регистрация / вход

The Marshall Decision Essay Research Paper Who

The Marshall Decision Essay, Research Paper Who: Donald Marshall (a Mikmaq fisherman), Native and non-native fisherman, Supreme Court of Canada and Herb Dhaliwal (minister of Fisheries and ocean).

The Marshall Decision Essay, Research Paper

Who: Donald Marshall (a Mikmaq fisherman), Native and non-native fisherman,

Supreme Court of Canada and Herb Dhaliwal (minister of Fisheries and ocean).

Where: Burnt Church, Miramichi Bay

Issue: Donald Marshall, a mikmaq fisherman took a case to the Supreme Court of

Canada arguing that a treaty from 1760 gave him aboriginal fishing rights and he won the

trail justifying three conviction he had on fishing with out a license, fishing off season

and fishing with illegal nets. After the Court ruled in Marshalls favor, many native

fisherman started fishing off season as well. The Minister of Fisheries and Ocean, Herb

Dhaliwal, than banned fishing from the Miramichi Bay to conserve the sea life, which is

being endangered by the off season fishing. The Minister of Fisheries and Ocean

explained that the lobster are being caught before they have time to reproduce themselves,

but aboriginal fisherman fought that the federal fishing regulations did not apply to them

and that they would continue fishing. Also that they had their own way of conserving and

keeping track of the lobster in the Miramichi bay. Non- native fisherman, angry with the

choices currently made destroyed and vandalized native fishing traps to prevent them

from fishing. The Indigenous people concerned with the safety of their people put native

warriors at the bay to protect any native traps or native fisherman from being harmed.

There still continues to be violent confrontation and threats between native and

non-native fisherman over the Marshall decision till this day. The question asked by

many is which is more important, the right of aboriginal people or the conservation of

Canadas natural resources. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Minister of Fisheries

and Ocean continue to look for a solution that will satisfy all parties involved in this

matter.

1. www.newsworld.cbc.ca

This site had reliable news coverage and facts. The information was non based and there many in-depth

stories involving the Marshall decision. The site was very high quality and professionally organized.

From this site I managed to get the basics on the Marshall Decision and with a little searching I found some

information on Donald marshalls past. I. would give this site a very good rating probably nine out of ten.

2. www.arcbc.tripod.com

This site had lots of information and some history on aboriginal rights. the problem was that it was

extremely biased. I wouldn?t say that all the information was reliable though because of the biased in it. The

information made it appear as if the aboriginal fisherman were victimized and that the law was unfair to

them. It seemed more like an opinion than facts. I would give this site probably a five out of ten.

3. www.picpress.com

This site was not biased, but it was very criticizing. I liked what the writer thought of the situation, but It

probably isn?t very accurate. I seemed more like an opinion as well, but with an interesting way of looking

at things. I would give this site a 7 out of ten.

4. www.southam.com

This site was also biased, against Donald Marshall. It had a story on one of Marshalls other victories

in with Marshall won the metis people the right to hunt moose in the off season in New Brunswick. He

described how metis people started over killing the moose in that location and that soon moose with be a

rare in New Brunswick. I thought this story was similar to the fishing issue. The story probably would not

be that reliable since it an opinion. I would give this site an 6 out of ten.

5. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

This site had lots of information on the issue. It also had some informative diagrams on the area closure

and lobster life cycle explaining why the bay should be banned from fishing. The information wasn?t biased

and the facts were reliable. I would rate this site a nine out of ten.

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий