The system clearly does not recognize the instances in which it has not only done an injustice to the people, but how the execution of the laws has gone against what the law believes. Firstly, with the case of the Indian Act and women. The written law shows a clear disparity between the way Aboriginal men are treated in the law and the way Aboriginal women are treated. As unbiased as the law thinks itself to be, it does give a gender bias to men, who get to keep everything upon doing things that, should a women do, lose everything. By forcing women to give up their identity due to their marital status, they are showing dominance of and submission to men. This is shown on two fronts; they are stripped of their native status, and forced to take on their husband’s culture, as well as submission to the men of law who do not have to give up their identity for marriage. In addition to this, when confronted about these sexist laws in place, not only does the Supreme Court dismiss the cases, essentially setting a precedent, but takes a step further and goes against the women, saying that there is no gender bias at all in the case of the Indian Act 12(1)(b). In this way were they not only oppressing women, but giving a precedent to the other courts that women have an unequal standing amongst men in almost every situation of
The system clearly does not recognize the instances in which it has not only done an injustice to the people, but how the execution of the laws has gone against what the law believes. Firstly, with the case of the Indian Act and women. The written law shows a clear disparity between the way Aboriginal men are treated in the law and the way Aboriginal women are treated. As unbiased as the law thinks itself to be, it does give a gender bias to men, who get to keep everything upon doing things that, should a women do, lose everything. By forcing women to give up their identity due to their marital status, they are showing dominance of and submission to men. This is shown on two fronts; they are stripped of their native status, and forced to take on their husband’s culture, as well as submission to the men of law who do not have to give up their identity for marriage. In addition to this, when confronted about these sexist laws in place, not only does the Supreme Court dismiss the cases, essentially setting a precedent, but takes a step further and goes against the women, saying that there is no gender bias at all in the case of the Indian Act 12(1)(b). In this way were they not only oppressing women, but giving a precedent to the other courts that women have an unequal standing amongst men in almost every situation of