western Science is not enough. We must be at the table. It is our earth and life too."

“We have something to say, we have something to offer, the key we have may not avert the impending demise of the Earth but we believe we can help to heal some of the hurt and give hope for a future," said Yazzie, describing himself as a grandfather and a farmer.

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Melanie Knight spoke on self governance and self determination. “The domestic policy of the United States should support the ability of tribal nations to make the decisions that is best suited for their own specific needs."

Knight spoke on the specific needs to revitalize the language for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma of over 300,000 people. “The revitalization of culture and language is the primary purpose of several articles in the Declaration most prominently being in Article 13."

Knight described the Cherokee language immersion school, offering an education to students in their own language. She urged working together for self determination in Indian country.

"We ask this committee to ensure and protect our rights through facilitating the inclusion of Native language, history and culture throughout all programs and activities that effect Indian country. For instance, policy changes to enable both public and private school to further language preservation efforts."

During the hearing, land rights, self-governance and consultation between the US and Indian Nations were key issues.

Sen. Akaka said the hearing was held to determine if additional legislation is needed for implementation of the Declaration. He questioned if current federal law is adequate to ensure rights within the Declaration. Akaka said while the US strives to be a human rights leader globally, it is important to begin the human rights work here at home. "That leadership must start here at home."

The Senate Committee, in its announcement of the hearing, said the hearing viewed the Declaration as an “international policy goal.” However, this is far from the standard hoped for by Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration includes the rights to aboriginal territories and ensures the right to free, prior and informed consent. Natural resources and intellectual property rights would be guaranteed in federal courts if the Declaration is honored as a legal document.

The US and Canada, the last two countries in the world who voted against the Declaration at the UN, finally voiced support for it. However, the US and Canada included language designed to prevent the Declaration from being used as a legal document to ensure Indian rights.

During the hearing, Sen. Franken questioned the Obama administration's low level of funding for Indian school construction in the US. He also said there is a great deal of frustration by Indian leaders over the bureaucracy and red tape created by the BIA.

Robert T. Coulter, executive director of the Indian Law Resource Center described constitutional rights and the need to strengthen federal laws to protect Indian lands.

James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, said legislative bodies should view the Declaration as a guide for action and direction.

“Although the Declaration is not itself a treaty, it is a strongly authoritative statement that builds upon the provisions of multilateral human rights treaties to which the United States is bound as a party, within the broader obligation of the United States to advance human rights under the United Nations Charter.”

Anaya said the courts should take account of the Declaration in appropriate cases concerning indigenous peoples, just as federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have referred to other international sources to interpret statutes, constitutional norms, and legal doctrines in a number of cases.

Anaya said, "I believe that the United States' cooperation with the international system in this and other ways will not only help to advance the Declaration's objectives in this country, but will also contribute to greater cooperation within the United Nations and worldwide to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in keeping with the Declaration.

"The United States was a principal leader in the UN's adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has since been a leader in pursuing implementation of that Declaration. The United States can and should now play that leadership role again."

As with most government hearings, there was far too much self-congratulations, and praise of the US on the international level, and far too little serious criticism of the human rights record of the US.

Those testifying were given five minutes for oral testimony, and submitted written testimony. The written record will be open for written testimony for two weeks for comments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
For permission to repost this article, please contact the author, Brenda Norrell: brendanorrell@gmail.com

Music Industry Rocked By New WikiLeaks Scandal?

In what can only be described as an ironic parody of the recent WikiLeaks breaches of national security with the release of sensitive classified documents from an insider within the United Nation’s US diplomat’s offices, the US music industry is now being rocked and rolled by a similar scandal with the release of a 50,000 page document dump from the tell all/reveal all WikiLeaks website.

The apparent target of the leaks is music industry executive boardroom and water cooler discussions, sensitive documents, Facebook posts, texts, tweets, YouTube viral videos and emails about unsigned recording artist Ava Aston.  A source close to someone who knows someone who once worked at a major record label said that “heads will roll” over the release of these sensitive documents. The unnamed source said although he has not seen any of the actual documents he is “pretty sure” there was a lot of cussing and name calling in them, because “that’s how top music executives roll.”

Ava Aston is an unsigned artist looking for a major record deal. Aston and her career was the commonality discussed among the music industry executives quoted in the more than 50,000 pages of sensitive documents. A source close to someone who dated the reporter who uncovered the documents verified that the documents frequently mention that Ava is a young “hot looking Greek girl” but that they only wanted to sign 11-year old girls. The sketchy source went on to say the documents reveal music industry powers-that-be only wanted to sign new artists who haven’t yet finished the 6^th grade. The documents go onto to cite the success of Justin Bieber, Jackie Evancho, Greyson Chance and  Rhema Marvanne as examples of why they want to sign pre-teens to major record deals.

Although warned by a whistle-blower, who tried to rally for Ava Aston’s defense by going public on HLN’s The Joy Behar Show to say that music is universal and a good artist can be over the age of 12 –  was rudely silenced by Behar and her guest, a middle-aged music executive who once was the toast of the industry when he signed the late actor Telly Savalas to a multi-million dollar record deal in the late 1970's. Behar publicly admitted that not only is she tone-deaf but that she is also not funny.  The older music executive continued to say he was “down with his  homies and peeps on the street and that he knew what would sell, for reals.” Leaked documents revealed The whistle-blower was later fired from his six-figure a year A & R position and told a confidential source that he recently filed a Qui Tam lawsuit or a whistle-blowers lawsuit against his employers and the entire music industry. It appears the whistle-blower was not fired for his lawsuit, but instead was fired for appearing on the lowly rated Behar cable show instead of a highly rated show like CNN's Larry King Live. According to a neighbor of the whistleblower’s grandmother she was told the appearance proved to be an embarrassment to the record label and so they had to let him go.

WikiLeak founder Julian Assange said during a Rolling Stone phone interview he granted from a cave that he shares with his fellow fugitive-on-the-lam and friend Osama Bin Laden, that he has no regrets for any embarrassment that these documents might shed on the music industry.  He said that he has downloaded (legally) Ava Aston’s “Gone” CD and said he often listens to her music on his iPod when he and Osama are out walking their camels. Assange said he thinks Aston has an incredible sound and that any record label would be lucky to have her.

Other documents revealed that some very liberal music executives feared that Ava Aston was un-American and not worthy of a major record deal because she wrote and recorded the song , “We The People” a song where she is asking Americans to stand up and support their country. Aston wrote the song about right and wrong, not the right and the left. When a low-level marketing rep for the record label sent an email and questioned the label VP about what was un-American about standing up and supporting our country he responded by saying, “I don’t know, it's just what they say on MSNBC all of the time.”

Ava Aston was unavailable for comment when contacted about the massive record industry document dump from WikiLeaks. Like a typical manager in the music industry, Aston's manager Mr. Bricks did not return phone calls from reporters working on this musical satire, but was seen having lunch at a local McDonald's with a McRib in his hands.

All in fun my friends, all in fun.

Blessings,

Ava

xox

Russell Means: UN Listening Session is US Smokescreen

Statement by Russell Means, Republic of Lakotah
on the Occasion of the United States State Department “Listening Session” in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 16 March 2010

Once again, the occupation government of the United States of America has trotted out its dogs and ponies to provide a smokescreen and diversion from its continuing crimes against the indigenous peoples and nations of the Western Hemisphere. The reason for today’s media spectacle is supposedly for the US State Department to “listen” to input from indigenous peoples and nations for inclusion in the U.S.’s report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, universal periodic review process.

As we can see, many indigenous people have been duped to participate, yet again, in a lying and duplicitous process of the United States. The United States has absolutely no interest or intention of admitting to the world its human rights record that is neither justifiable nor defensible. In particular, the record of the United States with regard to historical, and ongoing, violations of over 370 treaties that were negotiated and signed with indigenous nations must be, but will not be, addressed by the United States. Instead, as is its ongoing practice, the United States will use this session, and the one tomorrow on the territory of the Diné (Navajo) Nation, as its justification that indigenous peoples were “consulted,” and “listened to,” while the U.S. simultaneously lies to the world about its disgraceful human rights record.

The Republic of Lakotah will not legitimize this embarrassing process. Instead, we will submit our report directly to the UN Human Rights Council, not to be filtered or sanitized by the State Department. Let us be clear, our report will be scathing. The United States continues, on a daily basis to violate the terms of the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties with the Lakotah. Our report will indicate that the United States never intended to abide by the terms of the treaties, and has violated them consistently from the time of their signing to the present.

Our report will also cite the United States’ own language in acknowledging that “the treaties retain their full force and effect even today because they are the legal equivalent of treaties with foreign governments and have the force of federal law.” Periodic Report of the United States of America to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, April 23, 2007, paragraph 335. In light of the United States’ own admissions, in addition to reporting to the Human Rights Council on the egregious human rights record of the US towards indigenous peoples, the Republic of Lakotah will report to the Council and to the world, the exercise of its own rights under principles of international law. The United States has continually breached the treaties with the Lakotah, and international law allows the Lakotah to return to our status quo ante position prior to the signing of the treaties.

On March 30, 2010, the Republic of Lakotah will repeat its position to the United States, and will transmit its communication to the President of the United States and to the Secretary of State, demanding that the United States cease and desist it activities in Lakotah territory, and insisting that the United States withdraw its presence from our homeland.

Posted at Censored News http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com

Indigenous Peoples Censored at UN Climate Conference

By Brenda Norrell
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
Dec. 10, 2008

POZNAN, Poland -- Indigenous People trying to speak at the UN Climate Conference were slamdunked by proponents of the global carbon market scam, designed to enrich the World Bank and chosen corporations by way of the sale of fictitious carbon credits. The following video shows statements by two non-governmental organizations, before Indigenous Peoples were denied a voice. The Indigenous Peoples' censored statement, which was not read, follows the video.

Indigenous Peoples lands and forest are at risk in the carbon market schemes, which allows the world's polluters to continue polluting. In the censored statement, Indigenous Peoples point out that four countries -- the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- refused to vote in favor of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration, adopted by the UN, states that Indigenous Peoples have the right to "free, prior and informed consent," a right which is currently being denied to Indigenous Peoples in UN climate summits.

The censored statement points out that Indigenous Peoples denounce the "outdated colonial structures" of these four countries.

The carbon market scam is the latest corporate profiteering scheme, promoted by a duped media, which seeks to seize Indigenous Peoples land and forests around the world. The censorship of Indigenous Peoples at the previous UN Climate Summit in Bali in 2007 was one of Project Censored's most censored stories of the year.

The group of Indigenous Peoples are among the delegates attending the UN climate change gathering in Poznan. The forum is the half-way mark in the negotiating process leading up to Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where an a climate change deal will be finalizeed to follow on the first phase of the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Video from: Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulate action, of the 29th Session of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)
Watch video by Rebecca Sommer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsqUgbBHu0

The following statement was NOT read:

Statement of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change
SBSTA
December 10, 2008
Chair,
We acknowledge the efforts of some Parties who have supported and worked with us to reflect our rights and our full and effective participation in this COP14. However, we DENOUNCE those Parties, including Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia who continue to exercise, outmoded, outdated colonial power structures that the rest of the world left behind decades ago.
We remind the parties that UNFCCC is NOT a consensus document AND perhaps a time has come for a simple majority vote that lets these four nations know how isolated their position is.
On the 60th Anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights IT IS APPALLING that any UNITED NATIONS BODY is still denies extending the Rights enshrined in this document to the Indigenous Peoples of the planet. It is a abrogation of BOTH the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Reference to the draft text ON SBSTA 29 agenda item 5, on REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action]. In the annex of this document, 1 (c ), we are profoundly disappointed that the Indigenous Peoples fundamental rights, INCLUDING the UNDRIP and other existing Human Rights instruments (Convention ILO169) are not included in the operative paragraphs of the latest document of SBSTA29 .
We, are just not ONE SINGLE indigenous people, as the document states. WE ARE a multitude of indigenous Peoples from multiple countries, with multiple languages, diverse cultures and background and experiences. TO REDUCE all this, to the concept of a singular unitary experience IS A DENIAL OF THE RICHNESS OF DIVERSITY THAT EXIST WITHIN, the framework of indigenous peoples as a collective of individual nations.
For this reason, WE, appeal to the UNFCCC and Parties take affirmative action to reaffirm the rights of Indigenous Peoples as codified in UNDRIP and other relevant Human Rights instruments (EG. Convention ILO 169). Any decision or measure that will be adopted at this COP, in particular the REDD process, must reaffirm the principle of free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples AND OUR RIGHT of the Indigenous Peoples TO SAY NO,. In that regard, Indigenous Peoples must be included as parties to official decisions, should be centrally involved in and benefit from, all climate change and forest programs and policies at all levels to ensure that they deliver justice and equity and contribute to sustainable development, biodiversity protection, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
We, demand an IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of all REDD initiatives and carbon market schemes in Indigenous Peoples territories UNTIL Indigenous Peoples Rights are fully RECOGNIZED, PROTECTED AND PROMOTED.
Thank you.

Currently, the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is underway in Poznan, December 1 - 12. It is the half-way mark in the negotiating process leading up to Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, where an a climate change deal will be finalizeed to follow on the first phase of the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impromptu protest by indigenous peoples to oppose draft REDD text

Over a 100 indigenous group leaders, including three members of the Papua New Guinea’s Eco-Forestry Forum, held placards outside the European Union pavilion

Wed, 10 Dec 2008
A PACNEWS SPECIAL REPORT
By Makereta Komai

POZNAN, POLAND --Local and international indigenous peoples groups staged an impromptu protest this evening (Tuesday), an hour before a contact group was to discuss the proposed new carbon trading mechanism, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).

Over a 100 indigenous group leaders, including three members of the Papua New Guinea’s Eco-Forestry Forum, held placards outside the European Union pavilion to protest against four Annex 1 countries attempt to remove their rights from the legal text of REDD.

PNG’s Ken Mondiai said they are ‘outraged’ by the actions of United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand’s ‘opposition to including the recognition of indigenous people’s and local communities in a decision drafted today.’

The 45 minutes contact group session scheduled from 4.30pm was cancelled without an explanation.

Both Australian and New Zealand delegates refused to comment on the claims of the indigenous people’s groups.

“These four countries want to include REDD in the future climate change agreement, but they oppose protecting the rights of indigenous and forest peoples who will be directly affected by REDD measures, said Mr Mondiai.

The NGO’s claim that during discussions this morning, the four countries insisted that the word ‘rights’ and references to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be struck from the text.

“This is totally unacceptable for indigenous peoples, local communities as the forests being targeted for REDD are those which have sustained and protected them for thousands of years.

“Any REDD mechanism that does not respect and protect the rights if indigenous people’s and local communities will fail.

“We, therefore demand that an unequivocal reference to rights and to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People’s be reinserted into the draft COP14 decision text on REDD,” the group said.

---
**Ms Makereta Komai is part of the Pacific Communications Team covering this event in Poznan, Poland
This event is officially known as the "14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 01 – 12 December 2008 Poznan, Poland."
PACNEWS coverage is made possible with funding from the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDD may harm forest people
Rhett A. Butler, http://www.mongabay.com/
December 2, 2008
A new report finds that the World Bank is not doing enough to protect indigenous rights under its mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).
REDD is a proposed mechanism to compensate developing countries for protecting their forests. The report — titled "Cutting Corners: World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples" — was issued by the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN) and the Forest Peoples Program (FPP) at the start of UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland. "Cutting Corners" alleges that the Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) — which provides seed funding for REDD projects — has rushed its review process and is failing to follow its own rules set to protect indigenous people and forest communities.
Such groups fear that without a proper framework, REDD could be used by governments and carbon traders to force forest people off their lands. "In this flawed process forest communities have not been properly consulted. As a result, donors could be complicit in a new global drive reinforcing old top-down policies that will only lead to more forest destruction," said Saskia Ozinga, Coordinator of FERN. "We have seen from the EU's FLEGT process, which aims to control illegal logging, that a proper consultation process will take years, but trying to shortcut consultations will just lead to long-term failure."
"If measures to respect the rights of forest peoples are at the heart of efforts to combat deforestation, then forest and climate policies could do some good," added Tom Griffiths, Coordinator of the Forest Peoples Program's Responsible Finance Program.
"It is alarming that the early government plans, approved by the World Bank, are simply business as usual. None of these REDD plans deal with the critical issues of governance, human rights, land tenure reforms and Free, Prior and Informed Consent. "To attain sustainable forest and climate initiatives, forest peoples must be fully consulted about their design. International donors must also ensure that human rights and forest sector reforms are guaranteed before any international funding is released to developing countries for their national actions on forest and climate issues."
"Cutting Corners" comes shortly after Friends of the Earth International (FOE), an environmental activist group, announced its opposition to REDD via a report titled "REDD Myths". At the UNFCCC talks in Poznan, FOE says it will oppose attempts to include forests in carbon markets. "During the climate talks, we will be demanding that forests are kept out of carbon markets, that plantations are entirely excluded and land rights are enforced as the basis of any forest policy," said Joseph Zacune, Climate and Energy Coordinator with FOE.
"If governments are serious about tackling climate change, deforestation must be stopped once and for all. To do this we need to tackle the consumption of agrofuels, meat and timber products which is driving deforestation and support good governance of forest resources."
Other analysts say REDD — in a form that recognizes rural peoples' rights — offers the best hope for preserving forests in the future while simultaneously fighting global warming. "REDD can benefit biodiversity conservation as well as indigenous and rural peoples," wrote Daniel Nepstad, Stephan Schwartzman, and Paulo Moutinho in a report published last year. "To succeed, national REDD programs must be consistent with UNFCCC and other UN principles, be transparent and have the active involvement of indigenous peoples and forest communities."
"Rejecting REDD will not defend indigenous rights. Substituting official aid from developed countries for carbon market funding will not be a better, less risky alternative for reducing deforestation. Indigenous rights abuses, often caused by the same activities that drive deforestation, must be addressed directly."
References
Kate Dooley, Tom Griffiths, Helen Leake, Saskia Ozinga. Cutting Corners - World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples. FERN. November 2008.
Kate Dooley. An overview of selected REDD proposals. FERN. November 2008.
Ronnie Hall. REDD myths: a critical review of proposed mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries. Friends of the Earth. December 2008.
Stephan Schwartzman, Daniel Nepstad, and Paulo Moutinho. GETTING REDD RIGHT - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Environmental Defense / The Woods Hole Research Center / Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM). December 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking news
Repairing our reputation on human rights
ABC Online, Australia - By Elizabeth Evatt The language of the declaration is inspiring, starting with article 1: "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Australian gov't intends to endorse indigenous rights declaration
Xinhua, China - Dec 9, 2008 CANBERRA, Dec. (Xinhua) -- The Australian government has indicated it still intends to endorse a United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous ...
PMA: Indigenous Rights Petition to Parliament
Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand - The first signatures on the national petition calling on the government to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be presented ...
Canada's opposition to the human rights of Indigenous People at UN ...
Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - OTTAWA, Dec. 10 /CNW Telbec/ - This International Day for Human Rights on December 10 marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of ...