Aboriginal Recognition in Canada: Distinguishing between Peoples and Minorities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Critics of expanded Aboriginal rights in the Canadian context often argue for limited special rights, largely in line with those afforded to visible minority groups, immigrant groups, and gays and lesbians, among others. However, the contentions of these scholars' critiques rarely draw attention to some of the most striking differences between minority groups in Canada and Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal communities are markedly different from any other group in Canada because they are the original occupants of what is now Canada; they lived on the land according to their own laws, governance, and practices; and they functioned as sovereigns over their lands, recognised as such by the newcomers. These assertions of prior occupancy, prior sovereignty, as well as the existence of treaties, and the ultimate loss of self-determination, combine to form a distinct and unique Aboriginal position in Canada. This article addresses the debate over whether Aboriginal groups should be considered minorities or peoples with a right of self-determination. It undertakes legal-theoretical analyses of Aboriginal assertions of prior occupancy, prior sovereignty, and treaties, alongside an examination of legal recognition theory and its application to Aboriginal communities in Canada. By extension, it is argued that Aboriginal peoples constitute social, cultural, and political communities, distinct in nature from any other group in Canada. Whether this distinctiveness has translated into tangible rights and recognition is contested. Both Canadian courts and governments have recognised the distinctiveness of Aboriginal peoples, yet this has occurred at differing rates. From a political standpoint, the recognition of Aboriginal rights has been a slow, incremental process, often marred by government disinterest and inaction. While formal Aboriginal rights recognition has occurred, this has not translated fully into concrete benefits for Aboriginal peoples. Instead, government policy on fundamental Aboriginal issues still lags behind. One exampled is the protracted and arduous nature of land claims and self-government negotiations. During the negotiations and implementation processes of land claims and self-government agreements, significant limitations continue to be placed on the legislative and political powers of Aboriginal peoples across Canada. Aboriginal title is not fully recognised, Aboriginal self-governing powers are often restricted, and the over-arching right of self-determination is sidelined. It is apparent that Canadian government policy on Aboriginal rights is more formal than actual. This article examines the contradictions between government policy and action, particularly with regard to land claims and self-government agreements, alongside remedial possibilities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,035 | 0,021 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».