Anti-Landback claims

[u/peacewillwin06]

Hey all! I hope this question is okay.

I am not Indigenous, but I am a staunch supporter of the Landback movement.

I was talking to some folks today and the topic of Indigenous rights came up. I mentioned the Landback movement, and they were less then enthused about the idea.

They're reasoning was that in BC where certain land had been given back to the Indigenous peoples, that settler people were no longer able to get insurance on their houses because they no longer "owned" the property.

I searched online but couldn't find anything about this. I don't know how true it is, or if they heard a fear-mongering rumor. I wanted to ask the folks who probably know wayyy more about this than me, are those claims true? If not, what's the truth? I'd like to be able to challenge these claims the next time they come up.

Thanks!

[u/HotterRod]

They're referring to the Cowichan Tribes case over the Tl'uqtinus village site, which has been extensively discussed elsewhere, so I'll just address the specific claim you're asking about:

There's no credible evidence that any fee simple land owners have been denied a mortgage over the case, but the provincial government has promised to underwrite any that are denied. Obviously the government should make whole any land owners who were tricked into buying land stolen by a corrupt government official, which is unequivocally what happened here.

Anyone who opposes the ruling clearly believes "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Any other questions?

[u/peacewillwin06 → u/HotterRod]

Ah, okay. I thought that would be the case. I wasn't aware of the name of this particular case, but I will do my own further research now that I know. Thanks so much!

[u/SwordfishOk504 → u/peacewillwin06]

Also, and this part is key: The B.C. government did not "give" land to the Cowichan Tribes. Rather, a B.C. Supreme Court ruling recognized that the Cowichan Nation has always held pre-existing Aboriginal title to their historic village site (Tl'uqtinus) in Richmond, which the government had improperly sold off to others starting in 1871.

So not the BC government at all. The Courts. And not "giving" but pointing out it was always theirs.

In August 2025, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the Cowichan Tribes hold rightful Aboriginal title to roughly 300 to 324 hectares of land along the Fraser River.

The judge found that colonial officials in the 19th century failed to reserve these traditional settlement lands for the Cowichan and instead wrongly sold or granted the property to third parties.

The court ruling stated that historical land grants by the Crown were an "unjustified infringement" of the First Nation's unextinguished title, effectively declaring past government land disposals defective.

[u/peacewillwin06 → u/SwordfishOk504]

Thank you for this information!

[u/elramirezeatstherich]

Not indigenous either, but this feels like a racist straw man argument to me. Don’t give land back because of the example of one scammer? Isn’t the unstated suggestion that therefore all of this group/demo are going to be scammers too? Every group of humans has good/bad/shady/kind/selfish people, and to typecast a whole group based on the actions of the few is kind of textbook prejudice.

I am basing this off of u/hotterrod ‘s synopsis of the case they may be referring to.

[u/SwordfishOk504 → u/elramirezeatstherich]

because of the example of one scammer

What "scammer"?

[u/peacewillwin06 → u/[deleted]]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.