9:15 - 11:50 C Block Social and Environmental Sciences
12:30 - 3:05 B Block Legal Studies
Social and Environmental Sciences - We are off this morning to the Comox Marina to catch some plankton. As you know, plankton are very small and often difficult to see. Scientists usually use a plankton net made of very fine mesh to collect plankton. Scientists generally drag a plankton net behind a boat for collection. The mesh used in a plankton net has holes that are large enough to allow water to pass through but small enough so that plankton cannot pass through. So, we'll take the plankton nets you created in the science lab along with us and see what we can collect. The low tide will be 3.2 m (10.5ft) at 9:34 this morning so it's not super low.
You may want to bring notebooks or journals to the field so that you can sketch what you see and record your observations of the body of water where the plankton were collected and what you saw. You may also take photos with your smartphones and use inaturalist (you can download the app on Google Play or in the iTunes store). Benton and I will ask you to consider
Q1. Why did you use a nylon stocking as part of the plankton net? What would happen if you made a plankton net using flexible window screen? Why is it important to use a fine mesh fabric
when constructing a plankton net?
Q2. What difficulties did you encounter in collecting plankton using your plankton net? Could you make the plankton net differently to solve the problem?
Q3. What method did you use to move water through your plankton net? How successful was that? Do you think another method might have been more successful?
After, we'll head to Goose Spit. Although there is a lot of wildlife here, we will go to complete a plastic inventory and search. Goose Spit's native name is Pelxqikw, which means “round on point.” Both sides of the spit were used by local First Nations to collect clams and cockles in spring and to fish for salmon in winter. Instead of clams or salmon we are going to look for evidence of plastic.
Legal Studies - Today we'll start with a look at Aboriginal Rights in the Charter (Section 25). It's important to note that section 25 does not create any new rights but rather protects against the abrogation or derogation of existing aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms
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 RCMP’s enforcement of the Coastal GasLink injunction against the Wet’suwet’en Unis’tot’en camp last year.
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:
- the land must have been occupied before sovereignty,
- there must be a continuity between pre-sovereignty and modern times (but not an unbroken chain)
- 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).
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.
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 then, I'd like you to look at the issue section "Should Aboriginal Peoples have their own system of Justice" on pages 106-07 in AAL and I'd like you to partner up with another student in the class. Your pairing should discuss questions 1-4 on page 107 and then be prepared to share with the class. We'll then do the same for questions 5 & 6 from the unit review on pages 108-09 of AAL
At a basic level of understanding, the concept of justice is understood differently by Indigenous peoples. For most Indigenous peoples, the traditional method of addressing wrongs committed against community members involved restoring or healing relationships rather than punishing the offender. The offender and victim(s) would discuss the harm caused by the offense. The offender would be expected to understand the consequences and take responsibility for the harm, and together, they would discuss appropriate ways to make amends.
Justice is not seen as a separate domain from community life that needs to be overseen and administered by experts (such as police, lawyers, judges. etc.), rather it must be integrated into daily living. Most disputes should be resolved in the community, among the families of those affected, and guided by elders.
The roots of restorative justice models stem from traditional Indigenous methods of conflict resolution which rely on community involvement and the implementation of holistic solutions Restorative justice focuses on holding the offender accountable in a meaningful way, rather than simply imposing punishment.
From Bringing Balance to the Scales of JusticeWebsites to help your discussion:
Healing the Canadian justice system
Why does the Canadian justice system treat aboriginal people as if they’re all the same?
UBC Indigenous Foundations Aboriginal Rights
Overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in B.C. corrections system rising, says Statistics Canada report
Indigenous Justice Strategy Programs Province of BC
I'll have you work on questions 2, 4 and 5 on page 61, questions 1, 2 and 4 on page 64 and finally have you work through the Review Your Understanding questions 1, 2 and 5 on page 83 of the AAL text to submit next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment