Oral Aboriginal History Evidence: Difference between revisions
Created page with "==General Principles== The laws of evidence must accommodate oral history evidence of aboriginal peoples in order to give it "equal footing" with other types of historical evidence such as historical documentation.<ref> Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1010, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fqz8> ("Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that th..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
The laws of evidence must accommodate oral history evidence of aboriginal peoples in order to give it "equal footing" with other types of historical evidence such as historical documentation.<ref> | The laws of evidence must accommodate oral history evidence of aboriginal peoples in order to give it "equal footing" with other types of historical evidence such as historical documentation.<ref> | ||
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia | {{CanLIIRPC|Delgamuukw v. British Columbia|1fqz8|1997 CanLII 302 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 1010}} at para 87 ("Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents. This is a long-standing practice in the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples ... given that most aboriginal societies “did not keep written records”, the failure to do so would “impose an impossible burden of proof” on aboriginal peoples, and “render nugatory” any rights that they have...") | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Assessment of whether to accept the evidence is on a "case-by-case" basis.<ref> | Assessment of whether to accept the evidence is on a "case-by-case" basis.<ref> | ||
{{ibid1|Delgamuukw}} at para 87 | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 13:10, 26 January 2022
General Principles
The laws of evidence must accommodate oral history evidence of aboriginal peoples in order to give it "equal footing" with other types of historical evidence such as historical documentation.[1] Assessment of whether to accept the evidence is on a "case-by-case" basis.[2]
- ↑ Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1010 at para 87 ("Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on an equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with, which largely consists of historical documents. This is a long-standing practice in the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples ... given that most aboriginal societies “did not keep written records”, the failure to do so would “impose an impossible burden of proof” on aboriginal peoples, and “render nugatory” any rights that they have...")
- ↑ Delgamuukw, ibid. at para 87