| Revision as of 17:53, 30 April 2006 editPilotguy (talk | contribs)21,089 edits Reverted edits by 24.84.102.13 (talk) to last version by Kwekubo using VandalProof← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:10, 2 June 2006 edit undo142.227.225.3 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''Indian Act''' of ] (]) (full title "An Act respecting Indians") is an ] which establishes the rights of ] ] and of their bands. A large part of the Act deals with the rights of band members living on ]. The Act is administered by the ]. Despite the racial nature of the rights, their constitutionality is upheld by ]. | The '''Indian Act''' of ] (]) (full title "An Act respecting Indians") is an ] which establishes the rights of ] ] and of their bands. A large part of the Act deals with the rights of band members living on ]. The Act is administered by the ]. Despite the racial nature of the rights, their constitutionality is upheld by ]. | ||
| == |
==Statius== | ||
| An Indian whose name is in the ] established by the Act is said to have Indian status or treaty status. An Indian who is not registered is said to be a non-status Indian. Prior to 1985 status was often lost in ways which are now considered unfair. In ] (1974), these discriminatory laws were upheld despite arguments made under the ]. The Act was nevertheless amended in 1985 to restore status to people who had lost it in one of these ways, and to their children. Before the amendment, the ways in which status were lost were: | An Indian whose name is in the ] established by the Act is said to have Indian status or treaty status. An Indian who is not registered is said to be a non-status Indian. Prior to 1985 status was often lost in ways which are now considered unfair. In ] (1974), these discriminatory laws were upheld despite arguments made under the ]. The Act was nevertheless amended in 1985 to restore status to people who had lost it in one of these ways, and to their children. Before the amendment, the ways in which status were lost were: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ==Case law== | ==Case law== | ||
| The act was at the centre of the ] ] case ] regarding the conflict of a clause forbidding Indians to be drunk off the reserve with the Bill of Rights. The case is remembered for being one of the few in which the Bill of Rights prevailed. | The act was at the centre of the ] ] case ] regarding the conflict of a clause forbidding Indians to be drunk off the reserve with the Bill of Rights. The case is remembered for being one of the few in which the Bill of Rights prevailed. Mi'kmaw studies should not be taught in any school any where in the world at any time. | ||
| In ] (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under ]. | In ] (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under ]. | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 2 June 2006
The Indian Act of Canada (1876) (full title "An Act respecting Indians") is an Act which establishes the rights of registered Indians and of their bands. A large part of the Act deals with the rights of band members living on reserves. The Act is administered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Despite the racial nature of the rights, their constitutionality is upheld by Section Twenty-five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Statius
An Indian whose name is in the Indian Register established by the Act is said to have Indian status or treaty status. An Indian who is not registered is said to be a non-status Indian. Prior to 1985 status was often lost in ways which are now considered unfair. In Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell (1974), these discriminatory laws were upheld despite arguments made under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Act was nevertheless amended in 1985 to restore status to people who had lost it in one of these ways, and to their children. Before the amendment, the ways in which status were lost were:
- marrying a man who was not a Status Indian
- enfranchisement (until 1960, an Indian could vote in federal elections only by renouncing Indian status)
- having a mother and paternal grandmother who did not have status before marriage (these people lost status at 21)
- being born out of wedlock of a mother with status and a father without.
Case law
The act was at the centre of the 1969 supreme court case R. v. Drybones regarding the conflict of a clause forbidding Indians to be drunk off the reserve with the Bill of Rights. The case is remembered for being one of the few in which the Bill of Rights prevailed. Mi'kmaw studies should not be taught in any school any where in the world at any time.
In Corbiere v. Canada (1999), voting rights on reserves were extended under Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.