Do indigionus people deserve special protections?

Answer 1

No they do not...

Argument 1: Equality and InequalityWe argue that special protections are not necessary in ensuring the welfare and protection under the law of indigenous peoples firstly because:

v Reason: Indigenous peoples should be treated with equality, and not preferential treatment. They should have the same rights and opportunities as everybody else.

v Addition Information: Article 2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples clearly states that "Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals". (United Nations General Assembly, 2007)

v Example: In Canada, the majority of Inuit and Indian peoples, under the Indian Act have a say in what happens within their community, they have a say in the government, they pay taxes, they have access to health care, and they have equal access to the welfare state, including child tax benefits, old age securities and employment insurances, as well as a range of other government run programs. (CanadaGOV)

v Analysis: As we can see, in Canada the indigenous peoples are treated as equals to the Canadian people, getting very little 'special protection'. These indigenous peoples thrive and have access to all the government schemes Canadians do, whilst retaining their culture and traditions.

v Link: From this we can see that it is NOTnecessary to give 'special protection' to indigenous peoples in order to ensure their welfare and protection under the law.

Argument 2: Multiple Cultural IdentitiesSecondly, we argue that special protections aren't necessary in order to protect the cultural identities of indigenous peoples:

v Reason: We point out that it is possible, and incredibly common for a person to have multiple cultural identities. We must acknowledge individual multiculturalism.

v Example: I will give a personal example of this to show you what I mean: I consider myself an Aberdonian. I consider myself Scottish. I also consider myself English. I consider myself British. I also consider myself European. Also I consider myself 'Western'.

v Analysis: As we can see a person doesn't have just one cultural identity, let's use the indigenous Basque people of Western Europe as another example. The Basques could consider themselves not only as being Basque, but also as being Spanish, French, European and 'Western'.

v Link: We can see it is again not necessary to grant special protections to indigenous peoples in order to preserve their identity, as they can subscribe to the cultural identity of the land that they inhabit in addition to their indigenous cultural identity.

Argument 3: Societal TensionFirstly, we will address the tension which is created by special protections.

v Reason: The 'special protections', which often segregate indigenous peoples from non-indigenous peoples, have the unfortunate effect of making non-indigenous peoples see them as inferior, and not belonging, often resulting in racism, discrimination and violence on either side.

v Example: Indigenous peoples in Australia are 11 times more likely to commit a crime (News Australia), and are more likely to be the victims of a violent attack than non-indigenous peoples. Racist attacks are becoming increasingly common in many regions of Australia:

CTV-news in early 2009 reported the following attack:

"Questions have been raised about racial intolerance after a group of New Year's partiers beat an aboriginal man. Not long after the incident occurred early on New Year's Day, photos of a 21-year-old aboriginal man were posted on an online website for car enthusiasts. The photos which were posted, claimed to show the aboriginal man beaten, bloody and lying on the ground. The photos appeared under the heading 'Us: One - Dirty Indian Thief: Nil.'" (CTVNews)

Australian-news.com reported another incident from 2006:

"On Saturday night last week bouncer John Rukuata was working at a nightclub in Perth's Northbridge area when he was viciously attacked by up to 12 Aboriginal teenagers.

He was so savagely bashed that both eyes are just slits in a swollen purple face. Doctors have told Mr Rukuata that he may lose sight in his left eye. Two Aboriginals have been arrested over the attack." (Australian News)

Australian-news also reported the followed incident:

"Mr Robinson made the fatal mistake of flagging down a car driven by Aboriginal Jeremiah Charles Farmer. Farmer and his gang got out of the car. A second carload of Aboriginals also stopped. The gang viciously attacked Mr Robinson who fell to the ground. He was then repeatedly kicked by several attackers as he lay motionless on the ground.

Farmer dragged Mr Robinson's body off the road before speeding off. Mr Robinson did not regain consciousness. He died in hospital on Christmas morning. At the trial of Farmer and three youths, prosecutor Dave Dempster told the court that the Aboriginal gang later stopped and bragged to each other about attacking a white. The West Australian public was horrified when the gang walked free from court on a legal technicality."

v Analysis: As we can see there is often racial tension between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, which is increasingly leading to violent attacks on both sides.

v Link: We argue that these tensions are encouraged as a result of the special protections, which segregate indigenous peoples, distancing them from non-indigenous peoples. We argue that without special protections more indigenous peoples would integrate into the rest of society, relieving social tensions caused by each side viewing the other as 'different' and 'not belonging'.

Argument 4: Negative Effects on Indigenous PeoplesSecondly, we will address the negative effects 'special protections' can have on the indigenous peoples:

v Reason: As we have argued many times 'special protections' distance indigenous peoples from the rest of society.

v Example: Only 22% of aboriginal people in Australia have at least one secondary education qualification, and only 4% of all aboriginal people in Australia have a university qualification (GOVAustralia). An Indigenous family, on average in Australia will earn 60% of what a non-indigenous family of the same number would earn.

v Analysis: It is clear that indigenous people are significantly worse off than their non-indigenous counterparts.

v Link: We argue that this is caused by indigenous people being differentiated and separated from the rest of society by 'special protections', and as such not having the same opportunities as non-indigenous peoples.

Argument 5: Special Protections Not Improving Lives of Indigenous PeoplesI would like to follow on from some of the points made by my colleague:

v Reason: Some of the special protections are in place to try and improve the living and economic conditions of indigenous peoples. We argue that they are not very successful in their goal and that it is time to try different approaches, involving more integration of indigenous peoples into non-indigenous society.

v Example: In addition to the educational and income statistics which were previously given I would like to add some more statistics, again involving indigenous Australians. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare indigenous peoples are 6 times more likely to have heart problems and diseases than non-indigenous people. They are ten times more likely to have tuberculosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. They are five times more likely to have mental disorders, and two times more likely to have mental diseases. They are 3 times more likely to have a respiratory disease, and are three times more likely to commit suicide than their non-indigenous counterparts (Australian Institute for Health and Welfare). In addition to this, indigenous communities in Australia are ridden with drug and alcohol problems.

v Analysis: It is clear that special protections are failing to improve the living and economic conditions of indigenous peoples.

v Link: As such, we believe that it is time to try different approaches.

Argument 6: Treatment of Women in Indigenous SocietiesWe argue against special protections for indigenous peoples because of the treatment of women in indigenous societies.

v Reason: The treatment of women in indigenous societies is horrific. Rape and violent abuse are common occurrences in many indigenous communities. Often the perpetrator is the victim's husband, father, brother or another male relative. The reasons are varied, but sexual lust, punishment and displays of dominance are the primary ones.

v Example: An indigenous woman in Australia is 12 times more likely to be the victim of sexual assault than non-indigenous woman in Australia. Even more staggeringly, indigenous women in Australia are 45 times more likely to be violently attacked by their partners. The issue is common in almost all indigenous Australian communities (Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault). These shocking statistics are based only upon the cases that we know about, there are many more unreported cases and we know little about the issue of the sexual abuse of children in indigenous communities.

v Analysis and Link: To further increase the horror of this situation, this indigenous culture which accepts and tolerates the abuse of women is being preserved by the special protections which were intended to improve the lives of indigenous peoples! With this knowledge the propositional team are against special protections for indigenous peoples.

Argument 7: Indigenous Peoples Who Have Integrated Into Non-indigenous Society

An idea which has been recurring throughout the propositional case is that the removal of special protections for indigenous peoples will lead to further integration of indigenous peoples into the rest of society, which we argue is to their advantage. Our first speaker showed that indigenous peoples could still hold onto their culture, history and identity if they integrated into our modern society. Our second speaker and I showed the tensions and problems which would be resolved if indigenous peoples were to integrate into the rest of society. But, we would now like to present you with the stories of several indigenous people who have integrated into the rest of their society and have been very successful, whilst retaining their cultural identity and history:

"John Herrington, a Native American, graduated with a bachelor degree in applied mathematics from the University of Colorado Springs in 1984, he then served in the American navy, becoming a test pilot after three deployments in the pacific. John was selected by NASA to become an astronaut in 1996, and flew his first space mission in 2002. John spent 13 days and 19 hours in space. To honour his Native American heritage, John, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, carried a Chickasaw flag on his space trip. The flag had been presented to him by the Chickasaw Nation Governor."

"David Unaipon was an Australian Aboriginal. He was a preacher, inventor, writer and philosopher. David was known as the Australian Leonardo da vinci for his mechanical ideas, which included drawings for a helicopter design based on the principle of a boomerang and his research into the secret of perpetual motion. David wrote many articles for newspapers and magazines, particularly the Sydney Daily Telegraph. David was a passionate human rights activist. Today, he is featured on the back of the Australian $50 note in commemoration."

These are just two of the many examples of how indigenous lives can be radically improved by integrating into the rest of society, whilst retaining their heritage and cultural identity

The ultimate 'special protection' which could be given to indigenous peoples (and which many indigenous people call for) is national independence. This means the creation of new countries for indigenous peoples. For example, in Australia large indigenous communities would no longer be part of Australia and subject to the Australian government, but would become their own country, and have their own government. As our first speaker stated we are firmly against the ultimate special protection of independence.

Argument 8: Unityv Reason: We are against the creation of indigenous states because we believe that united we are strong. Our society is built upon unity and acceptance, and creating new indigenous nations has division at its core. As we have argued multiple times, it is better to move towards integrating and accepting indigenous people into our society, rather than separating ourselves from them. Argument 9: Where to draw the line?v Reason: We are also against the creation of new indigenous states because we believe that it is based upon an absurd principle.

v Example: "If indigenous groups W, X, Y and Z separate from the primarily non-indigenous country A because they are a different people and deserve to govern their own country, called country B. You could then justify splitting country B into two new countries; C and D. X and W consider themselves different from Y and Z and so create country C. Y and Z consider themselves different from X and W and so create country D. You could then justify the creation of two new countries, E and F. X consider themselves a different peoples from W and so form country E. Z consider themselves a different peoples from Y and so form country F. You now have five countries; non-indigenous country A and the indigenous countries C, D, E and F."

v Analysis and Link: This is an absurd situation, and I'm sure many of you find it amusing, but it is perfectly justified under the logic used to argue for the creation of new indigenous countries.

Argument 10: Self-determination in a Democracyv Reason: Of course, we believe in everybody's right to have a say in the governing of their community and country, but we believe that indigenous peoples can have this essential right without forming their own nation or requiring special protections. This firstly happens in the obvious way of voting and standing in a government election. It can happen by voting and standing for local community council elections. If the indigenous community is large enough (as in the case of the Basque community), indigenous communities can also have their right to self-determination through devolved houses.

v Example: In Spain some power of governing has been given to the indigenous Basque people, the Basques have their own devolved parliament. In Canada, America, Australia and many other countries, all indigenous peoples have the right to vote in elections and to stand in elections, and many indigenous communities have their own community councils to govern their area.

v Analysis and Link: As we can see it is not necessary to give indigenous peoples the special protection of state independence. Indigenous peoples have their right of representation and self-determination in many countries, without resorting to this special protection.