This is all very interesting, however since Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and then spread throughout the world it might be said that the only place to which H. sapiens is indigenous is Africa. Elsewhere in the world H. sapiens has arrived by migration. The question is do earlier waves of migration from the same source (although by different paths) have different rights? This is even more of a question in New Zealand where the Maori only narrowly (in comparitive terms) beat the Europeans to the place.

This article contains a number of inaccuracies on the Declaration. In particular:

1. It is not a treaty - it is a Declaration, which means that it sets out aspirational standards rather than binding legal obligations;
2. The article refers to the original 1994 version of the text, rather than the 2007 version which was adopted by the General Assembly. The original 1994 version was significantly amended between 1994-2006, prior to a revised version being adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2006. The version finally adopted by the General Assembly included some further changes to this 2006 text. The revised text addressed the concerns of the overwhelming majority of governments. It is misleading to refer to the earlier version of the Declaration in this context.
3. Protecting the human rights of Indigenous peoples is not simply 'a delicate internal issue': everyone is entitled to the full protection of human rights law. This protection has sadly been lacking for Indigenous peoples globally in nearly all circumstances, as demonstrated by the fact that Indigenous peoples are the most discriminated against and enjoy the lowest socio-economic outcomes in nearly every country in which they live. The Declaration provides guidance on how to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to overcome this lack of enjoyment of rights.
4. The Declaration does not 'introduce another level of laws'.The recognition of rights in the Declaration elaborates on existing human rights obligations. It has been recognised that the Declaration does not create new or special rights for Indigenous peoples.

PART 2 FOLLOWING

PART 2

5. The Declaration does not create 'the potential for the Parliament to be overridden or neutered': it is about including Indigenous peoples in a partnership on a basis of mutual respect. As Article 46 of the Declaration sets out, all the provisions of the Declaration are to be read in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith. Hardly a recipe for neutering Parliament!
6. It is false to claim that the Declaration could 'disadvantage already stressed groups such as women and children within Indigenous communities'. This is made clear in Articles 22 and 34. Article 22 states that 'indigenous women and children (shall) enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination' and Article 34 states that practice of customs must strictly be 'in accordance with international human rights standards'.

There are many other factual and legal errors in the article. For a thorough analysis of the Declaration see Chapter 4 of the Social Justice Report 2006 which is tabled in the federal Parliament and visit fact sheets at: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/declaration/

Article 1 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The above declaration doesn’t add the caveat: this declaration doesn’t apply in PNG or Tierra del Fuego or Greece. The declaration is all-encompassing. Why is a further declaration needed? Has the UN run out of work?

After eliminating discrimination the UN now wants to oversee a recrudescence of that same human weakness — discrimination. Does the new UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People override The UN Declaration of Human Rights?

If ever there was a need for a Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People, the recent invasion of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory demonstrates that need.

The actions of Howard and Brough illustrate the fact that Australia is already divided on racial lines....What they have imposed on Indigenous people in the N.T. under the guise of "saving the little Children' they wouldn't dare pull on a 'white'community without a national outcry.

What 'Rights' Aboriginal had before white colonisation should be restored if ever Australia is to become a true Democracy, observing at least Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights ,then it wouldn't be necessary to proopose another 'specific' one.

Selwyn Johnston is well known to Indigenous people in the seat of Leichhardt - a seat he contests and regularly fails to make any headway in.

Check out his sad website and read his sad policies. Its hillbilly heaven!

And so it seems that desperation calls and out pops the good old race card. Black bashing is an art form in NQ and if good old Selwyn can be accredited with anything its his ability to dog whistle redneck sentiment.

And you have to remember that it gets rather hot in the tropics and it effects everyone differently.

Just bare this in mind when reading anything SJ writes.

Banjo pickin, chicken lickin, tosser.