the author of this piece misunderstands the point.

the bill doesn't intend to place indigenous spiritual belief on the same footing as science in an epistemological sense, it merely codifies an existing judicial precedent that orders industry to have some respect for the religious beliefs of the indigenous inhabitants before they start fucking around with things.

i don't have a lot of patience for these spiritual beliefs. but, i don't have to believe in the premise of a land being sacred in order to respect that these other people do believe that and that, as the land ought to belong to them and only does not due to a historic injustice, they ought to have sovereignty to make those decisions, whether i accept the premise or not.

i can consequently make fun of them for their goofy beliefs and uphold their right to make sovereign decisions around those goofy beliefs, all at the same time - and stand in solidarity with members of their own community that may have their rights, as individuals, inflicted upon by those same goofy beliefs, when it is the case.

i don't know who the author of the piece is, but i suspect they don't know much about canadian law. and, i'd suggest to the washington post that the candian jurisprudence really is complicated enough that you actually do really have to get a canadian expert to talk about it; sending american lawyers after canadian jurisprudence (and legislation modelled after it) is just going to create some confused yankees.

but, the logic is simple enough: this is an additional requirement, and it may be no less important than the science as a requirement, but that doesn't place it on an equal footing with science on an epistemological level...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/04/13/how-trudeau-is-sacrificing-science-in-the-name-of-aboriginal-peace/