Bakhov, I. S. (2013). Government multicultural policy in Canada in the period of 1970- 000- s. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 15(10), 1450-1454.
Garoupa, N. M., & Ginsburg, T. (2013). Judicial Roles in Nonjudicial Functions. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 12, 755-782.
King, M., Freiberg, A., Batagol, B., & Hyams, R. (2014). Non-adversarial justice. Federation Press.
Kulchyski, P. (2013). Aboriginal rights are not human rights. defence of indigenous struggles. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: ARP Books.
Rice, J. J., & Prince, M. J. (2013). Changing politics of Canadian social policy. University of Toronto Press.
Schmidhauser, J. R. (Ed.). (2013). Comparative Judicial Systems: Challenging Frontiers
Barker, J. (2008). Gender, Sovereignty, Rights: Native Women's Activism against Social Inequality and Violence in Canada. American Quarterly, 60(2), 8. Retrieved fro m http://search.Proquest.com.Ez proxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/61688929?Acc ountid=15182.
It is sickening to most Canadians, and many citizens globally, when they discover the harsh ‘disciplinary actions’ most governments inflicted on Indigenous people. Governments at the time, were unapologetic for their cruelty, and still continue to be, despite their ‘tremendous effort’ to rebuild the relationship between themselves and Aboriginal groups . The effects of the assimilation and genocide of Indigenous people globally, continue to haunt their communities and families in the modern-day, with little, proper support from the government. Besides monetary bursaries, the government is completely absent when it comes to proper support and reconciliation. Most countries, including Canada, convoluted in this harsh treatment. Despite the attempted genocides, the Aboriginal community attempts to prosper, but still continues to fail in many aspects. Aboriginal community members continue to struggle in their personal and family life, especially on the subject of intergenerational trauma. Yet, the government(s) chose to become oblivious to these facts and still do not know how to properly rebuild the ties with Indigenous peoples, nor do they attempt to properly do so. The government has been falling through with their promises to the Indigenous communities and the consequences of the governments actions are detrimental.
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.
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.
“However, Aboriginal people still struggle for more than words on paper. They require the enactment of visible justice, where aboriginal people have a pride of place and heritage that can be shared as well as respected.” (king, 2010, p.216).
Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the
To many people, Canada exemplifies a country that fulfills human rights and equality being the country of ‘freedom’. However, the Canadian government has distorted certain information including poverty that impacts many Aboriginal individuals daily. In theory, it is impossible to effectively analysis the impact that the past has imposed on Aboriginal people in Canada today. With this being said addressed below are several important historical government actions and legislations such as the Indian Act, Royal Proclamation, force segregation on reserves, and residential schooling impacting Aboriginal Canadians social conditions today. Fundamentally my goal is to address the idea that historical events are a crucial factor impacting Aboriginal
These ‘White Papers’ focused on the social and economic problems that were rampant within the First Nation communities and was considered to be humane because of the fact that Native peoples were integrated within mainstream society [pp.6]. These problems were ‘highlighted’ through the result of various studies conducted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from 1966 to 1969 and became the basis of the ‘White Paper’. Although the paper was ultimately defeated, these beliefs were brought into mainstream society and became a more idolized form of modernizing the Aboriginal peoples. This form of ‘helping’ the First Nations peoples was the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [D.I.A.N.D] way of dissolving the First Nations reservations. These institutionalized ideologies were masked as social and economic reforms that addressed the First Nation communities [pp.5-6]. Such reforms include the state of welfare on First Nation communities, re-educating the youth, and the identification of a First Nations person according to the government, which also includes the apology that Prime Minister Harper spoke on June 11th, 2008. These ideals have become the driving force behind the United Nation’s ‘Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights’. This declaration has yet to be signed by Canada for a variety of reasons, one of them being that it is in direct violation of Article 25, which is a right to social services and health
Throughout history, First Nations rights and privileges has been a highly controversial subject in Canada, and remains a debatable topic in society, even in the present-day. Whether it has been the controversies surrounding the missing and murdered Indigenous women or the funding of First Nation’s education, concrete results have yet to be achieved. Consequently, the above forces have delayed the restorative process for the First Nations People. That said, the Canadian Government, whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals, have attempted to take an active approach to aid the Aboriginal community in their healing process. While the Conservative government failed to address the concerns of the First Nations community such as launching a public inquiry for the missing and murdered Indigenous women and raising funds to increase the literacy rate within the Aboriginal community, the Liberal government has acted in accordance with the above requests from the First Nations community. Although the Liberal government has agreed to provide proper funding to further Indigenous education and to launch a public inquiry for missing and murdered Indigenous women, the federal government has failed to acknowledge that to achieve a sense of reconciliation, the First Nations community requires complete self-government.
The First Nations people of Canada have a long list of treaty rights, as well as many undefined aboriginal rights, from their right to hunt and fish on their land to housing and annuities. However, it’s not all gift-giving and sunshine; while the government of Canada is supposed to respect their rights to hunt on their land and the right to hold title to their land, there are many disputes such as the Ron Sparrow case and the Oka Crisis that show that the Aboriginal peoples’ inherent rights are not always respected, with cases such as that of Don Marshall that show that the government might not exactly be on the First Nation’s side.
Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have fought to retain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. From 1788 and onwards the British created settlements on land that Aboriginal people previously used and controlled. Throughout the 19th century the government applied policies of ‘protection’ that have segregated Aborigines from Australian society by denying them equality and opportunity. They have achieved some significant changes in the brawl for acknowledgment (Anderson, 2014). Certain key developments that are significant in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders struggles for rights and freedoms are ; 1967 referendum, Mabo decision, bringing them home(stolen generations) and the apology. These four main key developments have been momentous developments for the Australian Indigenous population that are now allowed they’re human rights and freedoms.
Joffe, P., Hartley, J., & Preston, J. (2010). Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, hope, and action. Saskatoon: Purich Pub.
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.
Each individual makes up the society as it is, and various characteristics and beliefs makes up an individual. Although, individual lives together with a variety of personal ideologies, emotions, cultures, and rituals, they all differentiate one person from the other making up one’s own identity. This identity makes up who one is inside and out, their behaviour, actions, and words comes from their own practices and values. However, the profound history of Indigenous people raises question in the present about their identities. Who are they really? Do we as the non-native people judge them from the outside or the inside? Regardless of whether the society or the government were involved in their lives, they faced discrimination in every
This webpage outlines the discussion of the 2014 United Nations (UN) world conference on indigenous peoples. It brings together in succinct detail the outcomes and objectives, promoting the implementation and advancement of Indigenous peoples rights. The Human Rights Commission mentions only the UN which could suggest bias. However, the UN is made up of a multitude of organisations and governing bodies that give the source authority.