...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Ktunaxa Nation Council v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
【24h】

Ktunaxa Nation Council v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

机译：Ktunaxa国家委员会诉不列颠哥伦比亚省（森林，土地和自然资源运营部部长）

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Aboriginal law - Constitutional issues - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Respondent company began long process to obtain permission to build year-round ski resort on Crown land - Petitioner First Nation K believed that proposed resort lay at heart of central area of paramount significance, Q - K maintained that Q was Grizzly Bear Spirit's home or territory and development of proposed resort within area of Q would constitute desecration, effect of which would be to irreparably harm relationship with Grizzly Bear Spirit - K and respondent Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations entered into formal consultation agreement - Extensive changes had been made to proposed resort to accommodate K's concerns and asserted Aboriginal rights - Minister approved master development agreement with company - K sought judicial review - Chambers judge held that s. 2(a) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not confer right to restrict otherwise lawful use of land on basis that such use would result in loss of meaning to religious practices carried on elsewhere - Chambers judge held that process of consultation and accommodation of asserted Aboriginal rights under s. 35 of Constitution Act was reasonable - K appealed - Appeal dismissed - Chambers judge took too narrow approach; presence of coercion or constraint on individual conduct is not only means by which claimant may demonstrate an infringement of s. 2(a) of Charter - However, s. 2(a) did not extend to protect particular religious belief asserted by K in this case - Material effect on s. 2(a) Charter right was loss of meaning produced by alleged desecration of sacred site - Alleged state interference consisted of type of prohibited human activity that had consequential impact on spiritual fulfilment of K religious community as whole - Traditional framework of analysis for s. 2(a) was based on understanding of asserted religious beliefs being private, belonging to individual - K derived subjective meaning from practice that required others to refrain from development in Q - K derived subjective spiritual meaning from, and submit that vitality of their religious community as whole depends on, requirement imposing constraints on people who do not share that same religious belief-It was not consonant with Charter principles to say that group, in asserting protected right under s. 2(a) that implicates vitality of their religious community, is then capable of restraining and restricting behaviour of others who do not share that belief in name of preserving subjective religious meaning - Minister's decision to approve master development agreement did not violate K's freedom of religion guaranteed under s. 2(a) of Charter.
机译：原住民法律-宪法问题-加拿大《权利与自由宪章》-被调查公司开始了漫长的过程，以获取在皇冠土地上建立全年滑雪胜地的许可-请愿人第一民族K认为拟议的度假胜地是至关重要的中心地区的中心， Q-K坚持认为Q是灰熊精神的家园或领土，而在Q区域内拟议的度假胜地的开发将构成亵渎，其后果将是与灰熊精神-K以及森林，土地和自然部长的不可挽回的伤害关系。资源运营部门签署了正式的咨询协议-对提议的度假村进行了广泛的修改，以解决K的担忧并维护原住民的权利-部长批准了与公司的总体开发协议-K寻求司法审查-分庭法官认为。 《加拿大权利和自由宪章》第2（a）条并未授予以其他方式合法使用土地的权利，理由是这种使用会导致在其他地方进行的宗教活动失去意义-分庭法官裁定，进行磋商和安排土地的权利根据s主张的原住民权利。 《宪法》第35条是合理的-K提出上诉-上诉被驳回-分庭法官采取了过于狭narrow的做法；强迫行为或对个人行为的限制不仅是索赔人可以证明违反s的手段。宪章》第2（a）条-但是在这种情况下，图2（a）并未扩展为保护K主张的特定宗教信仰-对s的实质影响。 2（a）宪章权是所谓的亵渎圣地所造成的意思丧失-所谓的国家干预包括被禁止的人类活动类型，其对整个K宗教团体的精神满足产生了影响-传统的s分析框架。 2（a）是基于对所主张的宗教信仰的私有性的理解，属于个人-K的实践产生的主观含义，要求他人克制Q-K产生的主观精神含义，并提出其宗教社区的生命力总体上取决于对不具有相同宗教信仰的人们施加限制的要求-在主张s下的受保护权利时，说该群体与《宪章》原则不符。 2（a）暗示其宗教团体的生命力，然后能够约束和限制其他不以保留主观宗教含义为名的人的行为-部长批准总发展协议的决定并不违反K的宗教自由根据s保证。宪章》第2（a）条。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号