SHEILA GUNN REID | Did the Cowichan land ruling get it wrong? Michelle Stirling breaks down the case shaking B.C. property rights
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
126.77442
Summary
In this episode, Michelle Sterling joins me to talk about her research on the Cowichan ruling, and the role of the Crown in establishing Indigenous title in British Columbia, Canada. She also talks about her recent video on the findings of another independent researcher, Nina Green, on the flaws in the ruling.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
What if I told you that the Cowichan decision was founded...
00:00:07.000
What if I told you that the BC land claims decision was based on documents that nobody has?
00:00:14.700
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
00:00:30.000
I want to read to you something that was written by my friend and the guest on the show today, Michelle Sterling.
00:00:43.280
This is what she wrote, and just to preface this, Michelle herself is not a Christian, but boy, does she ever advocate hard for us.
00:01:22.380
I hope that people will advocate for an inquiry into the many issues that are obviously wrong with the whole 215 story,
00:01:32.100
and the way that UNDRIP was rammed through Parliament because of the Kamloops band's atrocity propaganda.
00:01:39.700
That is from her substack, wherein she calls on Christians to be brave and to stand in truth against unproven accusations
00:01:53.540
that they participated in an historical genocide with regard to residential schools,
00:02:02.380
and more specifically with the claims that 215 bodies of dead children were discovered at the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
00:02:13.000
Michelle also did a recent video wherein she walks through Nina Green's research
00:02:26.720
around documents related to the ruling that gave title to the Cowichan Band over vast tracts of real estate in British Columbia.
00:02:43.000
I'll let Michelle explain. I'll button it up. Here she is.
00:02:53.760
So joining me now is good friend of the show, Michelle Sterling.
00:02:57.940
She's here today as an independent researcher, writer, and I think amateur historian,
00:03:06.340
particularly when it comes to the issue of Canada's Indigenous peoples
00:03:11.000
and residential schools and the treatment of Indigenous peoples by the Canadian state.
00:03:19.180
And I wanted to have Michelle on the show today to discuss a couple of things that she's done very recently.
00:03:26.640
And one of them was a video where she read the research of another independent researcher,
00:03:34.800
Nina Green, on the flaws in the Cowichan ruling that have now thrown private property rights into chaos
00:03:46.620
So, Michelle, thanks so much for coming on the show.
00:03:52.520
some of the holes in the ruling by Madam Justice Young on the Cowichan ruling.
00:04:00.220
Thank you. Well, yes, Nina prefers not to be on camera, so I'm kind of acting as a narrator for her work.
00:04:08.900
So I do request that people refer directly to her work because I'll be paraphrasing some of it in our discussion here.
00:04:19.860
So I'm not speaking from the point of view of a lawyer, and I didn't do the original research,
00:04:24.900
but you'd be able to see all of the original research in her work,
00:04:30.780
which is posted on Woke Watch for the written document.
00:04:34.540
And I've also got links posted on my sub stack.
00:04:37.760
So with that preface, let's look at what happened in the Cowichan ruling.
00:04:43.040
So one thing that's very interesting that I must say right off the top is last August,
00:04:49.600
Madam Justice Young granted the Cowichan Aboriginal title over basically the whole city of Richmond
00:05:05.500
the federal government granted the Musqueam Aboriginal title over all of pretty much Vancouver,
00:05:19.820
Yeah, an overlapping interest, overlapping claims, and both are based on oral histories.
00:05:27.980
So the documents thus become very, very, very important.
00:05:33.760
The existing documents, such as they are, the historical documents,
00:05:38.820
become very, very important in determining what actually happened,
00:05:43.500
you know, 150 years ago, and who said what, what was promised, and what not.
00:05:54.420
one of the key references was Sir James Douglas' 1853 journal.
00:06:07.500
to establish what is known as the honor of the crown.
00:06:10.780
And people can look up the honor of the crown and find out what that really means
00:06:20.160
And just to give you a bit of an overview here,
00:06:22.900
it's a constitutional principle fundamental to Aboriginal law.
00:06:32.000
But it's a concept developed by the judiciary based on British notions of noblesse.
00:06:41.220
the concept's role in Aboriginal law dates back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763
00:06:47.940
that states that the Indigenous people live under the crown's protection.
00:06:55.340
And so this concept took on new life with the court's interpretations of Section 35 of the Constitution Act in 1982,
00:07:05.300
which recognizes and affirms the constitutional status of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights
00:07:20.400
it characterizes a special relationship between the crown and the subject people.
00:07:37.640
it means that the crown is obliged to treat Aboriginal people fairly,
00:07:47.840
So those are just some excerpts from that constitutional studies page,
00:07:57.620
So she relied on Sir James Douglas' 1853 journal to establish that honor of the crown.
00:08:21.780
There are some writings about it, also from that early time,
00:08:34.560
So, you know, you can imagine if I take a book that you wrote
00:08:39.580
of something that happened at a particular time and place,
00:08:43.720
I might interpret or reinterpret what you said in a somewhat different way.
00:08:52.440
no one really knows what you said at that time.
00:08:55.400
They only know what I said in writing about what you said.
00:09:05.020
And there is also the fact that because she relied on this journal,
00:09:15.920
she came up with the concept of justice and humanity,
00:09:22.520
claiming that Douglas had promised to treat the Cowichan with justice and humanity.
00:09:29.380
But in fact, oh, and she mentions it 17 times in the ruling
00:09:34.620
and mentions honor of the crown 100 times in the ruling.
00:09:39.740
So it's all reliant on this diary that does not exist anymore.
00:09:44.680
Now, Lieutenant Moresby has an eyewitness account,
00:10:11.820
And so abstract concepts like justice and humanity are not part of that vocabulary.
00:10:19.280
And also she claims that he invoked the name of Queen Victoria
00:10:27.280
when Moresby says that he was actually talking about King George and not Queen Victoria.
00:10:37.380
And another problem with this ruling is that she relies on Lieutenant Amelia Simpson's original manuscript chart
00:10:50.540
And that was used to establish the location of the Cowichan village.
00:10:55.200
But this chart was delivered to the Hudson Bay Company's archives in England.
00:11:02.440
And then it was passed on to another mapping company and never returned.
00:11:07.760
So, again, it doesn't, the original doesn't exist.
00:11:11.680
And in the ruling, she suggests that Simpson and Barnston,
00:11:35.240
and three clusters of six rectangles along the north bank of the south arm.
00:11:40.740
Now, the problem is that she speaks to this Simpson sketch in paragraph 773
00:11:49.700
as though the document introduced into evidence was Simpson's original manuscript chart.
00:11:54.860
But the Hudson Bay Company archives in Winnipeg indicate
00:11:58.180
that the original manuscript chart was lost more than a century ago.
00:12:02.820
And the fact that she refers to Barnston and Simpson
00:12:14.280
because according to the Hudson Bay Company records,
00:12:17.980
they were only, this chart was only attributed to Lieutenant Simpson alone
00:12:24.940
So that perhaps means that there may be a different chart
00:12:45.940
but it's not the actual evidence that supports this case.