These two examples show the centrality of power and oppression in finding solutions to issues affecting Aboriginal women. Other theoretical approaches fail to “identify gender-specific power dynamics as they occur in legal processes, argumentation and interpretation of principles” and meaningfully address “claims to gender, tradition, culture and legal effect.” [5] For all these reasons, IFLT is best positioned to succeed where other theories have failed. Some Aboriginal people view Canadian law as foreign and oppressive. This article explores a source of this perception. In examining the layers of theory and worldview on which the law rests, he finds a conflict with Indigenous sensibilities. The author argues that a liberal vision supports and animates the law and that, because it is based on that vision, the law cannot protect the interests of Indigenous peoples. In analyzing the current legal approach to protecting Indigenous interests, an alternative liberal argument based on group autonomy is also considered. By examining the debate among liberal theorists, the author shows the danger that liberalism in general poses to Indigenous peoples and the protection of Indigenous interests, thus revealing liberal theory as a source of perception of oppression. The basis of the law in a particular intellectual tradition creates the perception that the law is oppressive. By examining a highly critical approach to liberal legal theory by tracing the similarities between the philosophical foundations of liberal and critical legal theory, the author`s investigation highlights the cultural gap between Western theorists and Indigenous worlds. Working towards a world in which Indigenous interests can be adequately protected does not mean translating these interests into collective rights across the spectrum of rights in Canada, nor understanding these rights as a reflection of group autonomy, nor recognizing that “fluid and dynamic” Indigenous interests can be better served by progressive democratic action.
Essentially, it is about respecting the ability of Aboriginal people to continue to define who they are and recognizing that their potential for self-definition includes their ability to project both their own theories and their particular forms of knowledge. In the first case, it is common to encounter the feeling that patriarchy was introduced only through European contacts in indigenous communities. However, Indigenous women have faced gender-based violence for thousands of years. [2] There is no doubt that colonization reinforced this violence through a renewed commitment to gender inequality and the addition of race as a new link in the chain of oppression, but in turn, denying the existence of pre-contact gender-based violence denies that Indigenous laws contain viable options to address it. In addition, calls for a return to pre-colonial or “traditional” gender roles limit Indigenous women`s empowerment and “are used to deny sexism in Indigenous communities today.” [3] Without IFLT, it`s easy to overlook these compelling nuances. In recent years, critical methods have been used to study the conditions of American Indians. One adaptation comes from critical legal theory, in which criticism focuses on cases decided by the Supreme Court or other courts. The aim is to examine racist assumptions expressed in court decisions or in legal opinions issued by judges. Critical legal theory is an exercise in protecting civil rights and racial justice. The analyses examine racial assumptions or biases written in legal opinions. Court decisions determine whether unjust or unjust decisions have been made.
In American law, the basic assumption of Native American law is an aberration that often contradicts America`s core values and goals of national integration and assimilation, even at the multicultural level. A critical legal approach of Native Americans does not defend American legal values, but seeks to expand fundamental American values to respect and honor the rights, governments, territories, and cultures of Indigenous communities. If U.S. law and legal institutions respect and honor the rights of Native Americans, then Native Americans will share the fundamental values of American law and society. However, U.S. law and legislation generally trumps Native American rights, creating a system of legal, political, and cultural priority and domination over tribal communities. A critical approach to Native American law must examine the differences in core legal values between Indigenous peoples and the American political and legal system.