Tuesday, February 18. 2020

Today's schedule is CDAB

C Block Criminology - Today your journal / blog entry is to answer the following:

Now that you know about trends in crime and what violence is in relation to age, gender and class...

Do you think that school is one of the most dangerous places for young people in society today?

Broaden your scope a little and do not necessarily focus on Vanier for this question. Think about other Canadian, British Columbian or Comox Valley high schools and generalize your response a bit. Don't forget that you'll need to find a story to back up your point of view here (either one about how little crime exists in schools or one that demonstrates that schools are somewhat dangerous places). More info to help:

RCMP: School Violence
Stats Can Youth Offending in Canada
Youth Crime In Canada which states:

• In 2006, 1 in 10 youth crimes were committed on school property
• Crimes at school include bullying and violence
• Assaults are particularly common representing about 30% of all violations committed by youth on school property. Uttering threats constituted another 8%
• Nearly 20% of crimes committed at school were drug offences, whereas 5% of youth crimes committed elsewhere were drug-related. Youth drug offences taking place on school grounds usually involved the possession (78%) or trafficking of cannabis (10%)

D & A Blocks Legal Studies - Today we'll examine the collective rights of Canada's Aboriginal/First Nations people. We'll talk about the significance of the Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973 decision. From the Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements Project:

The decision in Calder v Attorney-General of British Columbia was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on 31 January 1973. It is often credited with having provided the impetus for the overhauling of the land claims negotiation process in Canada. The case was initiated in 1968 by the Nisga'a Tribal Council against the Government of British Columbia. It failed both at trial and in the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's finding in recognising the possible existence of Aboriginal rights to land and resources, but was equally divided on the issue of whether the Nisga'a retained title. The decision prompted the federal government to develop new policy to address Aboriginal land claims. In 1976 Canada commenced negotiations with the Nisga'a Tribal Council. British Columbia did not join the negotiations until 1990. The Nisga'a Final Agreement was concluded in 1999 and implemented by legislation in 2000.

We'll also talk about the landmark Delgamuukw-Gisday'way Aboriginal title case. This case is very important in the current RCMP’s enforcement of the Coastal GasLink injunction against the Wet’suwet’en  Unis’tot’en camp.

In the Delgamuukw case, Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs established that the Indigenous nation has a system of law that predates the days of elected band councils enacted under Canada's Indian Act. ​​​​​​Under traditional Wet'suwet'en law, hereditary chiefs are responsible for decisions regarding ancestral lands. In the current dispute, some hereditary chiefs say the decision to approve a pipeline in their ancestral lands without consent is an infringement of their Aboriginal title and rights.

From this case, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that for aboriginal title to be present it must satisfy the following criteria:

1. the land must have been occupied before sovereignty,
2. there must be a continuity between pre-sovereignty and modern times (but not an unbroken chain)
3. at the time of sovereignty, the occupancy must have been exclusive (but it could have been jointly exclusive by more than one party or tribe).

If these are established, then aboriginal title exists. So, the Supreme Court established that Wet'suwet'en had never extinguished title to their territory. Now the issue today is connected to the elected and hereditary chiefs. From a really good article at First People's Law:

The Wet’suwet’en, like many Indigenous groups in Canada, are governed by both a traditional governance system and elected Chiefs and Councils. The Chief and Council system exists under the Indian Act, a piece of federal legislation. It was introduced by the federal government in the 19th century as part of Canada’s attempts to systematically oppress and displace Indigenous law and governance. The Wet’suwet’en hereditary governance system predates colonization and continues to exist today. Unless otherwise authorized by the Indigenous Nation members, the authority of elected Chiefs and Councils is limited to the powers set out under the Indian Act. The Indian Act does not provide authority for a Chief and Council to make decisions about lands beyond the boundaries of the First Nation’s reserves. By contrast, the Hereditary Chiefs are responsible under Wet’suwet’en law and governance for making decisions relating to their ancestral lands. It is these lands that the Hereditary Chiefs are seeking to protect from the impacts of the pipeline project, not Indian Act reserve lands.

So check out the article on CBC When pipeline companies want to build on Indigenous lands, with whom do they consult?

After a discussion on the current conflict in northern BC (as a microcosm for Canada wide issues) I'll have you discuss the Guerin v. The Queen, 1984 case in partners and finally have you work through the Review Your Understanding questions 1, 2 and 5 on page 83 of the AAL text

B Block Human Geography - Today we'll look at the Key Issue "Why Does Development Vary among Countries"? To do this we'll look at the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI is a composite index measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development:

• a long and healthy life, 
• knowledge and 
• a decent standard of living

Earth’s nearly 200 countries can be classified according to their level of development, which is the process of improving the material conditions of people through diffusion of knowledge and technology. The development process is continuous, involving never-ending actions to constantly improve the health and prosperity of the people. Every place lies at some point along a continuum of development. You'll have two really big thinking questions to work on for me connected to this topic:

1. If you were to create an index of development, what indicators would you use, and why (look at the UN HDI Indicators for Canada in the week 7 booklet)? How would you weigh each indicator? Could your index be used around the world, or would it be mostly relevant to our society?
2. The HDI is used to measure development at a whole-country level. Is it adequate to measure development within a country? Why or why not? (Another way of thinking about this: Are there minority groups that may be “glossed over” by the HDI?