Canadian Aboriginal Rights

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong0% picked this

   Aboriginal peoples in Canada should not be answerable to the federal

   Too Strong: don't answer to the law While this author does seem to want aboriginal people to have strong guaranteed rights, she hasn't ever said that they should be 100% exempted from the Canadian legal system. Like if an aboriginal person robs a Canadian liquor store, this author would probably still think that person is accountable to Canada's federal laws.

   0%
2. B

   Correct65% picked this

   Oral tradition should sometimes be considered legal documentation of certain

   Why this is right

   This is lovable since it's so weak (sometimes). Does our author ever seem to be suggesting that oral tradition should sometimes be allowed as legal documentation of an indigenous custom? Yes, at the end of the 2nd paragraph, the the last two sentences explain that the constitution is supposed to protect long-standing traditional indigenous customs, and so provincial courts have required aboriginal people to provide legal documentation of long standing practice. The author says this requirement makes it difficult for aboriginals to support their claims. Our author wants the aboriginal people to be able to take advantage of their newly guaranteed constitutional rights, so she would be dismayed if a provincial court rule were thwarting the aboriginals from supporting their claims. She points out that they often relied on oral tradition rather than written records. This answer is sort of a takeaway from combining those two ideas, "Damn, provincial courts, why you gotta require legal documentation (i.e. written records ... don't you know that many of these societies relied on oral tradition for their long-standing customs, not written records?" In this case (sometimes), you should accept their oral tradition as documentation of their long-standing traditional custom.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   65%
3. C

   Too Strong: full protection of all4% picked this

   Aboriginal communities should be granted full protection of all of

   Although we know our author is supportive of aboriginal people having protected rights, and she wants the court to be more lenient in terms of accepting oral history as "documentation" of long-standing customs, it's too extreme to say that our author would sign off on saying aboriginals should be granted 100% protection of 100% of their customs.

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: no authority4% picked this

   Provincial courts should be given no authority to decide cases involving questions

   Although the author complains about one provincial court's ruling, Here, the provincial court's ruling was excessively conservative we can't say that she has the extreme point of view that provincial courts should have zero authority to decide any of these cases.

   4%
5. E

   Not Mad at Constitution26% picked this

   The language of the Canadian constitution should more carefully delineate the instances to

   In the first paragraph, the author is describing the problematic situation of courts' needing to figure out how to interpret the new constitutional language, but she's not blaming the courts or the constitution for being too vague. In the second to last sentence of that 1st paragraph she says that the court is burdened by having to interpret and translate the necessarily general language of the constitution. That modifier is saying, "I'm sympathetic to why it needed to be written in a vague, general way."

   26%