Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
discrimination against indigenous people in canada
discrimination against indigenous people in canada
canadian history timeline
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: discrimination against indigenous people in canada
Throughout Canada’s moderately short history, there have been many acts and treaties made by the residing government, or monarch. Some, more than others, were demonstrated examples of positive rights, where more power was given to Parliament rather than the communities the agreement, or law, was made for. The evolution of rights and freedoms in Canada was a long process that included many stages. Three specific instances that will be mentioned later in this paper include the Numbered Treaties and the Indian Act (year), which were negotiations made between the government and the residing Native chiefs from across Canada with regard to land and status. Finally, the Chinese Head Tax in 1885 which later developed into the Chinese Immigration Act between the years 1923 and 1947 will also be discussed where a specific race of people were legally obliged to either pay to enter the country or to be uniquely refused. It should be noted that the specifics of the above agreements were not entirely just which would serve as examples that would lead to the direct predecessor of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the 1960 Bill of Rights imposed by Prime Minister Diefenbaker. Therefore, in order to understand the democratic changes that Prime Minister Trudeau’s 1982 Charter of rights and Freedoms witnessed in Canada, a comparison has to be made with what influenced this new agreement.
The Numbered Treaties and the Indian Act of 1876 are two examples of past events that were later changed in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One issue that Derek Whitehouse notes in his article The Numbered Treaties: Similar Means to Dichotomous Ends that there were two contrasting agendas between the government and the Aboriginals during the nego...
... middle of paper ...
...children.”**(28) Along with another section that applies to Native women who married Native men from another band where, “...she would be automatically transferred to the band of her husband, regardless of her personal wishes.” (28) This law was gender specific because if the opposite had happened, where an Aboriginal man married a non-aboriginal woman he would keep his Indian status alongside his new wife and eventual children. The 1982 Charter addresses similar situations in section four, paragraph ninety-one where the federal government does not have the right, or power, to interfere with provincial laws. This includes both marriage and Indian relations.** Despite having an inconsiderate past, the 1982 charter of Rights and Freedoms had amendments that created a more equal and egalitarian environment, especially in the case of the Aboriginal people in Canada.
The Indian act, since being passed by Parliament in 1876, has been quite the validity test for Aboriginal affairs occurring in Canada. Only a minority of documents in Canadian history have bred as much dismay, anger and debate compared to the Indian Act—but the legislation continues as a central element in the management of Aboriginal affairs in Canada. Aboriginal hatred against current and historic terms of the Indian Act is powerful, but Indigenous governments and politicians stand on different sides of the fence pertaining to value and/or purpose of the legislation. This is not shocking, considering the political cultures and structures of Aboriginal communities have been distorted and created by the imposition of the Indian Act.
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
McKercher, William R., ed. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not.
The history between the British Empire and its dominions always was significantly distinguished through the strong ties which people connected to the mother-country of Britain. However, as always in history changes were about to happen as each dominion urged to become more and more independent. The end of this process is marked by the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931 which granted the former dominions full legal freedom and established legislative equality between the now self-governing dominions of the British Empire. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster is one of the most remarkable acts in Canadian history as it set the road to the development of Canada in which we live today.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has long been the legal document that protects Canadian citizens from infringements made by unscrupulous politicians and legislators. However, there are questions explored about the Sections of the Charter and in those of Section 7 in particular. This is because of the protective function of Section 7 and its obligations of the protection of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person. There are third parties that could be posing “threats” to Charter interests and therefore the extents of Section 7 in terms of its protective function for individuals’ rights are put into question. Section 7 of the Charter says that “[E]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The meaning of Section 7 is to adhere to each individual’s right to the sanctity of life, their physical liberty in a narrow sense, and the integrity of the person is to be kept secure. However, what would the extent of Section 7 be or moreover, what is the extent of each protected interest? The objective of this paper is to examine the extents of Section 7 of the Charter in which the focus is on the protected interests of life, liberty and security of the person. Each protected interest will be discussed in depth with its relationship to a specific Canadian court case. This will help to determine the extent of Section 7 and therefore help understand how much the Charter protects the freedom of Canadian citizens. For right to life, the First Nation communities in Canada had ‘high risk’ of threats to health in their water systems according to Health Canada. The focus of this topic...
...n.p.). Soon the Canadian government amended Section 12 in 1985, and Bill C-31 was passed for those who lost their status and want to regain them (Hanson, n.p.). Unfortunately a fault existed in Bill C-31, which stated that the statuses of the aboriginals can only be passed on for one generation. Seeing as this was still unconstitutional, the government is now attempting to again retract its footsteps by amending the Indian Act altogether (Hanson, n.p.), but is still meeting difficulty in doing so.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your individual rights? . To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedom protects legal rights of Canadian whether they are a teenager or an adult, protects equality rights of Canadian and provides government services to all Canadians no matter what, ensures all laws are passed according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provides equality rights and fundamental freedoms to Canadians for practicing their religion and other rights without interference.
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400). The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognizes Indian sovereignty and its entitlement to land, became the benchmark for treaty making in Canada (Epp, 2008, p. 133; Isaac & Annis, p. 47, 48; Leeson, 2008, p. 226). There are currently 70 recognized treaties in Canada, encompassing 50 percent of Canadian land mass and representing over 600,000 First Nations people (Canada, 2013). These treaties usually have monetary provisions along with some financial benefits given by the Crown, in exchange for lands and its resources (Egan, 2012, p. 409). Its purpose should be an equal sharing of wealth that is beneficial for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals (Egan, 2012, p. 414).
Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the Canadian government developed several racist policies to contest the settlement of Chinese immigrants in Canada. Following the government’s reaction to Chinese immigrants a Canadian moral panic evolved . The first Canadian Prime Minister, John A. MacDonald (1878-1891) had a vision for the ideal “white” Canada . This Canada would be physically and morally prosperous by exhibiting European dominance over visible minorities. Racism occurred in different aspects from general mistreatment to formal legislation limiting movement and entry into Canada’s borders.
In many ways, this act singles out women throughout its history. Women did not have a choice to become enfranchised in many respects. If, the women’s husband became enfranchised or was a European the woman automatically lost their status, even if, they did not want to become enfranchised. This was written into the enfranchisement act and the Indian act. These laws have now been changed, but women who marry out are often noted as betraying their culture. Women in the Indigenous community have always had issues with how the Europeans view women. Before contact women in Indigenous culture were seen as important and helped run communities, but after contact the views of women changed. Women were seen as the weaker sex and that their place was in the home doing domestic duties, along with raising the children. Men were seen as the bread winners and must provide for their families. These ideal types of people were written into the Indian act showing that the government wanted women and men to play certain roles, which also meant limited opportunities for women. Another factor about the Indian act and the Reserves that were meant for the Indigenous people to live on, is they were often shrunk or moved without permission of the Indigenous population. The Reserves and the housing became a major issue for Indigenous people because the housing was often below standards and lacked basic necessities, (ie safe
Europeans refrained from choosing partner in their life. It was evident that the form of marriage in Britain was patriarchal. The European women suffered a lot as they were not allowed to leave the marriage even though their husband was unfaithful or created domestic violence. European women were not allowed to have romantic or sexual goal once she was married. Aboriginal women enjoyed more freedom than the European-origin women as infidelity was acting as the social agent. They could easily leave abusive relationships. Aboriginal women were given the right to choose their own marriage partner. This resulted in acceptance of polygamy by most of the Aboriginal people. The Canadian government imposed life-long monogamous practices for the newcomers along with the Aboriginal people in western Canada. The Canadian government reported immorality in the Northwest by ordering “unmarried farm instructor and Indian agents to get married, and missionaries were instructed in May of 1886 not to communicate with the newspaper ‘even if allegations against public officials were true.’” The Aboriginal people followed their cultural marriage practices whereas the newcomers followed multiculturalism. The Canadian government did not accept a variety of marriage models in western Canada. It considered the household made of the male-headed which consists of a man, his lawful wedded wife and their children. Things like sex outside marriage, polygamy, divorce and same-sex relations were all prohibited. This situation forced federal government to impose one view of marriage on the lives of non-Aboriginal women and men in the Prairie West before 1914. At the same time government imposed the Criminal code that stated “everyone who being married marries any other person during the life of the former husband