From the Fraser Institute

By Bruce Pardy

In April 2024, the British Columbia government agreed to recognize and affirm the Haida Nation’s Aboriginal title to the archipelago on Canada’s west coast. In December, Ottawa did likewise. These agreements signal danger, and not just on Haida Gwaii.

The agreements tell two conflicting stories. One story is that a new era has begun. Colonial occupation has ended. Haida Gwaii will be governed in accordance with Haida Aboriginal title. But the second story is that private property will be honoured, federal, provincial and local governments will continue to exercise their jurisdiction, and the province will continue to provide and pay for health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services.

On Haida Gwaii, everything has changed, but nothing will change. Though both stories cannot be true, it’s impossible to tell which is false in what respects. Who has jurisdiction over what? If you use your land in a way that complies with local government zoning but the Council of the Haida Nation prohibits it, is it prohibited or permitted? If the council requires visitors to be vaccinated, but the province does not, must they be vaccinated or not? The agreements don’t say.

When jurisdictional conflicts arise under the agreements, they are to be “reconciled” in a transition process. But that process will be decided under Haida law, which is not codified or legislated. Only those with status and authority can say what it is. The legal meaning of the Haida Gwaii agreements therefore cannot be ascertained in any objective sense.

The agreements say private property on Haida Gwaii will be honoured. But private property is incompatible with Aboriginal title. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, Aboriginal title is communal: it consists of the right of a group to exclusive use and occupation of land, but with inherent limits on that use. Land subject to Aboriginal title “cannot be alienated except to the Crown or encumbered in ways that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it,” the Court wrote in 2014. “Nor can the land be developed or misused in a way that would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land.” If so, the promises in the agreement conflict. Land subject to Aboriginal title cannot be given away or sold, either as a single piece or in bits, except to the Crown. But when land is surrendered to the Crown, Aboriginal title is extinguished on that land. If Haida Gwaii really is subject to Aboriginal title, then no one can own parts of it privately.

Around 5,000 people live on Haida Gwaii, about half Haida. In April 2024, they voted 95 per cent in favour of the B.C. agreement at a special assembly in which non-Haida residents had no say. The agreements create two classes of citizens—one with political status, the other without, depending on people’s lineage.

According to B.C. Premier David Eby, the Haida Gwaii agreement is a template for the rest of the province. In early 2024, the government proposed to amend the province’s Land Act to empower hundreds of First Nations to make joint decisions with the minister on how Crown land—around 95 per cent of the province—is used. That would have given First Nations a veto over the use of public land. Public backlash forced the government to withdraw its proposal, which it did in February 2024. But it has not backed off its objectives and instead has embarked on a series of agreements granting title to, or control over, specific territories to specific Aboriginal groups. Typically, these are negotiated quietly and announced after the fact.

For example, in late January, the government revealed it had made an agreement with the shíshálh (Sechelt) Nation on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast granting management powers, providing for the acquisition of private lands, and making a commitment to recognize Aboriginal title. That agreement was made in August 2024 on the eve of the provincial election but kept hidden for five months. The government eventually posted a copy of it on its website—though with portions redacted. According to an area residents’ association, they were not consulted and weren’t even advised negotiations were taking place.

In the courts, the story is unfolding in a similar way. A judge of the B.C. Supreme Court recently found that the Cowichan First Nation holds Aboriginal title over 800 acres of government land in Richmond, B.C. But that’s not all. Wherever Aboriginal title is found to exist, said the court, it is a “prior and senior right” to fee simple title, whether public or private. That means it trumps the property people have in their house, farm or factory.

If the Cowichan decision holds up on appeal, private property will not be secure anywhere a claim for Aboriginal title is made out. In November, a New Brunswick judge suggested that where such a claim succeeds, the court may instruct the government to expropriate the private property and hand it over to the Aboriginal group.

The Haida Gwaii agreements empower the soft tyranny of legal incoherence. The danger signs are flashing. More of the same is on the way.

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

An Austrian court upheld a Sharia-based arbitration ruling, prompting outrage from conservatives who warn it fosters ‘Islamic parallel societies.’

A court in Vienna has ruled that Sharia law may be applied in civil legal disputes between two parties in Austria.

The Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters was concerned with a case between two Muslim men who had previously agreed to be judged by Islamic law in case of dispute.

This means that in the event of a dispute, the arbitration court – which rules according to Islamic law – can be convened. The dispute occurred, and the court ruled against one of the men and ordered him to pay a €320,000 ($372,000) fine.

However, the man sentenced to pay the penalty did not accept the ruling. He argued that the application of the law was arbitrary, as Sharia law could be interpreted in different ways. He furthermore claimed that invoking Sharia law violated the fundamental values of Austrian law.

The Vienna Regional Court ruled that the arbitration tribunal’s decision was valid. The court argued that the ruling did not contradict Austria’s fundamental values.

Islamic legal provisions, the regional court emphasized, could be “effectively agreed upon in an arbitration agreement” for property claims.

“There are no indications of a violation of public order or a possible arbitrary decision in this case, which is why none of the grounds for annulment that must be examined ex officio are present,” the court stated.

Conservative politicians and activists expressed their concern and outrage regarding the controversial decision.

Michael Schilchegger, constitutional spokesman for the Freedom Party (FPÖ), said the ruling fosters “Islamic parallel societies” and a weakens those “forces that do not want to submit to Islam.”

“If Austrian courts now also recognize arbitration awards based on ‘Sharia law,’ they are submitting to the will of fanatical Islamists,” he warned. He announced future legislative proposals to make it impossible for Austrian courts to recognize Sharia law in civil lawsuits.

Sharia law has “nothing to do with Austria and the principles of our constitution, and that’s how it should stay,” said Integration Minister Claudia Plakolm (ÖVP), who is part of Austria’s government coalition.

By the end of the year, the Ministry of Justice should draw up proposals “so that Sharia law cannot be applied in the future, for example in the area of civil marriage,” said Plakolm, who is confident “that we will receive the relevant proposals in a timely manner.”

Austrian anti-immigration activist and political commentator Martin Sellner said on X: “Under the guise of ‘private agreements,’ Sharia is entering the Austrian legal system.”

“Even though criminal aspects are excluded, this precedent opens the door to the gradual recognition of foreign legal systems,” he warned.

“For us, this means: remigration and the restoration of cultural sovereignty are more urgent than ever,” he concluded.

In recent years, uncontrolled mass migration has led to a significant increase in the Muslim population of Austria. According to a recent statistic, Islam is already the dominant religion in elementary and middle schools in Vienna. Approximately 41 percent of students in this age group are Muslim in Austria’s capital, while Christians only make up 34.5 percent (17.5 percent Catholic and 14.5 percent Orthodox).

Sharia law has also been recognized in other Western countries, such as the Canadian province of Ontario, where civil legal disputes may also be decided by Islamic law.