i think some of you guys could have most of your questions answered by doing some basic, open minded research into the legal background of First Nation title in Canada.
One of the essential institutions that allows a democracy to function, is an independent judiciary able to apply thousands of years of legal thought toward any particular legislation. In other words, the SCC. If it were just legislators making laws on the whims of the masses, any kind of governNce recognizable as a democracy would not be long for this world. In our system, everyone is ultimately accountable to someone else.
First Nations don't have special rights becuAse some sap of a judge feels they were subject to historic rasicism. Most of their rights were negotiatied in the long process of Canadian colonialism. Your property rights are enshrined once you exchange something of value to obtain them. The "crown" didn't buy its land in Canada per se either, but they did agree to exchange something of value in exchange for the use of it. Most of which they have largely reneged on in some fashion. There is debate whether it was even understood that the title to the land as its defined in common law was what was being exchanged, or whether it could be seen as some kind of leasing/tenure agreement. In the case of BC, the negotiations didn't even get that far and most colonization was done post Indian Act, where the crown kidnapped Fn kids and cordoned off the adults onto POW camps otherwise known as "reservations". The title to their land was never forfeighted to the crown, hence the term many bands use: "unceded land". This was all done in contravention to the way we apllied the laws to Europeans, hence the huge legal liabilities before the courts.
i assure you, we're not allowing title claims out of "white guilt". The courts will more often find in favour of FN claims, because more often then not, they are closer to conforming with the law than the crown's position.