Is The Crown At War With Us Analysis

Throughout history, the Native people of North America and the Europeans have continually had arguments and disputes over land. To this day there are still issues trying to be resolved. Twenty years ago, the beginning of one of the most violent and intense land disputes in present day Canada occurred. This event is now referred to as the Oka Crisis, named after the town Oka in Quebec. This crisis caused a confrontation involving the Quebec provincial police, the Canadian armed forces and the Mohawk people.1 The stand that the Mohawk people took in the town of Oka became a major revelation for the aboriginal people spreading awareness of aboriginal rights across Canada.

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

After the strangling claws of the Indian Act were felt, the Canadian government began to issue more laws that intruded with the aboriginals lives and took away their rights. The first of these was the “Potlatch Law” (Hanson, n.p.). It banned potlatches and other ceremonies of the aboriginals, all for the purpose of forcing the

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

This tension in race relationships is the third theme of Minnesota’s history post-1880. For example, the tense relationship between the Minnesotans and the Native Americans in the state. One of the main tensions that has plagued the relationship for many years in about Native Americans traditional fishing rights. Since the beginning of the government agency that sought to preserve game, fish, and other natural resources (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks: Ojibwe Family life and labor on the Reservation, 86). Throughout the late 19th and 20th century, the Native Americans and Minnesotans have created many agreements about how and where the Native Americans could fish. One example of this is how Red Lake was partitioned to the natives. In this partition, the Native Americans could not fish or access the eastern portion of Upper Red Lake (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 86). In addition, the tensions between the Native Americans and Minnesotans over fishing led to lawsuits and legal action by the Natives. These lawsuits attempted to establish that the treaties signed in the past gave natives the right to fish and sell their fish off the reservation (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 104). One of these cases reached the United States Supreme Court in 1999. This case ruled in favor of the Natives and

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

One of Canada’s priorities in regards to Arctic Sovereignty should be to protect the Inuit people not only because they are experiencing a loss in culture, but the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty also declares that the Inuit have rights to the resources and the land upon which they live on.

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

On September 3, 1783, the problem between the Unites States and Great Britian ended the Revolutionary War and recongnized American Independence. Unites States used their power to end their problem by State and Local Government. The articles of peace was signed by Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Henry Laurens on November 30, 1782. But the final treaty was signed on September 3 1783, and it was ratified in the early 1784.

¬¬Donald Marshall Jr championed the fight for Mi’kmaq fishing rights in Nova Scotia. In 1993 Marshall was confronted by RCMP while fishing eel out of season with no license and selling the catch for profit. This lead to a court case defending the right to fish as a means of self-sustainment for all Mi’kmaq, which he pointed out was outlined within his treaty rights with the crown. This was a historical victory for indigenous people across Canada. Law passed as a result of the supreme-court case known as the Martial decision, which recognized that Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia were guaranteed right to fish and hunt across the province as to survive and make a living as it is stated in the Peace and Friendship treaties of the 1700’s.

White, rik. HUNTERS & GATHERER, Northern Ontario fishing dispute could lead to big changes for Indigenous rights. October 06, 2017. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/nipissing-first-nation-indigenous-hunting-fishing-rights-case (accessed October 06, 2017).

The debate in this article can be really boiled down to people’s view of animal rights and cultural rights (Van Grinkel, 2004). For fifteen hundred years the Makah having been conducting whale hunts with it being one of the main aspects of their culture. In 1855 a treaty was signed in which they forfeited thousands of acres of their land to the federal government in exchange for the ability to continue their whale hunts. However, in the 1920s traditional whale hunting by the Makah stopped for a variety of reasons. In 1937 grey whaling was official out lawed.

From the Government's point of view, Ron Sparrow was fishing illegally no matter what rights he said he had. The Government was not going to let him fish with an illegal size net because the right he was claiming was taken from a broad statement in the Constitution about Aboriginal exciting rights.

The Aboriginals, non-aboriginals fishing industry, and government officials were in a position where they were apart in the Marshall case that resulted in tension and conflict in fishing areas where the Mi’ kmaq has a traditional claim. Aboriginals were affirmed a right given that they can fish when they wanted without a license. But then non-Aboriginals fishing industry argued that their ability to protect fish stock was seriously limited by the decision. Also, non-Aboriginals argued that to shut down their fishing industry meant a new occupation and lifestyle. The government officials were in a position where aboriginals and non-aboriginals both had reasons and disagreements. This led the government to be unprepared to recognize Aboriginal

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.