First nation studies - R. V. Sparrow case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

First nation studies - R. V. Sparrow - Case Study Example As the categories of Aboriginal rights in Section 35 were not clearly mentioned in the Act, it was claimed that the aboriginal right to fishing was not extinguished before implementation of the 1982 Constitution Act and hence, the arrest of Ronald Sparrow in this case was unjustified (Binnie 217). The claim was put up in the court of British Columbia with the full support of Musqueam band who viewed the arrest of their member, Ronal Sparrow to be unjustified. They opposed that the government had no rights to infringe upon the aboriginal rights of people in undertaking activities of fishing, hunting, etc as the these rights were not extinguished before the Section 35 of 1982 Constitution Act was passed (Tennant 375). The claim received support from the scholars and human rights activists. The supporters of this case were of the view that the provincial regulations in British Columbia discriminated the aboriginal rights of the people as opposed to the non-aboriginal rights which were unjustified in terms of law of the land. The court case of Ronald Sparrow continued for about six years starting from the initial point of claim in the lower courts to the final verdict being given by the Supreme Court. After the arrest of Musqueam band member, Ronald Sparrow in 1984, the case was filed which eventually moved to the Supreme Court in 1988 and continued till 1990. The proceedings of the court case started with the conviction of Ronald Sparrow as he accepted the fact that he was fishing with a net larger than that mentioned in his food license. However, in his defense Mr. Sparrow argued that he was at the same time executing an aboriginal right of fishing which has been inherited by him from his ancestors. The Crown on the other hand tried to establish that the aboriginal rights have been regulated from the time the Constitution Act of 1982 has been