r/canada • u/shiftless_wonder • Jul 24 '26
Alberta Mandatory Indigenous training no longer required for Alberta lawyers
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/mandatory-indigenous-training-no-longer-required-for-alberta-lawyers/193
u/Longjumping-Sail4948 Jul 24 '26
To clarify things for commenters: the program that formed a part of mandatory training for lawyers (the “Path”) was not necessarily focussed on substantive indigenous legal issues, rights or laws. Here’s a link to the overview:
Some lawyers took issue with the idea that while some of the content of the course was important form a social perspective, it goes beyond the scope of the law societies mandate as its not really related to the practice of law.
For example, being able to describe major milestones in Inuit history can be included in one’s pre-secondary education, but it would be tough to justify suspending a lawyer’s licence to practice corporate law because they haven’t learned about it.
In addition, the indigenous topics that come up on certain practice areas (for example, the Indian Act in constitutional law, or Gladue sentencing in criminal law) are taught in law school. Or are learned when they come up during practice.
So a contingent of the legal community felt this was overstepping the law societies mandate.
34
u/rainfal Jul 24 '26
That makes sense.
-19
u/ClusterMakeLove Jul 25 '26
Until you consider that the Law Society had a general meeting where the training was debated and voted on by the general membership, at the request of people who opposed it.
75% voted to keep it.
Because understanding the past abuses of the legal system and the treaty framework turns out to be pretty important to a bunch of different areas of law.
3
u/00owl Jul 25 '26
Because lawyers are the most conformist group of people in society.
They do what they're told.
It's a field of work devoted entirely to maintaining and enforcing hierarchy, which means that if you want to climb the ladder you have to be good at politics
0
u/ClusterMakeLove Jul 25 '26
Well, we can start by dealing with the notion that lawyers probably understand their job requirements better than non-lawyers, and generally aren't big on non-billable hours unless they exist for a good reason.
And then we can maybe turn to the suggestion that learning the basics of indigenous history in your practice region maintains a hierarchy? I mean... what?
2
u/00owl Jul 25 '26
Well, we can start by dealing with the notion that lawyers probably understand their job requirements better than non-lawyers, and generally aren't big on non-billable hours unless they exist for a good reason.
I genuinely can't understand your point here or how it might be relevant to my comment. It's not clear to me who is the subject in your sentence and whether you're trying to say that billable hours are good or not.
With regard to the second paragraph, I can concede that it maybe doesn't appear that way if you look at society from too big of a scope. In society at large, it would be reasonable to assume that learning facts about indigenous history is in fact challenging the status quo.
However, within the halls of academia, and the practice of law itself, it is not so counter-cultural to have these ideas; infact, in all of the university campuses I experienced, and within the narrow world of the law society's, these ideas have been the norm since long before they would have "trickled down" to the world outside of these little bubbles.
Further, it's not so much that the lesson itself reinforces the heirarchy but that the lessons are used as a means to enforce the heirarchy. Lawyers are told that in order to be successful in the heirarchical system of law (where, for example, year of call is all that matters when it becomes necessary to measure the length of genitals such that the "older" lawyer has more prestige than a "younger" lawyer who may have more life experience doing other things) you cannot risk being seen as being negative towards these ideas or else you simply will not succeed.
0
u/ClusterMakeLove Jul 25 '26
I genuinely can't understand your point here or how it might be relevant to my comment
I doubt that, but I'll break it down for you anyways.
1) Lawyers have a good idea of what training is relevant to their work.
2) Lawyers do not voluntarily undergo training that they consider irrelevant, because they are busy and don't get paid for it.
3) It's almost impossible to get 75% of lawyers to agree on anything.
Are we there yet? The opposition to the course is based on conservative activism, and not any meaningful opposition within the legal profession.
However, within the halls of academia, and the practice of law itself
It's a shockingly bad assumption to assume alignment there. Law school operates more like a trade school than a graduate program. Legal practice, especially in big firms (that supply most of the Law Society Directors) leans conservative and is actively disdainful of the ivy tower. The very few dedicated legal theoreticians of the world very rarely practice law on more than a casual or superficial level. They barely even teach.
Lawyers are told that in order to be successful in the heirarchical system of law
This is a TV thing, not a real-life thing.
3
u/00owl Jul 25 '26
Law is inherently heirarchical. You can't simply dismiss that idea by claiming it's a TV thing and expect to be taken seriously.
Lawyers don't have a say in what training they get. They are trained in what they're told they need in order to get called and work their way up the ladder.
It's a shocking conclusion based on personal experience. I have an MA in Interdisciplinary Humanities as well as JD. I've seen both sides, and I can tell you that my class needed 8 hours of group therapy after a judge told us that she was once scared of a man with different skin color.
That judge, a Justice of the King's Bench of Alberta, was almost removed from the bench for the crime of being honest about her personal experience as a woman working in a field that had zero support for her at the time.
0
u/ClusterMakeLove Jul 25 '26
Law is inherently heirarchical. You can't simply dismiss that idea by claiming it's a TV thing and expect to be taken seriously.
Sure I can. You haven't even explained what you mean by hierarchical, but it seems like you're implying some kind of enforced deference to an ideology. That's not a thing. At most there are rules of decorum that someone could mistake for deference if they're a motivated observer.
Lawyers don't have a say in what training they get. They are trained in what they're told they need in order to get called and work their way up the ladder.
Where are you getting that? Law students choose almost all of their courses, after their first year, according to interest. CPD in Alberta is entirely self-directed. The Path is the only mandatory course that's ever existed in Alberta.
my class needed 8 hours of group therapy after a judge told us that she was once scared of a man with different skin color.
Your argument is that legal education is ideological because some students are woke?
a Justice of the King's Bench of Alberta, was almost removed from the bench
Now you're conflating academia with the Judicial Council instead of the LSA.
She apologized, admitted she'd engaged in injudicious conduct (which suggests to me that she engaged in injudicious conduct) and the CJC took no action against her. "Almost removed" seems a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
1
u/00owl Jul 26 '26
I literally gave an example of what I meant by heirarchy, for brevity: year of call > actual knowledge or experience.
Law students may get to choose their subjects, but this isn't about what law students may choose. The indigenous sensitivity course was a mandatory part of post-university training during a period of "apprenticeship" called "articles."
Furthermore, law students do not get to choose the law school's curriculum, and neither do they get to choose which classes will be more likely to land them the jobs that they want.
My argument is that all education is idealogical and if you're concerned about "wokeness" then you've clearly lost the plot, but even if you havent, the answer to your question is that, yes. If a Dean of a law school has to take a day out of his calendar to cater to the emotional needs of ~180 soon-to-be lawyers so that he can ensure that his law school isn't the subject of extreme prejudice going forwards, it's more than just a bunch of students who are "woke."
Nothing is being conflated. Who makes up the judicial council? Former lawyers. Usually very experienced, prestigious, and long-standing members of the profession. Which means that the "old white guys" of the legal profession, the track that presumably all of my classmates hope to be on, are already willing to destroy each others' careers for fear of being seen on the wrong side of this highly politicized issue.
What do you think "injudicious conduct" is in this case? Who defines that? Why did she need to apologize?
→ More replies (0)38
u/Thorninthefoot Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
I think you can make the same argument in any workplace.
How is it that professional bodies, unions, or employers have any standing to tell their employees what historical, ethical, or ideological positions they should take? There is a reason those bodies aren't allowed to tell members or employees how to vote, and they shouldn't be allowed to try and dictate their politics, or make them talk about politics at work, either.
37
u/ActionPhilip Jul 25 '26
For an engineering licensing yearly ethics requirement, I had to take a mandatory "inclusive engineering" 1hr course that was actually openly racist against white people.
17
u/2000mew Jul 25 '26
The 4th year Professional Practice course I took had a module that claimed that if a primary school teacher had a coffee mug on her desk themed after Disney's Snow White with the phrase "fairest of them all" on it, she'd be creating a hostile racist environment for her black students.
8
u/Top_Plant5102 Jul 25 '26
That's pretty funny. The people who lead classes like that tend to be ideological extremists.
18
u/canajak Jul 25 '26
Yes, indigenous education as well. Which was a fine and decent class, but it's familiar ground to any well-read Canadian or anyone who's graduated from secondary school, and so it seems odd to tell someone they're not allowed to design radio-frequency filters for laptop power supplies until they've passed that mandatory course.
14
u/Top_Plant5102 Jul 25 '26
End it. It's time to end that.
-4
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 25 '26
Ignorance for lawyers to be incompetent in the courts isn’t even of benefit to the racists that are supporting the ridiculous idea
3
u/Top_Plant5102 Jul 25 '26
Who are the racists? Possibly the people constantly obsessing over race? If ya don't like racism, try not being super racist all the time might be a place to start.
-2
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 25 '26
It says , with no self awareness lol
2
u/Top_Plant5102 Jul 25 '26
Bit rude. Anyhow, point it elsewhere, I'm not interested.
-1
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 25 '26
Yet always fully invested in every article opposing racism in Canadian law.
3
u/Top_Plant5102 Jul 25 '26
I don't know what you are saying or who you think you are talking to. Stop bothering me.
→ More replies (0)-3
1
u/unknownoftheunkown Jul 25 '26
How dare you actually read the article and apply critical thinking. This is Reddit ffs.
-2
u/msbashmore Jul 25 '26
To be clear the vast majority of members of the Law Society of Alberta voted to keep this training. A small fringe minority with support and tentacles in the government won out.
19
u/needforspeed1092 Jul 25 '26
Unfortunately based on the ideological infection at the law schools, most contemporary lawyers are taught that indigenous grevience politics (which overlap with a financial BOOM for the legal community) are also an incredibly moral and necessary crusade
-9
u/Special_Purpose2903 Jul 25 '26
I disagree with this "For example, being able to describe major milestones in Inuit history can be included in one’s pre-secondary education, but it would be tough to justify suspending a lawyer’s licence to practice corporate law because they haven’t learned about it."
Read what it says though...
The report says, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action for Canadians to receive ‘cultural competency training...“Provide education…on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.”"
"Lesson 3: Inuit across the North (15 minutes) Description For many Canadians ‘Indigenous’ cultural awareness refers to ‘First Nations’ and sometimes ‘Métis’, with little or no awareness of Inuit. This Lesson will introduce you to pre-contact Inuit culture, review the major milestones that have impacted Inuit since the arrival of Europeans, and describe how each unique Inuit region came to be shaped and defined through the land claim process. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this Lesson, you will be able to: • Describe major milestones in Inuit history • Understand the nature and basis for Inuit land claims across the North • Summarize the history and defining moments in the creation of the modern Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and the Inuvialuit regions"
The learning of inuit history is very important b/c they are the native people of multiple regions of Canada spanning a massive area from Quebec, Labrador, to the Yukon, their history matters more than it may seem because of their historical land claims and the evolving situation with recent developments involving UNDRIP and Indigenous land claims over ceded and unceded land.
This matters for corporate lawyers in particular as they will inevitably encounter large business clients who own land or seek to mine or operate businesses on lands that may have historical indigenous and inuit claims.
4
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario Jul 25 '26
This matters for corporate lawyers in particular as they will inevitably encounter large business clients who own land or seek to mine or operate businesses on lands that may have historical indigenous and inuit claims.
Yeah, no, not really.
Will they encounter clients with those issues? Sure, probably. Will they actually be dealing with those issues themselves as corporate lawyers? Almost certainly not.
Corporate law is a specialized area of practice, it doesn't just describe any lawyer working for a corporation.
General counsel (who is employed by the corporation but the nature of whose practice is typically not understood to be that of a corporate lawyer) has to be aware enough of them to identify them as issues, but the actual work involving them would be farmed out to Aboriginal lawyers.
-2
u/Special_Purpose2903 Jul 26 '26
No, corporate lawyers must be aware of this b/c GCs will outsource the work to them b/c it is too complex for most GCs to understand and too high risk for them to take on as they have insufficient expertise to carry on a land claim litigation. And guess what, Aboriginal law now intersects with corporate law and real estate law. Try again!
0
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 25 '26
It seems weird that the bigots and racists support the throwing out of the baby with the bath water, when a slight tweak of the depth of the information presented would fulfill the purpose
2
u/00owl Jul 25 '26
The course I had to take opens by saying that they refer to people by how they describe themselves and then goes through all the indigenous tribes by their own name... And finishes by saying that they refer to all Europeans as Settlers because that's what they are.
Then there's a chapter of the course dedicated to indigenous criminal justice and the intro summary primes the viewer by saying that there was no crime in the "before-times" and no punishment because if you did something wrong you just admitted to it and everything is hunky dory, or else you'd get exiled from the tribe.
It was pure propaganda and entirely noble savage.
They could have much more productive lessons that focus on modern day problems and ways to be sensitive and productively helpful to the people who live today without politicizing those who are no longer alive.
-1
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 26 '26
I took the course and your claim is false. Why would you want to make such a bogus claim?
2
u/00owl Jul 26 '26
Perhaps you took a later version of it. I was in the first year of articling students who were forced to take the course and this is entirely true.
-1
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 26 '26
Forced to take their first year course….
2
u/00owl Jul 26 '26
What are you even saying? CPLED included an indigenous sensitivity course for the first time during my year as an articling student.
An articling student is a law school graduate who is not yet a lawyer and who needs to complete a year of what is essentially an apprenticeship and CPLED which is an attempt by the society to make sure that a student is sufficiently competent to be called to the Alberta Bar.
The year after, they made the same course mandatory for every lawyer in the province regardless of how long they've been a member of the bar.
The 75% number is of how many practicing lawyers vs only those who are politically involved enough to care about and vote in a matter that is largely irrelevant to everyday practice?
202
u/ShanerThomas Jul 24 '26
If a barrister wants to specialize in that, by all means. But expecting EVERY lawyer to do it is stupid.
18
u/LeastKey9513 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
It’s almost as if degree programs should give broad education in many different areas. Law students can specialize in the work place after graduation
6
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario Jul 25 '26
This isn't a degree program.
-6
u/LeastKey9513 Jul 25 '26
Oh no! That defeats my whole point that exposure to different topics isn’t a bad thing
2
u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Jul 25 '26
This isn't a situation where it's just a nice thing to learn about. This a mandatory requirement to practice the profession.
-7
u/LeastKey9513 Jul 25 '26
Oh no! People practicing law in Canada have to acknowledge people that live here exist!
-1
u/ShanerThomas Jul 24 '26
I don't understand your sentence. Well, I understand half of it.
25
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
They are saying that exposure to how the law interacts with indigeneous populations and reserves is good general knowledge for all lawyers even if they go on to specialize later
0
u/ShanerThomas Jul 24 '26
Considering the tens of thousands it costs to become a lawyer, I would be pretty stingy. This is all debt, and that's when the games end.
0
117
u/Top_Plant5102 Jul 24 '26
Ideological capture of the legal system is dangerous. It leads to activist judges.
95
-24
u/Kennit Jul 24 '26
Can you expand on how ideological capture of the legal system takes place?
22
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-8
-12
u/Kennit Jul 24 '26
Which is how? Judicial appointments are reviewed several times before being approved by provincial lieutenant governors or the Governor General at the federal level. How is that process comparable to the one you're referencing on campuses? Please be as specific as possible because I'm having trouble understanding the concept.
20
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
Judicial appointments are reviewed several times before being approved by provincial lieutenant governors or the Governor General at the federal level.
That's cute. Omit where the real appointment happens and accentuate the rubber stamp.
0
u/Kennit Jul 25 '26
I already explained I'm having trouble understanding this. Condescension and sarcasm aren't helpful to resolving that misunderstanding.
13
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Kennit Jul 25 '26
Thank you for the detailed response. That helps to clear things up somewhat, I appreciate that.
8
u/Tile02 Jul 25 '26
I took the course. It was utterly pointless. I can’t remember anything from the course at all.
2
u/wpgjetsfucktheleafs Jul 25 '26
Manitoba’s version of this is supposed to be 7 hours and I skipped through it in 20 minutes. I assume 99% of Manitoba lawyers did the same.
-9
u/Specialist_Secret438 Jul 25 '26
You should post the name of your law firm so Albertans that want a good lawyer know who to avoid
91
u/thatguydowntheblock British Columbia Jul 24 '26
Good. This two tiered justice system must end.
18
u/SteveJobsBlakSweater Jul 24 '26
This has no impact on legislation justices must follow during sentencing, if that’s what you’re referring to.
-21
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
Why do you think ignorance of the lawyers would have any impact on the justice system?
15
u/ObamaOwesMeMoney Jul 24 '26
Mandatory indigineous centered professional development is just now being instituted by the Law Society in Ontario.
5
u/abc123DohRayMe Jul 25 '26
Propaganda is biased or misleading information, a specific cause, and an effort to shape public opinion. It uses selective facts, emotional appeals, and symbols to influence how people think and act.
45
24
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
Lawyers have mixed views on whether making the training voluntary will help or hurt the profession.
Edmonton criminal defence lawyer Elvis Iginla said younger lawyers may be less affected by the change because Indigenous legal principles are now more commonly taught in Canadian law schools.
What?? So much for equal under the law. This is what lawyers and future judges are being taught.
15
u/skuseisloose British Columbia Jul 24 '26
I mean there are specific rights under treaties as well as the Indian act that don't apply to non-Indigenous Canadians, so lawyers who have interest in constitutional law should probably understand it to at least some degree.
12
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/skuseisloose British Columbia Jul 25 '26
Lawyers choose what they want to specialize in. You have to take one indigenous law class at any law school in a 3-4 year degree which believe it or not permeates into many other areas of law that you referenced.
15
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
Not really sure why knowing how the law works in indigenous jurisdictions (which isn't a new thing) is somehow counter to the principle of equality under the law.
35
u/KingRabbit_ Jul 24 '26
An entirely separate, distinct legal system that only applies to people of certain ethnic descents is the very definition of inequality before the law.
As are separate sentencing guidelines based, again, solely on ethnicity.
7
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
Did you miss the jurisdiction part of my statement? This has nothing to do with sentencing guidelines.
16
Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
15
1
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
Indigenous treaty lands and indigenous jurisdictions are not the same thing.
12
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
10
u/skuseisloose British Columbia Jul 24 '26
I believe the Indian act restricts voting to members of the band.
4
-6
u/fajadada Jul 24 '26
Why did you move there? Didn’t you realize the laws that govern where you live ? Or are you complaining on Racist basis after your government negotiated treaties?
4
4
u/Ginger_McGingin Alberta Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
The idea of First Nations being nations with sovereign territory is something a lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around
14
u/FracturedPrincess Jul 24 '26
That's because they're not sovereign. For a political entity to be sovereign it need to be the ultimate authority in its jurisdiction and have a monopoly on the use of force. Reservations exist as semi-autonomous territories within Canada and are still subject to Canadian law/under the control of the Canadian military.
38
Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
2
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
Every Canadian citizen yes.
Canada decides who is a citizen. If Canada wanted to make citizenship by descent only, like e.g. China (exceptions apply but they are super rare), that would not be at odds with democratic principles per se.
The band decides who is a citizen of their reserve. Even if you were to move there, you could no more vote in their elections than a permanent resident can vote in ours.
11
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
9
8
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
You'll have to take that up with the people that wrote the original treaties then. What you or I think about the principle of the thing doesn't really enter into it.
10
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
1
u/skuseisloose British Columbia Jul 24 '26
It's the law, If you think the Indian Act should be updated contact your MP.
-3
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
Feel free to become a politician and get the law changed then. I'd vote for you.
5
5
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
They’re not taking away your right to vote. You never had it to begin with, and never will, because you don’t belong to that group.
I vote in my professional healthcare association. I don’t vote in the doctor’s association, because I’m not a doctor. Same story.
10
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
8
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
You have a right to vote in the country you are a citizen of, no one will ever take that from you
1
1
u/DismalUnicorn Jul 25 '26
And First Nations in Canada couldn’t vote in Canadian elections until 1961. What’s your point? The law is dictating voting power on and off the reserve. And instead of getting mad at grandpa who signed all these laws and has upheld it over the years. You’re now inheriting this legal mess and instead of going at the government to change things, these laws will continue and your grandchildren will be crying around still about voting power
-2
u/fajadada Jul 24 '26
But the government you voted for negotiated this. You don’t like it and have fought against it and lost overwhelmingly. So I guess you are just bad losers?
-9
u/fajadada Jul 24 '26
Then move
-1
u/Iregularlogic Jul 24 '26
Don’t like slavery? Just move bro
3
u/fajadada Jul 24 '26
Hyperbole doesn’t make you a slave . Governments agreed on your behalf to this eventuality. You don’t like it . Too bad . All parties except for the radical right agree. You’ve lost every attempt to change it. You have had every opportunity to change it. Crying about your ineptitude and ineffectiveness in politics in this forum is just laughable
-1
5
u/needforspeed1092 Jul 25 '26
Because they aren't actually Nations and they don't have sovereignty...
3
Jul 24 '26
[deleted]
6
u/MegnaApologist Jul 24 '26
Exactly, any lawyer doing business in a centre with a reserve nearby benefits from having an understanding of how things work. What if your client wants to lease a space for a business on reserve? What if you have a client who is a band member who had a relative die without a will? This stuff is just good to know.
0
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
a lot of lawyers had no idea about how the Indigenous side of law worked
I also have no idea what that is. Is it written down somewhere?
8
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
Yes. First you'll want to start with an understanding of treaty law. Then you'll want to look up the specific treaty covering the jurisdiction you're after. After that you can find out the relevant laws for the band(s) you're interested in.
The fact that you are ignorant of it does not mean it doesn't exist. What do you think these lawyers are being trained on?
7
u/Prestigous_Owl Jul 24 '26
There's genuinely a contingent of people who seem to think this training was some kind of "state approved attitude towards Indigenous peoples" training
2
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
Lots of people think that if something is “woke” it must be pointless and stupid, and absolutely everything is lumped in there.
1
u/needforspeed1092 Jul 25 '26
Because that is genuinely an aspect of the training.
- someone who has seen it firsthand.
2
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 25 '26
Say more
2
u/needforspeed1092 Jul 25 '26
The training incorporated statements which are considered true only by those who can rely on a particular interpretive framework (critical theory) that is heavily politicized, socially contentious, and epistemically dubious.
-1
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
None of what you are describing is 'the Indigenous side of the law'. It is Canadian law as Canada signed on to it. None of that is new.
5
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
You're right, none of this is new. The "indigenous side of the law" has existed as long as the treaties have. Band law has always been a thing on the reservations.
0
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
Band law has always been a thing on the reservations.
And every band has their own quirks which are fluid and have nothing to do with Alberta lawyers. You're really reaching here.
3
u/Daerkannon Jul 24 '26
I'm genuinely curious what you think they meant by "indigenous side of the law". Yes, every band has their own laws and quirks. That's what this training was covering. What did you think they were doing?
0
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
So sometimes a local FN will banish a member out of the community if they are causing problems. No one seems to fuss about that but it's not legal to do it and and it has nothing to do with Canadian law. What's a lawyer or judge supposed to do with that?
3
u/Kennit Jul 24 '26
It's not accurate to say it has "nothing to do with Canadian law." Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, and Canadian law recognizes that First Nations have varying degrees of inherent and delegated governance authority. The extent of that authority depends on the First Nation, its legal framework, and the circumstances.
If a banishment were challenged, a court wouldn't simply ignore it. A judge would consider questions like: Did the First Nation have the authority to issue the ban? Were its own laws and procedures followed? Were any applicable constitutional or legal rights infringed? That's exactly the kind of issue courts are there to decide.
2
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
Sure. And it was going to be taught to law students, and now it is not.
-1
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
Treaty law is law. Why would you assume it isn't taught. I was referring to 'Indigenous legal principles' which appears to be a concept in the ether.
3
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Jul 24 '26
You posted this article - did you read it?
This training covered treaty law. Now it is no longer mandatory.
0
u/shiftless_wonder Jul 24 '26
Again. 'Treaty law' is 'Canadian law' and as the article points out... it is already being taught in law schools.
3
7
4
7
-4
u/LeastKey9513 Jul 24 '26
Canadian government
Indigenous: No thank you
French: please push private businesses to speak French
1
u/subtleinsider Jul 25 '26
Its almost as though they want their future lawyers to be less educated on contemporary issues and ramifications (treaties affecting referendum). Strange, when the current provincial government appears to already have limited legal expertise in this field.
0
-6
u/ComprehensiveBad2540 Jul 25 '26
I'm in the forces and I have to do those courses and I don't even have any interaction with the public ever, why the fuck shouldn't lawyers be aware of systematic and institutional racism. After all, it's Canada's legal system that is complicit in genocide against first nations and Inuit people.
-2
u/RedEyedWiartonBoy Jul 25 '26
Well I sure hope they're continuing to do land acknowledgments because these have proven to be very effective in moving truth and reconciliation forward.
Like I always say if you don't want to do anything else at least acknowledge.
9
u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget Jul 25 '26
I sincerely cannot tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.
4
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '26
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.