AFTER THE INJUNCTION: THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN POLICING INDIGENOUS RESISTANCE IN B.C.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous land defenders challenging major projects on traditional territory remains an enduring feature of Canadian politics. These projects can be protected by court-issued injunctions that can authorize the state to dispel land defenders. Although there is a growing body of scholarship that shows how injunctions are typically granted to favour businesses and the state (Pasternak and Ceric, 2023), the sentencing of individuals who violate injunctions is underexplored. We analyze the sentencing decisions of Indigenous individuals who violated injunctions protecting three major projects in B.C.: the Coastal GasLink pipeline, logging at the Fairy Creek watershed, and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. We find that in the total eight sentencing decisions across these projects, the court typically does not accept the defendants’ arguments that commitment to Indigenous laws that protect traditional territory are relevant background factors that should mitigate against incarceration. Thus, Gladue principles are considered during sentencing, but our analysis suggests that Gladue does not live up to its promise of requiring courts to appreciate Indigenous laws, culture, and heritage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".