Bringing water to the land : re-cognize-ing indigenous oral traditions and the laws embodied within them

This is a study of whether, in the introduction of Indigenous oral traditions as evidence in court, they are being in the complex cultural interplay that occurs in courts, and whether, given the central role of oral traditions in Indigenous cultures, the nature of Indigenous Peoples are being transformed in the process when their rights are adjudicated before the courts. Chapter 2 discusses the ways that the Supreme Court of Canada has defined s. 3 5 Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights (as unlimited or lawless and therefore a danger to general public interests; assimilated into Canadian sovereignty; removing the source of these rights from the land in their legal definition; and, removing Indigenous laws from their definition). Chapter 3 examines the role that history has played in the legal interpretation of oral traditions, and argues that a primarily historical consideration obscures the alive, legal, and dynamic elements of oral traditions. Chapter 4 discusses the ways in which a methodology of suspicion has operated to reduce and diminish Indigenous oral traditions when they are introduced as evidence in court (rating them as faulty, light weight historic evidence while obscuring their legal content) through a survey of cases that have considered oral traditions at the trial level. Chapter 5 explores the devaluation of the Indigenous laws contained in oral traditions through an acceptance of the common sense assumption that Canadian conservation and safety laws are both rational and necessary. Chapter 6 argues that recognition (or denial) of Indigenous laws is politically contingent, and that despite limited legal recognition (in cases such as Delgamuukw v. B.C. and R. v. Van der Peef), these laws have yet to flow back onto the land, and are yet to be invigorated in Canadian law. There remains a lack of recognition of the legal content of oral traditions, and Indigenous jurisprudences risk being subsumed and transformed when they are introduced as evidence in Canadian courts.Law, Peter A. Allard School ofGraduat

Bringing water to the land : re-cognize-ing indigenous oral traditions and the laws embodied within them

This is a study of whether, in the introduction of Indigenous oral traditions as evidence in court, they are being in the complex cultural interplay that occurs in courts, and whether, given the central role of oral traditions in Indigenous cultures, the nature of Indigenous Peoples are being transformed in the process when their rights are adjudicated before the courts. Chapter 2 discusses the ways that the Supreme Court of Canada has defined s. 3 5 Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights (as unlimited or lawless and therefore a danger to general public interests; assimilated into Canadian sovereignty; removing the source of these rights from the land in their legal definition; and, removing Indigenous laws from their definition). Chapter 3 examines the role that history has played in the legal interpretation of oral traditions, and argues that a primarily historical consideration obscures the alive, legal, and dynamic elements of oral traditions. Chapter 4 discusses the ways in which a methodology of suspicion has operated to reduce and diminish Indigenous oral traditions when they are introduced as evidence in court (rating them as faulty, light weight historic evidence while obscuring their legal content) through a survey of cases that have considered oral traditions at the trial level. Chapter 5 explores the devaluation of the Indigenous laws contained in oral traditions through an acceptance of the common sense assumption that Canadian conservation and safety laws are both rational and necessary. Chapter 6 argues that recognition (or denial) of Indigenous laws is politically contingent, and that despite limited legal recognition (in cases such as Delgamuukw v. B.C. and R. v. Van der Peef), these laws have yet to flow back onto the land, and are yet to be invigorated in Canadian law. There remains a lack of recognition of the legal content of oral traditions, and Indigenous jurisprudences risk being subsumed and transformed when they are introduced as evidence in Canadian courts

Bringing water to the land : re-cognize-ing indigenous oral traditions and the laws embodied within them

This is a study of whether, in the introduction of Indigenous oral traditions as evidence in court, they are being in the complex cultural interplay that occurs in courts, and whether, given the central role of oral traditions in Indigenous cultures, the nature of Indigenous Peoples are being transformed in the process when their rights are adjudicated before the courts. Chapter 2 discusses the ways that the Supreme Court of Canada has defined s. 3 5 Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights (as unlimited or lawless and therefore a danger to general public interests; assimilated into Canadian sovereignty; removing the source of these rights from the land in their legal definition; and, removing Indigenous laws from their definition). Chapter 3 examines the role that history has played in the legal interpretation of oral traditions, and argues that a primarily historical consideration obscures the alive, legal, and dynamic elements of oral traditions. Chapter 4 discusses the ways in which a methodology of suspicion has operated to reduce and diminish Indigenous oral traditions when they are introduced as evidence in court (rating them as faulty, light weight historic evidence while obscuring their legal content) through a survey of cases that have considered oral traditions at the trial level. Chapter 5 explores the devaluation of the Indigenous laws contained in oral traditions through an acceptance of the common sense assumption that Canadian conservation and safety laws are both rational and necessary. Chapter 6 argues that recognition (or denial) of Indigenous laws is politically contingent, and that despite limited legal recognition (in cases such as Delgamuukw v. B.C. and R. v. Van der Peef), these laws have yet to flow back onto the land, and are yet to be invigorated in Canadian law. There remains a lack of recognition of the legal content of oral traditions, and Indigenous jurisprudences risk being subsumed and transformed when they are introduced as evidence in Canadian courts

National Indigenous Justice Summit - Panel 1 - Policing Reform

The National Indigenous Justice Summit was held online on 7 – 8 July, 2020. Indigenous thinkers, community leaders and grassroots activists convened to call for justice reform in Canada. In this panel, the Hon Marion Buller (Chief Commissioner of the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls) provides a keynote address. This panel also includes Professor Naiomi Metallic (Self-determined Policing in Indigenous Communities), Kekinusuqs Dr Judith Sayers (Systemic Changes in Indigenous Policing and UNDRIP), and Scott Robertson (10 immediate calls for action). This panel was chaired by Ardith Walpetko We’dalx Walkem

National Indigenous Justice Summit - Panel 1 - Policing Reform

The National Indigenous Justice Summit was held online on 7 – 8 July, 2020. Indigenous thinkers, community leaders and grassroots activists convened to call for justice reform in Canada. In this panel, the Hon Marion Buller (Chief Commissioner of the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls) provides a keynote address. This panel also includes Professor Naiomi Metallic (Self-determined Policing in Indigenous Communities), Kekinusuqs Dr Judith Sayers (Systemic Changes in Indigenous Policing and UNDRIP), and Scott Robertson (10 immediate calls for action). This panel was chaired by Ardith Walpetko We’dalx Walkem

Transcending sovereignty : locating Indigenous peoples in transboundary water law

All people rely upon water for life. Indigenous peoples are especially vulnerable to water conflicts and yet lack recognition in international water law. This thesis adopts Critical Race Theory to examine the intersection between transboundary water law, the doctrine of sovereignty and the international law of Indigenous peoples. The methodology adopted in this thesis includes: (i) a deconstruction of the UN Watercourse Convention and the doctrine of sovereignty; (ii) a review of Indigenous perspectives on sovereignty; and (iii) a proposal for the reconstruction of transboundary water law in a manner that recognizes the internationally affirmed rights of Indigenous peoples. A deconstruction of the UN Watercourse Convention and related discourse reveals that state-centric approaches to transboundary water law fail to recognize Indigenous peoples’ international rights or the pivotal role that Indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge might play in transcending conflict. Case examples are provided (Columbia River and Tsangpo-Brahmaputra River) that illustrate the vulnerability of Indigenous peoples in the face of state development agreements. The inequities that exist in international water law are rooted in the historical doctrine of sovereignty which has evolved to subordinate Indigenous peoples’ interests to state interests. Indigenous perspectives regarding sovereignty provide a counter-point to the dominant legal discourse and weave an alternate narrative that challenges the myth of objectivity and neutrality that surrounds the doctrine of sovereignty and international law generally. Once we recognize that sovereignty is a social construct, we can recognize our collective ability to reconstruct international laws in a manner that transcends the sovereign discourse and recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples. Endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is indicative of states’ commitment to recognize Indigenous peoples’ rights throughout the international legal system. This thesis concludes by offering a proposal for reconstructing transboundary water law through a return to ethics and coalition building. Future reform should be directed towards (a) articulating an international water ethic with the critical engagement of Indigenous peoples; and (b) ensuring that river basin organizations are established on every transboundary river in a manner consistent with this shared international water ethic.Law, Faculty ofGraduat