Hacker News Reader

Comment by ximus | Hacker News Reader

It's comforting to see first nations of canada recovering a central role in modern canadian society.

However, having lived here for a year a year now, I have observed a concerning aspect of this re-integration, which is mentioned in the article: First nations aren't just propped back up and re-integrated in society, it goes further in that they are given special rights that go beyond what any other class of canadian citizens have access to. In this case it is exemption from zoning laws, but all over the country it's access to mining, lumber and fishing rights. They are exempted from federal quotas on fishing, cutting forests, etc ...

On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others. But on more practical grounds, this is creating a great big loophole for the traditional resource extraction companies to circumvent environment regulation by partnering with first nations on projects.

View on HN

> 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.

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).

> 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?

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?

See the Louisiana Purchase for instance. Or the founding of Israel by Britain.

> 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.

Irrelevant

Seems pretty relevant.

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.

> 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.

You’re saying Palestinians stole the land and deserved losing it

> accounted for over 90% of the territory.

So in this case the Family 2 in Canada would be the Canadian people I would assume? It is always a question of how far back you go . . .

You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land

It is possible to have two thoughts in the head at the same time.

The Palestinians living in this geographical area have a connection based on the history of their families living in the area. The Jewish people have a connection to the area based on the fact that most of their culture was founded in the area, but were later driven out as consequence of Roman and Byzantine actions – wars, enslavement, expulsions etc. This of course is the root of the whole conflict (with the additional pressure from surrounding hostile nations).

From what you have written it sounds like you mean that the Jewish people have no connection to this area. You also put words in my mouth that I have not said: "You’re suggesting the 90% native Palestinian population previously stole the land"

This is a difficult conflict to solve because both sides have valid arguments. It doesn't help to pretend one side doesn't have any valid arguments at all.

I don't think the root of the problem is that. There are currently 10-12 million people with nowhere else to go. That's the root of the conflict. Most people don't care enough about "where" to get shot over it. They just want to raise their families in peace and Israel happens to be where politics landed them. Historically as refugees, and today as having been born there or escaping persecution or discrimination, or in seeking opportunity. Just like everywhere else in the world. The conflict is that a handful of assholes are set on war as a way of corporate profiteering on one side, or as an attack on Western ideology on the other. Everyone else just wants ANYWHERE to go live in peace. And no other country is going to let them move to there so they are staying put, and fighting, because they have to.

The one you’re commenting on will say things like they aren’t refugees, they democratically chose their current predicament, the civilian population is filled with terrotists and collaborators, they already turned down good deals for ending the conflict, and more questionable ancient oral tradition histories etc. Just useless to debate

The only reason Israel was founded were it was, can only be justfied by its first nations like connection to the chosen territory. It was not like Britain was lacking other colonies, protectorates, and mandates to choose from for the Jewish people at the given time.

Indeed several other locations such as Uganda were considered and were leading candidates beforehand. It originated as a colonial project, not a "land-back" initiative.

> Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was "the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion." According to him, "the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.38 In 1902 Herzl approached Cecil Rhodes, who had recently colonized the territory of the Shona people as Rho- desia. "You are being invited to help make history," he said in a letter to Rhodes. "It doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen, but Jews. How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.

> Ronald Stort, The Memoirs of Sir Ronald Storr (New York: G.P. Putnams, 1937), 364. Stort, the first Briitish military Governor of Jerusalem Sir Ronald Storr described Zionist ambitions for Palestine as the creation of "a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."

This comment makes it sound like the formation of Israel in the chosen territory was more or less random. Uganda was not chosen for a reason, don’t you think? Are you trying to say that the millenial history of the Jews has nothing to do with the chosen territory?

The history is why jews wanted that specific land for Isreal but the US and Britain didn't enter WW2 to help jews so it's not that much of a stretch for them to support territory for jews that isn't their first choice. It's not like the rest of europe liked jews either, there's a reason jews disproportionately died from _poland_; the other european countries already killed many of the jews within their borders. Even some of the Allied countries exported jews to the Axis when hitler asked them to.

Britain even wanted to avoid Isreal's current location [1] namely because jews and palestines have never gotten along.

As well as US and Britain both but an embargo of arms to isreal prior/during the 1948 war to appease the Arab states. Quite a different response than the current UA one where US/Britain have a vested interest in UA winning so they're a lot of support while in 1948 they'd prefer the Arabs winning.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

I've wondered a few times if Uganda had been chosen instead, if Idi Amin ever would have rose to power...

So you're saying the city was forceably taken away from its prior owners 3000 years ago? Now I'm curious who those were

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.

> 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.

See "Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide" by Nina Paley:

https://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/

Garbage pro-colonialist perspective which treats anti-colonial struggle as fanaticism

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_...

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.

I'm talkin about family 3 here...

Do you have historical treaties which apply to you, and exempt you from those laws?

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.

"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.

> 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".

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.

> 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.

"by their own legal system". The Australian government can come to whatever conclusion it wants about how it deals with its land.

That is, it was the Australian legal system which made that decision and further that decision was not countermanded by the Government of Australia. It wasn't the legal system of, say, Jamaica forcing the Australian Government to do that. Or even the legal system of the peoples who were occupying the territory when the British arrived.

>"might makes right, we took it, it's ours now, and we will shoot or imprison anyone who says otherwise"

This is how it works approximately.

> might makes right

That's how it works, sadly. Everywhere, not just here. The part you're missing is that "we" – the people living in Canada today – did not steal anyone's land. Certainly neither myself nor my ancestors. The original British settlers who stole the land are not us, they are long dead.

You can always look into the past to find injustices to use as an excuse to perpetuate horrible things in the present. Look at just about any conflict, modern or historical, the aggression today is always justified by something in the past. That doesn't mean that this is the right thing to do.

The right thing to do, is to lift up the people disadvantaged by past injustices, without resorting to race based division, e.g. target support by economic status instead of race. Sadly that's the opposite of what we're seeing in Canada nowadays.

Wasn't pretty much every country in the world established as a result of war, or one group taking it from another at some point in the past if you go back far enough?

> "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.

This is a terrible misrepresentation of how “unceeded land” is used.

To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobody means that. Even “land back” movement people aren’t talking about that. And even if some land is returned to indigenous nations, that would not be privatization.

And to call it special treatment based on race is ignoring the reality that indigenous people were for decades, and still are to some degree, systemically disenfranchised and devalued in society. A call for reparations, yes. A call for “special treatment” - nope.

> Legally, Canada does have title to the land

In much the same way that legally I have title to your house if i write “I own that house” on a piece of paper.

> To characterize it as a call to privatize 90% of the land based on race is bonkers. Nobody means that.

And who are you, to make that claim so confidently on behalf of First Nations, to put limits on them?

We used to have a treaty process to make such claims formally. The First Nation and the Canadian government would sign a treaty that would outline the extent of First Nation's claims, and the same treaty would FINALIZE those claims – the First Nation would get some of its land back, but would not be able to make future claims on more land.

As of 2019, this process has been officially abandoned by the BC NDP. Any treaties or agreements signed nowadays do not include finalization, so the First Nations are always free to demand more land, as they do.

Pretty much every First Nation consistently denies Canada's ownership of their lands, saying that their lands were stolen, that the colonialism continues today, that Canada has no right to govern their lands, that they should be the ones deciding what happens on their lands, etc. – you can take those as empty feel-good slogans, which would be disrespectful I think, or you can take them seriously, and look at the consequences of those claims, should the government or the courts grant them legitimacy (as they increasingly do).

As just one of many, many examples, from the same Squamish First Nation, from an article about a land parcel near Murrin park being returned to them [1]:

> "The history of land confiscation from the Squamish Nation going back to Confederation has always been one where our people and our leaders, going back to the founding of the nation, have articulated that we never surrendered our lands. It's all ours," said Khelsilem, also known as Dustin Rivers, a spokesperson for the [Squamish] Nation.

> "The Crown, through the province or the feds, claim jurisdiction over our lands. We contest that jurisdictional claim. And we continue to fight for the return of our lands back to our community. And we've been successful at that in a number of areas. And we'll continue to press that fight."

Again, you can disrespect him, and assume that he means something else than what he says, but I don't think that's wise.

> 90% of the land

Is it perhaps this high number that's unbelievable to you? Well, the Tsilqhot Supreme Court decision [2] awarded that First Nation 45% of their claimed traditional territory into aboriginal title. 45% isn't 100%, and aboriginal title isn't literally private property, but that Nation now makes the rules for who and how is allowed to access all that land, both for commercial activities and non-commercial recreational visitors, unbound by any equality or freedom of movement provisions in the Canadian law that normally bind Canadian governments.

And that decision is from nine years ago – an eternity when it comes to the development of indigenous rights in Canada and BC. If a similar case reached the court today, you bet it would be even stronger. Also, as I mentioned, the scope of aboriginal title is continually expanded by the courts, so eventually it will likely become indistinguishable from private property for all practical purposes.

> And even if some land is returned to indigenous nations, that would not be privatization.

You can use whatever PC words for this you want, if it makes you feel better. The essence remains the same – previously publicly owned land with public access is transferred into ownership with restricted access. There are many ways in which it is accomplished, from transferring land parcels into private property – sometimes in exchange for approving resource extraction projects, sometimes without any exchange, to signing various "joint management" agreements that enable First Nations to exclude non-indigenous people from large swaths of lands, give them veto rights on any commercial activity, etc.

> In much the same way that legally I have title to your house if i write “I own that house” on a piece of paper.

No, because nobody will honor your piece of paper, whereas pretty much everyone in Canada and in the world honors Canada's title to its land, whether they like it or not. See the other subthread for why that is.

[1] https://www.squamishchief.com/local-news/updated-squamish-na...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot%CA%BCin_Nation_v_Brit...

> And who are you, to make that claim so confidently on behalf of First Nations, to put limits on them?

This is a transparently cynical "gotcha" argument, so I'm going to ignore it.

> As of 2019, this process has been officially abandoned by the BC NDP. Any treaties or agreements signed nowadays do not include finalization, so the First Nations are always free to demand more land, as they do.

There have been no treaties signed in BC since 2016, so I don't know what you're basing your "treaties or agreements signed nowadays" or "as they do" comments on. Certainly not things that have actually come to pass.

> Pretty much every First Nation consistently denies Canada's ownership of their lands, saying that their lands were stolen, that the colonialism continues today, that Canada has no right to govern their lands, that they should be the ones deciding what happens on their lands, etc.

Their lands were stolen. Colonialism does continue today. The right of a democratic nation to govern is dependent on the consent of the people - so it is well within their rights to challenge that right.

> Is it perhaps this high number that's unbelievable to you? Well, the Tsilqhot Supreme Court decision [2] awarded that First Nation 45% of their claimed traditional territory into aboriginal title. 45% isn't 100%

You're doing some fancy math there. If I claim 100% of my house, and am granted 45% of it... I wasn't granted 45% of all houses. Afaik land claims come with a high burden of proof, I would be shocked if their original claim was for 50% of their actual traditional land.

> previously publicly owned land with public access is transferred into ownership with restricted access

This is nonsense. Previously access to the land was restricted by the canadian government. If you wanted to use it, you had to a) be canadian, or b) get permission from canada. If that land now belongs to another nation guess what the new rules are? If you want to use it you have to a) belong to that nation, or b) get permission from that nation. You're just describing being on the wrong side of a border.

> No, because nobody will honor your piece of paper, whereas pretty much everyone in Canada and in the world honors Canada's title to its land, whether they like it or not.

You've just described colonialism. Odd, because it seemed like you were implying earlier you didn't believe the idea that colonialism was happening today.

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://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."

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".

> 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/1100100032275/1529354547...

> 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.

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"

Unless the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and freedom is invoked

First nations governments cannot invoke the notwithstanding clause.

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.

> 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.

Part of the point of reconciliation is to accept unequivocally the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Is it not morally questionable to ignore indigenous peoples' sovereign rights (over fishing, forests, lands, etc.) as we have been doing up until now?

How can this work in practice, though? Wouldn't acknowledging indigenous peoples' sovereign rights over their lands require the formation of entirely new nations with their own borders and laws and military and courts etc etc that would cover the entirety of canada ? If they are have the right of a sovereign over these lands then can't they just tell everyone else to leave?

There are various weird traditional middle grounds, e.g. the City of London.

This is essentially what we do in the United States. I've yet to see any problems from it. This is also why laws and treaties exist. How do you think the rest of the world works with multiple nation states close to one another? My counter question would be, would it be fair to give peoples land that first belonged to them as well as independence and then tell them what they can or can't do with that land? That would from my point of view be tantamount to an occupation

> that would cover the entirety of canada

This is very much not what we do in the United States.

Rather, we forcibly uprooted, exterminated, and/or migrated indigenous people until they only occupied the most marginal land available, and then told them "here's your bit".

This is not what I'm arguing at all. We have been making (and largely breaking) treaties with indigenous peoples since before either country existed. But to say they didn't matter and that we still don't recognize them at all is completely ahistorical and out of touch with reality. Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada have worked hard to restore sovereignty. Your claim is completely ignoring that and recent precedents we've taken to right those wrongs. While it's not perfect (nor enough imo), it doesn't account to nothing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...

I would like to point out that’s way better than what most people did over the course of human history, certainly including a lot of those Native Americans themselves.

Yes that’s exactly right

I don't really see how this is that challenging. It's just another jurisdiction with its own governance structure, just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.

> I don't really see how this is that challenging.

"Not challenging"? Ok, suppose you split the province of BC into 100+ of these independent indigenous-run jurisdictions, or maybe a bit less if any First Nations decide to amalgamate in the process.

What will actually make these jurisdictions independent / sovereign? What mechanism will they use to keep the power in the hands of indigenous people? Are the millions of non-indigenous people living in BC supposed to pack up and leave for their ancestors' countries, that they might have never been to? Or are they supposed to exist as second class citizens, deprived of democratic and property rights? What fraction of indigenous blood will be enough to get first class citizenship?

And don't cop out with "the indigenous people will decide these things". Obviously they will, if it comes to that. Show at least one feasible "not challenging" solution that they could possibly decide on, that would see such jurisdictions qualify as sovereign.

> just like what happens when you pass between regional districts, provinces and municipalities and the underlying various laws change.

Those Canadian jurisdictions are all governed by people who are elected by all Canadians living there, and all of those Canadians are also eligible to run for office, regardless of race. None of these types of jurisdictions could possibly give First Nations any meaningful sovereignty if their structure was applied to them, because these types of jurisdictions have no mechanism to ensure that indigenous people – or any other subset of people – will be in control, or will stay in control.

Jurisdictions with indigenous sovereignty would inevitably require aggressive race-based laws, and either a more distinctly two-class society, or a purge of non-indigenous people from Canada. You could say that this kind of thing is indeed "challenging", to say the least.

The significant thing that makes this less challenging than the bizarre and inflammatory fears in your last paragraph is that FNs are simply seeking jurisdiction over land use on their lands and over their people that are part of their FN.

You seem to be dreaming up scenarios that FNs themselves have not been advancing.

The day to day reality of someone who is not part of a FN that lives in an existing municipality doesn't change at all.

The most significant changes are for resource companies that seek to make use of crown land that now have to have additional conversations with a FN about resource projects instead of just the Province, and this is pretty much already the case and they're already doing this.

Maybe the worst case scenario for a typical British Columbian is that a backcountry enthusiast could find a potential activity limited by some FN that seeks to limit access to their lands.

> Maybe the worst case scenario for a typical British Columbian is that a backcountry enthusiast could find a potential activity limited by some FN that seeks to limit access to their lands.

That's already happened. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/joffre-lakes...

Yep that's what I was thinking of.

And that's something that a lot of people have trouble with, but ultimately it's a potential outcome (hopefully avoidable!) that comes along with Canada ceding back some power and control to FNs they stole land from or negotiated treaties with that they immediately reneged on or ignored.

In all sorts of aspects people hate to lose things and have things taken away from them, and so that's why these discussions become such heated flashpoints.

Ultimately I think the strongest drive from FNs on these issues is simply to become masters of their own destiny and to benefit from the wealth of their lands; to seek an end to the sort of resource exploitation that Canada pursued through much of its history, extracting resource wealth from FN lands while returning little of that wealth back.

You claim that I am "dreaming up", yet you refuse to say what exactly do you suppose indigenous sovereignty could look like.

Everything you just said is not sovereignty, it is already the status quo in 2024, yet there are zero First Nations in BC who are happy with the level of "sovereignty" they are currently getting, they all still want more, despite getting more land, more meaningful consultations, and more rights today than even a few years ago.

> resource companies that seek to make use of crown land that now have to have additional conversations with a FN about resource projects instead of just the Province, and this is pretty much already the case and they're already doing this.

Resource extraction companies most certainly do not consistently consult FN, in any case not the ones whose land they’re prospecting on. Source: about every other year the local FN boot out unwelcome mining companies that legally prospect on their sacred sites with no consultation. Unfamiliar helicopter activity is the only tell tale sign.

Officially consultations are required but writing to our representatives, they just reply those operations are legal and there is no problem, which is a problem in itself.

The main thing about land back and FN legal action strategy, as I understand it, is not so much about literally getting land back or kicking people out of their homes as seems to be a common fear, but rather about changing laws that continue to enforce their underlying colonial philosophy into modern days.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, like inconsistent and inadequate consultation is still a problem, but we've at least gotten to the point where companies are recognizing that they should be and need to be doing consultation with FNs, which is a big step forward, and I expect this trend to continue.

The good resource companies are already doing consultation and getting local FNs on board before even talking with the Province. I've heard of examples of this recently.

The change that needs to happen and I expect will happen in the future is that the Province will make legislative changes to bring these expectations of consultation into requirements and to create more certainty from that.

I think the confusing part is that the word "soverignty" isn't normally used to describe things like that.

Cities aren't normally "soverign". Soverignty traditionally implies absolute control of a piece of land, independent foreign policy/military, a seat at the UN, etc. That is quite different than limited self-government or even an atonomous territory.

I don't think the traditional type of soverignty is the type of soverignty first nations are seeking. If it were, i imagine Canada gov wouldn't exactly be cool with it.

Yes, that is exactly the case today. There are 43 self-governing first nations communities in Canada where "Canadian" laws mean nothing, and "Canadian" police have no power.

https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547...

Em. That says:

* Under self-government, Indigenous laws operate in harmony with federal and provincial laws. Indigenous laws protecting culture and language generally take priority if there is a conflict among laws

* 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

Canada is already a federal structure with overlapping jurisdictions. Adding another layer to it complicates things, but doesn't fundamentally break anything. Treaties are just more laws in a constitution that is already a mix of Common Law, written law, (French) Civil Law, our history with the BNA act, and our recent constitutional patriation.

The USA has similar treaties, and the US Supreme Court has been flip-flopping trying to decide the limits of Oklahoma criminal authority in half the sate. It can be messy.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta

Times have changed and these peoples don't live the romanticized lifestyles of the olden times anymore. For the most part, they're just as modern and profit-seeking as any other group of Canadians. If you allow them to not have to adhere to Canadian law, you have a group of people that enjoy all the benefits and none of the restrictions of the country they live in. If you argue for sovereign rights, they should have their own separate countries, so they have to deal with any imbalances or environmental issues they create themselves.

>But on more practical grounds, this is creating a great big loophole for the traditional resource extraction companies to circumvent environment regulation by partnering with first nations on projects.

There's a certain demographic that can't accept that indigenous people might not be nature-worshipping druids that never pollute and are infallible stewards of the land, so through that lens of course they don't need to be subject to environmental regulations.

That may be true, but fundamentally this is about autonomy. These Nations do not necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the National or Provincial government since they never ceeded their territory.

It's a bit of a grey area for sure, but this isn't about "giving the people of the forest" stewardship of the land in order for them to protect it, it's recognizing that they didn't sign up to be governed under the nation/province.

The idea that they do not fall under jusrisdiction is a farce and legal contrivance. In reality they have no international standing and do not and would not constitute an independent state under any normal criteria. What's happening here is the government is treating them with kid gloves because there is the perception what happened in the past is unfair (true!) and there is a desire to make amends for it. That's all well and good, let's just acknowledge it and call it what it is. If tomorrow they decided to start developing nuclear weapons I don't think "they didn't consent to be governed" would fly.

"If tomorrow they decided to start developing nuclear weapons I don't think "they didn't consent to be governed" would fly."

Any nation developing nuclear weapons will get serious problems from the nations who already have them. Native, or not.

And it used to not be necessary, to have "international standing" to have your own state. You just minded your own buisness and tried to get along with the local neighbors. As far as I understand, this is a compromise, to bring some of it back. They are still subject to most of federal law and that is not going to change. So there won't be a true souvereign native state inside of canada anytime soon.

Looking at realpolitik, I can see one path: Quebec independence. If it’s achieved within our lifetime, a sovereign Quebec might offer full independence to First Nations to get them to sign a dotted line to stop trying to be inside Canada.

> Any nation developing nuclear weapons will get serious problems from the nations who already have them.

That's not universally true as long as they don't acknowledge it. Israel has nuclear weapons and nobody is (effectively) trying to stop them.

It doesn't matter if they don't have international standing, what matters is that Canada has recognized them as sovereign entities. You can't be sovereign but then be boxed into the laws of another country

Exactly why they wouldn’t be sovereign nations except by Canada’s niceness. You can only be sovereign by having some form of strong leverage, either resources, power, or international support.

Except for the legal treaties Canada signed with them? This isn't Canada being like gee I guess it'd be woke of us to say you're a separate legal entity. This is based on treaties they've signed and being legally obligated to recognize the rights of a people

Legal treaties, or any kind of contract really, are only worth their paper as long as there is an underlying system with power to enforce them. I believe these nations have no standing in international courts; they have no armies, allies or resources. Upholding these treaties is entirely dependent on goodwill.

If Canada was to ignore them and take over all land, who would stop them? It is, in the end, Canada being nice. Is that such a terrible thing?

Canada is already a federal state with sub national entities that don’t have all the rights of the federal government. Pretty much any state that has a federal system already deals with this.,

2024 Canada is an absurd time and place to be alive.

Canada 2024: - Universities have "Black only" swim hours and segregated "Person of Colour" buildings - "no whites allowed". - Indigenous people get special treatment by courts (the courts were literally instructed not to hold them to the same standards as others) - The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women - Land acknowledgements... Everywhere. What a waste of time and resources that accomplishes nothing - (Of course, if we keep saying we stole their land -- they are going to want it back - and this is what we see in the courts) - And this is just scratching the surface of whats happening

My wife works for a government organization, and even their internal emails have land acknowledgements in them. She has to take 1-2 days of DEI training per month.

... I could go on for hours. After living in various countries over the last ~15 years, moving back to Canada has turned out to be one of the worst choices I've ever made. And I'm at least lucky enough to be able to afford a house here.

This country is imploding.

Canada did steal their land though, and then ruined it with NIMBYism. Now as you can see, they're fixing it.

What a strange view to call this an "absurd time and place to be alive" and that the "country is imploding". Lots here needs sources as it's hard to verify or taken out of context.

> Land acknowledgements... Everywhere

No they're not. They're heavily used within the government but in the private sector I have never experienced anyone doing a land acknowledgement.

> My wife works for a government organization, and even their internal emails have land acknowledgements in them. She has to take 1-2 days of DEI training per month.

Since I also have a partner working for a government organization and they don't have to do anything even remotely close to "1-2 days of DEI training per month" so this doesn't seem to be universally true.

> The courts now use the term "person with a vagina" to refer to women

Are you referring to the couple of times the supreme court has used that term? At least one of which dealt with sexual assault. You make it sound like courts universally use that term - that is false.

I have spent so much time in Canada and it is just unbelievable watching the country go more and more insane.

What I have read about the Harms act is so bat shit crazy that it is hard to believe it can be real. Then looking at polling on support of the bill it seems like that is what Canadians want.

I actually didn't know there are buildings that say "no whites allowed". How incredibly disturbing. All while electing a leader with multiple pictures in black face.

>"On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others."

They did not ask to be a citizens of Canada. They were invaded, conquered, killed and actively suppressed. Mistreatment still continues. How's that for moral grounds?

Morality really only has relevance to an individual. Was it moral to invade Canada? No, at least not under contemporary morality.

Is it moral to give a random subset of people special rights in modern Canada? Is a seperate question, that has nothing to do with historical treatment.

My take is that the current government does not adequately represent several groups in Canada, and the best solution would be to allow for separatist actions as a fundamental human right.

>"and the best solution would be to allow for separatist actions as a fundamental human right."

This will lead to countless wars.

Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada. Nobody born to poor parents was asked to be born poor. Just treat everyone equally based on their own actions and merits, and their actual individual circumstances, not based on their broad ancestry.

>"Nobody born in Canada was asked to be a citizen of Canada"

Tell that to Ukrainians who are now in a territory that Russia claims to own.

By that logic, neither did New Yorkers. New York was largely Loyalist during the American Revolution.

I wonder if a more workable arrangement would stipulate that indigenous people are exempt from these regulations only when the work and management of a project is also designed and implemented by Indigenous people.

That would seemingly circumvent this loophole where a large, private corporation run by white canadians effectively uses the indigenous people as a loophole, cutting them in to circumvent regulations.

Wouldn't really help e.g. overfishing issues but seems directionally better.

Would be pretty easy for a motivated corporation to set up a branch composed entirely of those indigenous people for the purpose, or to form a partnership with a company of those indigenous people.

This can and does happen

They're the rag tag survivors of genocide, perpetrated by white settlers, over the past 200 yrs.

Giving them a tiny fraction of their ancestral fishing rights back, now w that we've severely degraded the ecosystems they call home, is literally the least we can do.

What are you going to do? It's an aristocracy, very difficult to remove short of revolution.

> On moral grounds, I find it questionable to give some citizens special birth rights greater than others.

Kind of the point here is that it was happening the other way for a couple hundred years, so just abrogating current inequality still leaves one party as a disadvantage. The hard part is deciding when these catch-up priveleges have run their course. Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet.

Complicating this calculation is the way that the 'catch-up rights' are provided via tribal mechanisms, which incentivizes 'chiefs' and 'council members'/'elders' to prolong the inequality so that they can maintain their power & control.

This reminds me of the Malcolm X quote

> If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.

So why not run programs along the lines of current economic status, which is relatively easy to objectively determine and relatively light on ethnic, racial, and national animus? It is impossible to do a good job of litigating history and it is guaranteed to make people hate each other.

This is absolutely the correct answer, all identity-based solutions are coarse and imprecise ways to solve a directly measurable problem (relative economic hardship). But the identity-based lever has proven too effective rhetorically and creates ample rent-seeking and self-enrichment opportunities to those wielding political power with an identity-based community. Plus, general means-based intervention is generally scary to the “wealthy” identity (cutting across all other identity divisions).

I'm not sure how you get from 'the Canadian government must respect the treaties that it signed' to 'identity-based solutions.'

There is no real special catch up going on here.

What is happening now is that First Nations have leveraged the courts to force a rule of law country like Canada to actually follow through on obeying the rule of law and following through with treaties they had signed and agreements they had made.

What treaties? BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. That's why those lawsuits are even considered. We can thank a bunch of long-dead British guys for that.

And let's not pretend that this has anything to do with the constitution or the rule of law. The actual "rules" in the source material are woefully under-specified and open to all kinds of interpretation, so the number one factor actually affecting these decisions is the social popculture that everyone in the country, including the justices, is subject to.

We simply have a bunch of unelected people effectively writing an important part of Canadian law for decades, because the elected people whose actual job it is to write such laws don't want to do it.

The situation in BC yeah largely without treaties gives the First Nations even more leverage to control their lands under claim because otherwise Canada has to somehow justify being a rule of law country and also stealing people's land in the year 2024.

Obviously it's not going to work, which is why the courts continue to rule in the favour of BC FNs.

> Since first nations metrics along the lines of economic status are still below the national average, it's clear we're not there just yet.

Instead of rushing for race-based policies, how about implementing policies that would help all disadvantaged people equally without looking at their race.

You can't compensate for past racism with modern racism. It will never end. Canada will learn that the hard way, it seems.

I see you took Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s plan from way back in the 70s out of the moth balls and are now trying to pass it as new.

It cannot work. Our government signed binding treaties with independent nations in the past. Those treaties are still valid, and we cannot declare them null and void because it’s unfair that they give more fishing rights to 3% of people.

This isn't about treaties – BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes.

For example, does the constitution guarantee the indigenous people the right to subsistence fishing with traditional methods, or to large scale commercial fishing unlimited by any Canadian regulations, or something in between? None of that is defined in the constitution, it's all up for interpretation.

And this isn't about fishing either. No one's chanting #fishback around here, it's all #landback. 90%+ of BC land is currently public land that all Canadians are free to enjoy. Whether it stays public, or whether it is entirely privatized based on race, like the activists want, is a much bigger issue than who gets to overfish.

> The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes.

That is the supreme court's job. They decide how to interpret things. Their interpretation is law.

Interpreting the constitution in the context of current social views of course is not a canadian invention but comes to us from the british https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

You say it like it's a good thing, but it's not. Specifically, the fact that our country's foundational document is so vague about our fundamental rights, is a very bad thing for everyone involved. If it was more specific, our fundamental rights would not only be more clear, they would also be more stable, not subject to the momentary (on a historical scale) whims of pop culture.

If our fundamental rights are subject to change every few years with a new Supreme Court decision, then we're either abusing the process to make these changes, or these rights should not be in the constitution in the first place. The constitution is supposed to contain the most fundamental, the most immutable rights.

We have a proper democratic process to update the constitution, but it requires a certain high level of consensus, as it should – these being our fundamental rights, after all. Yet this process is completely bypassed by activist judges who of course are happy to use the power that their predecessors afforded themselves. That is not a good thing in any way.

First Nations right have nothing to do with our constitution; it’s either treaties, or in the absence of it, a court agreeing to a nation asserting itself.

The treaties are literally part of the constitution.

Also section 25 & section 35 of the constitution act talk about treaty rights:

35 (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. ... (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

I used an unfortunate shorthand; I said constitution when I meant charter of rights.

My point still stands; the treaties were vague, but that's what both sides wanted in the past. That courts are taking a written passage that says: the right to freely fish for our nation, and then taking that to mean more than you can take your boat and go out, but to mean your nation can own fishing companies, then that's fine legally. After all, they can freely fish.

To change them to be restrictive, you cannot change our constitution. You need to negotiate new treaties with First Nations. Who have no incentive to sit down and negotiate for a worse deal, when we haven't even legally respected the previous deal for centuries.

When the catch up is in the form of hiring quotas for a mining project on native lands, that’s just a consensual business deal and it’s positive.

But sometimes the situation is taken advantage of and the appeasement goes too far. Like instead of cutting firewood for the wood stove, you just throw all your furniture and cabinetry and doors in there. Then you just ask for new ones from a big company who just wants to quietly put this problem away without stirring up a fuss and risking their project or bigger costs later. That actually happened lol.

It’s not a race issue or a cultural issue. Natives are competent people. We may have different ancestral traditions, but we share exactly the same culture today. Where do you think the Canadian accent comes from? That’s a native accent. Our cultures mixed together.

If a business and a land owning band want to cut a deal, by all means. If the government and the bands want to settle land compensation, then settle it once and for all. It really just never ends as it stands. Like what does free post secondary have to do with land claims? It really looks like systemic racism.

And if the government was serious about any of this they’d give them autonomy in their lands. Statehood. That hasn’t happened. Why not? I get that you can’t sign over Vancouver because it’s been developed, but a lot of these places are in the bush.

It’s really a shit show. We’re not the rich country we once were. We can’t afford to pay billions forever on repeat just to make it go away for a little while. Settle it all immediately and make all races equal.

To do that you need to break international law by declaring the treaties signed in the past null and void. You also need to break international law by refusing to negotiate with nations who never signed treaties, and want deals at least as good as nations who signed treaties.

There’s a very good reason why what you’re proposing is not what’s happening: it’s because you’re dealing with nation to nation negotiations, and the other nations want nothing of fairness and equality. They want their full rights, and denying them that is turning back the clock decades.

How would it be breaking international law? Who would enforce it? Would the US stop trading with Canada because Canada nullified some treaties with a third party (ie. not the USA)? Would Germany invade Canada?

Treaties are just agreements and are broken all the time; for an obvious example look at trade treaties or weapons treaties. In the Canadian context the constitution states that Canada must maintain those existing treaties with Aboriginal tribes, but constitutions are changeable. Every other treaty is a mere act of Government away from nullification.

The whole current recounciliation is based on the premise that we will respect the treaties we didn’t in the past. Courts literally limited what was written in them in the past, in blatant disregard of common law.

You want to go in the direction of breaking them again, and making Canada look like a fool on the international stage.

"Instead of cutting firewood for the wood stove, you just throw all your furniture and cabinetry and doors in there. Then you just ask for new ones..."

Having spent quite a bit of time on various reservations in Western Canada, I've literally seen this happen with my own eyes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com