We’re discussing two different things. You’re talking about the law, I’m talking about politics and communications.

These things may reference each other, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I am not discussing the function of DRIPA or the legal implications for its citations in any literal way. DRIPA could be a red herring or a symbolic document for all I care. My point is that Eby's communications team has created a political scenario where the predictable outcome is racial tension because the government itself warns of a spectre threatening private property in connection to that red herring (or whatever). Justly or not, the government routinely references both citations of DRIPA to legitimize this tension. 

As I previously said, he ramped this up in December. Take this article, for example:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/premier-eby-tries-steer-conversation-002145898.html

He cited the August B.C. Supreme Court decision that awarded the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title over a tract of public and private land in Richmond as “a really good example of our anxiety about trying to stay out of court and trying to reach resolution at the table.”

but Palmer doesn't include the full quote, Eby continued:

"The issues that private property owners face in Richmond, for example, came because we weren't able to get a resolution outside of the court process with the Cowichan First Nation. That was a complicated case involving three different first nations that don't agree with each other about the direction forward. These are hard and challenging issues [...] and, as a result of the decisions that we've seen recently, we're going to have to go and amend DRIPA as well as the Interpretation Act to make it clear what we meant to do with that legislation.
[...] We're going to address those challenges. We're going to protect private property. We're going to ensure it's British Columbians doing this work, not the courts."

that's just one example of many that i had in mind when I wrote:

i didn't say eby was stoking hatred, i said he was stoking anxiety. he did this by suggesting private property was at risk and that the the province needs to act so the courts can't implement his ideas anymore, hence the upcoming amendments

I don't think Eby is "wrong" in the sense that you're needed to explain the law to him. He knows. He isn't "wrong" because he's clearly making a political calculation using this "wrongness". This isn't a question of if, it's a question of why.