- About
- Research
-
-
- Special Reports & Features
- From Risk to Resilience: Indigenous Alternatives to Climate Risk Assessment in Canada
- Twenty-Five Years of Gladue: Indigenous ‘Over-Incarceration’ & the Failure of the Criminal Justice System on the Grand River
- Calls to Action Accountability: A 2023 Status Update on Reconciliation
- Data Colonialism in Canada’s Chemical Valley
- Bad Forecast: The Illusion of Indigenous Inclusion and Representation in Climate Adaptation Plans in Canada
- Indigenous Food Sovereignty in Ontario: A Study of Exclusion at the Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs
- Indigenous Land-Based Education in Theory & Practice
- Between Membership & Belonging: Life Under Section 10 of the Indian Act
- Redwashing Extraction: Indigenous Relations at Canada’s Big Five Banks
- Treaty Interpretation in the Age of Restoule
- A Culture of Exploitation: “Reconciliation” and the Institutions of Canadian Art
- Bill C-92: An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth and Families
- COVID-19, the Numbered Treaties & the Politics of Life
- The Rise of the First Nations Land Management Regime: A Critical Analysis
- The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada: Lessons from B.C.
- View all reports.
- Special Reports & Features
-
-
- Yellowhead School
- LIBRARY
- Contact
- Submissions
- Donate
What is the role of injunctions in legalizing the forced removal of Indigenous peoples resisting development or extraction on their lands? In this video, grassroots Indigenous leaders discuss the weaponization of injunctions against land defense.
The late Secwepemc leader, Arthur Manuel, called the injunction a “legal billy club” because it is a weapon used to criminalize Indigenous people and remove them from their lands through force. It is put to work when Indigenous peoples refuse to comply with decisions that deny their inherent rights. The beneficiaries are companies and governments who are able to protect their interests because of the way “harm” is recognized by the court. Disruption to economic activity has far out valued Indigenous livelihood and inherent rights