Q22

[geverett]

This aboriginal rights passage was really tough. I got this question wrong. Here are my thoughts:

(A) There was not definition of the type of property rights. Check out lines 44 - 47.
(B) This is also unsupported, because the provincial courts were given the burden of interpreting the general language.
(C) This is the right answer. Check out lines 28 - 31 for support for this.
(D) This is tricky, and I chose this answer but I think it is refuted by lines 10 - 11. These groups are generally thought to comprise the aboriginal population of Canada. If they are already assumed to be the aboriginal population then the courts cannot clarify something that is already common knowledge. If you have any additional thoughts on this I would love to hear them though.
(E) This is another tricky though ultimately unsupported answer choice. In lines 19 - 23 there is mentioned that the constitution recognizes the inherent right of aboriginal societies to self government. This answer choice is wrong b/c it speaks of "creation of local gvt. for aboriginal populations". Having a right to form something, and having something created for you are two distinct concepts.

As always I would love to hear more thoughts on this.

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a tough question. Thank you for posting a great explanation. I agree with everything you've said. The only one I would like to flesh out slightly is (D).

Lines 8-11 say that the constitutional protections were extended to the three groups generally thought. You're right on to say that they were generally thought of as the groups, but is it true that the courts or constitution can't clarify something that is generally agreed upon? I don't think so. Instead, the issue is that they "extended" the protections rather than restricting the protections. By extending you don't necessarily clarify which groups comprise the aboriginal population. Here, it seems that they've reserved the right to add more groups in the future if they would like to.

Let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Thank you again for your explanations.

Demetri

[geverett]

Hey Demetri,
I'm totally on board with most of what you said. However, in regards to D when you mention that they extended rather than restrict I'm not quite sure where you got the part of restricting other groups. Would clarification as mentioned in answer choice D necessarily entail restriction?

[demetri.blaisdell]

Good question. My point is to draw a distinction between "include X and Y" and "include X and Y only." The former doesn't actually clarify which letters will be included. We know X and Y will be there but we don't know anything about Z. But when we say X and Y only, we're really clarifying who will be included. Clarification doesn't necessarily mean restriction but including (or extending something to include) isn't clarification as I understand it.

I've been wrong before, though, so please fire back if you don't buy my argument.

Demetri

[geverett]

I think the key term in the question is "consequence". A consequence is something that comes as a result from something else. I think regardless of the semantics we've talked about regarding the word "clarification" that the three groups mentioned in the law are explicitly mentioned and so anything regarding "consequence" would have to come about as a result of them being included. I guess you could think of it as cause and effect. If something is the cause in a causal relationship then it cannot also be the effect in that relationship. I know this is somewhat abstract, but I just revisited this question after some time off and seem to have gained a new perspective on it. thoughts?

[demetri.blaisdell]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you about this. I like your explanation. It wasn't really an "intended consequence." They just went and did it. Intended consequences have to deal with how it all shakes out in the end. I am impressed with your determination to get to the bottom of this. Keep up the good work!