<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Contested federalism and the aboriginal challenge</title>
		<description>Discuss Contested federalism and the aboriginal challenge</description>
		<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 13:34:16 -0500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/feed/com_k2/811.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>I look forward to the appeal</title>
			<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-202</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I thought that the issue was more or less settled when Trudeau backed away from the White Paper, the Calder decision came down, and section 35 affirmed existing and treaty rights. But if Mr. Rustand wants to challenge self-government provisions on a democratic rights ground, sections 3 and 15 of the Charter are available to the Canadian Constitutional Foundation to mount a challenge. I would be amazed if they succeeded. Alternatively, perhaps this is just a political appeal to governments to stop negotiating treaties, a plea for less legal pluralism. Again I would be amazed if it succeeded.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mark Crawford</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:48:38 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-202</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Contested Federalism</title>
			<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-97</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mr. Rustand raises an important issue, especially for those of us living in British Columbia. I for one am concerned that we may already be living in a country where all citizens are not treated equally, and where there is a patchwork of citizens with special rights based on race. I don't pretend that these are not difficult issues, but care must be taken to ensure we do not dimish citizenship in the exercise, when the object is to improve it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>J Harris</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:32:24 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-97</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>lawyer</title>
			<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-96</link>
			<description><![CDATA[MG Wetzel astute comments hit the nail directly on the head.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Keith A.</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:45:06 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-96</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Lawyer</title>
			<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-95</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Wow, I haven't heard such ethnocentric sentiments seriously discussed in a legal forum since the racist rantings of former B.C. chief justice the late Allan McEachern in R. v. Delgamuukw, when he colorfully described First Nations people as uncivilized savages with lives that were "nasty, brutish and short." The writer states: "But there is no third order of government. Such a notion has no basis in law, or in common sense." There is a wealth of case law that recognized that there is in fact a basis in law. The writer clearly believes that "common sense" by definition must been subscribing to an ethnocentric imperialist view. This has to be the worst, the very worst, Canadian Lawyer article I have ever read.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Keith A.</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:42:05 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-95</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Is \&quot;Inerent Self Government Constitutional\ &quot;</title>
			<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-94</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mr. Rustand poses the question: Is inherent self government constitutional ? His question, the subject of academic/politi cal/legal debate, could just as legtimately be entitled "How do we keep our colonization of the First Nations of Canada from being undone?" His answer and rationale can also be summarized and restated as: "Let us return to the our superior 19th century political dogma. After all, the best Indians are the ones who want to be, or whom we can make to be, just like us. Once First Nations are assimilated and enfranchised, which was the objective of the Indian Act and still is the Federal Government's underlying agenda, we can live comfortably in our federal/provinc ial version of government on the First Nations lands we have colonized."]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MG Wetzel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:26:06 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-94</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alarmist \'R us</title>
			<link>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-93</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Huh? Where is this "judicial contest now underway"? In Chief Mountain? This is old news - the Campbell case was decided 10 years ago this year. Contrary to what you state, the decision was in fact appealed, but that appeal was dropped when Campbell became Premier of BC. It has not been followed elsewhere because the issue has not been argued elsewhere (the Cambell decision has not been overrruled or distinguished elsewhere either). More to the point, what have these 10 years disclosed? Are we in a state of constitutional anarchy or confusion in Nisga'a territory as a result of this policy? Your concerns about the effects of hundreds of self-government agreements across Canada are - with the exception of the ability to theoretically effect unilateral changes - equally applicable to delegated models of self-government . Indeed, at a certain level Canada is already divided into hundreds of Aboriginal principalities where their own laws can govern with respect to certain matters: they are called reserves. As for your point that it would be "unclear which aboriginal groups would possess which governmental powers" - that is the point of the self-government agreements. Without them, First Nations will attempt to establish self-government rights on an ad hoc basis through the courts.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>BB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:24:54 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Contested-federalism-and-the-aboriginal-challenge.html#comment-93</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
