Restless Spirits in the Land: Finding a Place in Canadian Law for Aboriginal Civil Disobedience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article will argue that Aboriginal use of civil disobedience should be legalised within limited circumstances. Aboriginal peoples have constitutional rights under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court of Canada decided in Haida that if a Canadian government possesses knowledge, real or constructive, that its actions may affect Aboriginal interests that are potentially protected under s. 35(1), that government then has duties towards the Aboriginal peoples concerned. These duties can include giving prior notice of the proposed action, or even interim accommodation of the Aboriginal interests pending final resolution. If the Canadian state undertakes an action that 1) threatens harm to or interference with an Aboriginal interest and 2) in a manner that reflects a failure to uphold its obligations under Haida and 3) the action is commenced before the interim hearing contemplated by Haida can be initiated, Aboriginal peoples should be allowed to have recourse to civil disobedience to block that action. The idea is that the action reflects a failure by the state to uphold the rule of law with respect to Aboriginal rights and therefore should disentitle the state from enforcing such action through criminal prosecution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".