Indigenous Wrongs

Canada has joined the US, Australia, and New Zealand in trying to stall a new ÜN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. And they are taking a lot of heat for it.

But they are absolutely right. The proposed charter is both incoherent and unreasonable.
First, it does not define “indigenous people.” Who gets to decide who is and who is not indigenous? After all, literally, there is no such thing.

Ominously, the closest the UN seems to come to an official definition is this: “Among many indigenous peoples are the Indians of the Americas (for example, the Mayas of Guatemala or the Aymaras of Bolivia), the Inuit and Aleutians of the circumpolar region, the Saami of northern Europe, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia, and the Maori of New Zealand.” (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs9.htm)

In other words, only indigenous people living in nations dominated by Europeans are cited.
This looks as if it might be a club, then, for non-Western nations to use against Westerners. But in the real world, almost all nations have surviving and distinct earlier populations. The West stands out, perhaps, only in their level of concern. There are the Ainu of Japan, of course, the various “national minorities” of China, the “hill people” of the lands of southeast Asia, the “tribal people” of India, the Maghrib of North Africa, the Bushmen, pygmies, and so forth in Sub-Saharan Africa, and on and on and on. Why are none of these mentioned?

The charter is also contradictory: it affirms first that indigenous people ought to have the same rights as other citizens:

“Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in dignity and rights to all other peoples”

“Article 2

Indigenous individuals and peoples are free and equal to all other individuals and peoples in dignity and rights”

And then outlines a string of special privileges only they, and not other citizens, would have.
For example:

“Article 11

States … shall not:
(a) Recruit indigenous individuals against their will in the armed forces.”

In other words, if a state imposed conscription on its citizens, anyone with “indigenous” status would automatically be exempt.

Again:

“Article 13

Indigenous peoples have the right to … maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites … and the right to repatriation of human remains.

States shall take effective measures, in conjunction with the indigenous peoples concerned, to ensure that indigenous sacred places, including burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected;…”

Other religious groups do not have the right to decide what are, for them, sacred places, without compensating the rest of society for the land so chosen. And governments certainly do not have the obligation to help preserve and protect them.

As to the repatriation of human remains, this right lapses in most Western countries after a relatively short time; a hundred years, for example, in England. It is a special privilege, then, if the right continues longer for designated indigenous people.

“Article 15

Indigenous children living outside their communities have the right to be provided access to education in their own culture and language.”

Citizens of other language groups do not have this right. Even citizens speaking one of the two official languages, in Canada, do not have this right. Even if desirable, who could afford it?

"Article 22

Indigenous people have the right to special measures for immediate effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. "

Other citizens hardly have the right to see their wealth continually grow, nor to “special measures.”

“Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and disabled persons;”

So even if all indigenous people are equal, some indigenous people are more equal than others.

“Article 28

Military activities shall not take place in the lands and territories of indigenous peoples, unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned.”

This clause in effect denies sovereignty to any non-aboriginal state over any designated aboriginal land. The right to a monopoly of force, to a military and to military action, is definitive of statehood. To at the same time require said state to spend money on the aboriginal territory is manifestly inequitable. It is a form of slavery—for non-aboriginals.

“Article 29

They have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their … human and other genetic resources…"

Besides the inequality of allowing some designated citizens “special measures,” surely this is scary in terms of human rights. Indigenous communities have ownership over their genes? Over other human beings? Doesn’t this imply that no aboriginal has the right to leave the control of his tribal authority?

“Article 38

Indigenous people have the right to have access to adequate financial and technical assistance, from States and through international cooperation, to pursue freely their political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development…”

I.e., they have the right to money from the larger government; yet they are largely not subject to its laws.

This is not equality. This is privilege. And it is the opposite of the very concept of human rights. It subverts the individual to the community.