The judge ruled Canadian title to Innu land rested on a 17th-century fiction

Evidence

We are not dealing with land which has been the subject of divestiture through treaties…provincial and federal statutes do not include as third parties or signatories any Innu people… All of the legal reasonings are based on the premise that somehow the Crown acquired magically by its own declaration of title to the fee a consequent fiduciary obligation to the original people. It is time this premise based on 17th-century reasoning be questioned in the light of 21stcentury reality. — Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations, 315

Categorization

• XREF: Directly extends Johnson v. M’Intosh’s doctrine of discovery — the premise the Crown ‘acquired magically by its own declaration of title’ is the same discovery doctrine the Legal Systems course traces from that 1823 case into present litigation. — connects to: A legal fiction becomes law once property ownership rests upon it — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 253; Canada banned Innu hunting while tolerating pilots killing caribou for antlers — Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations: Native Struggles for…, 321
• ADDENDUM: Islands of support for the ‘sacrifice’ piece; the Innu jurisdictional-competition claim is a live legal-system parallel.

Broader Connections

• Canada banned Innu hunting while tolerating pilots killing caribou for antlers #expands (0.80) — Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations, 321
• A legal fiction becomes law once property ownership rests upon it #expands (0.75) — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 253