Dear Editor:
In response to the letter of opinion “UN declaration racist” printed in your Jan. 5, issue, let me state how, this longest debated declaration in United Nations history is diametrically the exact opposite of Julian Hudson’s analysis.
When a person takes an article here and there for criticism, it is easy to totally mischaracterize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) for one’s own purpose. One should read the whole UN Declaration to understand the integrity of the text. I am curious, for example, why Mr. Hudson did not reference Article 46(3) which states: “3. The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.” (Emphasis added)
I would underscore two words in this key article (very similar to the Canadian Charter of Rights) equality and non-discrimination. Article 46 effectively protects all third party interests. Furthermore, this UN Declaration does not create new rights nor can it be used to take away the rights of another person. How you read racism; (which by the way is usually from a position of power) into that, one wonders.
It is a historical fact that when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948, Indigenous Peoples were excluded. What this UN Declaration does is to indeed declare that from Sept. 13, 2007, all of customary international laws, norms and standards now apply to us, as indigenous peoples, as the Maskwacîs Cree. I was there when we tried to convince the UN we were “peoples.” It took us eight years to convince the United States that we must be recognized as “human beings with human rights,” something Mr. Hudson has benefitted from or taken for granted.
Our elders, when we embarked on this journey in 1977 said, “All we want is respect and recognition.” It has taken us 30 years for the UN to declare, “Yes, you are human beings and you are equal to everyone else.” I was there when Secretary General Kofi Anan welcomed us into the UN family in July 2001. As one of four people selected to address the UN Human Rights Council on their celebration of the 60th anniversary of the UDHR, I thanked all nations who voted in support of anti-racism, and encouraged Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia to join and do likewise. Comparatively, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities took only seven years to conclude with adoption that Mr. Hudson did not mention nor call racist.
Hopefully you can see why I personally thanked Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canada in Berlin at a world conference the day after Canada changed its position on Nov. 12, 2010. I have likewise thanked President Barack Obama through his White House staff and I will do so personally on Jan. 21 at a meeting of the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C. It was a bold decision for the leaders of Canada and the US to reverse previous decisions to vote against the UN Declaration, a declaration to promote partnerships and better relations among all of us.
As to the articles, Mr. Hudson singles out as evidence of catastrophic implications:
Article 13 actually restates existing international laws, for example, the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights which are enjoyed by all others. Article 13 should be read together with the Articles on Education for full context. One relevant example, “retaining our own names for communities” is not new and is now affirmed by this article. I’m sure Mr. Hudson knows Ponoka is a Blackfoot word for elk and I dare say citizens of Ponoka see it as a matter of pride to be from Ponoka and not as racist. Likewise, Wetaskiwin is a Cree word meaning hills of peace or peace hills. Ironically, Hobbema is named after a Dutch painter from Amsterdam when our Cree name for our territory is Maskwacîsik — “Bear Hills.” These locales are indicative of an abundance of elk and bears in our area in olden times. We also have Cree names for other areas now called Lacombe, Red Deer, Calgary, Edmonton...
As to Article 31, Mr. Hudson again mischaracterizes the intent of the drafting. He must know that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) does not have a mechanism to protect our traditional knowledge, traditional medicines and cultural expressions. Given that lack of protection, large pharmaceutical companies have stolen traditional medicines, broken them into capsules for sale at huge profits. The give away of my drafting of this article is the “cultural heritage... traditional cultural expressions including ...sports and traditional games.”
Here I reveal my bias for sports and traditional games with two examples. We have traditional games that are still played today that teach principles of aerodynamics (with feathers) and mathematics. When one looks to the Encyclopedia of Traditional Games, the North American Indian Games highlighted are our “rodeo games;” games that require skill, speed and horsemanship. A second example is a recent incident involving the sport of lacrosse (French name) long held as the national sport of Canada. We again have our own word in Algonquin bagatelle (very similar to Cree) baggattaway that is “a game with a ball.” The Haudenasaune/Mohawks call it the creators game because as a gift of the Great Spirit, you are blessed through it with physical fitness.
At this year’s World Lacrosse Championships the “Iroquois Nationals” lacrosse team were ranked fourth in the world going into the tournament. The first game was against the host country, England, but England would not allow the team to play by preventing their travel. Here is a contribution Mr. Hudson, the sport of lacrosse. An indigenous sport of great significance, is now played in more than seventy countries in the world. However, the originators of the sport cannot play at the world championships. Why? There is no protection for these cultural expressions and cultural manifestations. UN records will show I submitted this article for inclusion to declare that these must be protected by Article 31 so ongoing violations do not continue.
Finally, the military, Article 30. Given that we have a treaty relationship among us, which reminds me, you too Mr. Hudson are a treaty beneficiary. Treaties are about a partnership. It was treaty violations that initiated the international work by the Four Nations of the Maskwacîs Territory. Treaty No. 6. is a peace treaty. One of the international law principles of treaty making is mutual consent. If any military activity is to occur within a territory covered by treaty, especially a peace treaty like ours, mutual consent is necessary. Our forefathers’ dream was one of peaceful co-existence. The problem you highlight is to the definition of public interest. For far too long, we have been excluded from the discussion. Now read this article together with Article 37 that calls on us to honour and respect treaties — both of us.
In conclusion, we did not participate for more than three decades to do this work to promote racism. Indeed, it was the exact opposite. A fundamental pillar of our work has been “Miyowahkotowin” — Cree for “having good relations.” I would urge readers to study the UN Declaration in its proper light — begin with the interpretation article. To attack the UN as “one of the most corrupt organizations on earth”; to attack native society as having made no contribution is actually an attack on Canada as one member of the United Nations. Throughout the 25 years of debate, every argument Mr. Hudson raised was carefully thought through by the nations and each time the arguments proposed by Mr. Hudson failed. I do not disagree that the UN has shortcomings, yet Canada recently sought a seat on its Security Council and billions around the world depend on the UN to protect their fundamental human rights. By the way, you can only be nominated by a state to sit on a UN body. Now we can be counted in the circle, no longer to be marginalized, but to be considered equal. A two-class citizenship is the very thing that the UN Declaration prohibits and one of the ways it does is by incorporating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and its pre-emptory norms of anti-discrimination. Implementing the UN Declaration is about “lifting each other up.” It’s a framework for partnership and mutual respect.
Together we can make it work as a solution and we are prepared to continue contributing to a better world.
Hai Hai for better relations.
International Chief
Dr. Wilton Littlechild