Hello Courtney,

just want to say thank you for putting up this website! love your cartoons. Would like to know if there is another way to highlight the older submissions, maybe by name or subject? These submissions are very important, but I think that people that are visiting your site are not reading them because they are not easily accessable on the site.

Nia:wen Kowa,

Tammy

I was recently asked a question "Why did Indian Affairs take away Indian Status from women who married out and NOT from men who married out"? The question was referring to the inception of the Indian Act and the reason why the Federal Government made this Law. "Land and Natural Resources of course", because the federal government saw us, as less than he could manipulate us easier. I really think the Federal Government was afraid of the WHITE MEN that would marry the indian women. If white men married indian women, the white men would be title holders of the land and natural resources that the Federal Government wanted control over. The Federal Government probably felt that if they gave the land rights to white women and indian men that these people would be easier to control and manipulate.

Hello Everyone!

I am writing a research paper on the Crown's duty to consult First Nations as
part of one of my courses in law school. I was wondering if anyone had an
opinion on this doctrine. Basically, courts have recognized that a duty exists on behalf of the government to "consult" any tribe that may be affected by a new project.

Most of the scholars I am reading about seem to put this doctrine largely in
positive light (most are non-aboriginal scholars) but this doctrine to me seems
to be quite problematic.

Essentially, since there is no veto power from the tribe in question, the project
will proceed in any event.
Is the Crown being legally permitted to infringe rights and titles?

Anyone's feelings or inputs would be of great value to my research. We need
to get OUR voices out there. Feel free to email me with any questions.