← Back to the facts

Name the move

The misinformation playbook

Seven techniques. One law. Learn to spot the move, not just the claim.

Why this page exists

Point-by-point fact-checks work. Teaching people to name the technique works better. Communication research on inoculation theory (Lewandowsky 2020; Roozenbeek & van der Linden 2022; Ecker et al. 2022) finds that recognising a manipulation tactic in advance durably reduces its effect. This page names the seven moves that keep showing up in BC's DRIPA debate.

01

Scare tactics

Make the stakes so big that reading the actual law feels too risky.

What it looks like

"Get out of the province while you still can." "DRIPA will take your home." "British Columbia is un-investable." Each phrase escalates the emotional stakes of a statute the speaker has usually not read to you.

Why it works

Fear short-circuits reading. Terrified people don't look up the statute, and inflating the stakes is the whole point.

How to answer it

Ask what the text actually says. DRIPA contains no property-transfer clause, no veto, no eviction power. Every First Nations leader on the record has said private property is not on the table.

Seen in the wild

02

Blame the wrong thing

Blame DRIPA for problems that existed long before DRIPA.

What it looks like

"The Cowichan ruling threatens your home because of DRIPA." "Overlapping First Nations claims are DRIPA's fault." "Gitxaała and Cowichan are the same problem."

Why it works

Most readers don't check dates. A lawsuit filed in 2014 sounds like a brand-new DRIPA consequence if nobody mentions that DRIPA passed in 2019.

How to answer it

Look up the filing date. Cowichan was filed in 2014 - five years before DRIPA. The Gitanyow claim behind Malii v. BC was filed in 2003 - sixteen years before DRIPA. Overlapping claims go back to BC's post-1871 refusal to sign treaties.

Seen in the wild

03

Flip the timeline

Rewrite the sequence of events so outrage fits the story.

What it looks like

"The false Kamloops claim is what got UNDRIP rushed through." "DRIPA was forced through without real debate." Events get stacked in whatever order the argument needs.

Why it works

Outrage is easier to remember than dates. Once a story feels true, people stop checking the sequence.

How to answer it

Check the public record. UNDRIP was adopted at the UN in 2007. Bill C-15 was introduced in December 2020 - before the May 2021 Kamloops announcement. DRIPA passed the BC Legislature 87–0, with every party - including John Rustad - voting yes.

Seen in the wild

04

Misquote the law

Claim DRIPA overrides or bypasses the Constitution when its own text says the opposite.

What it looks like

"DRIPA gives First Nations a veto." "UNDRIP overrides the Constitution." "Section 7 agreements hand Indigenous bodies pre-approval power over Crown land." The words sound legal; almost none of them match the statute.

Why it works

Very few people have read the statute. Legalistic framing sounds authoritative even when the words are wrong.

How to answer it

Open the statute. DRIPA section 1(3) explicitly preserves section 35 of the Constitution. The word "consent" does not appear in DRIPA's operative sections. Federal Bill S-13 (2024) reinforced section 35 protection without giving UNDRIP constitutional supremacy.

Seen in the wild

05

Force a false choice

Pretend you have to choose between tools designed to work together.

What it looks like

"Section 35 already covers this - DRIPA is redundant." "UNDRIP is for other countries, not Canada." Every live option is collapsed into an either/or.

Why it works

Binaries are easy to remember and easy to argue against. Complementary legal frameworks are not.

How to answer it

Section 35 has existed for 40 years. The BC Treaty Process (launched 1992) has finalized only a handful of treaties. In December 2025, the BC Court of Appeal in Gitxaała v. BC confirmed DRIPA adds legally enforceable weight beyond section 35. They are complementary tools, not substitutes.

Seen in the wild

06

Attack the messenger

Discredit anyone defending the law so you never have to argue the law.

What it looks like

"DRIPA is the most racist law in BC history." "It's a two-tier system based on race." The aim isn't to contest a provision; it's to make anyone defending the law suspect.

Why it works

Moral-panic framing short-circuits policy analysis. If a law is branded "racist," no defence feels legitimate - no matter what the text actually does.

How to answer it

Check the history. DRIPA passed the BC Legislature 87–0. Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution exist because of prior occupation - a legal distinction recognised by the Constitution itself, not a racial privilege.

Seen in the wild

07

Spread doubt

Sow doubt about consequences faster than data can answer.

What it looks like

"Nobody knows what the law means anymore." "Mines are fleeing." "There's no plan, no endpoint." Paralysis and anxiety arrive before any evidence does.

Why it works

Doubt is cheap to produce and expensive to answer. One sentence sows it; a data set is needed to rebut it.

How to answer it

Look at the data. BC's Major Projects Inventory lists $344.5 billion across 1,004 active projects - 67 of them with First Nations as owners or partners. The Declaration Act Action Plan sets 89 specific actions with annual progress reports. BC's credit-rating agencies cite deficit and debt growth, not DRIPA.

Seen in the wild

dripafacts.ca/en/playbook/

Back to the facts