Hey! Snark!
Jan. 16th, 2007 01:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojHere's a snippet from one of my readings for today, that talks a bit about what we were commenting on re. the whole "why keep constantly being reminded of blood guilt", and what about moving forward:
... contemporary jurisprudence not only borrows from colonial justifications developed and maintained during Canada's overtly colonial period, but actually sanctions, affirms and strengthens this colonial conceptual framework. Given this result, one cannot say that the colonial narrative survives as a matter of jurisprudential inertia, as if, for example, the Court were struggling to deal with limits imposed by such common law notions as stare decisis. In employing -- and strengthening -- the same justificatory framework developed in Canada's dark colonial history, the Court has to consciously decide to speak from a colonial perspective as it goes about writing new chapters in what is essentially an ongoing -- and deepening -- colonial narrative. The Court has had to think about the principles that served to justify the takings and injustices of the past, and they have to consciously accept that these principles will continue to drive the law in a certain direction today. The Court has to consciously act as a modern day agent of colonization.
- A Colonial Reading Of Recent Jurisprudence: R. v. Sparrow (1990), Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004), by Gordon Christie.
...mind you, I've got load of much better quotes and sources than this, but this one was in e-format already; much easier to cut & post ;)
... contemporary jurisprudence not only borrows from colonial justifications developed and maintained during Canada's overtly colonial period, but actually sanctions, affirms and strengthens this colonial conceptual framework. Given this result, one cannot say that the colonial narrative survives as a matter of jurisprudential inertia, as if, for example, the Court were struggling to deal with limits imposed by such common law notions as stare decisis. In employing -- and strengthening -- the same justificatory framework developed in Canada's dark colonial history, the Court has to consciously decide to speak from a colonial perspective as it goes about writing new chapters in what is essentially an ongoing -- and deepening -- colonial narrative. The Court has had to think about the principles that served to justify the takings and injustices of the past, and they have to consciously accept that these principles will continue to drive the law in a certain direction today. The Court has to consciously act as a modern day agent of colonization.
- A Colonial Reading Of Recent Jurisprudence: R. v. Sparrow (1990), Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004), by Gordon Christie.
...mind you, I've got load of much better quotes and sources than this, but this one was in e-format already; much easier to cut & post ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 07:35 pm (UTC)We talk about this a lot in post-colonial academic arenas, too, but seeing in from a legal perspective is much more realistic and easy to understand.
The Court has had to think about the principles that served to justify the takings and injustices of the past, and they have to consciously accept that these principles will continue to drive the law in a certain direction today. The Court has to consciously act as a modern day agent of colonization.
I don't know what to say about this, except to say that I really do get it. It raises a big question, though. Where do we go from that? And how?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-01-16 08:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From: