5 ms·

> they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special b

> they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to > I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others The reason for this is because they are using their rights from signed treaties that define how resources are used on their lands. Persons that are part of First Nations like the Squamish and the Haida are not just "some citizens" of Canada but rather part of Nations that have their own governance and jurisdiction. Nations that have signed government to government treaties with Canada that clearly define their rights and jurisdiction. And in many cases in BC in particular, treaties were never signed, and First Nations never ceded their lands and title, so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. These First Nations continue to rack up wins in the courts that continue to side with the FNs that their title to their lands has never been extinguished.

trhway 3y ago
The story shows one of the facets of the value of sovereignty what countries and nations have over the history been fighting for. In this case the indigenous people invested into their sovereignty countless lives and suffering, and 2 centuries later it starts to pay off (similar to many other countries/nations in today's world who had been fighting for their freedom for decades and centuries until finally achieving it).
nightowl_games 3y ago
> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?
- thorncorona 3y ago
  Do you have historical treaties which apply to you, and exempt you from those laws?
- crtified 3y ago
  If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Why would that be different here?
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.
    - wolfhumble 3y ago
      > Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were
        bawolff 3y ago
        The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
        pcthrowaway 3y ago
        > If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today. But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  I dunno there's a lot of layers to "sovereignty" some of which FNs have deemed to test and others they have declined to do so. It's not just land issues. For example in other areas some FNs have wrestled back control over their child services from the Federal government. But regarding land, it used to be that you could "pre-empt" "Crown Land" and get permission to build a cabin on it and take ownership of it, but that hasn't been a thing for quite a while, likely because the Crown realized that their foundational arguments for owning "Crown land" was pretty shakey. At the moment FNs in BC largely seem interested in regaining title over their land and regaining a fair degree of power over how it is used. It's entirely possible for a jurisdiction to have ownership and control over land and to still be within the context and laws of the State called Canada.
- nikitaga 3y ago
  "Unceded land" means that because 100+ years ago the British settled as they wanted without asking for permission, the land actually still belongs to indigenous people, and not to Canadians, not to the people who currently live on it. "Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the threat of that over our heads to get more special treatment based on race. Legally, Canada does have title to the land, BUT that title is also encumbered by "aboriginal title" – a limited set of extra rights of indigenous people. For example, Canada can't prevent indigenous people from hunting, needs to meaningfully consult with them before approving resource extraction projects, etc. All of this is very poorly defined – in one paragraph of the constitution, and a couple more in ancient royal proclamations – the rest is being interpreted and re-interpreted by the courts as they wish, largely following the general popculture trends.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Legally, Canada does have title to the land is that under Canadian law? Was this land openly sold | gifted to Canada or staked and claimed despite prior occupation? I recognise the current state of affairs, etc. but this "Legally Canada owns the land" is at root just a way of saying "might makes right, we took it, it's ours now, and we will shoot or imprison anyone who says otherwise".
    - travisb 3y ago
      Might makes right is how all land is owned. Always has been, always will be. We've stacked lots of layers of paper and convention on top of that fact to reduce the amount of war we make, but people ignore this basic fact of the world at their peril.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > Always has been, always will be. Not always, eg: in Austraia the British declared Terra Nullus across the continent ( 'land belonging to nobody' ) and were later forced by their own legal system to return ownership to places still occupied.
- troydavis 3y ago
  In the US, there's recent case law where the answer seems to be closer to yes than no - but applied to tribal members. The case was McGirt v. Oklahoma, which the Supreme Court decided in 2020: https://ballotpedia.org/McGirt_v._Oklahoma https://ballotpedia.org/McGirt_v._Oklahoma , https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/08/29/three-years-after-landmark-ruling-congress-silent-on-tribal-jurisdiction-in-oklahoma/ https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/08/29/three-years-after-la... Summary from the Ballotpedia page: "The court reversed the OCCA's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court.[1] Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas each filed dissenting opinions."
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? I don't know to what degree indigenous people have integrated their laws with Canada but it seems utterly obvious that any degree to which Canadian law and customs aren't applying is the degree to which indigenous laws and customs do apply so whatever else, "no, this doesn't mean a rando can do what they want".
- grecy 3y ago
  > If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? There are 43 first nations communities in Canada that are entirely self-governing. The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself. So, yes, First Nations people in those communities break "Canadian" laws every single day and nothing "Canada" does nothing about it (and legally can't). I don't know if that applies to you if you are not a first nations person of that community. I doubt it. There are 25 self-government agreements across Canada involving 43 Indigenous communities https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547314 https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547...
  - nightowl_games 3y ago
    > The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself. I highly doubt that this is true in practise.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Your link disagrees with you To quote: "However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply"
    - throwaway44773 3y ago
      Unless the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and freedom is invoked
      - bawolff 3y ago
        First nations governments cannot invoke the notwithstanding clause.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Well, for that to work, you’d have to get a court to rule that the land you committed your crime on was indeed indigenous land and not part of canada. Good luck with that.
bawolff 3y ago
> so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada Not that i think this is a good thing, but arguably since this is all pre world war 2, wouldn't the land, in absence of a treaty, be british by right of conquest? Like its a pretty recent development in international law that you actually have to get the other side to ceed land. Most of history was brutal and violent with might makes right.

trhway 3y ago

The story shows one of the facets of the value of sovereignty what countries and nations have over the history been fighting for. In this case the indigenous people invested into their sovereignty countless lives and suffering, and 2 centuries later it starts to pay off (similar to many other countries/nations in today's world who had been fighting for their freedom for decades and centuries until finally achieving it).

nightowl_games 3y ago

> power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada. Actually curious about this concept of "unceded land". If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? Seems like this "unceded land" concept is only applied selectively?

thorncorona 3y ago
Do you have historical treaties which apply to you, and exempt you from those laws?
crtified 3y ago
If 2 families solely inhabited (owned) an island, since pre-history, and Family 1 sells the entire island to newcomers, while Family 2 takes no part in the deal or its approval, and does not cede their land to the purchase, then any court in the land will, quite rightly, hear Family 2's case that they are still the owner of their regions of the island. Why would that be different here?
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.
  - wolfhumble 3y ago
    > Or the founding of Israel by Britain. Jerusalem, City of David, was conquered by David more than 3000 years ago. The founding of Israel was not built out of thin air.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were
      - bawolff 3y ago
        The Jebusites (who were a type of cannanite) if you believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible... while who knows if the battle is even a real historical event. If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, both sides of the battle are probably more closely related to modern jews than any other modern ethnic group, albeit who really knows when our only written source is the bible.
        pcthrowaway 3y ago
        > If you are trying to make some allusion to modern events i think its pretty silly to talk about 3000 year old battles that way, and even if you did, I neither believe in the bible, nor think some events from 3000 years ago should have any bearing on who has a fair claim to the land today. But if someone is going to use a conquest from 3000 years ago as an explanation for why the Israeli government is justified in ruling the land and occupying territories within it, I think the identity of the owners prior to that conquest is more relevant.
Tiktaalik 3y ago
I dunno there's a lot of layers to "sovereignty" some of which FNs have deemed to test and others they have declined to do so. It's not just land issues. For example in other areas some FNs have wrestled back control over their child services from the Federal government. But regarding land, it used to be that you could "pre-empt" "Crown Land" and get permission to build a cabin on it and take ownership of it, but that hasn't been a thing for quite a while, likely because the Crown realized that their foundational arguments for owning "Crown land" was pretty shakey. At the moment FNs in BC largely seem interested in regaining title over their land and regaining a fair degree of power over how it is used. It's entirely possible for a jurisdiction to have ownership and control over land and to still be within the context and laws of the State called Canada.
nikitaga 3y ago
"Unceded land" means that because 100+ years ago the British settled as they wanted without asking for permission, the land actually still belongs to indigenous people, and not to Canadians, not to the people who currently live on it. "Unceded land" isn't exactly a legal concept, it's more of an activist slogan from people who want to see all public land (e.g. >90% of BC) privatized based on race, or want to hold the threat of that over our heads to get more special treatment based on race. Legally, Canada does have title to the land, BUT that title is also encumbered by "aboriginal title" – a limited set of extra rights of indigenous people. For example, Canada can't prevent indigenous people from hunting, needs to meaningfully consult with them before approving resource extraction projects, etc. All of this is very poorly defined – in one paragraph of the constitution, and a couple more in ancient royal proclamations – the rest is being interpreted and re-interpreted by the courts as they wish, largely following the general popculture trends.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Legally, Canada does have title to the land is that under Canadian law? Was this land openly sold | gifted to Canada or staked and claimed despite prior occupation? I recognise the current state of affairs, etc. but this "Legally Canada owns the land" is at root just a way of saying "might makes right, we took it, it's ours now, and we will shoot or imprison anyone who says otherwise".
  - travisb 3y ago
    Might makes right is how all land is owned. Always has been, always will be. We've stacked lots of layers of paper and convention on top of that fact to reduce the amount of war we make, but people ignore this basic fact of the world at their peril.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Always has been, always will be. Not always, eg: in Austraia the British declared Terra Nullus across the continent ( 'land belonging to nobody' ) and were later forced by their own legal system to return ownership to places still occupied.
troydavis 3y ago
In the US, there's recent case law where the answer seems to be closer to yes than no - but applied to tribal members. The case was McGirt v. Oklahoma, which the Supreme Court decided in 2020: https://ballotpedia.org/McGirt_v._Oklahoma https://ballotpedia.org/McGirt_v._Oklahoma , https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/08/29/three-years-after-landmark-ruling-congress-silent-on-tribal-jurisdiction-in-oklahoma/ https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/08/29/three-years-after-la... Summary from the Ballotpedia page: "The court reversed the OCCA's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding that under the Indian Major Crimes Act, lands reserved for the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma constituted Indian Country. As a result, the state of Oklahoma could not legally try a Creek citizen for criminal conduct in state court.[1] Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas each filed dissenting opinions."
joe_the_user 3y ago
If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? I don't know to what degree indigenous people have integrated their laws with Canada but it seems utterly obvious that any degree to which Canadian law and customs aren't applying is the degree to which indigenous laws and customs do apply so whatever else, "no, this doesn't mean a rando can do what they want".
grecy 3y ago
> If it's not Canada's land then can I come in there and break laws and say Canadian law doesn't apply because it's not Canada? There are 43 first nations communities in Canada that are entirely self-governing. The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself. So, yes, First Nations people in those communities break "Canadian" laws every single day and nothing "Canada" does nothing about it (and legally can't). I don't know if that applies to you if you are not a first nations person of that community. I doubt it. There are 25 self-government agreements across Canada involving 43 Indigenous communities https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547314 https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547...
- nightowl_games 3y ago
  > The Canadian Police have no power and no jurisdiction, and the community deals with everything entirely itself. I highly doubt that this is true in practise.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Your link disagrees with you To quote: "However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other general laws such as the Criminal Code continue to apply"
  - throwaway44773 3y ago
    Unless the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and freedom is invoked
    - bawolff 3y ago
      First nations governments cannot invoke the notwithstanding clause.
kennywinker 3y ago
Well, for that to work, you’d have to get a court to rule that the land you committed your crime on was indeed indigenous land and not part of canada. Good luck with that.

bawolff 3y ago

> so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada Not that i think this is a good thing, but arguably since this is all pre world war 2, wouldn't the land, in absence of a treaty, be british by right of conquest? Like its a pretty recent development in international law that you actually have to get the other side to ceed land. Most of history was brutal and violent with might makes right.