The History of the Lubicon Lake Band and the Case Against Canada Essay

The History of the Lubicon Lake Band and the Case Against Canada - Essay Example The community claimed that the government did not consult any of their representatives during its decision2. In addition, the group claimed that gas and oil exploration projects would compromise their habitat. The Lubicon lake community currently has approximately 500 members who are the among the indigenous community that lived in Canada before the arrival of the European immigrants. Members of this community depend on hunting and trapping as their main economic activity. Conflict between the community and the Canadian government began when the government failed to consider them in 1899 treaty3. The treaty aimed at identifying and protecting territories of indigenous communities who lived in the country. Following the government decision, members of the community failed to present a systematic or legal claim to the government to claim ownership of the land. Lubicon lake community may have assumed that the government was responsible in protecting the rights of every community particu larly the minority community. On the other hand, the government did not show economic interest on Lubicon band territory. The government may have ignored the incorporation of the community in the 1899 treaty in order to protect its interest in the region4. The struggle between the lake community and the nation attracted the interests of the international community in 1984. This followed a failed attempt by members of the community to achieve any political or legal settlement for their case concerning invasion of their indigenous land. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHCR) intervened in the case although, the community’s chiefs had previously requested for intervention from the international community. However, the Canadian government was against the decision claiming that they had not exhausted all domestic avenues that could be used to resolve such case5. After detailed investigations of the issue, the UNHCR concluded that available domestic remedies were insuffi cient to settle the case6. This is because the community did not have the ability to defend its interest against the country. In addition, the community was unlikely to win back their indigenous land back since Canada controlled the judicial system. In 1990, the UNHCR agreed that the state was a threat to the existence of the community by allowing invasion of their cultural land. The committee also agreed to include the Libicon community among threatened communities in order to attract the attention of the international community7. The committee also argued that the government had violated Article 27 of the international law concerning indigenous communities and indigenous territories. The Canadian government responded by increasing avenues for negotiation between the community and the government in relation to the controversial land. The government proposed resettlement of the community as the main solution to the case considering that the region was of national interest8. However, the Lubicon community declined the resettlement offers given by the government claiming that their traditions do not allow them to give up their ancestral land. Representatives of the community also argued that giving up their land would also be against the 1899 treaty. This is because the government pledged to protect the interests of indigenous community in cases involving land disputes. Community members also argued that currently the country did not have any

Assessment, Measurement, and Research Assignment

Assessment, Measurement, and Research - Assignment Example   The culture fair test is relatively valid considering that it only reduces cultural bias and as stipulated in its construction, it admits impossibility to eliminate cultural bias. It only seeks to reduce biases during the performance of intelligence tests. The first time of use of the culture fair test was after the World War II and involved screening American soldiers of average intelligence and non-native English speakers. Since its first use, the test has gained widespread application in schools and other institutions and applied in screening non-native English speakers (Messick, 1999). The culture fair test instrument is relatively reliable considering the various steps used in its construction and initial implementation. To begin with, there should be no timing of the test and if possible, directions can be oral or in pantomime. Secondly, the instrument has been the use of a draw a person tests that measure body concepts and differentiation to define culture fair indices of intellectual ability (Ungar, 2011). Thirdly, the structure of test allows room for use of nonverbal responses for children whose languages are different from the ones presented in the standardized test. During the consultation, the counselor noted that there is no educational threshold to guide or prove the applicability of the cultural fair test in counseling. However, the counselor reiterated that practitioners need to have at least a certificate or any higher training in counseling psychology. The method that led to the selection of the culture fair test involved listing and sampling of the tests with reference to the critical cultural issues eminent in the field of psychology.