Supreme Court case involving Indigenous offender and victim could have repercussions in the North - "The Supreme Court of Canada is deliberating a case that could shape the way sentences are handed down in cases where both the offender and victim are Indigenous, which some Nunavut lawyers say could have ramifications for the Inuit-majority territory... [the Gladue] principles stem from a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that was intended to address the over-incarceration of Indigenous people by requiring courts to consider the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders during sentencing — such as the impacts of colonization, residential schools and intergenerational trauma — and look at alternatives to jail... A 2019 amendment to the Criminal Code required courts to give “primary consideration” to deterring violence against Indigenous women — a response to the recommendations of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Koresawa argued the appeal court’s sentence didn’t appropriately consider that piece of legislation. Effectively, this case looks at how to balance sentencing options when both the victim and offender are Indigenous, so any resulting directive would have repercussions for an Inuit-majority territory like Nunavut... While Fotheringham supports the intent of the Gladue principles, she says she’s deeply concerned they’re being misapplied in a way that unintentionally minimizes or excuses violence. “When Gladue factors are elevated in a way that overshadows accountability, proportionality, and public safety, the result is not justice, it is harm,” she said. “Amautiit rejects the false framing that Inuit women must choose between supporting Gladue, demanding safety and accountability. We can and must have both.”... Even as a lawyer, Iqaluit's Anne Crawford doesn’t believe changes in the judicial process will adequately protect Indigenous women. "Women in Nunavut often state that they don't feel they're getting the protection of the law that other people are because Indigenous offenders are getting extra consideration," she said."
Ken Hiebert | Facebook - "The Gladue Principle was a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that intended to address the over-incarceration of Indigenous people by taking into consideration their individual hardships. In other words, because they had a rough life, the courts would be more lenient in their sentencing. Now, finally we are seeing some of the unintended consequences of this practice. Like, what if the offender and the victim are both indigenous? 😱 I mean what are the chances, right? Actually they're pretty dang good. According to Statistics Canada, 86 per cent of those accused of killing an Indigenous woman or girl were themselves Indigenous. Kind of throws a new light on all the MMIWG talk, doesn't it? So anyway, who gets the favouritism - the indigenous offender, or the indigenous victim? Another result of being ruled by idiots."
Time to blame white people
Virtue-signalling devotion to reconciliation will not end well - "UNDRIP is a declaration of the United Nations General Assembly. It consists of pages and pages of Indigenous rights and entitlements. If UNDRIP is the law in B.C., then Indigenous peoples are entitled to everything — and to have other people pay for it. If you suspect that is an exaggeration, take a spin through UNDRIP for yourself. Indigenous peoples, it says, “have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired … to own, use, develop and control, as well as the right to “redress” for these lands, through either “restitution” or “just, fair and equitable compensation.” It says that states “shall consult and cooperate in good faith” in order to “obtain free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources,” and that they have the right to “autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.” The General Assembly adopted UNDRIP in 2007. At the time, Canada sensibly voted “no,” along with New Zealand, the United States and Australia. Eleven countries abstained. But in 2016, the newly elected Trudeau government reversed Canada’s objection. UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding in international law. Nor are they enforceable in Canadian courts. But in 2019, NDP Premier John Horgan and his Attorney General David Eby, now the Premier, introduced Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). DRIPA proposed to require the B.C. government to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” The B.C. Legislature unanimously passed the bill. (The Canadian Parliament passed a similar bill in 2021.) Two years later, the legislature passed an amendment to the B.C. Interpretation Act. Eby, still B.C.’s Attorney General, sponsored the bill. The amendment read, “Every Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration.” Eby has expressed dismay about the Court of Appeal decision. It “invites further and endless litigation,” he said. “It looked at the clear statements of intent in the legislature and the law, and yet reached dramatically different conclusions about what legislators did when we voted unanimously across party lines” to pass DRIPA. He has promised to amend the legislation. These are crocodile tears. The majority judgment from the Court of Appeal is not a rogue decision from activist judges making things up and ignoring the law. Not this time, anyway. The court said that B.C. law must be construed as being consistent with UNDRIP — which is what Eby’s 2021 amendment to the Interpretation Act says. In fact, Eby’s government has been doing everything in its power to champion Aboriginal interests. DRIPA is its mandate. It’s been making covert agreements with specific Aboriginal groups over specific territories. These agreements promise Aboriginal title and/or grant Aboriginal management rights over land use. In April 2024, an agreement with the Haida Council recognized Haida title and jurisdiction over Haida Gwaii, an archipelago off the B.C. coast formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands. Eby has said that the agreement is a template for what’s possible “in other places in British Columbia, and also in Canada.” He is putting title and control of B.C. into Aboriginal hands. But it’s not just David Eby. The Richmond decision from the B.C. Supreme Court had nothing to do with B.C. legislation. It was a predictable result of years of Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) jurisprudence under Section 35 of the Constitution. That section guarantees “existing” Aboriginal and treaty rights as of 1982. But the SCC has since championed, evolved and enlarged those rights. Legislatures can fix their own statutes, but they cannot amend Section 35 or override judicial interpretation, even using the “notwithstanding clause.” Meanwhile, on yet another track, Aboriginal rights are expanding under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the same day as the B.C. Court of Appeal decision on UNDRIP, the Federal Court released two judgments. The federal government has an actionable duty to Aboriginal groups to provide housing and drinking water, the court declared. Taxpayer funded, of course. One week later, at the other end of the country, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal weighed in. In a claim made by Wolastoqey First Nation for the western half of the province, the court said that Aboriginal title should not displace fee simple title of private owners. Yet it confirmed that a successful claim would require compensation in lieu of land. Private property owners or taxpayers, take your pick. Like the proverb says, make yourself into a doormat and someone will walk all over you. Obsequious devotion to reconciliation has become a pathology of Canadian character. It won’t end well."
Ian Paton on X - "BC Cattleman's Association President, Werner Stump, wrote an exceptional op-ed: "The potential consequence of this ruling (UNDRIP) is to make BC non-governable. Effectively all decisions about BC laws are to be made in consultation and in cooperation with over 200 First Nation Governments. The Province and the First Nations will form a collective government that the people of BC do not elect. First Nations leaders have a responsibility to their members only, and so they should. Your vote may no longer matter as BC is at risk of becoming a non-democratic society." #bcpoli @BCcattle @bcagcouncil"
John Rustad on X - "This editorial by Werner Stump underscores something this NDP government keeps trying to minimize: the concern over property rights in B.C. is no longer political, it’s economic and widespread. When industry groups, lenders, and employers are sounding the alarm, it’s because uncertainty is already doing damage. What’s unacceptable is the Premier’s attempt to act surprised. I warned in 2024 that the Declaration Act and the 2021 amendments to the Interpretation Act would eventually land us here. Legal commentators raised the same concerns earlier. We were told it was fearmongering. We were told it was symbolic. We were dismissed. Now the courts have ruled exactly as the legislation instructs them to rule. Premier Eby says the decisions are “overreaching,” yet courts don’t invent frameworks, they apply them. When government directs judges to interpret every law through UNDRIP and Section 35, it cannot feign shock when fee-simple title is treated as subordinate. The province must appeal these rulings immediately and fix the legislation that created this uncertainty. Loan guarantees and press conferences are not leadership; they are admissions that confidence has already been lost. Reconciliation cannot be built on permanent ambiguity. British Columbians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, deserve one country, one flag, and one predictable rule of law. That requires clear rules, clear limits, and a clear end-state. We must restore certainty to property rights, clarify how Section 35 is applied in practice, and reopen the Constitution to provide lasting clarity. Yes, that will be difficult, but leaving land rights to be endlessly reinterpreted by courts is far harder, far riskier, and far more damaging to families, businesses, and the economy. Certainty is not optional. It is the foundation of trust, investment, and a functioning democracy. #cdnpoli #bcpoli"
Canada’s $1 Billion Question: Do Property Rights Still Exist in British Columbia? - WSJ - "The court order could leave private property in 95% of British Columbia vulnerable to claims from indigenous groups that have been seeking to reclaim ownership of land taken from them scores of years ago, said government officials and property lawyers... Thomas Isaac, a Vancouver-based lawyer who leads the aboriginal-law group at Cassels Brock & Blackwell, said the ruling could have “a fatal impact on the economy—if you start playing around with something that is as core as the ability to hold private property.”... the Aug. 7 ruling threatens to chill a real-estate market that is increasingly global, with foreign buyers, especially from China, snapping up homes. Home prices are among the highest in Canada, while commercial property in the Vancouver area was priced at more than $3.5 million an acre in 2024, the same as in Los Angeles, according to the Colliers National Land Report... Unlike much of Canada, British Columbia doesn’t have treaties with most of the indigenous groups on its territory. About 95% of the province, including Vancouver, is on what is called “unceded land.” Young was sympathetic to the idea that the province has to confront the ramifications of seizing land from the area’s original indigenous occupants... The ruling creates a legal paradox, said Robin Junger, a lawyer representing Montrose. It is logically impossible for two different entities to have exclusive titles on the same plot. Young acknowledged this in her ruling, but left it to future litigation or negotiations to resolve. Paul Sullivan, a principal for the tax-services firm Ryan LLC, said the homes and businesses in the Cowichan claim area have been assessed by tax authorities at 1.3 billion Canadian dollars, the equivalent of roughly $1 billion. He is filing an appeal to have the properties reappraised, arguing that the Cowichan ruling has lowered their values, which should lower the property owners’ tax bills. “We’ve got properties that I don’t believe are saleable at the moment,” he said... “I believe that this decision of the court undermines the entire system of land title,” Brodie said. Adding to the complexity, other indigenous groups oppose Cowichan’s claim. The Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation have appealed the decision and said Cowichan is asserting title to land and fishing rights that belong to them. Musqueam Chief Wayne Sparrow said he regrets having to fight the issue in Canada’s adversarial court system rather than in a traditional longhouse, where First Nations historically settled such disputes. He said indigenous groups such as Musqueam have no designs on private property and he understands why people feel threatened. But he said his sympathy only goes far. “They don’t want to talk about the past. A lot of people want to just talk about the future,” he said. “Those individuals feel threatened. What do you think our ancestors felt?”"
Clearly government officials and property lawyers are just ignorant and engaging in fear-mongering
Weird. We're told that Native Americans thought it was ridiculous to think you could own land
The pieces of Canada that could be declared Aboriginal land next - "B.C. Premier David Eby, for one, has warned that the precedent set in the British Columbia Supreme Court decision could just as easily apply to other cities across Canada. While much of the country is built atop land that was ceded to the Crown in treaties, millions of hectares still fit the definition of “unceded.” That is, the Indigenous groups occupying the land prior to European settlement never formally surrendered control to the Crown. This describes much of B.C. and Quebec, the entirety of Prince Edward Island and much of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are both governed by 18th century “peace and friendship” treaties that, unlike later treaties, didn’t specifically extinguish Aboriginal title. As Eby told reporters earlier this month, “there are many examples across the province, and across the country, where Indigenous people were displaced from land illegally, wrongly, unjustly, where there are now fee simple property owners that operate businesses or live in homes.”... Port Coquitlam mayor Brad West issued a public statement saying he would “vigorously defend” private property rights against an Aboriginal title claim by the Kwikwetlem First Nation... Just as in the Cowichan Tribes case, the First Nations pursuing the Kamloops claim have said they have no intention of seizing homes from private landowners. Nevertheless, they remain open to the idea that large swaths of Kamloops could simply wake up one morning under their jurisdiction... On Oct. 24, the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation filed a claim to eight areas surrounding Gatineau, the Quebec city directly across the river from Ottawa... like the Cowichan decision, the case isn’t just based on a claim of traditional territory. Rather, the Kitigan Zibi are claiming the breach of an existing contract with the Crown... In 2021, six New Brunswick First Nations collectively forming the Wolastoqey Nation filed a claim seeking Aboriginal title over more than 50 per cent of New Brunswick. Naturally, such a massive claim encompassed hundreds of private and industrial landowners."
Canada’s $1 Billion Question: Do Property Rights Still Exist in British Columbia? : r/LawCanada - "TBF uncertainty kills markets. For the judge to say no we're not going to tell homeowners there is pending litigation and for the government to give no guarantees to affected homeowners months after the headlines came out is really sloppy at best!"
"It's not sloppy. You all are not going to lose your homes. How about that? This is clearly partisan bullshit. Conservatives policies are about as popular as herpes, but they can always run on fear. They always have that."
"Look at the news that came out? Several lenders won't give new mortgages. If you want to re-finance/sell/HELOC tough luck!"
"If you want to HELOC? To do what? Buy another home? I guess we found a reason to not give a fuck."
"Dude, this is a law sub. The owners right to their property has been materially affected. If they want to sell their home to retire/move etc. Buyers can't get a loan. And your response is I don't give a fuck?"
"Bitch, did I stutter?"
"So you're admitting you're jealous other people worked hard to buy something you can't afford, and your response is fuck em?"
"If you can’t renew your mortgage you may indeed lose your home. Don’t let your progressive mudslinging get in the way of facts on the ground though."
"How many homes lost so far, chicken little?"
"Clearly the reason David Eby has agreed to backstop mortgage financing in the affected areas is because BC mortgage lenders are perfectly happy with this court decision and everything is business as usual. Just Conservative propaganda getting in the way of a prospective progressive victory"
"You realize there is proof lenders are refusing to issue new loans?"
We're still getting the same left wing copes and viciousness
Aboriginal title cannot be used to restrict Canadian airspace, Ottawa says - "An Indigenous group in northern B.C. has attempted to use Aboriginal title to claim the airspace above Crown land, expelling a local helicopter company and B.C. government forestry officials. The conflict, which occurred over the summer, grew to involve the federal and provincial governments, before Ottawa declared in writing to four B.C. cabinet ministers in a Dec. 12 letter that Aboriginal title cannot be used to restrict any flights in Canadian airspace. It’s the latest in a series of escalating, and confusing, interpretations of Aboriginal title in British Columbia... “They were very threatening,” said Luck, who dropped off and picked up the government officials. “They told me not only was I not allowed on their territory, I wasn’t allowed to fly over their territory. I told them I can fly anywhere I want in Canada, other than military bases. It’s free air space in Canada.”"
Damn conservative fear-mongering!
Snuneymuxw First Nation purchases the Great Canadian Casino Vancouver in Coquitlam : r/ilovebc - "Very traditional. Real stewardship of nature. Walking a righteous path. Tending to slot machines like their ancestors did time immemorial."
‘Nothing’s off the table’: AFN warns of potential legal action if Bill C-5 passes - The Globe and Mail - "Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak has warned senators she cannot predict what will happen if Bill C-5, the government’s legislation aimed at fast-tracking major projects, passes... The legislation is a major test for Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has emphasized the need to get significant projects built in order to shore up Canada’s economy in the face of trade threats from the United States"
When you admit that you want to hold up major projects
Holly Doan on X - "Feds @GCIndigenous are sealing all reports filed by Kamloops, B.C. First Nation that was paid $12.1 million to exhume purported graves of 215 children at an Indian Residential School. “Confidential information,” the department wrote in denying Access To Information request."
Sandy Lake First Nation woman charged with murder following death of 5-month-old child | CBC News : r/northernontario - "When our country tried to save kids from bad parents in the foster system, the Human Rights Tribunal called it racist and gave the parents $40,000 each."
Thread by @Afinetheorem on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Wild set of stories in Canada recently: most famous indigenous author, 2nd most famous writer, most famous singer, most famous director, a federal cabinet minister, a big university president, famous law professor...all turned out to be faking their Native ancestry. In the case of King, he's getting favorable press about how "devastated" he is to have learned his absentee father wasn't actually Native. But online you can find discussions going back a dozen years from Cherokee genealogists noting he ignored them even back then. The "why" seems to be "it's a more fun identity". I see younger folks saying "who would pretend to be a member of a downtrodden group?" There's of course been discrimination, but...Native folks have been cool my whole life! Even Dylan pretended to be Native to be "authentic". (Take care: huge jump in Native identity on censuses in US/Canada since 2010 should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Also, I love that my 10th great grandmother is Wampanoag, so somehow at 1/4096th Native I beat Buffy. Don't worry, I don't claim it! )history.vineyard.net/daggett.htm#jo…"
Randy Boissonnault apologizes over Indigenous identity claims
Celebrated author Thomas King expects 'firestorm' as he reveals he's not Indigenous | CBC News
Who is the real Buffy Sainte-Marie?
Michelle Latimer’s Identity Crisis Is Raising Impossible Questions for Canada’s Indigenous Filmmakers
As per the BC Treaty Commission, the modern treaties that the government has been negotiating do not cede any land to the Crown, and they do not extinguish Aboriginal Title. So in exchange for billions of taxpayer dollars, why are we not getting ceded land in return? : r/ilovebc - "As per the BC Treaty Commission, the allegedly "unceded" land that is at issue today, even after taxpayers pay billions upon billions of dollars for it, will never become legally "ceded" land. The BC Treaty Commissions says that these new treaties will "evolve over time based on the co-existence of Crown and Indigenous governments." The Reconciliation Industry has ensured that generation after generation of Canadian Citizens will be forever be stuck reconciling conflicting jurisdictional and land claim issues that will without a doubt arise as our society grows and evolves. Make this make sense? Reconciliation is an extortion racket, the government even after signing treaties and compensating billions of dollars, is deliberately condemning all future generations to reconciliation purgatory. Reconciliation has been deliberately designed to never end. How many people in the public knew about this? Please share this far and wide, we need answers."
Eby accuses courts of jeopardizing B.C. economy, resource projects - The Globe and Mail
When you blame others for the consequences of your virtue signalling
Naturally this was not just deleted from r/britishcolumbia but all comments got wiped too
FLASHBACK: Eby protested 2010 Olympics, said games shouldn't be played 'on stolen land' - "Long before becoming premier of British Columbia, David Eby was an influential lawyer and activist involved in a number of high-profile movements. Among them was the push to cancel the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver... Recently unearthed footage shows Eby, then-executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, addressing fellow protestors in Ontario in front of a sign that reads "No Olympics on Stolen Land." "Why is it that we're holding these games on unceded Native lands?" he asked. "We can't resolve these land claims, but we can spend $6 billion on the Olympics?" Eby also took aim at the security measures put in place by the province that sought to combat opposition to the games. Among them were laws that prohibited "anti-Olympic" signs in windows and gave police the ability to seize them. "There are countries where it would be normal where if you spoke out against the agenda of the government you would be visited by the police," he said. "It didn't used to be that way in Canada; it didn't used to be that way in Vancouver, but every day we're seeing that people who are just saying 'why are we spending $6 billion on the Olympics when people are freezing to death on the streets of Vancouver?" Protestors across the country showed their displeasure by, among other things, disrupting the Torch Relay... When protests did kick off downtown Vancouver, they began peacefully, but eventually turned violent, with a number of attendees destroying property and clashing with cops. In the end, countless people were arrested... It's worth noting that the chiefs and band councils of the four First Nations on whose traditional territories the Olympics would be held — the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, and Lil'wat — were supportive of the world coming to Vancouver. They even set up the Four Host Nations Society to coordinate efforts to showcase their cultures. Opposition came from small but vocal segments of the communities. Despite their best efforts, the games went on as planned in February 2010. While protestors did smash the windows of the historic Hudson's Bay Company building downtown and vandalize a number of bank branches, police ensured disruption was kept to a minimum. Fast forward 15 years. Now, Vancouver is just months away from welcoming people from all over the globe for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and Eby is premier of BC. Instead of speaking out against the games, the activist-turned-politician appears to have embraced the event — though he still maintains the games will be held on stolen land."
FLASHBACK: Eby protested 2010 Olympics, said games shouldn't be played 'on stolen land' : r/ilovebc - "Y’all literally elected a woke activist to run your province, what did you expect would happen? Ever since Expo 86, Vancouvers sole growth has been through invitation of foreign investment. This is the only reason we are a major city now. And now that the money is here, we want to complain and claim that the money somehow came here in a deceptive manner. BC and Vancouver wouldn’t be a thing and none of these woke mfs would even want to live here. Where do you think the money for all this socialist BS comes from? Not from TAs working on indigenous studies courses I tell ya what. It comes from foreign investment and all the people whose tax paying jobs are centred around land development and construction."
Of course nowadays if you are visited by the police for opposing the left wing agenda, left wingers will cheer and condemn you
