Technically the UN declaration is not legally binding, so there is no legal conflict.

Of course, that isn't meant to say that the declaration shouldn't be respected or that a government/nation might not face backlash for failing to respect it, but in a Canadian court I believe (IANAL) that the UN declaration would be effectively irrelevant.

Edit: I made this comment before reading the article; it appears BC has actually passed legislation requiring them to implement UNDRIP (https://declaration.gov.bc.ca/), so the parent's question remains valid.

The UN declaration is irrelevant. (For now; there's pending legislation at https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html to require its implementation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Code_(British_Col... is not.

> Technically the UN declaration is not legally binding, so there is no legal conflict.

Not even that, but I assume there isn't a line in UNDRIP that specifically says "Indigenous people should be able to register their businesses using their alphabets". My assumption is that it's a more general resolution, and details about what constitutes promoting revitalizing indigenous languages is up to national/local governments.

I think it would be good of the Canadian/BC governments to allow this sort of thing, but I doubt it would be a violation of the resolution, or even the spirit of it, to shelve that particular idea, in favor of others.

Unless the former is enshrined in Canadian or British Columbian law, it’s irrelevant and therefore there isn’t a legal conflict.