Religious Truth Revealed By God Himself!

i

 

A Very Serious Matter of Racial Profiling and Discrimination

$$$$$$$ ~ 8 December 2015 at 0930Am - Part 18D ~ $$$$$$$

500 Pearl Street - New York, New York 10001

Nearby Mayor DeBlassio of New York Cities Office - City Hall

A - Train to Chambers Street or 4 - Train Bklyn. Bridge - City Hall

In God We Trust 

72

Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom, Justice, Equality, and Unity! 

Holy Qur'an

56:86, 87

sites.google.com/site/randomracism/home/update-latest-on-marshal-case/lawrence-blackmailer-humphrey-turncoat 

$457,777,888.99

 

Marshals Case

Psychotropic Medications irreversible Nerve Damage

Attempted Case Resulted in Jail Reversible

Click this Link 

For the Latest on the U.S. Marshal one more innocent one Gun to Head Court Case! 

sites.google.com/site/randomracism/home/update-latest-on-marshal-case 

Dr. Shamsuddin A. Abdul-Hakim Bey, M.H.S.

Moorish Holistic Scientist

with The Moorish American Nationals

1600 Sedgwick Avenue 

Bronx, New York

1-347-360-0922 

1-347-928-8804

sa.abdulhakimbey@gmail.com

At the time of this U.S. Marshals incident on March 14, 2012 between 11:06Am and 12:15Pm I had on a solid suede leather red Islamic Kufi, with the medallion of the Moorish American Nationals. This in addition to other ordinary clothes I was wearing where I had in my pockets the business cards, and wallet that was said to be mistaken as a gun in my pocket.

 

A Very Serious Matter Needing Investigation

            An Incident involving alleged U.S. Marshalls saying they were from the Bronx, New York 44th Pct. Special Tactical Task Force Unit occurred to me personally (Dr. Shamsuddin A. Abdul-Hakim Bey). On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 between the hours of 11:15Am and 12:06Pm, three alleged U.S. Marshalls approached me for an illegal search and seizure. I was on my way to check my mailbox, and the three officers of which one who would not after this incident give me his name (other than Officer – Pena) as he called himself pointed a gun to my head while all three refused at anytime to produce a {Shield}. They asked me as I was coming from my mailbox getting ready to get back on my buildings elevator; I was ordered to lie down on the ground while their guns were still pointed at my head.

            They then as I laid there began to search my pockets and after searching finding, nothing of interest to them told me to stand up with my hands at my side. They told me that they thought the wallet I had in my pocket was a gun. {Similar to the Ahmad Dialo incident not far from my residence in the Bronx where a few years back he was killed.}

Upon standing, I had another item still in my pocket which was some business cards. They asked me with their guns still drawn what else was in my pocket. I told them to go ahead and search my pocket; they asked me the same question again, what was in my pockets. I told them again, to go ahead and search my pocket, then they went ahead deciding to do so and finished emptying my pockets. All the while their guns were pointed at my head, and witnesses in my building being my friends, neighbors, super, assistant super, and my buildings security officer (who could testify of my total and complete innocence by character of not being ever involved in any incidents in my building) looking on.

            These three officers came and attacked me at random, in front of witnesses with their guns out. I must say that this entire incident was caught on my buildings interior and exterior cameras. I must say as well that I have a clean record of innocence as well with No criminal or other activity of any kind on any record in my recent years of history. It must be said that when I asked for their information (these three supposed U.S. Marshall Officers) two of which ran out of my buildings lobby quickly, refused to give me anything. I would like to state here that I am a Moorish American National. 

Me Trying to Get a Police Report on this Matter

  1. I tried to get a report of this incident to be filed in the 46th Police Precinct of my neighborhood district, on Friday, March 16, 2012 between 8:15Pm and 8:26Pm by calling 911. In following up to see if one had been filed since nothing was given me I found that nothing had been filed at the particular time of between 10:00Pm and 12:17Am.
  2.  This was between the dates of  {March 16th  going into March 17, 2012 Friday going into Saturday} after having talked with my sister and aunt whom my aunt was very vehement about being sure this was done. My aunt even told me to go directly to the 46th Police Precinct which I was vehemently hesitant to do because of what happened. 
  3. At around 1:30Am police came again and this time distinctly outright refused to give me any kind of a police report pertaining to what I had told them about this incident on March 14, 2012 Wednesday between {11:15Am and 12:06Pm}. They told me to call the 44th precinct because I had suggested to {Officer Pena, the gun man who pointed his gun to my head on March 14th. I had asked Pena if he were out the 46th local precinct or the 44th precinct [since I knew that the 44th precinct had a tactical task force there. Officer Pena agreed that he was out of the 44th precinct based on my suggestion to him about it. Upon calling the 44th precinct they told me that my resident address where this actually had happened was out of their district, and to go back to the 46th precinct to see if it would a report for me. This happened on or around Saturday, March 17, 2012. Then, at around 2:24Am Saturday approximately, the same officers who came at 1:30 came again and refused to help me with any report. These officers the ones that came around 1:30Am and 2:24Am said that No crime was committed in having had a gun pointed to my head on Wednesday, March 14th 2012 by Officer Pena. And, the others who said they were U.S. Marshalls, and did not produce any shields when I asked them about it, with their finding that I was clean and innocent of anything that they stopped me for on my way to my elevator trying to go back upstairs minding my own business being then randomly attacked by them (U.S. Marshalls).
  4. It should be stated all the while that I did not know if they were real U.S. Marshalls or not, because they did not produce any shields.
  5. Contacts Here to Become Known to those Nations

    of the

    United Nations

    That May Save Your Very Life 

    Click this Link - Please!  

    http://sites.google.com/site/jobseekersneeded/

    &

    Public Death Plans  

    U.S. Government and FEMA Caskets

    Click this Link  

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zSDdm-SHI

ELIHU PLEASANT-BEY exhumingofanation
 

Alisha, amirheru9, Amun, Casey, Christopher, Corey, Dauud, David, Donald, Elizabeth, Bonner-Bey, Ferguson, Grand, Hagar, info, Ishma-El, Jason, Jewel, Jose, Joseph, Joshua, Kami, Kalif, Kaundra, Kenneth, Ken


Islam Moorish Americans;
Sometimes a picture is worth thousands of words.  We present the Strife of the Moorish American Nation as redeemed by Noble Drew Ali. Be free to use it in any education manner to uplift our people.
This graphic design, created by Swift Angel #2, has been approved by the Moorish American Government. 

 

Always follow our Holy Prophet Noble Drew Ali.  Re-read His Prophesies, open your eye and see the signs of the times.  Noone can free us but us.  Stop putting the Europeans on your brothers .  And stop taking your affairs into his courts; There is no freedom for a forieng National in the courts of another government.  You must form from among your selves your government to insure your prosperity.  No Moorish American is free enough to slander another Moorish American.  THINK Moors THINK.  All soveregn powers are in your Theocratic Government, otherwise you remain powerless as long as you are Nation-less.  These are trying hours dear Moors and we will only be saved when we save ourselves by THINKING.
Ask yourselves basic questions:

How did the Prophet BEGAN to uplift the MOORISH AMERICANS? By teaching them to BE Moorish Americans.
What is our free National Name?  Moorish Americans.
Who said "The Prophet did not bring that"?  Fools stuck in mental slavery.
What did He bring? Drew ali brought his People "Everything it takes to save a NATION." (This means He brought us EVERYTHING that every other nation has)
Are the Moorish Americans descendants of the ancient Moabites or Members of a NGO?  Organizations do not have a descendant nature as Forefathers were yesterday they are today.
Are the Moorish Americans a clean and pure Nation or an Organization?
What must the Moorish Americans do in order to save themselves?  Think, Love each other and Unite before it is too late.
Are Moorish Americans Moroccans or Founders of Morocco?  Today's Moorish Americans are those who's forefathers formed all the kingdoms, families and nations west of Kemet, including Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco the Atlantis Islands and the Americas.
What kind of flag is the Moorish (not Moroccan)?  It is a red Flag with a five pointed star in the center.
What do the five points represent? Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom and Justice (As above so below, You are as He who made you: perfect in every way)
 
These questions have been arranged in hopes to get you to thinking.  And think with love of self, family and Nation.  These are not meant to harm in any way.
 
Love Divine,
 
Your Brother of Love.
 
Swift Angel #1


AMENDMENT [IX.]

THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.

AMENDMENT X

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

AMENDMENT [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT x

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). Click here to view the voting record.

Since its adoption, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States have all reversed their positions and now endorse the Declaration. Colombia and Samoa have also reversed their positions and indicated their support for the Declaration.

During the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, 182 States from all regions of the world reached consensus on an outcome document in which they “ Welcome[d] the adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which has a positive impact on the protection of victims and, in this context, urge[d] States to take all necessary measures to implement the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with international human rights instruments without discrimination…” (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Outcome document of the Durban Review Conference , 24 April 2009, para. 73).

 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)

Indigenous People or Indigenous Peoples?

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination by virtue of which they “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. (Part one, Article one, 1966) However, because there has been dispute over the exact meaning of the term “peoples”, it is not clear exactly to whom “peoples” refers. Some state governments oppose use of the term “peoples” in regards to Indigenous Peoples because they fear its association with the right of secession and independent statehood. Those states would prefer the terms “tribes” or “populations”, which do not have those associations. On the other hand, Indigenous Peoples use the term “peoples” because of its association with inherent recognition of a distinct identity. “Indigenous People” is a compromise between these two positions. Indigenous Peoples and their advocates find the denial of being described as “peoples” and the inherent entitlement to self-determination a form of racism and continued discrimination.

INtroduction to our constitution 

AMENDMENT [IX.]

THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.

AMENDMENT X

THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.