The Plurality of Meanings Shouldered by the Term “Aboriginality”: An Analysis of the Delgamuukw Case

Abstract

Abstract. There is an emerging consensus that group differentiated rights can protect collective identity, furnishing the state with important tools of accommodation. What happens, however, to the efficacy of these rights as tools of accommodation and their protective capacity if the identity they are meant to protect and accommodate is contested? In addressing this question, this paper explores the intersection of identity contestation and group differentiated rights in the Canadian context with specific reference to aboriginality and existing aboriginal rights. First, the paper offers a presentation of the plurality of meanings shouldered by the term “aboriginality”. Second, it traces the numerous decisions which comprise the Dlegamuukw case and examines the various explanations, descriptions and characterizations of aboriginality contained therein. In the process, it exposes that a particular understanding of this collective identity underpins the Court's ultimate characterization of aboriginal title, the aboriginal right at issue in this case. This represents a problematic interpretation, given that the version of aboriginality selected differs from the one put forward by the aboriginal litigants.Résumé. Un consensus émergeant s'établit sur l'idée que les droits différenciés en fonction de l'appartenance à un groupe peuvent contribuer à la protection de l'identité collective, en fournissant à l'État d'importants outils d'accommodement. Qu'arrive-t-il, cependant, à l'efficacité de ces droits compris comme des outils d'accommodement, de même qu'à leur capacité de protection, si l'identité qu'ils sont censés protéger et accommoder est contestée? En répondant à cette question, cet article explore l'intersection entre la contestation identitaire et les droits différenciés en fonction du groupe dans le contexte canadien, avec, comme cas d'étude spécifique, l'autochtonie et les droits des autochtones. D'une part, il explore la pluralité de sens que revêt le terme “ autochtonie ”. D'autre part, il retrace les nombreuses décisions que comprend le cas Delgamuukw et examine les diverses explications, descriptions et caractérisations de l'autochtonie qu'elles contiennent. Dans ce cadre, il souligne qu'une compréhension particulière de cette identité collective sous-tend l'ultime caractérisation par la Cour suprême du titre autochtone, soit le droit des autochtones qui est au cœur de ce procès. Ceci constitue une interprétation problématique puisque la version de l'autochtonie sélectionnée diffère de celle que prônaient les litigants autochtones.

The Future of Canadian Political Science: Boundary Transgressions, Gender and Anti-Oppression Frameworks

“…Returning to these abstracts but using the terms (and their derivatives): oppression, dominance, settler colonialism, colonization, exploitation, marginalization, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, heteronormativity, homonormativity, racism, poverty, settler, privilege, whiteness, white supremacy, intersectional, resistance, justice, liberation, Indigenous, citizenship, anti-oppression, and Aboriginality, yielded 22 more articles in CJPS/RCSP. Articles in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR that adopt an intersectional antioppression approach disrupt specific concepts that have defined CPS including, but not limited to, identity (Hakivinsky and Dhamoon, 2013;Nath, 2011;Page, 2017;Thompson, 2008), Aboriginality (Ladner, 2017;Lugosi, 2011, D. MacDonald, 2007Murray, 2017;Panagos, 2007), sovereignty (Bruyneel, 2010;Green 2001Green , 2006Hudon, 2017;Voth, 2016), mobilization (Tungohan, 2017) and equality (Abu-Laban and Couture, 2010;Hakivinsky, 2005Hakivinsky, , 2012. While these concepts are an intrinsic part of CPS and are discussed extensively in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR, analysis typically reproduces structural forms of power inside and outside the discipline.…”

“…Articles in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR that adopt an intersectional anti-oppression approach disrupt specific concepts that have defined CPS including, but not limited to, identity (Hakivinsky and Dhamoon, 2013; Nath, 2011; Page, 2017; Thompson, 2008), Aboriginality (Ladner, 2017; Lugosi, 2011, D. MacDonald, 2007; Murray, 2017; Panagos, 2007), sovereignty (Bruyneel, 2010; Green 2001, 2006; Hudon, 2017; Voth, 2016), mobilization (Tungohan, 2017) and equality (Abu-Laban and Couture, 2010; Hakivinsky, 2005, 2012). While these concepts are an intrinsic part of CPS and are discussed extensively in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR , analysis typically reproduces structural forms of power inside and outside the discipline.…”

Locating the Aboriginal Gender Gap: The Political Attitudes and Participation of Aboriginal Women in Canada

“…Furthermore, past and present government policies relating to Aboriginal peoples have facilitated the economic, social, and political domination of Aboriginal peoples. The Indian Act , residential schools, the placement of Aboriginal children in state care, the usurpation of traditional territories (Borrows 2003, 224), and court-defined Aboriginal rights (Panagos 2007) reflect these types of domination. The consensus among scholars of Aboriginal politics is that the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state was, and still is, a colonial one (Green 2000; Ladner 2005; Panagos 2012; Tully 1995).…”

Eliminating Indigenous Jurisdictions: Federalism, the Supreme Court of Canada, and Territorial Rationalities of Power

“…In a somewhat related manner, the treatment of judicial decisions involving Aboriginal rights within the Canadian Journal of Political Science has focused little attention on how judicial interpretations relate to the eliminatory logics and “insatiable” desires for land (Wolfe, 2006: 395) that continue to sustain the development of settler-colonial societies. Instead, scholarship has primarily tended to either focus on cultural manifestations of power, such as the legitimacy of the Canadian Supreme Court (Murphy, 2001), and/or judicial interpretations of Indigenous culture and identity (see also Dick, 2009; Panagos, 2007). However, as the first case in which the Supreme Court has recognized an Aboriginal title claim under section 35, the Tsilhqot'in Nation judgment offers a particularly prescient moment to consider whether such eliminatory rationalities and territorial relations of power are visible, especially given the fact that the decision has been widely interpreted as strengthening the bargaining positions and decision-making authority of Indigenous peoples through enhanced consultative requirements surrounding how their lands will be utilized (Coates and Newman, 2014: 5–6).…”