Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Restless Spirits in the Land: Finding a Place in Canadian Law for Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Journal on Minority and Group Rights

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.

Affiliations: 1: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    International Journal on Minority and Group Rights — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation