Sage is correct to ask why the UNUDHR is not adequate. Indeed, Article 2 of the UNDRIP essentially says all there needs to be said "Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity." The UNDRIP appears to state that Indigenous people and communities have the same rights as everybody else, but then goes on to state that that they actually have more rights than everybody else.

Social Justice Commissioner should study up on how International Law evolves over time- Declarations, International Best Practice and the like develop, through precedent and a general international consensus, to become Customary Law or International Law. SJ rightly points out "that there is a regular line of progression from “in principle” to “persuasive” and finally to “authoritative”."

Finally, there's been a lot of focus on the idea that SJ is just an ignorant redneck trying to play the race card for misguided political purposes. But why would the enlightened Labor Government of New Zealand choose to veto the -revised- Declaration? Perhaps Rainier could suggest that the inbred Helen Clark likes to copulate with fluffy white farm animals...

It's no suprise it's only Australia, the USA, New Zealand and Canada who refused to sign.

They're virtually the only countries who would be affected by it!

In most other nations, the indigenous are the *majority*, so are already guaranteed all the rights they could want.

It's pretty easy for a nation to sign off on something that will have *no effect* on them!

This is all very interesting, however since people dispersed from the Tower of Babel and then spread throughout the world it might be said that the only place to which people are indigenous is Iraq. Elsewhere in the world people have arrived arrived by migration. If, as Reynard says, the Maoris only narrowly beat the Europeans to New Zealand, could we say the same about the Australian aborigines?

Spare us the religious crap, Mick V. According to most scientific experts, Aborigines first arrived in what is now Australia more than 40,000 years ago. Hardly narrowly beating the European invaders here, you'd have to agree!

CJ, you say, ‘spare us the religious crap’, but I was mainly having a dig at Raynard’s humanist creation story, one that we are continually force-fed. I just get a bit tired of it.

If you know of any firm evidence that the Australian Aborigines have been here for anything like 40,000 years, then let us know. The way the figure is thrown about, you’d think it was based on something solid. I suspect that they’ve been here no more than a few thousand years, and the few flaky dating methods that are used to say otherwise are but self-serving speculation.

You say, ‘most scientific experts’ believe that figure. Does that imply some don’t? Yet science is not done by democratic vote anyway, you’d have to agree.

Dear oh dear - Mick V's another biblical creationist, and he uses his belief in mythology to discredit in his own tiny mind the legitimacy of Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately for him, the vast weight of scientific evidence points to the antiquity of Aboriginal occupation of Australia - as I said, most experts agree on a figure of at least 40,000 years ago for the first arrival of ancestral Aborigines, but some estimates date back as far as 70,000 years. There are more technical references for these figures than you poke a stick at, but for Mick's benefit I'll start him off with the generalist Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating

However, I'm very doubtful that Mick is capable of understanding the science, given that his mind is hamstrung by his delusional faith.