The “land acknowledgment” has become a tiresome feature of American life. Many government agencies, arts organizations and others begin proceedings by reciting a homage to the Indians who lived on the land before they stole it. To which, many conservatives have said, if you really believe that you are on stolen land, why don’t you give it back? That, of course, never happens. It is just a meaningless liberal ritual.
Except that now, for the first time, land may actually be “given back.” Not, of course, to anyone who ever owned it. But a court in Canada ruled in August that the Cowichan Indians are the proper owners of 800 acres located in a suburb of Vancouver. The decision followed a trial that dragged on for more than a decade:
The Cowichan decision is the product of a 513-day trial, including hearings spanning over 11 years – making it the longest trial in Canadian history.
The court held that the people and businesses who have bought and lived on the land in question are out of luck, despite the guarantees of Canadian law:
The Land Title Act of BC (the Land Title Act) is predicated on the concept of indefeasible title (i.e., the concept that a registered owner of land has absolute and secure ownership) and ensures that once a title is duly registered in the land titles office, it is deemed final and conclusive. The defendants argued that the Land Title Act could shield fee simple title from Aboriginal title claims.
The Court rejected this argument, finding that Aboriginal title exists outside the land title system. It relied on the Interpretation Act, which requires legislation to be interpreted in a way that respects and does not diminish Aboriginal rights. The Court also noted that interpreting the Land Title Act to override Aboriginal title would conflict with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which British Columbia has committed to uphold.
Note the nefarious role played by United Nations “law.” So if you bought a house from the prior owner, filed your title correctly under British Columbia law, and have occupied it for the last 15 years, your interest in the property is now subordinate to the rights of the Cowichan tribe. The decision is currently on appeal.
So in Canada, the mantra of “give it back” has more reality than here in the United States–so far, at least. Earlier this week, British Columbia’s legislative assembly voted down a bill to ban land acknowledgments. The bill’s defeat was celebrated by former BC legislator Katrina Chen:
You can guess where this is going:
Chen’s reply was met with major criticism from some British Columbia residents who are now calling on the ex-lawmaker to ‘voluntarily register aboriginal title on the private properties that she owns.’
***
A disclosure statement from April 2024 revealed that Chen owns a residential property in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby.She and a family member also co-own a residential property in Vancouver that was a source of rental income, the filing showed.
***
Canadians, however, have blasted her apparent hypocrisy and are urging the lawmaker to donate her own properties to the tribes.
***
‘@KatrinaCHome put your money where you mouth is or keep it shut,’ one outraged X user wrote.
***
‘Wouldn’t you know her bio says she lives on Occupied Turtle Island. She must be ready to give up her property,’ added another. ‘I wonder what she calls East Turkistan, Tibet, & Inner Mongolia. Occupied? Or nah? Just virtue signaling from an indignant scumbag?’
Neither of Chen’s properties is located in the 800 acres that have now been declared to be the property of the Cowichan tribe. However, it turns out that “nearly all of British Columbia is unceded tribal land.” The Cowichan are now preparing further land claims. Who knows, Ms. Chen may one day have the opportunity to give her land “back” to Indians who never owned it.
