Introduction to Group Rights and Indigenous Peoples
Although most people are highly supportive of the broad concept of equality, and believe that equal treatment, and equal opportunity for all is a vital civil, political, and social right, there is much debate about how we should achieve such equality. Some argue that equality can be measured and regulated through individual rights (INSERT SHORT DEFINITION HERE), whereas others argue that specific group rights and policies help ensure that oppressed and culturally segregated populations’ rights to recognition, inclusion, representation, participation, and autonomy are met. Specific groups however, including indigenous peoples, cultural minorities, and or immigrants groups have different claims
…show more content…
This causes Native populations to be excluded from the decision making process. The Canadian first past the post electoral system is one barrier that excludes Indigenous populations due to the importance it places on demographics, geographical ridings, and how individuals vote for their representatives. Aboriginals represent 3.8% of the national population but since they are too evenly dispersed around Canada, they are unable to consistently influence electoral outcomes. (INSERT CITATION 1). In this way, First Nations populations have individual rights to political representation and the right to vote, but their exercise and effect of such rights are restricted institutionally and structurally. Group rights although controversial, have the ability to mediate the exercise of individual rights and or equate different disadvantageous citizens to the majority by the population by treating them differently through specific policies. Although the classical liberal position is that only individuals can have rights and all individuals should have them equally (CITATION 2- TEXTBOOK PG. 611), differential treatment rights and policies assists indigenous populations in their pursuit for political representation and equal political …show more content…
Legislation was created temporary but kept permanently for the Maori population (one type of indigenous people of New Zealand which made up of 14.6% of New Zealand’s population. This legislation created four Maori parliamentary seats and guaranteed constituencies a Member of Parliament with the same power and privileges as the other members of the House of Representatives (CITATION 1). Registered Maori were allowed to vote in specified Maori ridings and through this system, the Maori population were given a voice in the House of Representatives CITATION 1). Some critics however argue that other voters are opposed to the idea of separate representation and race based allocation of seats rather than geography. (CITATION 1). But to this, it can be argued that because indigenous populations have no guarantees to their rights to land, culture, religion, and etc., special legal protection is necessary. However rarely do majorities ever vote to give political autonomy to indigenous minorities as this would impact their self-government. (INSERT CITATION 4) This is why structural protection of such group rights and minorities is important. Other relevant states taking steps to ensure political inclusiveness and political representation of minority groups and
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
Throughout the history of Canada the indigenous population of the country have been voiceless. They have been both suppressed and oppressed by the Federal and various Provincial governments within Canada. Many organizations tried to provide a voice for the native population but failed in their attempt. These organizations eventually merged together to become what is now known as The Assembly of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations gives voice to the issues and problems facing the different components of the aboriginal community in Canada.
“The recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources." (Wherrett
The right to vote for non-citizens has become an increasingly controversial topic due to the strong and often divisive opinions of permanent Canadian residents. The capacity to vote is one of the most important and valued freedoms granted to individuals. Although the acceptance of non-citizen resident voting is frequently encouraged in order to propel self-governing justice and immigrant inclusion, opponents claim that it is in a nation’s best interest to delay voting rights to non-citizens. According to this claim, by preserving voting rights to citizens, non-citizens would have the social responsibility to actively learn the essential community services and self-ruled obligations necessary to earn their citizenship. In spite of this claim, non-citizens should be allowed to vote because the right to vote offers immigrants a more welcomed chance to contribute in the decision-making processes that take place in Canadian legislature. Seeing that this legislature administrates the rights and freedoms of the immigrant populations, it would only be just if immigrants had the right to elect candidates who spoke on behalf of their best interests.
The fight for equality and human rights has been and still is a continuous battle played out on many fronts ranging from struggles between ruling governments and the people, the definition of societal roles and status, and also within the home on a domestic and individual level. The legacy for these battl...
Equality and equal opportunity are two terms that have changed or have been redefined over the last 100 years in America. The fathers of our constitution wanted to establish justice and secure liberty for the people of the United States. They wrote about freedom and equality for men, but historically it has not been practiced. In the twentieth century, large steps have been made to make the United States practice the ideals declared in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The major changes following Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her bus seat to a young white man and the Brown v. Board of Education trial in 1954.
Aboriginal people groups depended on an assortment of unmistakable approaches to sort out their political frameworks and establishments prior to contact with Europeans. Later, a considerable amount of these establishments were overlooked or legitimately stifled while the national government endeavored to force a uniform arrangement of limitlessly distinctive Euro-Canadian political goals on Aboriginal social orders. For some Aboriginal people groups, self-government is seen as an approach to recover control over the administration of matters that straightforwardly influence them and to safeguard their social characters. Self-government is alluded to as an inherent right, a previous right established in Aboriginal people groups' long occupation
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 issue of aboriginal people in Canada is not new. For a long time, it has been heatedly debated by academic scholars and by the general public as well. By no means does this issue have a straightforward solution to it. RCAP (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples) is one of the institutions largely responsible for the aboriginal issue. Unfortunately, the problems RCAP faces are too intractable to settle in a relatively short time, due to which there are some unresolved problems intimately related with the life of aboriginal people awaiting to be dealt with soon in an effective and politically sound way. The complexity of the issue calls for more intellectual discussion beyond the scope of the immediate present aboriginal reality.
In the following assignment, I will discuss the issue of native sovereignty in Canada, and address the question; "Can native sovereignty coexist with Canadian sovereignty?" To answer this question I will summarize two articles that discuss the issue. The first by John A. Olthius and Roger Townshend entitled "The Case for Native Sovereignty", and the second, by Thomas Flanagan, entitled "Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really want an Aboriginal Archipelago?" I will be taking the position against the coexistence of native sovereignty with Canadian sovereignty. These two articles will help me support my position on the issue.
In Canada’s democratic government, voting is a powerful way for citizens to communicate their values. The leader who is chosen reflects the power of the Canadians’ values. Thus, to the government, every vote matters, assuring Canadians that their opinions matter. Today, Canada recognizes voting as a fundamental right for all of their citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights effectively protects this right of all Canadians, even minorities, through section 3. “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a large legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”. This ensures equality for vote to all Canadians. Equality is to allow all Canadians equal opportunity, even if they are of different race, religion, gender and etcetera. However, in the past, this fundamental right has not always been accessible to all. In fact, voting was considered a privilege where citizens had to qualify to have the ability to vote. The rules were so strict that only eleven percent of the past population of Canada could have voted, compared to today’s seventy-eight percent. Many of these rules of who could vote and who could not were very unjust. This was especially seen in minority groups who did not have the franchise, the right to vote.. In this essay, it will be seen that the inequalities to vote made racial exclusions, religious exclusions and gender exclusions more pronounced. It will be seen that the government treated certain races with intentional discrimination creating a lack of an opportunity to vote. As well, the government showed prejudice to certain religious groups, denying these groups their ability to vote. And, finally, it will be seen that views against women aided ...
Through legislature the people with the power, the British, would attempt to civilize First Nations. To assimilate the minority, because just by being so means your cultures and values are less than mine. In the 1820s the colonial administrations first attempt at assimilation took place at Lake Simcoe in Upper Canada. A group of Aboriginals were encouraged to colonial-style village where they’d be taught agriculture and advised to become Christians. Because of poor management, underfunding, a lack of understanding Aboriginals cultures and values, the experiment was a big failure. It most certainly did not stop there. In 1876 the Canadian government introduced the Indian Act. It is “…the principal statute through which the federal government administers Indian status, local First Nations governments and the management of reserve land and communal monies” (Parrot, 2006). The First Nations have to be given their Indian Status, a legal acknowledgment of a person’s First Nation heritage. That alone shows the difference between the government, and the Aboriginals living on reservations. The difference between First Nations and the Canadian government, in this case, quite aptly shows their relations of power. “Those in society with the most power – however defined- are in the strongest position to define the realities of difference and thereby create and recreate systems of dominance and power that determine where and how important resources like income, wealth, and access to education and health care are distributed” (Perry, 2011, p.24) Which means that the powerful Canadian government can oppress the minority Native Indians living on reserves through this very controlling legislature. Moreover, the language isn’t quite right either. To elaborate, the use of the word ‘Indian’ is commonly seen as derogatory. This may be obvious bigotry, which is “…the derogatory language that is
Similar to other marginalized groups affected by colonialism due to the government in power, the Indigenous peoples of Canada have struggled as a nation due to the unequal treatment they have encountered in the past. The governing bodies that control these Indigenous communities have continued to have colonialistic tendencies that attempt to put the ‘white man’s’ needs before the Indigenous peoples.
Most individuals have experienced the everlasting joy and love that comes with caring family and friends, but the realization is that agony and despair will always win the war of light and dark, and family and friends are simply just impeding the end result. When a child is born, agony is already set in place, for screaming and crying will commence as soon as the child feels hands clasped on to him. However, this agony is soon met with joy as the child is met with his mother’s soothing heartbeat. Moreover, sometimes this heartbeat never comes, and thus, agony and despair stay within this child’s heart forever. Jimmy Baca, a lost young man who has only witnessed pain in his life, is this child. Furthermore, there comes a time in every individual’s
The recent events in Timmins and Canada demonstrate the way in which Canada continues to govern the amount of power Aboriginal communities have (Gillis, 2018; Adelson, 2005). A main type of power in which Aboriginal communities wish for, but cannot attain is political autonomy (Gillis, 2018; Adelson, 2005). In order to improve the lives of Aboriginal citizens, many Aboriginal citizens believe in government and treaty control from Aboriginal communities (Gillis, 2018). A secondary attribute of internal colonization is restricting the movement of the colonialized group (Sernau, 2013). With the forced migration to various reserves, many Aboriginal communities have been forced into dangerous and unpleasant environments (Sernau, 2013; Adelson, 2005).