Here.
The Guardian: “Canada sued over years of alleged experimentation on indigenous people”
Here.
Here.
In Canada, Status First Nations persons—those listed in the country’s Indian Register—are significantly more likely than the average Canadian to meet an untimely death. When it comes to wellness outcomes, disparities along racial and ethnic lines are well documented across many metrics. What is often overlooked, however, is what those data look like at the intersection of race and gender.
Here.
Here.
Here is “Two Bullets and Numerous Misfires.”
Here.
As a project for Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Prof. Napoleon created the Indigenous Law Research Unit – her proudest work to date. It allows Indigenous communities to articulate and restate their law and legal processes – a model that has been taken up across Canada and beyond.
Coverage of some of the tremendous problems with Canada’s foster care system.
According to a report from B.C.’s representative for children and youth, although Indigenous children are less than 10 per cent of the population, they account for 62 per cent of children in government care.
Here.
Here is the 7-2 opinion in Ktunaxa Nation Council v. Minister of Forests:
An excerpt:
The Ktunaxa are a First Nation whose traditional territories include an area in British Columbia that they call Qat’muk. Qat’muk is a place of spiritual significance for them because it is home to Grizzly Bear Spirit, a principal spirit within Ktunaxa religious beliefs and cosmology. Glacier Resorts sought government approval to build a year-round ski resort in Qat’muk. The Ktunaxa were consulted and raised concerns about the impact of the project, and as a result, the resort plan was changed to add new protections for Ktunaxa interests. The Ktunaxa remained unsatisfied, but committed themselves to further consultation. Late in the process, the Ktunaxa adopted the position that accommodation was impossible because the project would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk and therefore irrevocably impair their religious beliefs and practices. After efforts to continue consultation failed, the respondent Minister declared that reasonable consultation had occurred and approved the project. The Ktunaxa brought a petition for judicial review of the approval decision on the grounds that the project would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion, and that the Minister’s decision breached the Crown’s duty of consultation and accommodation. The chambers judge dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision.
Here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.