6 ms·

> 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 la

> 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.
      - jazzyjackson 3y ago
        See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Irrelevant
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Seems pretty relevant.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >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. Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory. The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story: > Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
        rayiner 3y ago
        > It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - wk_end 3y ago
    Israel wasn't founded by Britain. The UN is effectively what created Israel. Britain acquired the region ("Mandatory Palestine") after WWI as a temporary measure to govern it until it was self-sustaining; that never happened, and in the wake of WWII, they mostly just wanted out of the situation and left the UN responsible. The UN voted on a partition plan - and the UK actually abstained from that vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
    - TeaBrain 3y ago
      Israel certainly wasn't founded by Britain, whose forces had simply abandoned the region after the Mandate expired in 1948, but the UN partition only set the stage for the eventual territorial bounds of Israel, as the partition plan was never actually implemented. What cemented Israel's official modern territorial bounds were the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel controlling 60% of the land that was not originally defined for the Jewish State in the partition plan. According to the 1947 partition plan, Israel was not going to extend to Jerusalem, but the captured territory did extend to this point by the time of the 1949 armistice, as well as extending to most of the land border with Egypt which minimized the Gaza region's border with Egypt, and extending along Lebanon, which prevented the West Bank from sharing a border with Lebanon, as was intended in the partition plan.
- nightowl_games 3y ago
  I'm talkin about family 3 here...
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.

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.
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/ https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Irrelevant
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Seems pretty relevant.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out, and irrelevant to the topic: >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. Which describes the Balfour Declaration if Family 2 accounted for over 90% of the territory. The current Likud party also recognizes their claim to the territory "from the river to the sea" does not involve the will of its other residents, as in the Family 1 & 2 story: > Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
        rayiner 3y ago
        > It is irrelevant to the conditions of the time which the Nakba was carried out Why is that the relevant time? If somehow native Americans got together and took back Oklahoma, would white Americans have any basis to complain? I would say no.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- wk_end 3y ago
  Israel wasn't founded by Britain. The UN is effectively what created Israel. Britain acquired the region ("Mandatory Palestine") after WWI as a temporary measure to govern it until it was self-sustaining; that never happened, and in the wake of WWII, they mostly just wanted out of the situation and left the UN responsible. The UN voted on a partition plan - and the UK actually abstained from that vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...
  - TeaBrain 3y ago
    Israel certainly wasn't founded by Britain, whose forces had simply abandoned the region after the Mandate expired in 1948, but the UN partition only set the stage for the eventual territorial bounds of Israel, as the partition plan was never actually implemented. What cemented Israel's official modern territorial bounds were the 1949 Armistice Agreements following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel controlling 60% of the land that was not originally defined for the Jewish State in the partition plan. According to the 1947 partition plan, Israel was not going to extend to Jerusalem, but the captured territory did extend to this point by the time of the 1949 armistice, as well as extending to most of the land border with Egypt which minimized the Gaza region's border with Egypt, and extending along Lebanon, which prevented the West Bank from sharing a border with Lebanon, as was intended in the partition plan.
nightowl_games 3y ago
I'm talkin about family 3 here...

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.