John Robinson: A statement that negates itself - the meaningless and contradictory UNDRIP

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (a “non-binding, aspirational declaration of the General Assembly of the United Nations”)[1] has been proclaimed as a basis for providing legitimacy for the further separation of New Zealand into two peoples, two races.[2] 

This has formed a key part of the framework for a complete transformation of our system of government.  Following the He Puapua report to Government, in July 2021 the Minister for Maori Development in the Jacinda Ardern Labour government, Willie Jackson, announced “the next steps in developing a national plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.   The process followed was based on a separation, with overarching rights to Maori.  “Government will consult with Maori over the next few months before engaging with the wider public on indigenous rights, in the wake of He Puapua controversy.”[3]  The discussion was not to ask whether we want separation by race – that was set down as a basic requirement for the future, and the process was organised to provide greater rights to Maori.

Influential groups have seized upon the Declaration to support their parallel efforts to bring about a revolution to effective tribal rule.  In one example, a 2022 Constitutional Conference Korero at Auckland University was publicised as a national hui “to provide the technical and legal support for constitutional transformation in Aotearoa New Zealand.”  where experts “will present arguments and options for constitutional transformation to realise Maori rights in te Tiriti o Waitangi, He Whakaputanga and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”[4]  Again the Declaration is held to be central to racial separation.

So, what is the meaning, the message of the Declaration?  What is this document that is called upon to guide revolutionary change?

The first point to note is the absence of a definition of what ‘indigenous’ means, of just who are these ‘indigenous peoples’.  Given that silence, we don’t know what this is all about, and can only guess (while politicians and racist activists will assume whatever suits their ideology and an expansion of their power).  Only a fool will agree to conform to directions that lack any meaning.

While much is unclear, the Declaration itself includes a statement that identifies and refuses to accept the racism – the separation between the ‘indigenous’ and other peoples – that underlies the whole document.

 “Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.”[5] 

Whatever one might imagine ‘indigenous’ peoples to be, they are certainly understood to be groups of people defined “on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences” (think of the cultural differences of tikanga written into New Zealand law).  The Declaration is here defined, and condemned, as “racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.”

A second clear rebuttal of the Declaration, similarly stated in the Declaration itself, is the refusal of such an attack on equality and the unity and sovereignty of each nation.

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”[6]

Such a breakup of states, a division based on this uncertain ‘indigenous’ separation is prescribed in the Declaration, as in one of many examples: “Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.”[7]

Once a group of citizens (here in New Zealand, the Maori) has rights over “their lands”, the nation is split apart.  The statement implies that all others living in any such area have lost their rights.

There is one further far more fundamental point to recognise here.  The requirement to conform to the UN Charter must include acceptance of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the first article is “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.  This, too, is destroyed when one group has priority and different special rights over all aspects of culture and government.

Here in New Zealand, where government intention is to apply the Declaration, we find again no definition of the meaning of this key word, ‘indigenous’.  A legal definition of ‘Maori’ does exist, but is meaningless – “A Maori is a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person”.[8]  A definition of a Maori as a Maori is nonsense.  What it does say, however, is that there is a “Maori race”, so that a belief in race is written into New Zealand law.  This country has declared itself to be racist.

We are left with a UN Declaration that is contradictory and has no meaning, and with Government policies based on that document.  It is past time to move away from such harmful and confused doublespeak.

It might be possible to search and define meanings of ‘indigenous’ and ‘Maori’ to suite the purpose,[9] but there would be to miss the point.  Here we are today, living in New Zealand, needing to combine and organise a fair government system for us all.  It does not matter one jot whether any one person’s great-great-great (etc.) grandparents were here first.  We are all born equal.  End of story.  That must be the challenge, the demand, on every political candidate, of every party: will they sign up to the first article of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?  “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Then all aspects of inequality and racism must be gotten rid of.  So much must go: separate seats and wards, separate education and health systems, the Waitangi Tribunal and the resultant settlements, the whole caboodle.

---

[1] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf  This is referred to below as ‘the Declaration’.

[2] This 2007 Declaration was refused by the Helen Clark Labour government but signed by the John Key National government in 2010.

[3] https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/07/united-nations-declaration-indigenous-rights-consultation-begins-in-wake-of-he-puapua-controversy.html

[4] constitutionalkorero2022@auckland.ac.nz

[5] Declaration, page 2

[6] Declaration, Article 46

[7] Declaration, page 3

[8] Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974

[9] Such as from the OED. as “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native” and “not from another place”.  https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/blog/great-letter-to-luxon-by-die-hard-national-supporter-i-will-not-be-voting-for-you-this-year-and-here-is-why/

Dr John Robinson is a research scientist, who has investigated a variety of topics, including the social statistics of Maori.  His recognition of fundamental flaws in the interpretation of nineteenth century Maori demographics led him to consider the history of those times in several books.