CARPAY: From equality before the law to race-based rights — how UNDRIP is reshaping Canada

John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).Nobody should be surprised by the December 5, 2025 decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner). The court ruled that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) applies to all of BC’s provincial laws. After all, BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — voted into law unanimously in 2019 by all MLAs of all parties — states expressly that the purpose of this Act is to “affirm the application” of UNDRIP “to the laws of British Columbia.” Predictably, the court ruled that BC laws must be interpreted consistently with UNDRIP unless there is express legislative intent otherwise. Predictably, the court found that the Declaration Act contains a “binding Crown promise” to act as though the existing rights in UNDRIP apply to BC laws, including the common law. The court went on to rule that the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“Federal Declaration Act”) passed by Parliament also incorporated UNDRIP into Canada’s domestic law. Therefore, BC and Canadian law must be interpreted consistently with UNDRIP. .DOBRER: An open letter from an angry Canadian Jew.What did BC voters and MLAs think was going to happen once Aboriginals went to court and used this Act exactly as intended?Much of UNDRIP is well-meaning. For example, UNDRIP affirms that “all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind.” UNDRIP rightly denounces “all doctrines, policies, and practices” that advocate for the “superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic, or cultural differences.” UNDRIP also recognizes “the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education, and well-being of their children.” This aligns with the right of all parents of all races to determine the nature and contents of the education and moral upbringing of their children..However, UNDRIP calls for race-based laws and policies. UNDRIP goes off the rails when it suggests that history must be reversed by giving Indigenous peoples ownership and independent legal control over lands and resources that belong to all Canadians. UNDRIP claims that “the inherent rights of indigenous peoples” are derived from “cultures, spiritual traditions, histories, and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories, and resources.” Hundreds of years after colonization, there is just no way to implement these claims without also violating the rights of other citizens whose ancestors arrived later in time. UNDRIP consistently refers to “indigenous peoples” as separate races, whose members possess special or superior legal rights based on ethnicity, ancestry, or descent. When UNDRIP speaks of the “lands, territories, and resources” of indigenous peoples, it presupposes that historical conquests should be reversed, or at least viewed as irrelevant, as though the world’s countries today do not really exercise sovereignty over a country’s territories and resources..RUBENSTEIN: Missing government art, a window into indigenous artifact repatriation.Most of the world’s countries have more than one ethnic group. Giving different legal rights to individuals based on their race or ethnicity is a recipe for disaster. UNDRIP speaks of a “partnership” and “relations” between indigenous peoples and countries. This blurs the important distinction between a country and the various ethnic groups which reside in that country. UNDRIP expressly rejects the principle that all citizens of a country should enjoy the same rights and freedoms regardless of race, ancestry, or ethnicity. Laws like BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act are the opposite of what Canada stood for in the 1980s. Canada was one of the leaders of the international opposition to the Apartheid laws in South Africa. From 1948 to 1991, all South Africans were legally classified by race as White, Black, Coloured, or Indian. Laws defined the rights and obligations of each group. Apartheid laws enforced segregation in most spheres of life, including housing, marriage, and education. .But now, 31 years after Nelson Mandela was elected president by a vote of South African citizens of all races, it seems that Canada has abandoned the noble principle of “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.” Instead, we are quietly reconstructing a Canadian version of Apartheid.In August 2025, the BC Supreme Court declared that Aboriginal title trumps the property rights of homeowners in Richmond, in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. BC Premier David Eby proposes to have taxpayers fund the cost of this race-based legal uncertainty.Aboriginal land acknowledgements are imposed on public meetings across Canada, and recited like a daily prayer by school children. Those who object find themselves removed from school councils, which happened to Catherine Kronas in Ancaster, Ontario (although the local school board did back down and reverse its decision, but only after receiving a legal warning letter). Geoffrey Horsman, a biochemistry professor, school council member, and father of three children, is suing the Waterloo Region District School Board after it informed him that the imposition of land acknowledgements was not open to debate!.JÄGER: Canada's public transportation is a national embarrassment.Race-based access to Joffre Lakes Park, 60 km northeast of Whistler, BC, has been in place since 2023, when Aboriginals blockaded non-Aboriginals from enjoying this park’s stunning glacial lakes and snow-capped mountains. The municipalities of Powell River and Okanagan Falls are under pressure to replace their historical names with Aboriginal ones. The employment and prosperity that benefit all Canadians (including Aboriginals!) are now routinely threatened by Aboriginal land claims. Apartheid was a disaster in South Africa. Apartheid fixated on race rather than acknowledging the intrinsic value of each human being. Apartheid rejected the principle of equality before the law. Those who advocate for UNDRIP principles to form the basis of Canadian law will no doubt be offended by the comparison, but they are acting on the same divisive, race-based principles.John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca), which has provided funding for the lawyers representing Catherine Kronas and Geoffrey Horsman.

CARPAY: From equality before the law to race-based rights — how UNDRIP is reshaping Canada

Related Stories