Arguing Indigenous Rights Outside Section 35: Can Religious Freedom Ground Indigenous Land Rights, and What Else Lies Ahead?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The November 2017 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Ktunaxa Nation case saw Canada’s highest court reject an Indigenous community’s claim to have the use of certain land restricted on account of the spiritual significance of certain sites to the community. This paper examines why Indigenous communities might wish to argue land issues grounded in religious freedom rather than under the s. 35 Indigenous rights clause, why this claim was unsuccessful (including factors related to the Supreme Court of Canada’s selective use of legal sources), and how there might nonetheless remain longer-term potential for such claims. Both provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that bear on Indigenous religious freedom and some jurisprudential developments in other states considering issues involving Indigenous religious freedom could yet ground such arguments being brought back. More generally, in light of some other Canadian cases as well, there are ongoing reasons to think about the possibility of Indigenous rights claims being put other than under s. 35.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".