Draft: General Legislation 2| Indigenous protection act

This legislation aims to protect and promote minority culture and population, as jewels of the Old World Union, from complete extinction or decimation due to government neglect, direct action or due to natural catastrophes and help revive them to a sustainable state.

I.
a. For the sake of this legislation, an "Indigenous people" is defined as "A group of people or society with genetic or cultural similarities who are either not a state's core nationality, are a national minority with or without autonomous rights or are a stateless people living within or without of a state's borders."
b. For the sake of this legislation, a "minority" is defined as "An ethnically or culturally close group of people making up less than 15% of a country's population while not the state's core nationality."

II.
a. This legislation forbids any nation from attempting to reduce or take away the cultural autonomy of an internal or external indigenous population or minority group as long as parts of said culture is not against the declaration of human rights.
b. This legislation forbids any nation from trying to deny any indigenous group or minority from political activity as long as said political activity isn't violent or extremism and condemned by an international court.

III.

a. This legislation forbids any nation from attempting to nationalize land belonging to an indigenous people with cultural or political autonomy within the state without prior consent of the leadership structure of those people.
b. This legislation forbids any nation:

From attempting to nationalize land belonging to any indigenous people outside of the state without prior consent of the leadership structure of those people.
If no such leadership exists, the land cannot be affected by any nation until such a structure is created.

About the second part of III.b.,if the indigenous people refuses to create this leadership,is there any other way to nationalize their region if they agree on it?

To agree on it, they need to create a clear leadership that is supported by a vast majority of the population along. What form this leadership takes, be it absolute, democratic or any other is irrelevant as long as there is majority support from the people at the time of the leadership's creation. If they refuse or can't create a leadership structure, international help is to be offered in creating such a structure. If refused, they are to be left alone in their lands.

OOC: Wow, I should really add that to the legislation XD ^

I see a problem in the third article, mainly that expropriation is necessary for the good of the whole society.

That's applicable to ordinary citizens but if the land is historically theirs, it should be untouchable unless they consent to it.

OOC: We do not want a situation like in the US right now, do we? Razz

Laeria and Vold wrote:: That's applicable to ordinary citizens but if the land is historically theirs, it should be untouchable unless they consent to it.

OOC: We do not want a situation like in the US right now, do we?

I refuse to order my citizens into different classes. If you get the rights of a citizen, you need to attend the duties of a citizen.

OOC: Don't twist my words Wink

We're not talking about any ordinary citizens. This is about a minority which is threatened with loosing it's cultural identity due to the pressure of the state they live in. Steps must be taken to curb this pressure. They are already at a disadvantage to the rest of the populace so this isn't giving them some special rights. It's equalizing the situation.

OOC: I see this step too radical. Expropriation is necessary, so a group of people can't extort the whole society. And what do you mean by "historically theirs"? Land owned for 1, 10, 100, 10000 years by 1, 10, 100, 10000 people?

Laeria and Vold wrote:: To agree on it, they need to create a clear leadership that is supported by a vast majority of the population along. What form this leadership takes, be it absolute, democratic or any other is irrelevant as long as there is majority support from the people at the time of the leadership's creation. If they refuse or can't create a leadership structure, international help is to be offered in creating such a structure. If refused, they are to be left alone in their lands.

OOC: Wow, I should really add that to the legislation XD ^

Sorry,but I can't agree on this part.The rest is reasonable though.

OOC:
Draak - By "historically theirs" I mean before the foundation of the state that absorbed their land. It's not about extortion. Ideally the government shouldn't even count with building or mining anything there at all. They need to be given a buffer or protection from the state.

To both of you- How about instead of "derp, I dun agree" you say how you would adapt it Wink

Draak, how would you get rid of the expropriation protection while keeping them protected? And LC - You might mention why you don't like the idea of protecting indigenous people outside your borders from external aggression. Or . . . wait . . . is it because you did exactly that in your last war? Wink

Laeria and Vold wrote:: OOC:
Draak - By "historically theirs" I mean before the foundation of the state that absorbed their land. It's not about extortion. Ideally the government shouldn't even count with building or mining anything there at all. They need to be given a buffer or protection from the state.

To both of you- How about instead of "derp, I dun agree" you say how you would adapt it Draak, how would you get rid of the expropriation protection while keeping them protected? And LC - You might mention why you don't like the idea of protecting indigenous people outside your borders from external aggression. Or . . . wait . . . is it because you did exactly that in your last war?

Bingo!
Don't you see I wanna expand?The only options for me to do that are either :
a ) Invading savages
b ) Invading you
I'm sure you prefer the first option,right? Very Happy

OOC: The same way the average citizen is protected. If a mutual agreement can't be made, a court decides whether the expropriation is lawful and how high the recompansation will be.

OOC: But they are not a average citizen. They are at a disadvantage to the other population. This is positive discrimination. And I'm not talking about "any land owned by any indigenous member anywhere in the country". I am talking about land specifically designated as the indigenous population's land.

OOC: I hate positive discrimination... Don't be under the impression that i want to expropriat land so i can build hotels there... It's about for example the construction of infrastructure, railways and highways. I would get even more specific. If the alternative route would cost more than double the amount.

OOC: Depends on the situation for me Smile

In some cases it has negative effects while it's very necessary in other cases. As to the expropriation, just like you would not build a road through an area of endangered wildlife (At least I hope you wouldn't XD ), you wouldn't build it through a "reservation" for these people. How would you resolve the situation while keeping them protected?

» Draft: General Legislation 2| Titles and Offices in the Old World Union
» General Legislation 1| On prohibited and allowed governments on the Old World Union
» General Information about Norimco