Thursday, February 17. 2022

Today's schedule is DCBA

D Block Physical Geography - Today we'll discuss the differences between Sial and Sima (continental and oceanic crust) along with figuring out what buoyancy and isostasy are. You'll need to complete question 9 from page 366 of the text (isostasy, isostatic rebound, and crustal equilibrium). We'll also transfer some notes into our week 3 package on the rock cycle. If you need help look at the Geology for Kids web page or the e-notes on Earthfacts

If there's time we'll begin our look at Igneous processes...

Check out the Dynamic Earth Interactive Rock Identification site here
Check out the Rock Cycle/Type animation from the BBC
Check out the Rock Cycle from the Geological Society here
Check out CK-12 Igneous Rock,  Sedimentary Rock or Metamorphic rock information.

C Block Human Geography - Today we'll try to answer the Key Question "Why Is Global Population Increasing"? Geographers most frequently measure population change in a country or the world as a whole through three measures -  crude birth rate, crude death rate, and natural increase rate and we'll look at those today along with measures of fertility and mortality along with population pyramids.


You'll have some questions to work on for me in order to understand our key concept:

1. About how many people are being added to the world’s population each year?
2. How does the TFR in your family compare to the overall figure for North America? 
3. Match the Country with the population pyramid and explain why (Canada, Chad & Germany)
4. Name a type of community that might have a lot more males than females. Why so?

We'll also play around a bit on Gapminder to visualize these statistics

B Block Criminology - Today I'll have you work on the three questions about crime trends I posted on Tuesday:

1. Using pages 37 to 46 in the CRIM textbook outline and explain the crime patterns in relation to ecology, firearms, social class, age, gender and race.
2. What is a chronic offender and what is the significance of Marvin Wolfgang's discovery (why is identifying the chronic offender important)?
3. How would you explain the gender differences in the crime rate (why do you think males are more violent than females)? 

After a bit, we'll talk about victims of crime. Every day we have specific routines we engage in. Many of these routines are tailored to preventing us from becoming victims of crime. We do things like lock our doors, watch where we walk at night, or avoid walking alone. We take these actions because at some level we are afraid of the possibility of being a victim of crime. Despite taking these actions people often fall prey to crime in Canada. So what do we know about victimization?

1. Women were at higher risk than men of being victims of a violent crime
2. Age was the key risk factor in violent victimization
3. Drug use, binge drinking and the frequency of evening activities were associated with the risk of violent victimization
4. Mental health was associated with the risk of violent victimization
5. People who suffered child maltreatment were more likely to be victims of a violent crime
6. People with a history of homelessness were more likely to report being a victim of a violent crime
7. The risk of violent victimization was higher among people residing in a neighbourhood with low social cohesion
8. Aboriginal people, in particular women, were more likely to be victims
9. One-quarter of violent incidents took place at the victim’s place of work
10. The majority of offenders were male and, on average, in their early thirties
11. Most victims knew their attacker
12. Most violent incidents did not involve weapons and did not result in physical injury
13. Low social cohesion was associated with a higher risk of household victimization
14. Households residing in apartments or condos were less likely to be victimized by household crime
15. The size of the household was linked to the risk of victimization
16. One incident in five resulted in losses of $1,000 or more
17. Most incidents of victimization did not come to the attention of the police

A Block Legal Studies - You'll have time at the start of class to work on your questions from yesterday:

• 1-3 on page 54;  
• 1, 2 and 5 on page 56 

After, 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. APTN Wet’suwet’en Conflict site

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?