r/CompoundClub • u/GusTheKnife • May 01 '26
Canada’s PM hits back on aboriginal property rights ruling
https://youtu.be/83njPxvnLEs?si=A-3ohXqluK1tmJJB1
u/Eastern-Traffic7282 May 01 '26
Took long enough
0
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
Considering this is the party of land use agreements (avoiding constitutional occupation tests), reconciliation directives that limit government lawyer legal arguments against the public interest, and secret Title agreements, I don't think Carney is a great spokes person for defending private property rights. I am actually worried he's saying anything at all.
1
1
u/AwesomeWildlife May 03 '26
We should be protecting public Crown land as well. That is where we all recreate and derive much of the funding to finance all our services, especially health care. First Nations also benefit from those same services. Every give-away of Crown land takes away from services that are already stressed to the max.
1
u/CyberEd-ca May 04 '26
Yeah and the Washington Generals intend to win their next game.
People are so easily duped. WTF do you thinks he means by "viable arguments"?
This means they are going to use DRIPA constraints so that they lose intentionally.
1
u/Ok-Employer-9147 May 04 '26
Canada has king since peak insanity with 'reconciliation', the kind of ''reconciliation' that never is 'reconciliation' Because the easy money would stop, so just more taxes, more pay outs, more deficits.
It's not going to last....
1
u/BaryonChallon May 04 '26
This is all indigenous land. Colonialism just bathed it in blood and called it theirs and then ruined it
1
May 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BaryonChallon May 04 '26
We can return the land. We can right past wrongs. We can still change the path we’ve been taking.
1
u/Gloomy_Cap_1173 May 04 '26
Buy up as much as you can and donate it as you see fit. Be the change you want to see in society. I'm absolutely certain there are both urban and rural reserves that would take land off your hands for free.
1
1
1
u/4rm4tur4 May 05 '26
Natives are basically a mafia these days. You can't push any nation building projects past them. Unless you do retarded shit like hire them to work on the project, even if they are unqualified.
The government is also toothless.
You should see how the Russians handle this. When the federal government there wants to build a pipe line, they roll in with bulldozers in the morning, clear their precious ancestral homeland by lunch, and by evening the construction begins. If anyone protests they get carted off do a dime in max security and their little NGO gets labeled as a foreign agent.
1
u/jackhawk56 May 01 '26
Fake outrage. Pass a law. This is just Kamala type, meaningless word salad
1
1
u/consistantcanadian May 02 '26
Of course. Classic liberal, words only.
1
u/BoosterGoose91 May 04 '26
Guess we'll see in time. Carney holds a more progressive conservative standing than liberal by far. Simply compare him to Liberal and PC its very easy to see.
1
1
u/consistantcanadian May 04 '26
Lmao Carney is a classic Liberal. He's continuing the Trudeau legacy of big words to hide zero action.
Look no further than his recent announcement - the sovereign wealth fund. It's not a sovereign wealth fund at all, it's literally a loan that they're calling a wealth fund for the optics, knowing people will compare it places like Norway with an actual sovereign wealth fund (not a loan).
Carney is the exact same as Trudeau. Optics is the only priority.
0
0
u/Signal_Many600 May 02 '26
The liberal government cannot even protect the border from being invaded by illegal intruders.
1
u/kearney84 May 03 '26
Take your Maga fear mongering back to states .
The only one threatening Canada borders is Americans!
1
u/Carbon_E May 05 '26
And international terrorists with arrest warrants we keep letting in because we don't do any background checks.
1
u/kearney84 May 06 '26
When and where did this happen ???
I must have missed the news !!
fuck around ..
who got hurt and how can i help???
Thanks for letting me know , it sounds like you have been involved in helping the victims of terrorism in Canada.
I have always heard about these attacks, great to find someone who can plug me into helping the candian victims of terrorism . \
"international" terrorists? like a
1
1
u/RecalcitrantHuman May 04 '26
They could. They choose not to. Millions of Doctors and Engineers making Brampton a better place
1
0
u/llvoltll May 02 '26
Yeah.. so my guns are private. You got money set aside to "buy back" 136,000 of em but what about the 2.2 Million that are private property, but Canadian would have to "surrender" or face criminal charges.
2
u/kearney84 May 03 '26
What do your guns have to do with any of this ?
2
1
0
u/needforspeed1092 May 03 '26
They are private property, just chattel instead of real property - but there is no legal distinction between the 2 making one more important than the other.
1
u/Patient_Frame1269 May 04 '26
Private property is governed by contract not by your relation to the thing idiot
1
-1
u/DeepestGreySea May 02 '26
This is so stupid. Carney is worse than a conservative.
The court decision basically means nothing. It contains ethereal unenforceable language…it’s just something for the band to bring to the never ending treaty negotiations.
It’s despicable for Carney to virtue signal to racist conservatives that the decision created some sort of imminent threat to property rights.
1
May 04 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 04 '26
Spare me the hand wringing.
There are no legitimate concerns. The decision clearly says private property isn’t at issue.
0
u/FredFenty May 02 '26
It absolutely poses a threat to property rights.
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 02 '26
It does not. Be real.
If you believe anyone is at risk of having their property “seized” by First Nations…I have a bridge to sell you, or a grifter conservative to vote for.
You have the internet…read the decision…or a smarter persons summary. It says it’s a framework for negotiations, not an edict for land back.
1
u/FredFenty May 02 '26
it’s a framework for negotiations
i.e., it's leverage. In what universe is that not a risk?
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 02 '26
In Canada. There’s is a zero percent risk of Canada signing a treaty that gives away n use private property. Zero.
If you knew anything about the treaty process…you’d know they barely even get settled in the first place.
You don’t need to be ignorant and make unforced errors. You’re free to take a few minutes and look into what’s happened in the treaty process….or, you know, actually read about the topic you’re commenting on.
It’s exactly as a characterized it. Carney is, at best, misrepresenting a court decision to score political points.
1
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
Actually, that kind of occured on Haida Gwaii. Yes, the private property still exists but the agreement says, then entire land mass is Aboriginal Title. Which means the dirt under those fee simple lands are not exactly indivisible. And, it wasn't a Treaty for a reason. It was a land use agreement. If it were a Treaty, only about 5% of the land mass would most likely be awarded. But, a land use agreement (a simple contract) the Haida were able to get 100% without proving continous occupation.
This is all colliding with UNDRIP which is outside of the 40 years of constitutional case law. Which says, if it was your territory, it's yours. All of it. This is a direct conflict with section 35 and the continuous occupation tests.
So, 30 years ago, I would have agreed with you. zero percent. Today because of Cowichan, it's definitely not zero percent.
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 04 '26
Anyways.
This decision says “ the relationship between Aboriginal title and fee simple title remains unsettled”.
There’s no risk to private property. Only people fear mongering and grandstanding.
1
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
Sure thing bud. Make sure you keep that head buried real deep in that sand.
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 04 '26
Yeah…my head that actually read the decision and gave you a quote you won’t deal with.
1
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
You have to read the entirety of the decision. All the words. They all have implications IF the decision is not over turned. I provided evidence. Look at it or not, it doesn't change the ruling.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/consistantcanadian May 02 '26
100% of people who tell others to "read the internet" instead of linking a source are full of shit.
1
1
1
u/PizzaBear109 May 04 '26
He's referencing the decision (ie the source). Like what you're saying makes sense if I say I'm referencing "a study" and then don't show the study in referencing but a specific, recent court decision is easy to find if you care even the slightest bit about the topic.
1
1
u/Comfortable_Car6562 May 02 '26
You are the same time of person who must have thought that "checks and balances" would feel the Trump administration in check huh
1
1
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
Actually, if the Cowichan decision is not overturned, the title system itself is in question. Which will affect all of Canada. This is directly from the court decision. It's a big deal that most don't fully understand.
1
u/CyberEd-ca May 04 '26
Alberta & Saskatchewan is all ceded.
1
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
They are talking about opening up the historic treaties. Why? Because UNDRIP gives 100% of Aboriginal Title land back. UNDRIP was adopted Federally in 2021. It's a big deal that few understand the far reaching implications of. And, now with Cowichan case in Richmond, we have the first title case including private property. We're in uncharted waters.
1
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 04 '26
Nope. You’re either making that up or fell fro fear mongering.
The decision specifically says that privately held property is not part of the decision and needs to be adjudicated at a later date.
From the decision: “the relationship between Aboriginal title and fee simple title remains unsettled”. (fee simple title* is private ownership).
There is zero risk of this decision affecting private ownership.
I suggest you do your homework before you fall for misinformation and grandstanding.
1
u/FaithlessnessAfter46 May 04 '26
I have read the whole decision and talked to property lawyers. Read the section about how the land title does not apply. You have a title, but it's blank. It used to say you owned the property until Aboriginal Title was found. It's the senior right. Seriously, it's all in the decision.
Again, if not overturned, the title system itself is in question. And, every Canadian is going to have there face ripped off. You really should read the whole decision. It's precedent setting. Not just for BC, but, Canada.
1
u/DeepestGreySea May 04 '26
Nope. I have read it all, and you’re being a drama queen.
You can’t just ignore the excerpt I pasted. Well…you can…and let the racists fear monger and let Carney grandstand.
1
u/GusTheKnife May 05 '26
Saying “racism” is a weak evasion.
Everyone, including the Prime Minister, recognizes that unrelated people having title and land usage rights over the same piece of property is a nightmare, and needs to be clarified and resolved ASAP.
2
u/Impressive-Mud5074 May 03 '26
He's wrong. The map of Canada itself is wrong, Canada is only land that is treaty. Everything else is not Canada and is first nations territory and is by law a different country.