Indigenous Voting Rights : The Indian Act Modified Section 77 ( 1 )

In modern society the question of why the aboriginal population receives benefits often arises. Much of today’s youth does not understand that the Native American people were often stripped of their rights in the past in order to gain these advantages. Two main incidents were established in the Aboriginal history, the first was the treaties that spread across Canada and the second incident was the Indian Act of 1876. The main difference between the Indian Act and treaties were the aboriginal’s role in the decision-making. Treaties allowed for a compromise between the Natives and the government that allowed for benefits on both ends whereas the Indian act

Previously, within the Indian Act, Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to lease out designated reserve lands based on a majority vote including all members, who were eligible to vote, of the community. Whereas, now the Aboriginal communities have the right to lease out designated reserve lands based on a majority vote regardless of how many members of the Aboriginal communities attend (Idle No More, n.d.). Further, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs can choose to ignore a negative vote by a band member ("Legal Objectives," n.d.). Based on these findings one could argue that a majority vote could be

Treaty benefits, health, rights to living on the reserve and property are forfeited as a result of losing Indian status. This also happens when an Indian women gets married to another Indian man. She loses her rights to her own band, and has to become a member of her husband’s band. Ultimately, if the women becomes widowed or abandoned then she loses all status of being an Indian all together. On the other hand, men can marry a non-status woman and all of his rights would be kept. With strides of equality throughout history, it takes a step back when Aboriginal women are entirely dependent of their husband. Several cases were took to court in the 1970’s, but not until 1980 is when there was a connection found between the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Act. With this section in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the removal of a woman’s Indian status while marrying a non-Indian man was done and Bill C-31 was passed so victims of the Indian Act can be reimbursed. However, Bill C-31 is still under scrutiny because those who have their status reinstated to them can only pass it on for one generation. This is a violation under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Payne, 1992). The Indian Act is a controversial piece of legislation that was passed in 1876. It has been amended throughout the times, but the core concept of the Indian Act still

* Jasper says of his status ‘They reckon I’m just half an animal with half a vote’ (pp.22-23). Indigenous people were not counted in the population census with other citizens until 1967. Instead, they were counted as part of the flora and fauna, hence Jasper’s reference to ‘half an animal’. In 1962 voting rights were extended to Indigenous people under the Commonwealth franchise but voting was not compulsory as it was for other citizens. Hence, ‘half a vote’.

The rights of many people versus the rights of an individual is certainly a vexing concept. Like a delicate balancing act; if one side is favoured over the other it causes a rift in the already strained relationship between the minority and majority. Evidently, the justification of taking any side must be valid, according to the theories of H.L.A. Hart. In the past, Canadian law has violated the rights of minorities; however, these violations have decreased in their severity as time has passed on. Some cases where the balance between minority and majority rights is questioned is in The Canadian Indian Residential School System, Bill 101, Equality in the Workplace and The Public Service Act.

For several hundreds of years, Aboriginals have been impacted by the Indian Act in many ways. They have dealt with numerous challenges that have changed their lives forever. Laws were created by the Canadian government with the purpose of controlling Natives and assimilating them into Canadian culture.For multiple years,

In 1976 the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Several state governments passed their own Land Rights Acts, which recognised aboriginal and Torres Strait islander claims to land and guaranteed them royalty payments from mining companies working there. Some laws enforced by the government became challenging for most indigenous people to abide by. Through the analysis of this information we understand the impacts the government and its laws had towards the indigenous society of

The Indian Act was a challenge by the Canadian government to adjust the aboriginals into the Canadian culture including bring in residential schools, separating every First Nations in trying to “improve”, and practice them for standard society (Emberley, 2009). First Nations people were also not allowed to possess any land or offer the land that used to be theirs before the Indian act as this segregation put limits maintaining or even owning anything (Emberley, 2009). This lead to the point on everything being restricted for the First Nations including losing history, practicing

Two sections of the Indian Act are particularly discriminatory against Indigenous women. Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act states that women who marry outside of their band were to lose status, seize association with their own community, they lose ownership over any property located on the reserve and any property inherited that is located on the reserve land (Lawrence 2004: Jamieson 1978). These women would also lose access to any rights they had with status, including taking part in any band business or voting (Lawrence 2004: Jamieson 1978). Any children born to a woman who married outside her community would not be granted status or considered “Indian” in the eyes of the government and this woman and her children may be prohibited from returning to live with her family regardless of illness, need, divorce, death of her husband or separation (Jamieson 1978). Finally, through this section of the Indian act, upon marriage of an “outsider” an Indigenous woman loses her right to be buried on her reserve land with her ancestors (Jamieson 1978). Section 12(1)(a)(iv) also known as the “double mother clause” states that an “Indian born of a marriage entered into after September 4th, 1952 lost entitlement to registration at the age of 21 years if his/her mother and paternal grandmother were not entitled to registration as Indians before marriages” (Sterritt 2007).

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

This report will cover the history of the Aboriginal Voting rights in Australia. The Aboriginals did not gain the right to federal voting at least 150 years after the British colonized in Australia. All citizens of a nation deserve equal rights.

“[t]he trial judge found that an aboriginal right could not be claimed unless it was supported by a special treaty and that s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 accordingly had no

As a fellow delegate of the province of Ontario, I believe that the predicament of having only the government and its associates of having their voices heard upon, leads to an unrepresentative perspective view towards various events that occurred within the process of confederation. The numerous misheard voices of various ethnic and religious background, and even gender wise in confederation predominantly affects our government as a whole. A significant amount of bias is present, without the multitudinous perspectives of those’ points of view, creating significantly narrow perspectives for various situations. This matter is eminently crucial towards the province of Ontario, and most importantly, towards the dominion of Canada. They have their rights to have their say in the agreements and/or elections of various events, as they too, are formal citizens of this profound nation, whom is expanding and developing their population over periods of time

The Indian Act is the principle document through which the parliament administers indian status. This act discriminated lot of First Nations rights and freedoms. The Indian act was first signed in 1876, critics argue that the act assumes that federal government officials are the best judges of the needs for the First Nation people. In a recent conversation with an Aboriginal social worker. We discussed how this changed her worldview as her children are leaving in the end of the summer to residential schools. She complained that her children are going to forget who they are and what they represent for their ancestors, and their legacies will turn into fantasies. As she continued she mentioned how the government is trying to assimilate First

Although they have made social progress over the course of the 20th century, Aboriginal peoples still remain under-represented in politics (Biles, 2004). Canadian parties have recently nominated more minorities in winnable ridings, however the figures are still far too low (Pilon, 2001). Parliament is composed of only 2% Aboriginal people (Biles, 2004). In fact, Aboriginal peoples have never gained seats in the House of Commons that were in proportion to their overall population (“Plurality-Majority Electoral Systems”, n.d.). A democratic system cannot truly be democratic when an entire group of people are being so under-represented.