|
|
||||||||||||||
![]() 渥太华华人网上社区 |
|
| 注册账号 | Blog | 论坛帮助 | 会员列表 | 搜索 | 今日新帖 | 标记版面已读 | 用户相册 |
![]() |
> 联大通过《土著人民权利宣言》[转贴] (看看都有哪些国家投了反对票) |
![]() |
|
|
主题工具 | 显示模式 |
|
[开坛元勋]
ID: 34773
|
联大通过《土著人民权利宣言》[转贴] (看看都有哪些国家投了反对票)
联大通过《土著人民权利宣言》
2007年09月14日 04:47:43 来源:新华网 新华网联合国9月13日电(记者 王湘江 刘历彬) 第61届联合国大会13日通过投票,以决议的形式通过了《土著人民权利宣言》,呼吁国际社会保障全世界大约3.7亿土著人的各项权利。 《土著人民权利宣言》强调保障土著人民保持和加强自身制度、文化和传统以及按照自身需要和愿望选择发展道路的各项权利,并保护土著人不受歧视。 当天的投票结果是:143票赞成、4票反对和11票弃权。澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和美国投了反对票。联大决议对成员国不具有强制约束力,但有道义上的影响力。 加拿大常驻联合国代表麦克尼说,宣言中有关土地和资源的语言过于宽泛、模糊,容易造成各种解读,从而与以前通过的相关协议产生矛盾,因此加拿大投了反对票。 联大主席阿勒哈利法对宣言获得通过表示欢迎。阿勒哈利法说,这份宣言对土著人民乃至推动整个人权事业的重要性不容忽视。但她同时警告说,尽管宣言的通过是一个进步,但土著人民仍然面临着被边缘化和极端贫困等挑战,他们经常被迫卷入冲突和土地争端,其生活方式乃至生存都受到威胁。 20多年前,联合国成立工作组专门研究如何改善土著人的状况。联合国人权理事会已经在去年6月29日通过了《土著人民权利宣言》。 |
|
________________________________
They will say whatever to get elected.
|
|
|
|
|
[封禁用户]
ID: 64304
|
联合国的决议老共现在开始当回事了? 请老共对照一下:
1948年12月10日,联合国大会通过第217A(III)号决议并颁布《世界人权宣言》: ...... 第十三条: 人人在各国境内有权自由迁徙和居住。 第十八条: 人人有思想、良心和宗教自由的权利;此项权利包括他的宗教或信仰的自由,以及单独或集体、公开工秘密地以教义、实践、礼拜和戒律表示他的宗教或信仰的自由。 第十九条: 人人有权享有主张和发表意见的自由;此项权利包括持有主张而不受干涉的自由;和通过任何媒介和不论国界寻求、接受和传递消息和思想的自由。 第二十条: 人人有权享有和平集会和结社的自由。 第二十一条: (一)人人有直接或通过自由选择的代表参与治理本国的权利。 (二)人人有平等机会参加本国公务的权利。 (三) 人民的意志是政府权力的基础;这一意志应以定期和真正的选举予以表现,而选举应依据普遍和平等的投票权,并以不记名投票或相当的自由投票程序进行。 第二十五条: 人人有权享受为维持他本人和家属的健康和福利所需的生活水准,包括食物、衣著、住房、医疗和必要的社会服务;在遭到失业、疾病、残废、守寡、衰老或在其他不能控制的情况下丧失谋生能力时,有权享受保障。 第三十条: 本宣言的任体条文,不得解释为默许任何国家、集团或人个有权进行任何旨在破坏本宣言所载的任何权利和自由的活动或行为。 |
|
|
|
[资深会员]
ID: 51536
|
Re: 联大通过《土著人民权利宣言》[转贴] (看看都有哪些国家投了反对票)
引用:
|
|
|
________________________________
"合理" 的訓練是鍛煉
"不合理" 的訓練是磨練 |
||
|
|
|
[开坛元勋]
ID: 34773
|
引用:
contractor 看看加拿大土著人是怎么说的。 ========================================= 1. Northern leaders slam Canada's rejection of UN native rights declaration Last Updated: Thursday, September 13, 2007 | 6:39 PM CT CBC News Aboriginal and northern leaders say Canada's opposition Thursday to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has marred the country's reputation in the international community. Canada was one of four countries that opposed the non-binding declaration, which recognizes indigenous peoples' basic human rights and rights to self-determination, language, equality and land, among other rights. It passed in the UN General Assembly on Thursday afternoon with only Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Australia dissenting. Eleven countries abstained. "It was a very happy occasion, on the one hand," said Mary Simon, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, who was in New York for Thursday's vote. "But, also as a Canadian, there was also a sense of disappointment because Canada voted against." Simon, whose organization represents Canada's Inuit, worked with other indigenous groups at the United Nations to draft the declaration during the mid-1980s and early '90s. Continue Article She described Thursday as a proud day for Inuit and indigenous peoples around the world, but said the negative votes puts a black mark on Canada and the other three dissenting governments. 'No sense of balance' in declaration: Strahl Speaking to CBC News Thursday afternoon, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl said Ottawa opposed the declaration because it lacks clear guidance for implementation and it does not recognize the need to balance indigenous rights with those of other groups. "There's no sense of balance between other rights of other people, of governments' obligations, of … existing treaties. None of that is acknowledged in the document," Strahl said. As for why Canada didn't sign onto a declaration that is non-binding, "it either means something or it doesn't," he said. "You don't sign on to something if you don’t mean it." Canada also opposed the declaration because it believes it conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the government believes already protects the rights of aboriginals. Federal government selling out, MP accuses But Western Arctic NDP MP Dennis Bevington said now that the majority of UN member countries approved the declaration, he will push Ottawa to support it as well. "For us not to stand up for aboriginal people around the world is really unfortunate," Bevington said. "It harms our international reputation and it puts in doubt the sincerity of our government in dealing with our own internal claims, agreements and arrangements with the aboriginal people of this country." Bevington also accused the federal government of selling out to multinational businesses that want access to resources on aboriginal lands around the world. Canada may also be afraid of giving aboriginal Canadians control over themselves, suggested Beverley Jacobs, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. "I think they're afraid of indigenous people having some measure of control of our own processes, of our own institutions, and dealing with our own laws within our own territories," said Jacobs, who recently met with Strahl over the issue. "I really believe that they're afraid of that." Jacobs said the newly passed UN declaration can be used to advance First Nation self-government within Canada. Simon said Inuit will use it to promote the ongoing enjoyment of indigenous people's fundamental rights and the betterment of living conditions in the Arctic. 2. Canada votes 'no' as UN native rights declaration passes Last Updated: Thursday, September 13, 2007 | 4:07 PM ET CBC News The international community has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, despite high-profile opposition from Canada and three other countries. ... Well-financed campaign But human rights and aboriginal groups claim Harper's Conservatives launched a well-financed campaign to derail the declaration and undermine a process supported by the previous Liberal government, saying Ottawa is trying to keep control of the vast resources on land claimed by aboriginal communities. The government's argument that the declaration goes against the Charter simply doesn't stand up, said Paul Joffe, part of the legal team that has been trying to convince countries to support the human rights of indigenous peoples. "We find that totally [incredible] because the declaration expressly states that in the exercise of the rights, every right has to respect the human rights of others," Joffe told CBC News on Thursday. "There has never been a very clear explanation of Canada's position." Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says Canada's refusal to support the declaration is an embarrassment. Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says Canada's refusal to support the declaration is an embarrassment. (CBC) Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine said the government is betraying Canada's worldwide legacy as a protector of human rights by going against a declaration Canadians helped draft. "In our view, it's a stain on Canada's reputation internationally," Fontaine told CBC News on Thursday in an interview from New York. "In this case, Canada is blowing against the very consistent position it has taken in the last few decades. … When they decided to go against the thing that they had supported for so long, it was inexplicable." Fontaine noted the declaration does not include any form of aboriginal veto and would not trump domestic law. "It's an aspirational document, neither convention nor treaty," he said. "We're talking here about minimum standards that relate to our right to self-rule of our territories." But Strahl said the government is moving ahead on "making an actual difference" in improving the daily lives of aboriginal Canadians, instead of offering "empty promises and rhetoric." He cited Tory initiatives such as including First Nations peoples in the Human Rights Act, improving water quality on reserves and providing a compensation package for victims of residential schools. |
|
|
________________________________
They will say whatever to get elected.
|
||
|
|
|
[开坛元勋]
ID: 34773
|
引用:
美国非法移民遇立法难题 每年20万人被遣返(图) http://www.sina.com.cn 2006年04月03日07:00 国际在线 ![]() 美国非法移民遇立法难题每年20万人被遣返(图) 3月10日,芝加哥爆发反对打击非法移民法案的游行示威,一位墨西哥移民挥舞着墨西哥国旗以示抗议。 美国社会移民之困 国际在线消息:当洛杉矶爆发声势浩大的反移民重典游行时,43岁的安东尼奥・加西亚没有参加示威,因为他还要挣钱养家。他刚找到一份帮忙翻修房屋的工作,报酬是每小时15美元。 加西亚是来自墨西哥奥卡西的非法移民,1985年来到洛杉矶市。每天早晨,他和30 多位拉丁裔非法移民都会等着别人来招零工。加西亚有两个已经读中学的孩子,因为生在美国,所以都是合法美国公民。但直到今天,已经在美国工作了20年的加西亚自己留在这个国家生活的权利正在受到威胁。 根据美国众议院通过的一项由共和党保守派议员提出的打击非法移民法案,像加西亚这样的未登记移民将被以“重罪”提起刑事起诉。 立法纷争 美国立法机构围绕非法移民问题至少出现了三派意见:保守派主张用重典,温和派支持赦免非法移民,白宫提出“客工计划”搞折衷,但目前谁都不愿支持谁。 事实上,美国立法机构围绕非法移民问题的分歧也到了难以调和的地步。 先是国会众议院通过了由科罗拉多州共和党议员坦克雷多提出的法案,要求把任何非法移民以及给他们提供帮助的人定为“重罪”,同时提议在美墨边境设立一道700英里长的隔离墙。 这一强硬议案立即遭到拉丁移民的强烈抗议。从不习惯张扬的拉丁裔走上街头,举行声势浩大的游行示威。 洛杉矶最大的西班牙文报纸《观点报》形象地称之为“沉睡的巨人已经醒来”。 但是,国会参议院则出现了不同的声音。共和党重量级参议员约翰・麦凯恩和资深民主党议员艾德华・肯尼迪共同草拟一份对移民有益的法案,提出赦免非法移民,给予公民地位。 为了避免党内因移民问题出现分裂,总统布什提出了一个“客工计划”,给未经登记的移民一种暂时身份,一旦为期3年的期限届满,客工必须重新申请新的身份。该计划一方面纳入了保守派支持的加强边境管理的内容,另一方面又准许美国企业继续使用廉价的移民劳工。 布什说:“其最核心的意义是,外来移民是一个国家成功和自信的象征。如果大量移民非法入境,没有人能够从中受益。如果移民都生活在社会阴影下,也没有人能够得到好处。”但是,这一中间立场似乎也不能赢得共和党两派政治力量的统一。麦凯恩的主要党内政治对手、参议院共和党领导人比尔・福斯特正在推行一项措施严厉的法案,要将非法移民和他们的雇主送上刑事法庭。 但参议院司法委员会主席、共和党人阿尔伦・斯佩克特明显偏向布什的“客工计划”,该计划虽然将非法入境定为“行为不端”,但允许外籍人以合法的“客工”身份进入美国境内,且让他们有机会获得公民身份。3月16日,斯佩克特也接受了肯尼迪和麦凯恩两位参议员所提的立法建议,支持麦凯恩-肯尼迪法案中的有关主张,即那些愿意工作、纳税和学习英语的非法移民应当作为公民融入美国社会。但是,即使参议院内部最终达成统一议案,还需要和众议院强硬议案进行协调。 目前,大部分民主党议员尚未参与到这场争斗中,但参议院民主党领导人哈里・雷德威胁说,将阻拦任何纯粹惩罚性的法案。民主党参议员希拉里・克林顿也搬出基督教教义来批驳对移民的强硬立场。她说,反移民法案不仅冷酷无情,而且有违基督教教义,根据这项法案,撒马利亚人和耶稣都将成为罪犯。 |
|
|
________________________________
They will say whatever to get elected.
|
||
|
|
|
[开坛元勋]
ID: 34773
|
引用:
1993年4月19日,一场大火焚毁了得克萨斯州近百名“大卫派”教徒武装据守了51天的大院。据当时的报道仅有9名教徒从火海中逃生,其余86名教徒包括约24名儿童下落不明。这是1978年圭亚那人民圣殿教913名教徒惨死于“森林事件”后的又一起教徒集体死亡的宗教悲剧。 这场大火是在美国联邦调查局4月19日早晨出动装甲车捣毁大卫派据点围墙并向里面施放催泪弹之后发生的。联邦调查局发言人里克斯说,当局之所以决定用催泪弹将教派成员赶出据点,是因为担心他们可能集体自杀。 据美国新闻界报道,“大卫派”头目考雷什曾告诉联邦调查局,如果联邦执法人员企图加害于他,那么执法人员将被“烈火吞没”。考雷什本人下落不明。 不过,据《华盛顿邮报》报道,两名逃离现场的信徒说,他们认为,政府坦克向据点的木结构建筑物施放瓦斯时,把屋内的煤油灯打翻,从而引起了这场大火。一个死里逃生的考雷什信徒说,他们不可能集体自杀,否则,他们不可能在据点戴上防毒面具。 大卫教派是从一个名叫“七日历险者教”的宗教团体中分裂出来的。“七日历险者教”的前身是一位保加利亚移民维克多・霍特夫于20世纪30年代在美国洛杉矶创立的“大卫七日历险者教”。 |
|
|
________________________________
They will say whatever to get elected.
|
||
|
|
|
[开坛元勋]
ID: 34773
|
引用:
《权力的声音――美国的媒体和战争》一书是美国密苏里新闻学院博士、美国蒙默斯大学助理教授张巨岩先生撰写的一部揭露美国媒体如何与政府、权力相勾结,竭力为富人利益和美国谋求世界霸权服务的言实之作。读完此书所带来的震撼力、冲击力超乎想象,不但进一步认识到美国新闻自由是虚伪的、骗人的,而且看清了美国的媒体是多么的“舆论一律”,进而强烈感到主张中国应以美国为样板搞新闻自由的人是多么荒唐可笑。任何一位关注中美关系和国际政治,希望了解美国宪政民主和新闻自由真相的人都不能不读此书。 作者在书中以大量确凿的原始材料和当事人、知情人提供的材料为依据,揭露了美国媒体在平日尤其是每临重大国际矛盾和对抗时,是如何与美国政府沆瀣一气,相互联手,遵从政府和权力的意志来传播主流意识形态,控制和引导国内舆论,进而影响世界舆论,改变别国人民的意志和看法的。 《美国宪法第一修正案》给了媒体很大的自治和言论自由权力,这是不容质疑的。然而媒体最关心的不是自治与否,不是言论自由与否,而是经济利益的大小。它为了追求最大的经济利益,就要利用宪法给予的这些权力,只去报道娱乐、犯罪等公众感兴趣的话题,而不会关注媒体责任感的下降。随着媒体集团的不断扩张,它也将这种商业主义和市场第一的价值观推向了全世界。纽约大学法学院教授伯特& #8226;纽莱在1997年2月11日接受《圣路易斯快报》的采访时说,美国的媒体大公司正在“以《宪法第一修正案》的文字来反对《美国宪法第一修正案》的精神”。他说:美国社会正在滑向这样一种情形:一小撮媒体集团,在利润最大化的驱动下,对人们的所见所闻施行巨大的控制。这就是说,对媒体而言,言论自由不能影响媒体的经济利益。 纯粹的言论自由在美国主流媒体也是不存在的。乔姆斯基和赫尔曼认为,美国主流媒体的新闻,至少要经过五重“过滤”。这五重“过滤”包括:一、必须是代表政治权力的官方新闻来源。二、利润的追求。三、广告的压力。四、媒体对外部反击的忧惧(如担心遭到诽谤诉讼)。五、反共的意识形态。 |
|
|
________________________________
They will say whatever to get elected.
|
||
|
|