First Nation Rights

the First Nations were criticized and judged for moving to Canada and keeping their own cultural beliefs. The natives held onto their religion and culture because it was a part of them and their past and they also would not give it up willingly because they have been through too much to give up. “The federal government and most non-native Canadians believed that life for the First Nations people would be greatly improved if they gave up their culture and became part of mainstream, Christian Canadian”(Freeman-Shaw, Hastings-Winner 38). Canadian society was so full of itself that they considered everyone else and their culture to be less than their own. The Canadians thought everyone would be happier if they shared to same religion and beliefs

This enables the federal government to assume full responsibility over the entire First Nations population. In A People’s Dream Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada, by Dan Russell, 2000, he brings up issues about the federal government making policies that have direct affect on First Nations People and they have no knowledge or say of what happens regarding decision about their people[4]. The federal government has a great deal of power that will ultimately alter how First Nations are dealt with. Dan Russell discuses both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlotte Town Accord that would have had a major impact on how “Indians” were handled he states “Canadian history and laws, since shortly after initial contact with Europeans settlers, have limited the possibilities of easily exercising Aboriginal self-government in Canada”[5]. Once the first wave of settles arrived in North America, the Dominion of Canada created the power to control how settlers and resources were handled which left them also having to deal with the original inhabitants by means isolation in reserves. To look back into history even in the earliest stages of civilization First Nations People were only “interpreters and clerks, but none at the policy-making level”[6], in order to create change they need to be where these policies are being made. In making these policies and procedures there has been little to no

Since the colonization of Canada First Nations people have been discriminated against and assimilated into the new culture of Canada through policies created by the government. Policies created had the intentions of improving the Aboriginal people’s standard of living and increasing their opportunities. Mainly in the past hundred years in Canadian Society, policies and government implemented actions such as; Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reserve systems have resulted in extinguishing native culture, teachings, and pride. Policies towards the treatment of Aboriginal Canadians has decreased their opportunities and standard of living because of policies specified previously (Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reservation systems).

The facts of this case is the Ojibwe Indians were entitled to the treaty rights and the rights were not extinguished when Minnesota was admitted as a state in 1958. (Cheeseman H. R. 2013, pp. 16)

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

On July 28th 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation. They acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights. The UN stated that water should be, “safe, sufficient, acceptable [taste, colour, odor], physically accessible, and affordable” (Knight and Hartl, 2003). Water is one of the most important elements to human life. In Canada we are host to about twenty percent of the world’s fresh water (Boyd, 2003). It has a square kilometer measurement large enough to cover both California and Nevada (Matsui, 2012, p. 1). While most Canadians who live in urban areas are free to enjoy safe drinking water, some First Nations communities living on reserves do not (White, Murphy, Spence, 2012). For instance, as of July 2010, 116 First Nation communities in Canada were under a drinking water advisory (Health Canada, 2010), with many of these communities living under advisories for prolonged periods of time. This issue is of vital importance to discuss and evaluate because clean, safe drinking water is a mandated human right. In Canada we have failed to ensure that water on reserves meets that standards set out by the UN.

In the seventeenth century, European people begin to settle in the North America. They started to invest in the natural resources in the eastern America using the best resource they found in the land, captured Native Indians. Many poor European people migrated to North America for opportunity to earn money and rise of their social status. They came to the America as indentured or contracted servants because the passage aboard was too expensive for them. By the time many Native Indians and indentured servants die from the hard labor and low morality rate, masters of the plantation purchased more slaves from Africa to profit themselves. The “Virginia Servant and Slave Laws” reveal the dominant efforts of masters to profit from their servants and slaves by passing laws to treat slaves as their properties and to control servants and slaves by suppressing the rebellion using brutal force. Masters and rich planters sought to earn more profit from mercantilism, or trade, economic system by violating the civil rights of Native Indian, African, and poor European people and this thought and practice still exist today as a form of racism and segregation in America.

When Canada was first inhabited by the First Nations people, the land was completely their own. They were free to inhabit and use the land in whichever manner they saw fit. However, since the arrival of the European settlers, the First Nations people have been mistreated in countless ways. They faced many issues throughout history, and are now facing even more serious problems in our modern society like having to endure racism, discrimination and social ridicule. Given what they already have to deal with, the last thing they should have to worry about is the denial of their rights which is a problem that Aboriginals have to contend with as well.

In 1967, a landmark event occurred for the Indigenous Community of Australia. They were no longer declared Flora and Fauna This means that Aboriginal people would be considered a part of the landscape and not humans in their own right.. In 1967, a Referendum was held by all members of Australian society voting on the issue of allowing Indigenous Australian to be a part of the census and thereby able to vote and be counted as part of Australia’s population. This achieved not only citizenship for Aboriginal people, but put the issue of Indigenous Rights on both the political and social platforms. This essay will look at the lead up to the Referendum, how Aborigines and their supporters communicated their belief in their rights to the

Native Americans are entitled to the same Constitutional protections that guard other citizens from federal government infringement. Plenary power and the accompanying seizure and use of indigenous land bases have violated the rights of Native Americans and demonstrated the inability of the federal government to manage Indian affairs. The United States should give ownership and control of original, non-privately owned land bases back to tribes. This course of action would end treaty violation, compensate tribes for land takings, prevent bureaucrats from implementing policies that obstruct the ability of Native Americans to participate in their

Conflict between Canada and the First Nations has been going on since the Europeans first arrived. After their arrival the First Nations way of life was hindered severely; The Europeans brought many diseases that the Aboriginal people were unfamiliar with and had no resistance to, or cure for. “By the 16th century about 80% of Canada's Native population had died from the various diseases (Renneboog, 5).” The Europeans also came to Canada with the intentions of taking all of the land for themselves, disregarding the people who occupied the land before them. Over time the Europeans had manipulated the First Nations to their will and the Aboriginals were discriminated for their different complexion, culture, customs, and way of life. But

July 11th 1990, marked the beginning date of the Oka Crisis in Quebec Canada. It lasted until September 26th 1990 resulting in one fatality of a local police officer. The violent clash was triggered by something as simple as a golf course extension and as complicated as native burial traditions. It had drawn world attention, catapulting native land rights into the mix. The Oka Crisis is just one of many conflicts between the Aboriginals and the Canadian government. A major issue that has been of much debate in the 20th century has been Native sovereignty. The demand sounds simple, allow Aboriginals of Canada to govern themselves; however, coexisting with the Canadian government makes this idea extremely complicated. Roger Townshend states

The Canadian native aboriginals are the original indigenous settlers of North Canada in Canada. They are made up of the Inuit, Metis and the First nation. Through archeological evidence old crow flats seem to the earliest known settlement sites for the aboriginals. Other archeological evidence reveals the following characteristics of the Aboriginal culture: ceremonial architecture, permanent settlement, agriculture and complex social hierarchy. A number of treaties and laws have been enacted amongst the First nation and European immigrants throughout Canada. For instance the Aboriginal self-government right was a step to assimilate them in Canadian society. This allows for a chance to manage

There have been many significant cases that have dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Among these cases was the Sparrow case of 1990. The Court determined that “Aboriginal Rights were constitutionally protected, and that those rights can only be extinguished with First Nations consent.” Moreover, the Court ruled that “Aboriginal rights could only be limited with justifiable reasons and that Aboriginal rights have to be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner.”

According to the Cornell University Law School’s ‘Legal Information Institute’, self-determination ‘denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order’. As a major concept of international law, self-determination gives people the right to control their own fates under certain fundamental criteria, and can be claimed by a minority that bases its lifestyle on an ethnic identity that is distinguishable from regular society, with a strong desire for cultural preservation. It has been considered to be a framework with the ability to guide legislative reforms within Australia, with an underlying ‘rights- based’ approach to Indigenous Issues. Self-determination is considered to be an important aspect of the legal system in regards to Indigenous Peoples, as it provides them a process of choice, to guarantee the practice of Indigenous social, cultural and economic needs.