It was inevitable. As day follows night. First the land acknowledgments, then the land surrenders. From Bloomberg,
Indigenous Group Wins Land Claim Over Slice of Metro Vancouver.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, reached a decision after a five-year-long trial and a written decision that runs to 900 pages.
My reaction every time I hear one of those “land acknowledgments” at the beginning of a meeting or event is “give it back, then. Every acre. Immediately.” If you don’t think that the land is rightfully yours, give it back.
Canada, apparently, has listened. The country, through mass immigration, appears to be well into the process of self-dissolution, anyway. Why not hasten the process?
From Bloomberg,
An Indigenous group won claim to hundreds of acres of metropolitan Vancouver after a years-long trial and landmark judgment at British Columbia’s supreme court.
The Cowichan have aboriginal title to a section of riverbank in the city of Richmond, according to the 863-page ruling published Friday.
Bloomberg has a link to the ruling, which I will not be reading myself. Apparently, Canada also has a tradition of Friday-night news dumps.
The Provincial Premier, David Eby, made this statement,
Owning private property with clear title is key to borrowing for a mortgage, economic certainty, and the real estate market, and the province remains committed to upholding that this foundation of business and personal predictability, and our provincial economy, for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike.
I looked Eby up and, of course, he’s a member of the socialist New Democratic Party. I would point out that “private property” is fundamentally incompatible with socialism. It’s also incompatible with virtue signaling.
As for the Vancouver land dispute, as I understand, it hinged on who occupied a piece of property in the year 1846. Two other native tribes were on the other (losing) side of the lawsuit.
What was magic about 1846? Why not 1746? Or 1646? It’s likely the winning party in the lawsuit would have been different with a different date, but equally valid, if that’s your criteria: who owned what way back when.
There is no end to the infinite regression of land acknowledgment insanity. If the idea is to relitigate every war, every armed conflict, to determine the “just” and “legal” winner, then you will end up with more wars, not fewer.
