«When a private institution, such as Trinity Western University, seeks recognition as a provider of legal education to the public, it must respect the Charter's
substantive equality protections.
Not exact matches
Consequently, the application of the
substantive equality principle to
protection of Indigenous rights to property in the present will require that the history of past discrimination be taken into account.
The principle of
substantive equality and its corresponding
protection of difference, is a requirement of the basic
equality standard, not just an additional «special measure» tacked onto formal
equality - as Dr Sarah Pritchard has stated:
A
substantive equality approach would seek to provide Indigenous interests in land with the
protection necessary to ensure they can be enjoyed, according to their tenor and to the same extent as non-Indigenous interests in land.
The «title to land» characterisation of native title thus satisfies the
substantive equality standard for the
protection of the right to enjoy and develop culture in that it legally protects the circumstances required to maintain Indigenous cultures that are reliant upon their connection to their lands.
The requirement of
substantive equality in relation to the
protection of Indigenous peoples» property rights has been further clarified by CERD, which explained that countries in ICERD must «protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal land, territories and resources» CERD General Recommendation XXXIII Indigenous Peoples (18 August 1997), para 5
It fails to provide
substantive equality of
protection to native title.
If likening native title to a proprietal interest within a tenurial system provides a vehicle for the enjoyment of the unique Indigenous laws and customs within the
protection of the common law then such a translation is justifiable as providing
substantive equality to Indigenous people.
In the domestic arena, the notion of
equality was used to justify the winding back of procedural and
substantive protections in the NTA on the basis that other landholders were not given these same rights.
The
protection of the unique, subtle and highly particular nature of native title is a reasonable and proportionate means to achieve
substantive equality [42], required as a matter of international obligation to safeguard the characteristics of indigenous minorities.
The Commission submits that
protection of the unique, subtle and highly particular nature of native title is a reasonable and proportionate means to achieve
substantive equality [75], required as a matter of international obligation to safeguard the characteristics of indigenous minorities.
[106] Such curtailment is contrary to human rights norms which require adequate recognition and
protection of native title in order to safeguard the distinct identities of indigenous peoples and hence achieve
substantive racial
equality.
In relation to the
protection of Indigenous cultures, it is recognised that
substantive equality may require the
protection of rights to lands where the culture is located and which give meaning to the exercise of that culture.
The requirement of
substantive equality in relation to the
protection of Indigenous peoples» property rights has been further clarified by CERD, which explained that countries in ICERD must «protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal land, territories and resources» CERD General Recommendation XXXIII The rights of indigenous Peoples, 18 August 1997, para 5.
If by likening native title to a proprietary interest the common law provides the same level of
protection and security to the unique relationship that Indigenous people have with their land and sea country as that which is provided to all non-Indigenous proprietary interests, then such a translation is consistent with the principle of
substantive equality.