Anti Fijian (Taukei) Charter: For your analysis


Above is the link to the PDF Version of the GCC regulation by the Interim Government.

Below is the reported outcome of the Bose Vanua of Namosi as reported on on 24/04/08

Chiefs of Namosi Province today rejected the proposed restructure of the Great Council of Chiefs and establishment of the National Council, both introduced by the interim Government.

The traditional leaders of the province’s five districts met in Navua Town today in the ‘Bose ni Turaga ni Vanua’ before hearing submissions from the GCC taskforce and a team promoting the National Council to Build a Better Fiji (NCBBF) and the People’s Charter.

Spokesman Ratu Romanu Matanitobua confirmed the decision reached by the chiefs soon after the meeting.

He said the chiefs would still allow the two visiting teams to make their presentations to the Bose Vanua later today.

“But that will not change what we have decided. We will let them know of our stand after they make their presentations,” he said.

Ratu Romanu said the district heads decided that if its high chief, ousted Cabinet minister Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, is not allowed to be part of the new-look GCC then they can not support the restructure.

He adds, they also resolved to take their cue from the Rewa Province that also rejected the Charter and GCC changes at the Rewa Provincial Council meeting last week.

The head of the Rewa Province, ousted Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa, is also head of the Burebasaga Confederacy, which includes Namosi.

“We are part of Burebasaga, if Rewa is not in support then we too will not support,” said Ratu Romanu.

Ratu Romanu said the Namosi Provincial Council, which is yet to meet, will endorse whatever the Bose Vanua decides.

The interim Government intends to convene the GCC mid-year with new membership criteria.

It will exclude chiefs who are active in politics.

Now read this news media report on Saiyad Kayum’s Thesis recommending the weakening of Fijian Institutions:

AG’s thesis casts doubts on chiefs’ body, Fijian loyalty

Samisoni Pareti

Fijian institutions like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) and the Fijian Affairs Board should have evolved or be dissolved over time if they were to keep abreast with the changing needs of indigenous Fijians, a key member of Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s regime had suggested.

The perpetual existence of these creatures of British rule could only put such Fijian institutions in a ‘time warp’ and give rise to the consolidation of power to and “self-preservation” of an elite few.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum when writing his thesis for a masters in law degree at the University of Hong Kong in 2002, had also raised the possibility of these institutions operating independently of the state.

This, he wrote, would not only weaken the state but also throw into question the allegiance of Fijians to the nation-state.

Observations Khaiyum made in his thesis titled ‘Cultural Autonomy-Its Implications for the Nation-State’ has become much more relevant in light of recent pronouncements and actions of the interim government of which he is the attorney-general.

Not only has the interim regime suspended the operations of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) after the chiefs rejected its nomination for a vice-president in April, the interim government has also announced its intention to review and most probably change the membership of the chiefly body.

BLV review will continue

Work on this, however, is in doubt after the European Council-following its meeting with three senior ministers of Bainimarama’s regime in Brussels last month (that included Khaiyum)-issued a strong statement calling for, among other demands, the preservation of the “substantial independence and functioning of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC)”.

FIJI ISLANDS BUSINESS has learnt however that the legal advice given to the interim regime has given it the thumbs up to continue with the proposed review and changes to the membership of the BLV, saying it is proper under the law.

The council was not created by the 1997 constitution like other constitutional offices, but set up through an act of parliament.

As such, the minister responsible, in this case Ratu Epeli Ganilau as Fijian Affairs minister, is perfectly well within his rights to be doing what he has proposed to do, and this, according to the legal opinion, would not be in breach of the European Commission’s demand.

Since the December 5 coup last year, Bainimarama had also on several occasions spoken publicly of his desire to introduce common roll into Fiji’s voting system. This was another key point of Khaiyum’s thesis.

Calls for common roll not new

In fact he argued that the two issues of common roll and the dismantling of the Fijian institutions like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga shared a common historical link.

Khaiyum wrote that when Sir Everard im Thurn, who became governor of Fiji in 1905, introduced his policy of ‘galala’, or greater freedom to indigenous Fijians, “some European members of the Legislative Council wanted indigenous Fijians to be made “free men” by ridding them of separate administration, which they also viewed as being financially mismanaged.

“Yet the European settler representatives in the Legislative Council made an about-turn in their individualisation mission when the girmitiyas started agitating for the right to vote and common franchise based on a common roll.”

In appointing Khaiyum into his cabinet in January, it is not clear whether Bainimarama had known about the young lawyer’s strong views about the Fijian administration and the very detailed research and analysis he had given it in his thesis.

‘Chiefly system must go’

“Cultural autonomy must have a sunset clause,” Khaiyum wrote in his conclusion.

“Its prolonged continuation will place a stranglehold on the very members it seeks to protect and it will concomitantly disallow the critical cultural space in which a just, vibrant and coherent nation-state can flourish while embracing diversity.”

That observation was preceded by a quote from the late Siddiq Koya, then a young, fiery National Federation Party orator in Fiji’s pre-independent Legislative Council.

“Why should there be poverty in the village? The place is your own, yet you are imprisoned.

“We are telling you to wake up! We want to give you the right that God gave you.

“Think for yourself who you are-you are a man!

“We want to give you the honour and dignity due to you.

“You are a man, you are an individual, and I respect you.

“But for goodness sake, your old chiefly system must go!

“It is not helping you, it is not helping this island, it is not helping us. So let’s change and move forward!”

‘Cartel of leaders’

Khaiyum’s research showed that calls for the abolishment of Fijian institutions like the BLV were nothing new, tracing it back to the administration of colonial governors like im Thurn.

He cited numerous reports compiled during the 1950s that spoke of the need to inject changes into the Fijian administration, and the resistance to such calls by people with vested interests like Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.

“The Spate’s comprehensive report of April 1959 which examined the ‘economic problems and prospects of the Fijian people’ brought to the fore that separate administration was no longer useful.

“He noted Sukuna’s interpretation of culture and his solution through a (re) structured separate administration ‘were biased by his half conscious vested interest in a society in which chiefs were chiefs.'”

Later, Khaiyum went onto observe: “European contact in Fiji was primarily in the East/North which consequently led to the confirmation of a new chiefly elite from those regions.

“This led to the establishment of a cartel of hereditary leadership families and their cliental network.

“Madraiwiwi (Sukuna’s father), Sukuna, Cakobau, Mara, Ganilau and lately Qarase have all been beneficiaries of this bias forged through the perpetuation of the separate administration.

“On the other hand, those such as Bavadra and Gavidi, westerners were not accepted and were outsiders-did not represent indigenous Fijian culture-since they encroached upon the territory of the establishment clique.”

Allegiance to state

That separate and autonomous bodies like the BLV could work against the state, Khaiyum said, was evident in the coups of 1987 and 2000.

Such a state of affairs should be worrying as it could also throw into question the loyalty of Fijians to the state.

“The manner in which the separate institutions reacted to and were utilised following the election of the Labour coalition governments and their subsequent overthrow in 1987 and 2000 demonstrated that separate institutions (Fijian Affairs Board, Bose Levu Vakaturaga, Bose ni Yasana, Bose ni Tikina, Bose ni Koro) were perceived to be and indeed viewed themselves to be independent of the institutions of the state.

“Autonomy or more appropriately the institutions of autonomy can become completely independent at the expense of superseding the institutions of the state-coming into direct conflict with the state and creating and perpetuating the ethos of the particular race and difference.

“This ultimately creates not only a very weak state but also stunts the growth of nationhood.

“In other words, cultural autonomy could provide benefits to minority groups, however culture-based institutions could get caught in a time warp and subsequently not responsive to the changes and needs of the group which has autonomy.

“Indeed one of the effects of creating culturally autonomous institutions which invariably is in relation to the ‘other’ is the homogenising of the identified group.

“This process increases the propensity to relegate and ignore intra group inequalities and injustices such as socio-economic and gender issues. At the same time, by placing too much emphasis on culturally autonomous institutions, individuals and groups could have the tendency to not only become insular but also have negligible levels of allegiance to the nation-state.”

Military ineptitude

The role of the Fiji military was hardly mentioned in the in the interim attorney-general’s thesis. All it got was one or two paragraphs in the preface of his paper.

“Mahendra Chaudhry’s reign as Prime Minister lasted only a year. He and members of his cabinet were taken hostage by a George Speight and seven armed ‘gunmen’ on 19 May 2000.

“One would have thought that given the few number of kidnappers a rescue of the Prime Minister and cabinet in particular by the Fiji Military Forces, which prides itself in its military prowess, was obvious and a relatively easy task. However this was not to be.

“The ineptitude, inertia and reluctance displayed by the military and other law enforcement agencies in the first few weeks of the crisis allowed the kidnappers a free hand in mustering support at the parliamentary grounds for their ’cause,’ holding the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in captivity for 56 days.”

Below was an assessment presented to the Rewan Provincial Council Meeting (In Fijian and English):

Na Leqa Bibi Ni Peoples Charter/ Problems About the People’s Charter.


1.     Bucini mai ena kaukauwa ni dakai ka vakagalala taki kina na Matanitu eda a digitaka na lewenivanua;  Formed from the illegal overthrow of an elected government through the power of the gun.


2.     E vakarorogo kina Interim Government baleta ni liutaka na NCBBF na Interim PM, Minisita kei ira na dau veitokoni ni Labour Party; Lacks independence and is just an instrument of the IG to further its agenda noting that IG PM and Ministers chair or co chair committees.


3.     E bucina mai o John Samy kei Francis Narayan, e rua na dau veitokoni kina Labour Party; Drafted and masterminded by John Samy and Francis Narayan two long time Labour supporters and funders.


4.     E veicoqacoqa keina Yavu Ni Vakavulewa ni 1997 ka cala tu vakalawa; Inconsistent with 1997 Constitution as shown time and time by leading legal experts.


5.     E tu taka mai e dua na Viti ka sega ni kilai kina na kawa tamata ; se eda I Taukei (Kai Viti) se sega (ie creation of a non racial Fiji); It de-identifies imdigenous Fijians by its ultimate objective to create a non racial Fiji.


6.     E na kena tarai cake e dua na Viti e sega ni kilai kina na kawa tamata (creation of a non racial Fiji); eratou sa vakatura tiko na Electoral Commission ka vakadeitaka na NCBBF me veisau nai walewale ni veidigidigi ka me sa Common Roll (one man one vote) ka me sa biu laivi nai dabedabe vaka kawa tamata wilikina na I dabedabe ni Taukei (Fijian Communal Seats); It disenfranchises the Fijian people as a group to be represented as a people in Parliament as confirmed by the latest NCBBF releases which is working to abolish Fijian seats and introduce an all Common Roll. This is an insult to our chiefs and people who have since the Legislative Council days opposed this move so as to ensure that the rights and interests of the Fijian people are protected and upheld in Parliament.


7.     E vakalusia nai lavo ni Matanitu ena gauna dredre e da sotava tiko e dai (e saumi tiko e $772,080 kivei ratou e lewe 5 na dau ni vakasala mai valagi ena loma ni 10 na vula; rauta e $10,000 kina $12,000 dua na tamata dua na vula); It is an expensive exercise and a waste of money noting that the cost of just 5 consultants over ten months would be in excess of $700,000.


8.     Sega ni tokoni mai na vei Matanitu tale eso (International Community); It has no credibility and support in as far as the international community is concernid.


9.     Veicoqacoqa kei na Lawa ni Dodonu ni Taukei Ni Vanua (UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples) ka a vakadonuya na Matabose Levu kei Vuravura (United Nations General Assembly) ena vula ko Seviteba 2007. E voroka na People’s Charter na Dodonu ni noda mata taki kina Palimedi, Dodonu me da vakaduria ga noda vei mata bose, Dodonu me rokovi noda vosa/ I tovo vakavanua, Dodonu me da vaduria ga noda koronivuli, Dodonu me da cicivaka ga vaka taki keda noda liutaki keina veivakatorocake taki.


            It totally contradicts the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People passed by the General Assembly in Sept 2007 where Fijians as a people have a right to be represented in Parliament, to be consulted on changes to their institutions, to have their own forms of governance and education and for their cultures and chiefs to be respected.




Na Leqa Bibi Ni Veiveisau ni Lawa Ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Fijian Affairs Great Council of Chiefs Regulations 2008)/ Problems about the GCC Regulations 2008.


1.     Cala tu Vakalawa;  It is an illegal promulgation forced by the power of the gun.


2.     Sa vakadeitaka oti na Bose Levu Vakaturaga ena 2007 ni na sega ni tokona edua na Matanitu e cala tu valalawa (Illegal Government); The GCC had already resolved that the IG is illegal so will not support it;


3.     Tikina 3(2) – me mata ga na Turaga I Taukei; vakacavi ira na sebera ni vakadeitaki, o ira sa toso na yabaki ni bula, o ira na gone vuli vinaka??

            Section 3(2) is impractical ie only Turaga Taukei to be members – what about those not installed, educated chiefs but no installed? It is counter productive.


4.     Tikina 3 (3) – Oath of Allegiance to President ; me dua na vosa ni yalayala ni veitokoni : baleta na cava? Oqo e vaka e dua nai vesu.

            Section 3(3) – Why have an Oath of Allegiance? This is designed to subjugate the chiefs to the whims of the IG.


5.     Tikina 3 (5) – Me Liuliu ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga na Minisita ..baleta. Oqo e dua tale nai vesu me lewai tiko kina na BLV.

      Section 3(5) Minister to Chair – this is also a way for the IG to control the agenda and outcomes. It is an insult for Voreqe to Chair after he told GCC to sit under the mango tree and drink homebrew.


6.     Tikina 5(2) – E rawa ni veivakasakei na Minisita.

 Section 5(2) – the Minister can terminate. He has too much power and is a means of control to manipulate the GCC for his own ends.


7.     Tikina 6 (d) – Tabu me dua e tu ena politiki se lewe ni Palimedi se Seneti e lewe ni BLV yacova ni oti e 7 na yabaki maina gauna e tu kina ena Palimedi/ Seneti. Oqo gona nai vadi lawaki me kua ni curu na Marama Roko Tui Dreketi, Turaga Tui Cakau keina na Turaga Tui Namosi.

      Section 6(d) –  7 years standown period. This is meant to exclude chiefs such as Roko Tui Dreketi, Tui Cakau and Tui Namosi as they are opposed to IG.


Kenai Kau


Ni da dikeva na veiveisau,  e sa kenai naki ga me ratou lewa na IG na Bose Levu Vakaturaga, lewa o cei me lewena, ka me rawa kina ni ratou rawata kina na IG nai naki me digitaki totolo na vukevuke ni Peresitedi eratou vinakata tiko.



      The GCC Regulations (2008) is designed for the IG to control the membership and hence the agenda and outcomes of the GCC so as to choose their own Vice President who will replace Rt Iloilo and who will continue to pass promulgations to change the electoral system by abolishing the Fijian Communal seats, manipulate boundaries and ultimately delay the elections to suit the Labour Party and its allies.

It is obvious that Charter, GCC changes, downgrading of Fijians Affairs originates from Khaiyum, John Samy and Labour while Voreqe and Army are just the dumb tools.
Pls post anonymously in Solivakasama with your own assessment


49 Responses to “Anti Fijian (Taukei) Charter: For your analysis”

  1. iceman Says:

    Thanx SV and crew…..

  2. Pusiloa Says:

    Keep it coming SV and keep them pressured. Sa qai matata tiko ga mai na mata ni meke qo. Wale ga qo dua e taluva nona i tarausese and exposed for all to see…..Sa qai dua na siga vinaka ni kua…..

  3. aubatinuku-N Says:

    Qai muri na labasa, ratou sa na dasila mada ga i liu, me vaka sa kanaka tiko qori o Adi Kaila.

  4. Tim Says:

    “The perpetual existence of these creatures of British rule could only put such Fijian institutions in a ‘time warp’ and give rise to the consolidation of power to and “self-preservation” of an elite few” and
    “This, he wrote, would not only weaken the state but also throw into question the allegiance of Fijians to the nation-state”.

    One can only ask what time warp HE is in?.
    Globalisation is more of a threat to the Fiji “nation-state” than the GCC will ever be!
    There seems to have been a couple of decades that have passed him by – probably while he was writing his thesis!

    All it really shows is he’s a lost and displaced soul begging to find his own identity and considers himself some sort of refugee.
    More than that – who the hell is this man (if I can use that term loosely) to accuse the GCC of elitism?

  5. woilei Says:

    Vinaka vakalevu SV – This will be printed out and sent to the village right now.

    Our people have to know how dangerous a thing this is . Our current dysfunctional society is due largely to ignorance and we have to educate ourselves to understand what is happening to us.

    It was up to us to notice the silence and stillness before this dysfunctional lali was rung in our land.

    We should have been alert to the birth and death of the sound of this lali that has been ringing around us for some months.

    If we do not do anything to help our people understand what this regime is doing to us the indigenous people of Fiji, then we should not complain when we hear the silence again after the death of the sound of this lali.

    Let us beat upon our own lali to spread this good message.

    Congratulation Rewa, Namosi & Cakaudrove !!! You have seen the light.

  6. Tim Says:

    * globalisation and a desire to court Chinese, Indian or any others’ imperialism.
    The British were bastards at times, but we’re all over that now, unless we all want to portray ourselves as the victims I-IArse does

  7. Pusiloa Says:

    Isa Woilei…Qai bau vakananumi la o NP me bau so na print me vakau cake i na Vualiku……Dau via leqa tiko na misini ni taba veva mai yasana ya…..

    I-IArse levu ga na vakamacala levu na kora….

  8. Tim Says:

    I’m really at a loss to understand how anybody, i.e. Indigenous or Indo-Fijian ethnicities alike, can give any credibility to this junta. As I’ve said a few times before, how is it that they see a solution to whatever problems that exist in shitting (or trying their best to) the first inhabitants and any social and political orders that have evolved through that. Solutions that involve one group shitting on another are doomed to failure.
    Hark at Yippe I aye Khaiyum trying to discuss identity and talk about failure of the nation state! FFS! Here we have the 4th Reich attempting to tell us what is best for Fiji. A group who falsely assume their elitism more on the basis of their egos than anything substantial, and on that basis assume they are so much smarter than everyone else.
    Khaiyum (and Frank, and faghag for that matter), Take your bloody hands of your cocks! Wanking in public is sooo last century and uncivilised!

  9. Mark Manning Says:

    Once again , and I’m sorry if i’m harping on again , but here are two responses to my comment on the Fiji Times , have your say site , late 2007 . They are genuine and have not been modified in anyway . I saved them on my computer , knowing things will worsen in time in Fiji , so that I may repost them to those who are interested , knowing that at a given point in time , they may well have more meaning . I think now might be one of those times ! Let me know what you think , please .
    Mark Manning of Sydney,Australia (38 minutes ago)
    It matters not what anyone thinks , this regime decided years ago just exactly what it had in mind and how it would achieve it’s goals . Anyone who believes otherwise , is deluding themselves ! The processes this regime have put into place , are merely a smokescreen to hide their real intent . And one can only assume that that is total dominance over all facets of fijian society . Hasn’t anyone in Fiji understood yet , that Fiji is being sold out to the asians from under your feet , by your own countrymen ?
    Indian of India (29 minutes ago)
    To Mar Manning of Sydney Australia-#34
    These silly Fijians do not know- ha!ha!ha!ha!ha! We are controlling their Military now. We will do it slowly until we destroy all the Fijian Institutions and the their land rights. The silly Fijians including the selfish Ganilau and Bai do not know and do not bother. GENOCIDE is the MISSION. It can achieved politically.
    Crash Stock Exchange of United States (14 minutes ago)
    To India and Manning
    hahahaha…yeah lets start with crashing the South Pacific Exchange dominated by India and the banks! Maybe the Fijians can start thinking about the 6 billion deal now…hehehehe Take your pick!
    Fijians are lousy merchants anyway because their eyes have always been to big for their stomach(traditionally) thus the need to have a corporate body(GCC new look) to curb the crooks that take advantage of the Natadola projects etc. I say Code of conduct is necessary because no chief should be above the law neither are accountants!

  10. Mark Manning Says:

    Wasn’t the Interim Attorney General in the process of getting Australian residency at the beginning of this coup ?
    If he was , how can he claim to have Fiji’s interests at heart . Does anyone know about this and can you share your information with us on this site please ?

  11. Jose Says:

    I second that Tim. Apart from the last paragraph of course but I understand your indignation. How much more do you think we, the indigenous people of Fiji feel about this. Globalisation is a threat to all indigenous people all over the world. It is a One World Order agenda like what’s happening there in Iraq. They are having a hard time of it because the patriotic Iraqis are not going down without a fight. They are still fighting to keep their independence and rightly so. The aliens in their country are trying to force their will on them. The alliance will withdraw once the system is in place. The juntas are sold out to the devil himself. They are not working for Fiji. These tyrants’ job is to create chaos and fear in Fiji. They are then removed and the people will just be too happy to give up their civil liberties for what they think would be a better government. Folks, we are going to be dispossessed by this oder. Everything that we own will be for the common good. That includes our identity. At the end of the day, human rights is going to be against you. Not for you. This is the law of the one world order the law of man. Not the law of God that says Thou shall not steal. …………

  12. tarumba Says:

    Thanks for this SV!

    So far Naitasiri, Rewa, Namosi, Cakaudrove have been unequivocal in REJECTING the IG’s interference in the GCC. Lets get these out to Tikina reps in the remaining Provinces and members of Bose Vanua in all the provinces! although 8 chairmen of provincial councils are in the NCBBF, the provinces are ALL re-electing their Council Chairmen, so new Chairmen can be appointed nullifying those who are sitting in the NCBBF right now.

    Why waste taxpayers money paying for that fat fuck $2 nawalowalo to swan around viti levu and pollute the airwaves and the air in various bose vanua and provinces and $2 matadua finau with their brand new safaris and sulu chamba who then turn around and bark at those bose vanua and provinces who reject their pig-swill??

    why consult at all?

    yet more criminal, murderous waste of taxpayer funds that could instead go to the people as development – improve roads, reduce vat, reduce customs tariff on imported necessities like dhal, flour, rice, lamb, milk, butter-milk

    why go on bended knee, sit at your rightful place behind the tanoa, make a vakarokoroko vaka cikinovu presentation, thank the bose ni yasana or bose ni vanua and then in the media bark like the wild braying dogs you are, jumping up and down like RUMPLESTILSKIN (kulina?) when the bose ni yasana or bose ni vanua make their DECISION?

    Only if the bose yasana sees things the RFMF/IG/DICTATORSHIP’s way and then all is well with the world?

    what HYPOCRISY

    then again, HYPOCRISY, LIES and INCONSISTENCY is voceqe and the murdering IG’s middle names.

  13. Jose Says:

    There you see the difference MM. These aliens when the going gets tough they leave and make a life elsewhere. We the indigenous have our roots in our country. Where ever we go, wherever we are, Fiji is in our hearts because this is truly where we belong. I had read on this site the ig ag’s PR was cancelled and later on he had started to make enquiries about regaining it.

  14. Jose Says:

    Tarumba, you’ve named just a few of his name. The devil, the father of all liars. Most of them in the ig are his human agents. Most don’t know but don’t care they are sold out to pride and opportunity.

  15. Ilaisa Says:






  16. Mark Manning Says:

    thank you for that , i heard exactly the same thing but just wanted confirmation and for others to know also .
    I think that it’s about time the Fiji Government started the equivalent to a royal commission into who all the people were and why they were , involved in all the coups . From that , people should be brought to justice before a just judiciary , not the one Fiji has at the moment .

  17. roots Says:

    Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007. While as a General Assembly Declaration it is not a legally binding instrument under international law, according to a UN press release, it does “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN’s member states to move in certain directions”; the UN describes it as setting “an important standard for the treatment of indigenous peoples that will undoubtedly be a significant tool towards eliminating human rights violations against the planet’s 370 million indigenous people and assisting them in combating discrimination and marginalisation.”

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
    Indigenous Peoples

    Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007

    The General Assembly,
    Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter,

    Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,

    Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,

    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,

    Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,

    Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

    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,

    Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States,

    Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur,

    Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs,

    Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment,

    Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among nations and peoples of the world,

    Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child,

    Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest, responsibility and character,

    Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States,

    Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,2 as well as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,(3) affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,

    Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law,

    Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith,

    Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,

    Emphasizing that the United Nations has an important and continuing role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples,

    Believing that this Declaration is a further important step forward for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples and in the development of relevant activities of the United Nations system in this field,

    Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral development as peoples,

    Recognizing that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and from country to country and that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical and cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration,

    Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect:

    Article 1
    Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(4) and international human rights law.

    Article 2
    Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

    Article 3
    Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    Article 4
    Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

    Article 5
    Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

    Article 6
    Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

    Article 7
    1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
    2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

    Article 8
    1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
    2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
    (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
    (b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
    (c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
    (d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
    (e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

    Article 9
    Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

    Article 10
    Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

    Article 11
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.
    2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

    Article 12
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.
    2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.

    Article 13
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
    2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.

    Article 14
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.
    2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.
    3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

    Article 15
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.
    2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society.

    Article 16
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.
    2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity.

    Article 17
    1. Indigenous individuals and peoples have the right to enjoy fully all rights established under applicable international and domestic labour law.
    2. States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, taking into account their special vulnerability and the importance of education for their empowerment.
    3. Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or salary.

    Article 18
    Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

    Article 19
    States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

    Article 20
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.
    2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.

    Article 21
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.
    2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

    Article 22
    1. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.
    2. States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.

    Article 23
    Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.

    Article 24
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.
    2. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.

    Article 25
    Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

    Article 26
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
    2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
    3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

    Article 27
    States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

    Article 28
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.
    2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

    Article 29
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.
    2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.
    3. States shall also take effective measures to ensure, as needed, that programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring the health of indigenous peoples, as developed and implemented by the peoples affected by such materials, are duly implemented.

    Article 30
    1. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned.
    2. States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.

    Article 31
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
    2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

    Article 32
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
    2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
    3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

    Article 33
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
    2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

    Article 34
    Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.

    Article 35
    Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities.

    Article 36
    1. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as other peoples across borders.
    2. States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take effective measures to facilitate the exercise and ensure the implementation of this right.

    Article 37
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.
    2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

    Article 38
    States in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends of this Declaration.

    Article 39
    Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.

    Article 40
    Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights.

    Article 41
    The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them shall be established.

    Article 42
    The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the country level, and States shall promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness of this Declaration.

    Article 43
    The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.

    Article 44
    All the rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous individuals.

    Article 45
    Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future.

    Article 46
    1. 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.
    2. In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.
    3. The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.


    The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also “emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations”.[1] It “prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples”, and it “promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development”.[1][2]

    Negotiation and ratification

    The Declaration was over 22 years in the making. The idea originated in 1982 when the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) set up its Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), established as a result of a study by Special Rapporteur José R. Martínez Cobo on the problem of discrimination faced by indigenous peoples. Tasked with developing human rights standards that would protect indigenous peoples, in 1985 the Working Group began working on drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The draft was finished in 1993 and was submitted to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which gave its approval the following year.

    The Draft Declaration was then referred to the Commission on Human Rights, which established another Working Group to examine its terms. Over the following years this Working Group met on 11 occasions to examine and fine-tune the Draft Declaration and its provisions. Progress was slow because of certain states’ concerns regarding some key provisions of the Declaration, such as indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands.[3] The final version of the Declaration was adopted on 29 June 2006 by the 47-member Human Rights Council (the successor body to the Commission on Human Rights), with 30 member states in favour, two against, 12 abstentions, and three absentees.[4]

    The Declaration was then referred to the General Assembly, which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session. The vote was 143 countries in favour, four against, and 11 abstaining.[5] The four member states that voted against were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, each of which have significant indigenous populations. The abstaining countries were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine; another 34 member states were absent from the vote.[6]

    United Nations officials and other world leaders noted their pleasure at its adoption. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon described it as a “historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.” Louise Arbour, a Canadian citizen currently serving as the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed satisfaction at the hard work and perseverance that had finally “borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples’ rights.”[7] Similarly, news of the Declaration’s adoption was greeted with jubilation in Africa[8] and, present at the General Assembly session in New York, Bolivian foreign minister David Choquehuanca said that he hoped the member states that had voted against or abstained would reconsider their refusal to support a document he described as being as important as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[9] Bolivia has become the first country to approve the U.N. declaration of indigenous rights. Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, stated, “We are the first country to turn this declaration into a law and that is important, brothers and sisters. We recognize and salute the work of our representatives. But if we were to remember the indigenous fight clearly, many of us who are sensitive would end up crying in remembering the discrimination, the scorn.”


    Rethinking Cultural Genocide Under International Law
    Human Rights Dialogue: “Cultural Rights” (Spring 2005)
    David Nersessian
    April 22, 2005

    “Genocide” is an amalgam of the Greek genos (race or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), speaking literally to the destruction of a group. The term was conceived in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish law professor who narrowly escaped the Nazi occupation of his homeland. In Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, a seminal text on Nazi race policy, Lemkin noted that genocide signifies:
    a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.
    Lemkin described eight dimensions of genocide—political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious, and moral—each targeting a different aspect of a group’s existence. Of these, the most commonly recognized are physical, biological, and cultural. Physical genocide is the tangible annihilation of the group by killing and maiming its members, either directly or through what the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda recognized as “slow death” techniques such as concentration camps. Biological genocide consists of imposing measures calculated to decrease the reproductive capacity of the group, such as involuntary sterilization or forced segregation of the sexes.

    Cultural genocide extends beyond attacks upon the physical and/or biological elements of a group and seeks to eliminate its wider institutions. This is done in a variety of ways, and often includes the abolition of a group’s language, restrictions upon its traditional practices and ways, the destruction of religious institutions and objects, the persecution of clergy members, and attacks on academics and intellectuals. Elements of cultural genocide are manifested when artistic, literary, and cultural activities are restricted or outlawed and when national treasures, libraries, archives, museums, artifacts, and art galleries are destroyed or confiscated.

    The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide prohibits physical and biological genocide but makes no mention of cultural genocide. This omission was deliberate. Early drafts of the Genocide Convention directly prohibited cultural genocide. As the treaty was finalized, however, a debate emerged over its proper scope. Many state representatives drafting the treaty understood cultural genocide to be analytically distinct, with one arguing forcefully that it defied both logic and proportion “to include in the same convention both mass murders in gas chambers and the closing of libraries.” Others agreed with Lemkin’s broader initial conception that a group could be effectively destroyed by an attack on its cultural institutions, even without the physical/biological obliteration of its members.

    Cultural genocide ultimately was excluded from the final Convention, except for a limited prohibition on the forcible transfer of a group’s children. The drafters acknowledged that the removal of children was physically and biologically destructive but further recognized that indoctrinating children into the customs,language, and values of a foreign group was “tantamount to the destruction of the [child’s] group, whose future depended on that next generation.”

    Despite the limited definition of the offense itself, broader cultural considerations do still play two important roles in prosecuting genocide under the Convention. First, acts of cultural genocide—conduct violating what the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) referred to as the “very foundation of the group”—tend to establish the genocidist’s specific intent to destroy the protected group. The ICTY, for example, held that Serbian destruction of Muslim libraries and mosques and attacks on cultural leaders established genocidal intent against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.

    Second, cultural characteristics are used to help define the contours of the protected groups enumerated in the Convention. Since there are no universally accepted definitions of racial, ethnic, religious, or national groups, each must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of unique historical and contextual considerations. Cultural concerns, such as a group’s social, historical, and linguistic characteristics, help to determine whether a given group of people is protected under the Convention.

    Cultural genocide thus plays a subsidiary role in our present understanding of genocide and group destruction. But this is a product of the political realities of treaty negotiation between states rather than any limitation inherent in the concept. The Convention’s drafters acknowledged the legitimacy of cultural genocide, and indicated that it might be addressed through other international instruments. Indeed, an individual right to cultural existence was recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently affirmed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And to accommodate the erosion of traditional geographic and economic boundaries, more recent treaties such as the Charter of the European Union and the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities contain anti-assimilation language and create express obligations to respect cultural diversity. Culture also is protected through such specific-purpose instruments as the European Cultural Convention and the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

    Without denigrating the importance of such developments, it nevertheless is important to recognize their limitations. Human rights treaties (and their concomitant compliance and adjudicatory mechanisms) depend upon the voluntary and good faith participation of states party to the instruments themselves. Adjudicated violations (including those amounting to cultural genocide) create at most an obligation to desist from the offending practice and to pay compensation. The responsible parties are states, and there is no recognition of individual civil or criminal responsibility for the conduct at issue. Those most likely to commit cultural genocide are least likely to participate in any voluntary human rights scheme.

    Human rights jurisprudence lacks sufficient flexibility to properly redress cultural genocide, which differs from other infringements upon cultural rights in both scope and substance. The existing human rights scheme redresses the intentional and systematic eradication of a group’s cultural existence (for example, destroying original historical texts or prohibiting all use of a language) with the same mechanisms as it would consider the redaction of an art textbook. But cultural genocide is far more sinister. In such cases, fundamental aspects of a group’s unique cultural existence are attacked with the aim of destroying the group, thereby rendering the group itself (apart from its members) an equal object and victim of the attack. The existing rubric of human rights law fails to recognize and account for these important differences.

    Collective identity is not self-evident but derives from the numerous, inter-dependent aspects of a group’s existence. Lemkin’s original conception of genocide expressly recognized that a group could be destroyed by attacking any of these unique aspects. By limiting genocide to its physical and biological manifestations, a group can be kept physically and biologically intact even as its collective identity suffers in a fundamental and irremediable manner. Put another way, the present understanding of genocide preserves the body of the group but allows its very soul to be destroyed.

    This is hardly a satisfactory situation, and it is time to revisit the issue put aside by the Convention’s drafters through a new treaty dealing specifically with cultural genocide. These efforts should be preceded by a comprehensive analysis of state practice and opinio juris to ascertain the current status of cultural genocide under customary international law. The need is patent. Cultural genocide is a unique wrong that should be recognized independently and that rises to the level of meriting individual criminal responsibility. After all, if indeed the highest values of a society are expressed through its criminal laws, what message is being conveyed by not labeling acts of cultural genocide as criminal? Perhaps a message better left unsent.

  18. Adi Kaila Says:

    We as a society are judged by many standards. Indisputably one of those is the moral compass we all operate under daily.

    We can distinguish right from wrong we know or should know what is good and what is bad. This is the central tenet of any civilised society.

    But more than anything else those in position to rid Fiji of the coup culture that has made our Nation regress should not just think of themselves but consider the welfare of the people of Fiji.

    We must not let the 2006 ig coupsters change the GCC in any way at all. The GCC should be independant of the government. They have a role to play in our culture whether we like it or not and it is up to the Turagas to work out who in the particular tikinas can make decisions that can be put forward respectfully to the government.

    Who do they the 2006 ig coupsters think they are – most of them are Taukei and should know how our culture works, it’s not complicated. How dare they try to sell us Taukeis out to people whose agenda is to take Fiji away from the Fijians – if that is not blatant racism then explain it. Whose pockets do they want the lease income to go to apart from their own of course – they will receive a miniscule amount but who receives the biggest slice? How dare they try to disintegrate our culture, we don’t have much but we do have a culture we can be proud of – WE HAVE HISTORY!



    Where did that silly jo nawalowalo come from anyway – yes I know he’s from Kadavu. Damned low down, no account namu – mataqali turaga va cava o ka qo, what has been his contribution to society? While on that subject how dare voreqe bainimarama and his brothers give themselves the title Ratu, dou Ratu mai vei and what have they contributed to society?
    Noone knew any of you until this fiasco erupted on 5.12.06.

    After you’ve sold us out what will YOU have left for yourself 2006 ig coupsters? Have any of you thought about this. Do you really think the people you’re trying to sell us out to will keep you in paisa forever, no they are using you for their own evil ends.

    Dou kua ni valialia na Vanua dou na saumi vakavinaka.

  19. aubatinuku-N Says:

    SBS contact sheet.

    Tel: +61 2 9430 3227
    Toll free: 1800 500 727
    Fax: +61 2 9430 3865

    Sydney – Documentary and Drama
    14 Herbert St Artarmon, NSW 2064
    Locked Bag 028, Crows Nest NSW 1585 Australia

    Melbourne – Drama
    Level 2, Alfred Deakin Building, Federation Square
    Cnr Swanston & Flinders Streets MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 Australia.
    PO Box 294, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia.

    SBS Independent
    Ned Lander – Consultant
    Danielle McCarthy – Assistant

    Carole Skian – Commissioning Editor
    Brett Sleigh – Script Associate.

    Documentary & Factual Entertainment.
    Angelique Gellert – Documentary & Factual Entertainment Coordinator.
    Rebecca Williams – Documentary & Factual Entertainment Coordinator.


    Ok folks! This is the best I can do, I tried to copy the link onto here but for some reason it doesn’t allow me to.

    Vinaka again to Mark Manning!

  20. Fijiman Says:

    I am a believer in non-violence but the chiefs deserve what they are getting – for some reason, only best known to them – they took everything lying down after the coup – so now they are being pissed upon all over…also those foul-mouthing Indo-Fijians – for Gods sake, be ashamed of yourselves – some of the most vocal critics of the regime seem to be Indo-Fijians like Pramod Rae, Victor Lal and others – giving straight to the military as they deserve. This is not the issue of race – yes, we must also admit that for too long the chiefs thought they owned Fiji and her people – if they are not willing to stand up and fight, than they should just shut up and go and drink home brew under an ivi tree – sorry folks – these coward chiefs make me angry

  21. aubatinuku-N Says:

    Ya!! vinaka Fijiman for your honest opinion.

  22. anna Says:

    When the chiefs are silent, that means they are angry and not happy with the

    ones that have disturbed the peace.

    Those who have violated the peace and tranquility of the spirits of the land

    and the fijian people will pay dearly, slowly, painfully and surely.



  23. Vlad Says:

    The Fijian people must realise that not supporting the charter is one thing. What to do next is more important than merely having a stand of not supporting.Thats why provicial councils must go beyond just disagreeing ..they must carefully plan out their line of action if the charter goes ahead.(scenario analysis). There should be real actions including the right people speaking out to the press and the right message. But I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Fijiman. & If the chiefs cant do it, then other Fijian leaders should stand up.

  24. joy Says:

    Where the IG have been able to buy certain indigenous leaders, those provinces are compromised or confused into supporting the Charter. You can see those not rewarded with board appointments by SDL have jumped on the charter wagon and the interim cabinet.

    Where the chiefs are strong and resolute, the provinces have clearly rejected the Charter and the new GCC – these chiefs we must applaud and support.

    Leaders exist in each province, even if the exiting chairmen of provincial councils have accepted the $100/daily allowance of the NCBBF and put themselves on the NCBBF. Look carefully and there are dissenting voices from those co-opted or compromised provincial councils.

    We have no time for despair or finger pointing. The time is now to band together, understand what the charter and the IG/RFMF/FLP vision is and COUNTER IT.

    We must PRINT and PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY the analysis of the Charter and voceqe’s ‘kalawaci ira na Turaga’ regulations and DISTRIBUTE DISTRIBUTE DISTRIBUTE these WIDELY to our villagers, our relatives, our chiefs, our leaders. We must understand it properly ourselves, be clear on the issues and the problems with the two documents and rally ourselves and our families. What we don’t understand, we should research, discuss with others who may have an idea and and SPREAD THE WORD.

    The IG is banking on the confusion of its psychotic media messages to keep its enemies UNBALANCED and CONFUSED. Rather than getting caught up in minor issues, lets just focus on one or two. THE CHARTER MUST BE REJECTED. THE IG IS NOW MOVING AWAY FROM A REFERENDUM BECAUSE IT KNOWS IT WILL NOT WIN. THATS WHY THEY’RE CALLING FOR A FORUM – TO AGREE ON CHANGES TO THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE CONSTITUTION and then after that another national summit to adopt the charter (no referendum). LETS JUST FOCUS ON MAKING THE CHARTER FAIL AND THE NEW GCC FAIL. THATS ALL – JUST ONE MAJOR FAILURE (OR TWO).

    Lets get the information out. Lets get the analysis going. Lets not reinvent the wheel.

  25. tarakoro Says:

    As Ratu Sukuna said “Me da vakusakusa vakamalua”

    I’m all for fully informing our Tikina reps to the Provincial Councils and making sure the right Chairmen are chosen in this round of Council meetings.

    But you are right – action plans are needed for when the rfmf force the Charter down our throats, just as voreqe is trying to force the chiefs and provinces to accept his regulations where he makes himself GCC chairman.

    Already, voreqe’s regulation is gazetted. The provinces are right to reject the regulations.

    Now the Charter will be forced through by the RFMF as well, just as they have forced themselves on our government.

    But it is our DUTY to reject an UNJUST LAW and an UNJUST GOVERNMENT that seeks to remove our identity as a people and dismantle our institutions. As Martin Luther King said: it is not only a right, but a DUTY to reject and REMOVE an UNJUST LAW.. Vakusakusa vakamalua ragone.

  26. Jese Waqalekaleka Says:

    Bula vinaka to you all, I am new blogger and hope to be a regular contributor.

    Whilst the various Mata Bose ni Tikina’s review the proposed changes to the GCC, the GCC itself must take stock of the political situation and rejuvenate itself into a law abiding and just body of chiefs, if it wants to continue to have a positive influence upon the taukei kei Viti in the future.

    So far, it is the lewenivanuas who have been standing up to the murderous Fijian Military and faced the full brunt of their wrath. It is about time, the Chiefs play their rightful role in leading peaceful demonstrations and rallies throughout Fiji against the IG.

    It was the GCC who allowed the coup culture to cultivate itself in Fijian soil when it backed the Rabuka coup in 1987, although credit must be given that in 2006, the GCC seems to have learnt from its previous mistake and refused to give Bainimarama its backing.

    This is commendable because it clearly shows that the Fijians within 19 years have matured and refrained from backing the coup, even though the IG has the support of the Mara, Ganilau and Cakobau (Naisogolaca household).

    What is more surprising is the Indians, who always claimed to be academically superior, wholeheartedly supported the coup without giving much thought to its legality or consequences, like the Fijians were guilty of in 1987.

    I encourage the Chiefs to now take up the gauntlet and lead by example. Start organising protest marches and demonstrations because only these kinds of actions will bring this illegal regime to its knees.

    At the moment, through the inaction of the Chiefs, they are in total control and are calling the shots. Bloggers and critics are left to attack what they want to put up and keep hidden what they want to keep away from the public domain.

    I have great respect for Ratu Sukuna and what he’s done for Fijians. I do not agree with all he’s done, but I have to admit, that the majority of what he’s done for the Fijian race is commendable and he was the only person in the right place and right time to protect us.

    However, what was applicable and relevant during his time may not be necessarily true today, so we need to re-look at the political and social situation again and conjure up strategies that are relevant and will be effective.

    I propose the Chiefs organise amongst themselves vakavanua peaceful rallies and demonstrations, call their vanuas to support their call, relevant permits be lodged to fulfill the legal requirement and when rejected, proceed on, if the reasons provided by Police Commissioner aren’t satisfactory.

    What do you bloggers think? Any further ideas?

  27. FijiGirl Says:

    Sayed Kaiyum’s statement that ‘cultural autonomy must have a sunset clause’ is misguided, wrong and shows his complete ignorance of culture, society and the need for people to live together in harmony.

    What a dumbarse.

    Please can SV publish the international travel plans of the Pig/Snake/Arse. My cousins in Europe want to stage protests the next time they go door-knocking in Europe.

    God bless Fiji

  28. Fijiman Says:

    Chodo has suddenly gone to Haryana – reportedly to see his relatives – Rubbish – he must have gone there to cook up a story and stitch up a cover up to his $2million – Khaiyum had his views but all of us have views – the real traitors are nobody else but the gun yielding Fijians and $100 chiefs – Khaiyum is a fool

  29. Jese Waqalekaleka Says:

    ‘Sunset clauses’ is a legal jargon Khaiyum seeks to use to justify the eradication of everything taukei, so we lose our uniqueness. then native lands become just another commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder.

    Imagine Khaiyum saying the same thing about his ancestral lands back in India or wherever his ancestors came from? What do you think would be the ramifications upon him?

  30. Tracker Says:

    Chaudhry visits ancestral village
    28 APR 2008
    Fiji’s interim Finance and Sugar minister Mahendra Chaudhry is reportedly visiting a relative in India.

    The Economic Times reports that Chaudhry “is on another visit to his ancestral village here”.

    Chaudhry, who is leading a 3-member delegation of the Fijian government to hold talks with Indian leaders including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, today headed straight for a relative’s home in HUDA Sector 4, the report stated.

    Speaking to reporters while at Madhu Chaudhary’s house, he said a draft charter for installation of a “non-racial” government in Fiji would be ready by August, followed by a public debate in October and a referendum in November- December.

    Chaudhry, who hails from Bahu Jamalpur village, also told reporters that a 44-member national council of members of the interim government and representatives from civil society were in the process of preparing the charter.

  31. Jese Waqalekaleka Says:

    Same goes for Chaudary.

    As they say, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander.’

    They are all trying to justify their views to weaken the resolve of the taukeis from trying to hold onto and claim what is rightfully theirs since time immemorial, like the Qoliqoli Bill.

    Keep up the fight taukeis and friends and let’s not be downtrodden and ‘lost’ in our own beloved Fiji.

  32. Sky Pilot Says:

    I really do hope the Military Bloggers on this site read this and weep.

    Yes by all means you are just following orders, but one day you and your ancestors will cringe at the mere mention of December 2006 as the Day Fiji Died…

  33. Jese Waqalekaleka Says:

    Following orders is no longer a legal defence per say. The Court Martial in the former CRW members applied this principle when the Court Martial held that following illegal orders was not a defence.

    This was reiterated by former Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes on Fiji TV prior to the December coup, but it still didn’t stop Bainimarama and his cronies from executing the coup.

    I recall TV footage’s taken from the Officers Mess at QEB after the coup with all the Officers standing behind the brave Bainimarama and someone interrupting by shouting something like ‘hang the bastards’ which brought a smile to Bainimarama’s face.

    All Military personnel can no longer claim the defence ‘I’m just following orders’ because the orders were clearly illegal.

    For example, the unlawful killings of the CRW members after being detained simply cannot be justified.

    The Rules of Engagement had changed, when hostility had ceased and the CRW members were apprehended and unarmed. If they were killed during the mutiny, then the Rules of Engagement may have covered their actions, but never in a situation when hostility had ceased and they had been unarmed and apprehended.

    The unlawful killings of the CRW members may also have constituted the breaching of international humanitarian law, such as war crimes, but these will come back to haunt Bainimarama and all those involved and is still on hold pending the return to democracy and rule of law.

    What must be realised is that the Laws of Fiji continued throughout the mutiny period and after hostility had ceased when they were unlawfully killed, meaning those responsible are liable for murder charges under the Laws of Fiji, when they are brought to justice.

    The unlawful killings of Sakiusa Rabaka and Nimilote Verebasaga again cannot be justified. Nimilote Verebasaga was killed whilst in Military custody and Sakiusa Rabaka died from injuries sustained whilst also in Military custody.

    Bainimarama’s trying to send these Military Officers aboard together with a Police Officer, despite a Court Order preventing them from leaving and it took UN intervention, reveals the guilty consciousness and act of desperation of Bainimarama and the Military Council.

    What kind of real assistance is there in trying to delay the inevitable? These Military Offices should now realise that they are on their own and will be solely responsible for their actions, despite the fact they may try to claim they were only following orders.

    The guilty verdict against 3 Police Officers in the Tevita Malasebe trial is a foretaste of what the Military Officers can expect and they should realise that Bainimarama nor his the Military Council will be able to help them because they are too busy trying to save themselves.

    Tevita Malasebe’s mother is pursing an Appeal against the ‘not guilty’ verdicts against the other 5 Police Officers, so they are not totally out of the woods yet, but as sure ‘as night follows day’ those Military Officers will be found guilty and will face life in prison hounded by their fellow prisoners for the rest of their lives.

    I can only suggest to the Military Officers and the lone Police Officer, that you make peace and seek forgiveness from your own families, the Verebasaga and Rabaka families and with God because the charges will not go away, even if Bainimarama abrogates the 1997 Constitution and grants you amnesty.

    This is because when a lawful government eventual returns to power, all these unlawful actions, including Amnesty will be revoked and people including the implicated Military and Police Officers will be brought to justice and face the consequences of their illegal actions.

  34. bodyguard Says:

    no we r talking….thanks Jese. Like I keep saying….no matter what the outcome…the soldiers, supporters, etc will pay for the misery they caused everyone [esp. to the us the fijian poeple].

    when will the soldiers realise or how much longer will they realise that they have caused us much economic, social, financial, emotional hurt.

    well, I hope they take what they dished out to the ppl….

  35. Peace Pipe Says:

    Reading through the various blogs above I have picked a couple of trumps that could be enforced to regain the sovereignty of the Fijians who are the real victims of this fiasco.

    One is the UN Indigenous Charter. Someone who is a genuine representative of the Fijians must make a representation through correspondence to the UN on the move by the ig to obliterate the Fijian identity (identity genocide) through its various activities including the farter charter objectives of a non racial Fiji. A letter to the UN with copies to other international bodies must be written and delivered promptly. Then there will be no excuse to say that they were not aware of things happening in Fiji. And I agree with what Fijiman said above. The chiefs ought to make a bold stand now to show their leadership and concern for their subjects. But its good to see unison so far in the rejection the GCC and charter proposals.

    The other is the rejection of the charter. It does not matter that the other races accept the charter, the degree of which is unknown, the Fijians must unilaterally reject it. It is a moral obligation for Fijians to do so as the charter is an instrument of destruction of the Fijians as a race. As it was seen in the last election how the Fijians won through unity they should unite once again and throw out the charter. If the Fijians reject the charter it will lose universal recognition and credibility. Simple as that.

  36. IslandBoy Says:

    @Jese Waqalekaleka – Since discovering the SV website from an extremely well connected cousin, I have been impressed by the divergent viewpoints to be found, though not by some of the responses. I hope you will find some value in the information and points of view posted here.

    We of Rewa together with our close kinsmen from Naitasiri and Namosi have stood firm in our decision regarding the reforms proposed by the Illegal Regime (IR) to substitute the NCBBF for a constitution and restructure the GCC, as you will have noted in the brief analysis posted above.

    We have done what you advocate and can only hope other provinces seriously consider the reasons behind the position we have taken. Following very closely the respectful chiefly precedent set by the Gone Marama Bale Roko Tui Dreketi, and being mindful of the fact that she is the head of the Burebasaga confederacy, it is still not in our place to presume to lecture or tell the other provinces which path to choose.

    I must admit to being a little proud that the two spokesmen representing Rewa on the TV talkback shows, firstly the former Chairman of the Provincial. Council Pita Tagicakirewa and then a couple of weeks ago Ro Filipe Tuisawau, so clearly and respectfully articulated our position and the process by which we arrived at our stance.

  37. Belijo Says:

    Congratulations to the Buresaga confederacy for being united on this issue. My wish and prayers are that all Lauans dwell on this and support their Tovata ally – Cakaudrove in rejecting the charter. Let’s not be a ‘yesman’ but a deep thinker and a promoter of justice and peace for the peoples of our nation.

  38. IslandBoy Says:

    @Belijo – Malo Bula Tau – did you read the papers today? The Cakaudrove Prov Council will apologise formally to Ratu Naiqama for proceeding with the Bose Vanua depsite his objections.

    It seems they are solidifying their stance, supporting the Turaga Tui Cakau and opposing the NCBBF and the GCC restructure.

    I honestly think many of our Indo Fijian brothers and sisters, who have the interest of this country at heart, will also support our stand.

  39. woilei Says:

    Woohooo ! Kaila mada ! The beat of our nation’s lali is starting to be heard.

    Vinaka Lord

    God be with everyone- hold fast together.

    There is an unbreakable connection between what is within us and what is exterior to us. But when we dont see this connection, this is called detachment. And whether we like it or not the connection is never still. It is always dynamic.

    What I see with our provinces is our true collective spirit working this dynamic connection.

    And realising the TRUTH. And as we all know, the TRUTH will set us all free.

    Thank you bloggers and thank you to the Provincial Councils that have recognised their spirituality in this journey for us their people.

  40. bisbetica Says:

    @ woilei

    Hear Hear!

    Probably the Cakaudrove Council is doing the matanigasau because Rabuka is no longer Chairman of that Council.

    Somehow, anyone who speaks on the GCC or Provincial Councils or indigenous administration is deemed to be RACIST. Eg the brilliant Adi Ema Tagicakibau who was on Close Up a few weeks ago. Just for speaking about the need for IG caution when it comes to indigenous institutions, she is deemed a ‘racist’. Are commentators so ill-informed or UNINFORMED??

    Why does Yabaki say Ro Filipe is racist by speaking about the retention of communal seats?

    Can’t commentators see the fragile network of indigenous governance that exists and that tampering with it is not to be done lightly or in haste? Yes there are challenges, yes there are ineffeciencies, yes there is much room for improvement. But like the civil service, it cannot be rubbed out and reformed/rewired in one motion. And simply for pointing out that reform must be done in a consultative and participatory process, these young indigenous leaders are deemed RACIST?

  41. FijiGirl Says:

    Bisbetica – the commentators’ use of any label like ‘racist’ is a tactic to distract from the merits of the argument and the thinking behind it.

    The struggle for indigenous rights and self-determination means having to educate against ignorance, celebrate our culture and defend our heritage.

    People who call us ‘racists’ don’t know the meaning of the term, don’t know what they are talking about, or are trying to distract viewers from seeing the power of our truth.

    God bless Fiji

  42. woilei Says:

    There are a few chosen words this regime likes to use – one is racist, the other is insignificant, another is non-issue.

    Little do they know they are only mirroring themselves.

  43. kaiveicoco Says:

    hey what about chiefs like Jo Nawalowalo.I am sure he is just barking so the IG can change their mind about rental for Kadavu house eh ?

  44. natewaprince Says:

    Na ka e cakava tiko qo o Khaiyum e na dua ga na kena tinitini.Kevaka e ra via fuck around taka na vei digidigi,e ra na qai moku ga kina o ira na kai Idia.

    Ni sa rawa tiko na lomadra,sa qai kaukauwa ga na nodra vosa tiko o ira na kawa ca qo.

    Au baci via kania sara ga e dua na qavokavoka ni kai Idia,magaitinadra kece ga.

  45. Tasariki Says:

    Iaaa ni sa bula vinaka…….au nanuma saraga ni sa sega na blog when d military a sa sogota…

    Well..well thanx a lot for these forum!!!! Civil disobdience @its best!!!!!…….

    Great to see that the CONS of the Charter is being drawn up(coz there are no Pros to the Charter when it comes to Fijian livelihood)….& as one blogger has stated he/she is gonna take it to the village….I believe every Fijian that has a village should do so as well….SPREAD THE GOSPEL!!!……

  46. Silvercloud Says:

    The forces that be, have successfully used the issue of immunity to impose their will on the military & their leaders in the past. First in 1987 coup, they used immunity of the military (& prisons and police) in exchange for what they said as a new and better Fiji in a charter that is now the 1997 constitution. The military & Rabuka supported that and it was rushed through parliament and passed. It was hailed as the best constitution in the world and it contained the immunity of those that took part in the coup incluyding the common criminals who were already in Fiji’s prisons at that time.The 1997 constitution has alot of shiortcomings and has paved the way for the situation we are in now. Today the military is agin involved in another coup. The everpressent people who wanted to gain from it and were co-plotters are again using it to their advatange. They are telling the army the same thing that the people told rabuka & army back then. We have the best charter in the world for building a better Fiji (equality, non-racist,…). You support us and we will include a fool proof immunity clause in the carter that will be legally included in the constitution. You see the army ids not always the best institution to lead the country and Fijian people’s enemies know this & that is why they are skilfully using the military to run their agenda without any sweat. So its really like what happened with the 1997 constitution. Rabuaka rushed it through parliamen (as he was advised…) and it has become law with all its flaws ..& all it had was feeble protests from Fijians . Now we have the charter and is going thru the same cycle and processes. Believe, it will receive the same feeble protests from Fijians (who have lost alot since 1997) & despite all that is said on this blog, no one will stand against it and the powers that be know this.

  47. tukai vusaradave Says:

    The days are coming when those words of Ghandi will be relayed to all those supporters of the IG, British officials go back to England. we can manage to look after our land and resources, vinaka” ie

  48. Imroz Buksh Says:

    “Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law”,….this statement I believe is what people in Fiji should focus on. The indigenous population of Fiji are not disadvantaged as opposed to some other indigenous people elsewhere. The Charter is conforming to International Law, read it carefully, we live in a country called Fiji and all its citizens should be called Fijians, the indigenous population however, should have a national identity and that is provided for in the Charter clearly- i taukei; read the Charter people compare it with the UN Declaration. Its okay, Me da kua ni baci vakamataboko taki vei ira na noda i liuliu ka ra sa dau liutaki keda tiko vakaca ena veigauna sa oti. Era tukuna ni ra tamata rerevaka na kalou ia ra lasa tiko e tuba,na matanitu ni dau vei dauci na matanitu ni SDL, na noda matanitu na i taukei, sa rauta me ceburaki. Vei kemuni na rai na matamuni. vinaka.

  49. Billy Says:

    @Imroz if you are Muslim you have a hell of cheek to be talking down to indigenous Fijians this way. See what is happening in Pakistan? Your ppl have been hunted down since 9/11..However since you are bloody bokala no qele masquerading as a Muslim (dui digia donu ga baku!) sa macala ga ni o iko sega mada ga ni o kila na nomu history.. bloody no root. Sa rauta ga mo dou veivutusona tiko kei Yabaki, Dakuvula, Vore, $2 Joe, teleteleninini, vata kei kainomu o Kanianonaarze. Dou sa veivutu oti dou qai sili boro vinaka i naboro….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: