573 research outputs found
Season 7 Episode 15: Authentic Race Relations
No full textChrist\u27s cross gave us the route to repaired relationships with God and with each other. Why do we hear so little emphasis on the horizontal peace? Calvin College January Series guest Brenda Salter McNeil, co-author of The Heart of Racial Justice: How Soul Change leads to Social Change, tells host Shirley Hoogstra what can happen when we recognize the spiritual roots of our segregation, shed the false roles we\u27ve taken on, and speak the truth. Episode #715
In wild trust: Larry Aumiller's thirty years among the McNeil River brown bears
No full textIncludes index.Photographs by Larry Aumiller.This book celebrates Aumiller's achievement, telling the story of his decades with the bears alongside his own remarkable photographs. As both professional wildlife managers and ordinary citizens alike continue to struggle to bridge the gap between humans and the wild creatures we've driven out, In Wild Trust is an inspiring account of what we can achieve.--Provided by publisher.1. Convergence -- 2. Romancing the bears -- 3. The face of danger -- 4. Life in camp -- 5. Letting the bears decide -- 6. At the falls -- 7. Through the looking glass -- 8. The McNeil experience -- 9. Betrayal -- 10. A new era -- Epilogue: A place for bears -- Author's postscript
Professor Emeritus Kent McNeil\u27s latest book is a prize finalist and he has also received a Yale University appointment
No full textCongratulations to Professor Emeritus Kent McNeil, author of Flawed Precedent: The St. Catherine’s Case and Aboriginal Title (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2019), which was a finalist for the Canada Prize in the Humanities and Social Sciences, awarded by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Science
Recommended from our members
Professor Emeritus Kent McNeil\u27s latest book is a prize finalist and he has also received a Yale University appointment
No full textCongratulations to Professor Emeritus Kent McNeil, author of Flawed Precedent: The St. Catherine’s Case and Aboriginal Title (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2019), which was a finalist for the Canada Prize in the Humanities and Social Sciences, awarded by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Science
Reconciliation and Third-Party Interests: Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia
No full textKent McNeil is distinguished research professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. The author would like to thank Ryan White for his valuable research assistance with this article, and Kathy Simo, Brian Slattery and Kerry Wilkins for their insightful comments on a draft.The manner in which conflicts between Aboriginal title to land and private third-party interests should be dealt with is a major issue in Canadian law and policy. The matter came up at trial in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, and again was left unresolved. However, Justice Vickers did acknowledge the vital importance of the issue and the need to reconcile these conflicting interests through honourable negotiations. While admitting that a courtroom is not the appropriate forum for achieving reconciliation, he provided detailed analysis of the applicable legal principles and insights into the public policy considerations that should guide the negotiations. This article examines these aspects of Justice Vickers' judgment and suggests more specific ways in which Aboriginal title and thirdparty interests might be reconciled through the process of negotiation. It proposes a context-based approach that seeks to redress the historical injustice of the wrongful taking of Aboriginal lands, without disregarding the current interests of innocent third parties. The monetary costs of reconciliation, it is argued, should be borne by the real wrongdoers, namely the provincial and Canadian governments
Envisaging Constitutional Space for Aboriginal Governments
No full textWhen the Supreme Court decided Sparrow, it could have interpreted s. 35 of the Constitution to give Aboriginal peoples absolute power over Aboriginal and treaty rights, a power which neither Parliament nor the Provinces could trump. Instead, the Court interpreted s. 35 to mean that Parliament could still infringe Aboriginal rights if the infringement could be justified by a strict test. Professor McNeil suggests that this interpretation does not originate in the constitutional text so much as in the British constitutional concepts of Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. He argues that the Court maintained Parliament\u27s power to regulate Aboriginal rights because it combined these constitutional concepts with an assumption that these rights are not effectively regulated by Aboriginal governments and laws. The Court\u27s unarticulated fear was that an intolerable legal vacuum would be created if s. 35 was interpreted as excluding all federal regulatory power. The author argues, however, that to decolonize Canadian constitutional law, we must redefine Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law to include Aboriginal governments and laws, which could fill the constitutional space that s. 35 provided and avoid the vacuum that the Court feared
Reconciliation and Third-Party Interests: Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia
No full textKent McNeil is distinguished research professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. The author would like to thank Ryan White for his valuable research assistance with this article, and Kathy Simo, Brian Slattery and Kerry Wilkins for their insightful comments on a draft.The manner in which conflicts between Aboriginal title to land and private third-party interests should be dealt with is a major issue in Canadian law and policy. The matter came up at trial in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, and again was left unresolved. However, Justice Vickers did acknowledge the vital importance of the issue and the need to reconcile these conflicting interests through honourable negotiations. While admitting that a courtroom is not the appropriate forum for achieving reconciliation, he provided detailed analysis of the applicable legal principles and insights into the public policy considerations that should guide the negotiations. This article examines these aspects of Justice Vickers' judgment and suggests more specific ways in which Aboriginal title and thirdparty interests might be reconciled through the process of negotiation. It proposes a context-based approach that seeks to redress the historical injustice of the wrongful taking of Aboriginal lands, without disregarding the current interests of innocent third parties. The monetary costs of reconciliation, it is argued, should be borne by the real wrongdoers, namely the provincial and Canadian governments
Open charm and beauty production in photon-photon collisions at L3
No full textInclusive heavy flavour production in gamma gamma collisions has been studied with the L3 detector at the LEP collider. Preliminary results on charm and beauty production at square root (s)=189 GeV are presented. Hadronic final states containing charm particles were identified either by detecting electrons or muons from their semi- leptonic decays or by reconstruction of charged D* meson decays. The cross section for beauty production in gamma gamma collisions has been measured for the first time. Even including real and virtual gluon emission (NLO QCD) the direct process gamma gamma to cc, bb is insufficient to describe charm and beauty production in gamma gamma collisions. The cross section values and event distributions require resolved processes, sensitive to the gluon density function of the photon. (23 refs)
Right to farm laws
No full textIn the lead up to the 2015 State election it was reported in The Land that the Coalition Government and NSW Farmers had entered into “an unprecedented” memorandum of understanding. Among the “key commitments” entered into were the reform of biodiversity laws and consideration of “proposals for a Right to Farm policy during 2015”.
In July 2014, at its annual conference, NSW Farmers passed a motion calling for “right to farm” legislation. Based on an article by Graham Brown, a NSW Farmers’ executive councillor, that argument seems to have two main aspects:
primarily, granting immunity to farmers from litigation involving nuisance complaints, in particular those arising from the interface between the “smelly, sometimes noisy” realities of farming and “expanding urban centres”; and
secondarily, providing protection from regulatory imposition by governments, State and local, referred to as “hindrances” to land use, including the placing by local councils of e-zones over agricultural property.
The article by Graham Brown concluded:
"In the face of extractive issues, expanding urban centres and red and green tape on-farm, protecting and promoting our farmers’ ability to conduct business, manage the landscape, provide environmental stewardship and grow food, must be supported in legislation."
The case was expressly adopted on 23 June 2015 by Robert Brown MLC of the Shooters and Fishers Party. He spoke in favour of “right to farm” policy and, calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the issue, Mr Brown argued that:
"The increasing trend of urban sprawl has presented some grim implications when the interests of agriculture clash with the lifestyle expectations of semi-rural property owners on the fringes of urban areas, or indeed in whole regions of New South Wales."
This e-brief discusses the history and purpose of “right to farm” laws and their application in the US and Canada. The position in Australia is also discussed, as is the question of the place of such laws in the broader context of the system of planning legislation. 
- …
