The British Columbia Fishery Regulations

The Eddie Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] (Mabo) case has had a deep impact on the legal, social and political reality of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations in Australia. It’s established a long term consequences may require considerable litigation, or maybe a Federal Legislation. The Mabo case is the means of which the sovereign rights of Indigenous Nations to their ancestral lands. The result in the case was a recognition by the Australian legal system that the Meriam people hold rights to their land under their own system of law, and that those rights should enjoy the protection of the Australian Law.

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

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

The migration of European settlers and culture to North America is an often examined area. One aspect of this, however, is worthy of deeper analysis. The conquest of North America by Europeans and American settlers from the 16th to 19th centuries had a profound effect on the indigenous political landscape by defining a new relationship dynamic between natives and settlers, by upsetting existing native political, economic and military structures, and by establishing a paradigm where the indigenous peoples felt they had to resist the European and American incursions. The engaging and brilliant works of Andres Rensendez and Steve Inskeep, entitled respectively “A Land So Strange” and “Jacksonland”, provide excellent insights and aide to this analysis.

The Sparrow test then outlines what might justify an infringement upon an Aboriginal right.  An infringement might be justified if:

by forbidding the sale of any land within the reserve unless it was turned over to the

81). Section 35 of the constitution states the rights of Aboriginal Canadians. The specific sections that are important to this argument are Section 35(1) and 35(3) because they are the only sections in the constitution that explicitly acknowledge aboriginal treaty and land claim rights. The exact interpretation of what is encompassed as an aboriginal constitutional right has come under question in a number of cases which include Sparrow v. The Queen and where it is stated that these rights must be “interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time,” (Manus, 2006, p. 6-7). However, while flexibility is important to the interpretation of aboriginal rights it is insufficient in ensuring that protection of those rights in all cases, as the courts may chose to interpret these vague constitutional laws in various ways. This is evident in the Van der Peet Court ruling which “reduced the concept of aboriginal rights protection from one under which courts must acknowledge and protect an indigenous culture to one under which courts scrutinize individual tribal practices,” (Manus, 2006, p. 14-15). In essence, the exclusion of aboriginal rights that explicitly acknowledge the intimate relationship First Nations share with the land leave too much room for these laws to be interpreted in a manner that may work against indigenous peoples interests. Furthermore, while Canada’s constitution falls short in this respect, the United Nations

The term ‘Native Title’ refers to the right of Indigenous people to their traditional land. In Australia it has a legal significance of the right to an area of land, claimed by people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of the land before European settlement. Also who can prove that they have had a continuous connection with the land. Native Title is the term given by the High Court to Indigenous land rights by the Court in Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. The case required

The Mabo decision of 1992 was hailed as a landmark case in the history of indigenous-white relations in Australia. Overturning centuries of injustice, as well as the myth of right by ‘terra nullius’, the case prompted the passing of the Native Title Act of 1993, which affirmed native title and asserted that native Australians possessed their land under common law, and in doing so ushered in a new era of equality in Australian society. However, though correctly lauded as a milestone in recognition of aboriginals as valid legal entities, the act was not without its problems, and in truth has had little impact on Australian society as a whole. As we shall see, the trend of positive reform existent in the act was not supported in practice, and aboriginal Australians remain at the mercy of Western courts when it comes to their land. Though the Mabo decision and the subsequent Native Title Act went some way to correcting past injustices, its actual impact on Australian society has been negligible.

I just got done with reading "A Canadian Threat to Alaskan Fishing" by Brendan Jones I hate what is happening to our rivers and water ways that these dangerous mining practices that leach chemicals and heavy metals into the water. This has been going on for years. But the worst part is that there is an agency called the International Joint Commission that there whole duty is to protect American and Canadian water ways from becoming pollution from each other country. We have a clear and present danger that is affecting the Stikine, Unuk and Jaku rivers and people that can stop it haven't. This is just another example in how big corporations can buy influence to persuade governments and when there are regulations put in place they don't realy

When Europeans arrived in North America, they encountered the Native Americans. This encounter was fraught with difficulties for both sides, for the Native Americans more so than the Europeans. Europeans conquered the Native Americans, forced them into labor, and spread diseases which the Native Americans had no resistance to. In addition to this the Europeans considered themselves superior to the Native Americans. Despite this, the Europeans and Native Americans both had things the other wanted and so they frequently engaged in trade with each other. However, the Native Americans thought that, despite not having the luxuries the Europeans had, they were better off than the Europeans. This sentiment is exemplified in “Your People Live Only Upon Cod” by French priest Chrestian LeClerq who was traveling with the Micmac Indians. It is a documented response by an unknown Micmac leader to European, particularly French, claims of superiority. In analyzing this document, we will find that the cultures of the French and the Micmacs were vastly different. We will also discover what the Micmacs and the French thought of each other.

Prejudice, bigotry, and stereotypes are all learned behaviors. Children, especially in America, absorb these stereotypes from what they see and hear from the adults in their lives. In Mukherjee’s essay, American Dreamer, she discusses the negative stereotypes of Indians saying, “Indians idealize the cultural continuum, the inherent value system of India, and are properly incensed when foreigners see nothing but poverty, intolerance, strife, and injustice” (358). The stereotype that Indians are nothing but poverty stricken living in subpar conditions is nothing but

Instead, the license is a way to limit Mi’kmaq people right to fish. In the video, it has been stated that the government “want to squeeze aboriginal people out of the water” (Is the Crown at War with Us, 2002). Thus, policies around fisheries systematically discriminates against Aboriginal peoples and it is a way to limit their right. The government seeks to maximize profit by making it a requirement for them to hold a license if they want to fish and if that is not possible, to make it impossible for them to fish. This evidently means that Aboriginal people will no longer fish for profit. The Supreme Court of Canada decision on Donald Marshall Jr’s arrest for fishing and selling eels without a license on the Atlantic coast. He argued that he had a treaty right to catch and sell fish before the Supreme Court. The Court agreed and acquitted Marshall. They held that Aboriginal people did have a right to earn a moderate livelihood by catching and selling fish in accordance with treaties that were signed by their ancestors and the

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.”