What is multiculturalism and what are the different theories used to justify it? Are multicultural policies a threat to liberty and equality? Can liberal democracies accommodate minority groups without sacrificing peace and stability? In this clear introduction to the subject, Michael Murphy explores these questions and critically assesses multiculturalism from the standpoint of political philosophy and political practice. The book explores the origins and contemporary usage of the concept of multiculturalism in the context of debates about citizenship, egalitarian justice and conflicts between individual and collective rights. The ideas of some of the most influential champions and critics of multiculturalism, including Will Kymlicka, Chandran Kukathas, Susan Okin and Brian Barry, are also clearly explained and evaluated. Key themes include the tension between multiculturalism and gender equality, cultural relativism and the limits of liberal toleration, and the impact of multicultural policies on social cohesion ethnic conflict. Murphy also surveys the legal practices and policies enacted to accommodate multiculturalism, drawing on examples from the Americas, Australasia, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Multiculturalism: A Critical Introduction is an ideal starting point for anyone coming to the topic for the first time as well as those already familiar with some of the key issues.

Four United Nations entities today launched a new initiative to promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples, aiming to strengthen their institutions and ability to fully participate in governance and policy processes at the local and national levels.

The initiative, to be known as the UN Indigenous Peoples’ Partnership (UNIPP), was launched on the sidelines of the 10th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues under way at UN Headquarters.

[…]

Through the UNIPP partnership, the UN agencies also intend to prevent conflict with regard to ancestral land and use of natural resources. Many indigenous communities have witnessed the exploitation of those lands and resources by extractive industries – in many cases without regard to their rights. …Go to article.

Leo Shanahan

AN audit into the NSW government’s indigenous policy has found it inefficient and lacking accountability for the $2.65 billion spent on Aboriginal affairs each year.

The audit of the Two Ways Together plan introduced by the former Labor government in 2003 — a policy that costs about $40 million a year in administration alone — found a distinct lack of accountability among government agencies managing programs for an estimated 160,000 Aboriginal people in the state.

“The plan has failed to deliver the overall outcomes that were intended. Sadly, literacy and numeracy rates remain (poor), unemployment rates remain high, and living conditions only improved marginally,” said NSW Auditor-General Peter Achterstraat. “For example, the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is at least three times higher than the rate for all NSW residents, and hospital admissions for diabetes are also around three times higher.” …Go to article.

Randy Boswell

OTTAWA — There have been, throughout Canada’s past, numerous aboriginal MPs — Louis Riel among them — as well as cabinet ministers of First Nations and (since 2008) Inuit heritage.

But Wednesday’s unveiling of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s new federal cabinet marked the first time in Canadian history that two members of Canada’s indigenous communities — returning Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, an Inuk from Nunavut, and the new Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue, an Innu Nation leader from Newfoundland and Labrador — will sit together in the inner circle of Canada’s national government.

It was a landmark moment promptly acknowledged by the Ottawa-based Assembly of First Nations, which noted following the swearing-in ceremony that the “new record for cabinet members” was preceded in the May 2 federal vote by a “new record for MPs” elected from among Canada’s aboriginal people — seven in total, including five with the governing Conservatives. …Go to article.

Some northern indigenous groups want the Arctic Council to give them the right to vote and other powers that are currently reserved for member countries like Canada, the United States and Russia.

Groups like the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the Arctic Athabaskan Council want to have a greater say in the affairs of the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum that brings together eight northern nations.

Both groups are among six Arctic indigenous groups that are “permanent participants” in the Arctic Council, meaning they can take part in all forum meetings and voice their views to the eight member nations.

But that’s all they can do right now, said Jimmy Stotts, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Alaska.

“We don’t have a right to vote. That right is reserved to the states,” Stotts told CBC News from Nuuk, Greenland, where high-level officials from the eight Arctic Council nations will meet on Thursday.

“We would argue that we should have more decision-making authority.” …Go to article.

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 3, 2011 /PRNewswire/ – Industrial resource extraction is posing grave threats to the survival of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin and there are serious moral, legal and financial reasons for corporations to stem the tide of abuse and respect indigenous peoples’ rights, Amazon Watch said in a briefing paper released today.  

The paper, entitled The Right to Decide: The Importance of Respecting Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), makes the case that respecting indigenous peoples’ rights is not just a moral imperative, but also a business necessity for corporations to avoid financial risk, reputational damage, divestment campaigns, operational delays due to social unrest, multi-billion dollar legal liabilities, and loss of license to operate.  

In the wake of recent U.S. endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and as the historic multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Chevron for massive environmental contamination in Ecuador is set for a ruling, Amazon Watch is urging large-scale institutional investors and socially responsible investors to closely monitor corporate behavior in indigenous territory and demand that corporations only operate where they have the free, prior and informed consent of any indigenous peoples potentially affected by operations.

“As resource extraction increasingly moves into socially and environmentally fragile areas of the world, like the Amazon rainforest, companies must take affirmative steps to avoid violating indigenous peoples’ rights,” stated Gregor MacLennan, Peru Program Coordinator of Amazon Watch.  ”This report demonstrates that from both a human rights and a business perspective, companies should only operate with the free, prior and informed consent of any affected indigenous peoples.”… Go to article.

The United States has thrown its support behind the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The United States has thrown its support behind the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a non-binding, aspirational document, addresses many issues of grave concern to indigenous peoples in the United States and around the world.

In remarks at the White House Tribal Nations Conference, President Barack Obama announced U.S. support for the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people, and said, “The aspirations it affirms – including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of native peoples – are one[s] we must always seek to fulfill.” President Obama pointed to the more detailed statement about U.S. support for the Declaration and the administration’s work on indigenous issues. …Go to article.

THIS week I put forward two ideas for the constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians.

The first was obvious: that any successful proposition will need to be supportable by persons such as indigenous Australian elder Lowitja O’Donoghue and former prime minister John Howard. When asked by The Australian whether she could find common ground with Howard, O’Donoghue responded: “Why not? Yes we could.”

If the country succeeds with reconciliation it will be because of the wisdom and maturity of the nation’s elders.

My second idea was that if the expert panel appointed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard develops a proposal, it should first be subjected to a vote by indigenous Australians before a law for the alteration of the Constitution is proposed to parliament.

The Australian reported that O’Donoghue was not convinced about the idea, saying she was concerned it would cause division in the mainstream community.

Similarly, the new member of parliament Ken Wyatt, an indigenous Australian, has expressed strong opposition to my proposal. …Go to article.