Whenever private property rights and land claims are discussed in this subreddit, without fail there will be a Reconciliation Extremist in the comments who argues that homeowners should not have relied on government-guaranteed title, but instead should somehow have known and accounted for competing oral histories and understood intricate Aboriginal Title laws that even after 50+ years of litigation in the courts provide no clarity to literally anyone...
The more I read the narratives that the Reconciliation Industry peddles, and the more I dig into what's going on, I can only seem to conclude that goal of Reconciliation isn't any notion of justice. The goal is not creating prosperity for all.
The goal that most who adhere to the ideology of the Reconciliation Industry seem to have is vengeance against those who have dared to work hard, paid taxes, contributed to our society, and as a result have lawfully obtained tiny little slivers of land in this vast province which they can call their own.
I do hope over the next year more people see what's actually going on, start to understand what the narratives are, and start to push back against this extremism that seeks to dispossess average people who have done no wrong.
Also the Fee Simple titles that private property owners own, are still valid titles! Those titles were lawfully conveyed and they are still lawfully owned.
If you are seeing this is anything other than a very well orchestrated plan to cash in to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars in addition to other monies already received and owed under treaties, then you are not seeing this at all.
Until someday and who knows when that could possibly be when all people in the country are treated equal, this will continue. The burden on the taxpayer is so significant that other priorities will suffer.
.. Where did native peoples get the 'legal right' to sell the land? Like.. Who was dishing out the titles?
Greed is a common trait among humans. They want theirs and don't care about anything else.
I think it’s envy and jealousy.
The reconciliation activists on the far left feel quite aggrieved because they didn’t get their slice of this province, for the price they want, in the location they want, in the quantity that they desire.
So their solution is to tear it all down, like toddlers throwing a tantrum. It’s truly vile.
Well the majority of the population being priced out of ever buying a home certainly don't care. Majority of them want it, they are so demoralized at having no hope for the futures they wanted (which were modest) that they would happily let property value drop to zero. I wouldn't call it a temper tantrum but I would call it immature. It's not vile either, what is vile is the corruption in our government. The people are being herded into a ditch like a bunch of helpless sheep.
Envy is wanting something similar to what someone else has without depriving them of it. Jealousy is wanting to take what someone else has. It's definitely jealousy.
This is why people ignore caveat emptor - this and laziness. People ignore the possibility of expropriation. Something looks simple, and people want the advertised product, so they just play along.
Is this not literally what this post is complaining about? Someone wanting what’s there’s and not caring about anything else? No regard for native rights because you feel it’s your right to own property and charge people rent to occupy it?
My property rights arise from being a tax paying citizen of the modern, democratic, multicultural society and sovereign country that exits today.
Aboriginal rights in Richmond arise from obscure judge made laws, rooted in the age of empire, which are based in logic that rewards the decedents of slave owners because their ancestors happened to use violence to assert dominance in a summer fishing area prior to 1846...
My property rights, and my ability to charge rent for the use of my property, arises from me paying taxes for my rights, which in turn contributes to our society.
Aboriginal rights in Richmond arise from... slavery and violence. And the kicker is, they don't even have to pay taxes for those property rights like I do.
We are not the same.
There is a grave injustice happening. That injustice is against tax paying citizens who happen to belong to the wrong races.
Just because you try to justify your life as more important than someone else’s in your head doesn’t make it true. Imagine this was your property 200 years ago, and someone came in and claimed it as theirs and took it from you. Is that not what’s happening right now? But since you pay “taxes” you’re now more entitled to that land than they were? Can you really not see the irony of what you’re saying?
I dare you to find me a single human that is 200 years old.
You've been so brainwashed by the Reconciliation lunacy, that you actually think there are 200 year old property owners alive today.
I don't know a single one of my ancestors from 200 years ago. I don't know where their property was, or what was lost. The luxury to litigate such things is not afforded to 99.9% of the human race on this Earth. Why? Because societies collapse and change, and decedents are forced to cut the losses of their ancestors and move on. That's how the entire world has worked since time immemorial.
What's happening in Richmond is the great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of slave owners who resided in a part time fishing village in Richmond are being allowed to claim rights almost 200 years later based on oral histories and historic part time residency and use of violence by their ancestors.
It's complete lunacy. Do you think the decedents of Taiwanese Kuomintang can show up in Mainland Chinese courts and assert Kuomintang title on the villages the Communists forced them out of? What about those in North and South Korea? India, Pakistan, Bangladesh? All of Africa? Can Europeans litigate property lost in two World Wars?
No, it's lunacy. When your society or nation collapses, loss accompanies it.
That's why Canada maintains a standing army and has police forces to ensure we don't meet the same fate of countless countries and societies that have come before us.
Sovereign Aboriginal Nations no longer exist. The British came with warships and asserted their sovereignty in 1846 and acquired 100% of the radical title to British Columbia.
They literally named the place British Columbia.
The British then decided who got to do what on top of that land.
A mistake was made in not properly extinguishing Aboriginal Title in accordance with legal tests that the courts developed 100 years after the land conveyances were made.
That error needs to be fixed by the legislatures stepping up and changing the laws and constitution.
Aboriginal Rights should not exist anywhere Fee Simple title has been granted.
Canada exists now, Canada is sovereign. Canada grants its citizens rights and representation in exchange for taxation. Canada can decide who gets to do what with what land.
It is what it is.
Dude, great responses. 👏🏻
So if Canada can decide who gets to do what with what land, like you said in your last sentence, how can you say aboriginal rights shouldn’t exist and the Supreme Court of Canada is wrong in its interpretation of the law that was written by our own government? It sounds like what happened to them, is happening to you, and you want things to go back to 1846 where the shoe was on the other foot.
Land becomes property through development. There are no indigenous-built structures standing today that were built 200 years ago. Ownership of land is based on value added to the land. Just because there are radical bureaucrats in BC does not change the legality and the private ownership of the land. Unless Canada has been subverted the decision will be reversed, settled, resolved for the interests of the entire country. Considering how far the radicals have made it already there is a more than zero percent chance this country is subverted, but nothing more than a more than zero percent chance.
You talk like your idea of 'ownership' is universal and somehow isnt the same colonialist hogwash revamped for the 'rugged individual' era. You basically just restated 'manifest destiny' and are pretending we didnt wholly reject it everywhere that isnt Alberta.
So weird to hear someone so passionate about their property rights handwaving away property rights but hiding it behind some bull you made up about 'development'.
Can I come and pitch a tent in your backyard? Technically the patch of grass next to your shed 'isnt developed'.
No, because your logic is flawed.
There was no concept of property rights 200 years ago.
You're essentially arguing that property should be based on birth right. You're advocating against democracy.
How would you classify Nunavut and how it is owned and governed? That is how this should have been handled from the beginning. It’s called reconciliation for a reason
No it is not. Like do you people ever think things through?
Nunavut has a population of 40k people thats 85%+ Indiginous. BC has 5.7 million people that's 6% Indiginous.
The fact you would even try and suggest this is very telling.
Do you own property?
Not in BC I do
So you are happy that your property is safe and don’t care about anyone else’s then.
Your property rights come from the same Court that has ruled against you.
The Indigenous Grift Complex needs to end. You scam artists need to start to make an actual contribution to the society that gives you an unending supply of free money
Do you know why these people get free money? Perhaps it’s compensation for the land that was taken from them that people like you are currently and will continue to occupy. Almost like they’re the landlords and we’re the tenants paying rent
First Nations are governments, and Aboriginal Title claims grant jurisdiction over lands to those governments.
Comparing an order of government which has governmental authority, to a landlord that is subjected to authority of government, is beyond disingenuous. You're peddling Reconciliation Industry nonsense.
A better comparison would be with the race based governments of Apartheid South Africa, Jim Crowe American South, the Confederates, Israel / Palestine etc.
First Nations get jurisdiction over land, may even levy taxes on people of diverse races, but those individuals then in turn get no representation in an order of government that impacts their lives.
The reconciliation industry has convinced you that aboriginal title is just some poor and oppressed people getting land akin to Fee Simple that the rest of us own…
It’s not. The reconciliation industry has been peddling lies.
Aboriginal title is akin to jurisdiction. What you’re supporting is not too different from apartheid.
While I sympathize with your argument, I agree that home ownership has become unattainable and rents have become unaffordable. This is why humans came to this land in the first place, to sustain their families, while protecting what was theirs from others. Clovis, Coastal, Myans, and many others have laid claim to the land. Europeans were just another branch of the human race looking for space to grow, the world has always been, and always will be in flux. Every day and in every way we are all human and will continue to do what works for us, no matter what banner you march under.
If you think affordability is poor now, what do you think will happen to it if the extortion racket succeeds and taxes rise further to compensate FNs?
That's right, property will be even less affordable to own and rent.
Probably the only meaningful response I’ve gotten, appreciated
And blocked by u/Deep-Author615. What a baby. Started to troll me and then dipped.
He’s a bourgeois socialist that wants the Government to step in for him and fight his battle.
Homeowners need to do their due diligence with regards to land claims and aboriginal title.
“Homeowners need to do their due diligence with regards to land claims and aboriginal title.”
This is a completely ridiculous statement to apply to current homeowners who purchased lawfully purchased land. But it is absolutely true when applied to prospective homeowners and investors. Now that this absurd precedent has been set British Columbia has made it clear that the province is not interested in attracting investments from homeowners, land developers, or anyone interested in owning a lot to create a productive business enterprise. You seem to be cheering on the worst economic own goal I have witnessed in Canada in my lifetime. It is bizarre watching people celebrate economic suicide as if they are unaffected. Are you rich or out of province? Although this affects BC the most this lunacy hurts all of Canada. I don’t understand your vindictive glee at the suffering of innocent countrymen. Are you Canadian?
Perhaps there are more important things in this world than attracting investment from homeowners, land developers, and business owners as if the economy (money) is the only thing in the world that matters. It’s like no one here can see the forest for the trees.
Yes Im Canadian.
The injustice was done long ago when the land was taken away.
BC mainly attracts foreign investment into real estate that isn’t a productive asset. In a sense its main edge as a jurisdiction has been ignoring Aboriginal Titles to make development easier, outright theft from the proper Title holders who have seen no benefit from the massive rise in the value of their land.
Whether this ruling came down now or later it begins a process of clarification for development. Political intervention at this point would muddy the waters because development would become a political football that parties kick back and forth.
By what means was this land secured and defended and how did it end up out of the jurisdiction of the lawful land owners? What system of land ownership and title was recognized by the indigenous land owners? How did the previous peoples who occupied the land transfer ownership? Are we claiming that the rightful owners are whichever tribe conquered the land at some arbitrary point in history? Why is some arbitrary point in history more relevant to determine ownership compared to looking at who is developing and occupying the land right now? These are the only people we can determine are using the land definitively. My granddad walked across all of Canada 100 years ago. Why is my claim to all of Canada relevant?
Yes. They conquered it and made a deal with the Crown, establishing Aboriginal title.
Its not an arbitrary point in History, its the moment our country went from being unclaimed hinterland to land under the jurisdiction of the Crown of Canada.
Says the bitter renter.
Why do you think there’s been a massive rise in the value of land? That has nothing to do with the indigenous.
They didn’t do anything to improve the value because the land was taken away…
Im a squatter not a renter. I live rent free in your head.…
Come on. You guys are saying they were there for hundreds if not thousands of years. All the stuff we enjoy now was done over decades. They had time. Instead they fought with each other over land. And now we are expected to compensate the last bad standing. Sounds hypocritical.
Length of tenure isn’t really relevant here.
Yes you are expected to pay the last man standing.
By the same logic the King of Canada is just the land man standing from European wars and has no claim to Canada at all.
We are the last man standing.
Is this you in the post.
BC is in the process of being Balkanized into a bunch of little ethno-states.
you clearly just made that up. just like the rest of this sub
“From my cold dead hands”
No property owners feel that property owners are their enemies. It's a pretty bizarre take that just because someone has been fortunate enough to buy at some point they are actively trying to screw over people who don't own. Most are just trying to live life. It's pretty sad.
The cost of housing is WAY too high. Unless we start building more houses and do what else is needed to lower the cost of housing, the majority of people will turn a blind eye to the property issue.
There are a ton of policies the government could have involved if they wanted to control housing costs. Limitations on LOC, less immigration, higher taxes on investment properties. In a decade, despite claiming they would, the government has done nothing to curtail the price. On top of that they have devalued the dollar and increased the cost of living. The blame squarely lands at their feet. I'm not sure why anyone would continue to vote for them.
Why do you think the libs always market to the youth? Higher voter turnout is a good thing isnt it? /s Lol they usually have no idea what they're voting for.
Never trust a government that wants to increase immigration and/or increase youth voter turnout. They are manipulating their way into power.
If you bought property and live in it. Awesome. If you bought property as an investment? You took a chance. Do I give a crap if someone loses money at the casino? Nope. So why should I give a crap if they lose money on a bad investment?
Do you not have any savings at all?
Sure do. $50 under my mattress. Just enough for a case of beer.
It's not about investment performance, that's a secondary consideration.
It's about the rule of law: accountability, equality, predictability (!), security, prosperity. We need rule of law for a functioning society.
If our rule of law breaks down, as it certainly appears to be in this case, then that's an unfortunate outcome for all (yes, all) Canadians.
Did this ruling not come from a judge? You're advocating for breaking the law cause you don't agree with a court decision.
It’s a classic case of the “if I can’t have it, no one can!” mentality.
It’s government sanctioned racism. FN were on the receiving side at first now it’s for everyone else and the FN are the ones to benefit. It’s all wrong and it’s all corruption at its finest.
Well it will only last so long, if nothing gets built and we're broke as a country they will be worse off than the average Canadian.
Well if only it were this easy. Now you have a lot of white progressives who may have a single drop of FN blood from generations ago claiming “Métis”. There’s a big political fight over this with the true Manitoba Métis federation up in arms about this calling the BC and Ontario Métis organizations fraudsters and even tribes are joining in.
In my view the worst comes from white progressives who are co opting the plight of true indigenous people for their own gain. It’s disgusting.
It’s impossible for people to be indigenous because we all form Africa. That’s a lie used to portray a perpetual existence for political gain. However my family is all mixed, FN and non. I’m also very aware of the corruption when money comes into a nations bank account. I know several people who are taking the elders to court over this. It’s all a failed experiment. It’s a big a failure as letting billionaires exist.
This whole mess starts from how the governing power approached a conquered land back then. Until that is not resolved these things will continue and you will have extreme biased tenants hating on home owners on this like the screenshot you shared.
I always said: if you entertain the idea of land acknowledgement, you had better be prepared to give the land back. And now here we are. We gave them an inch and they took a mile straight into the end zone and punted that she/it into the ocean for a grand slam home run
Lmao "I tricked you and it's your fault". Social media has amplified narcissism to pandemic levels. These people are nuts.
BC adoption of UNDRIP weakened the claims. Government can legislate itself out of a lawsuit but private citizens cannot. What practical steps can person purchasing 5,10,20 years ago do to mitigate this risk? Also, your notary check on title is not a check of litigation and is a common practice in Canada. It would not reveal pending litigation as it would not have been filed yet, nor would reveal litigation that has been filed but before an encumbrance is applied to the title. Simply, a conscientious homeowner has no reasonable way to research or avoid the Cowichan decision until it hit courts, which is too late. If a similar decision took place outside BC, unlikely due to treaties, including Quebec homeowners titles would also be in jeopardy even if they had held the title for 20 years.
All I see are legions of greedy law firms drooling over the inevitable trillion dollar pay day.
Yup they should have done their due diligence. Which they likely did by hiring a realtor / property inspector. Due diligence does not mean going back 400 years into disputed history. It just means do what a reasonable person would do.
Not saying I advocate for either side - I am just saying that particular argument - due diligence - has arguably been met already.
I feel for both sides on this one. To be honest the real culprit here is the government.
They are marxists. Taking property from the oppressors to give to the oppressed.
Once you start to see it you can't unsee it. So much of this poo is rooted in Marxism ideology.
There is a few of those in every thread on the topic. Obviously being paid to parrot the same talking points, about legality, the treaties and so on.
Pay them no attention, they have an agenda.
People are getting paid? hot dang Who do I call?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Hundreds of years.. Haha how delusional are you guys?
Very well said !
why are most of us just learning about this landline now? no doubt these owners were never told. they should be suing
The natural result of Marxist ideology
That’s literally what we expect landowners to do here in Québec.
The notary will go to the land registry and look at everything that has ever happened to a piece of land to make sure the ownership chain is both valid and the current property description (think measurements) is accurate.
Of course, neither buyers no notaries could expect/prevent first nations land claims, but they absolutely should have been aware that the land they were buying had not been properly acquired by the Government and might be at risk of litigation some day.
It’s not unknown Canadian History that most of Eastern Canada was acquired via treaties and that large swathes of Western Canada were not.
The notary checking wouldn’t have helped unless the notary also checked civil court cases both pending and active. It would also help if the notary could see the future to know the legislation changes and resulting court cases.
I’m sticking to Quebec law here as that’s my area of expertise but the a notary will absolutely check to make sure there isn’t any third party claims to a piece of property (although that’s usually simply done through disclosures).
Again, in this case anyone buying a home during the lawsuit should have been made aware of the claims (by the seller or their agent/notary). Anyone buying a home prior to the litigation should have known (through title verification) that the original title to the property was not necessarily sound.
How about changes in legislation 20 years down the road that open new legal avenues for lawsuits. Good law, not applicable in the context of the Cowichan decision.
Each province has legislation in place establishing when the government can and cannot be held liable for legislation.
This would be no different on the merits than trying to sue the province for a zoning law that reduces (or nullifies) the value of your property.
Again, OOP is right - in this case, land claims are succeeding because the Crown’s claims were weak. A buyer should be made aware of weak ownership claims when purchasing - same way you should know you are technically in a flood plain despite your land not having been flooded in a century.
While UNDRIP and the lawsuits may not have been predictable, the weakness of the original claim was, and should have been disclosed (or inquired about).
so then property owners sue their own govt and win in court and property owners pay the settlement
this is your plan
Property owners are free to try and sue the government if they so chose, but at the moment their claim for damages would be extremely weak (if existent).
I think the government would have a pretty good defence here as well, given that nothing about the property chain (or the means of acquisition of the original title) was obfuscated.
The real issue seems to be that no one expected there would ever be a land claim, not that the Crown honestly believe it legally acquired the land.
the property owners weren’t told their fee simple property rights could be impacted during the 5-year Cowichan Tribes case
now the provincial govt is offering to back loans with our taxes
and you’re saying there’s no case to sue
The problem is the land claims are hard to evaluate. The Cowichan decision took about 5 years and over 80 lawyers were involved in various degrees. I am sure if you put together all the evidence and testimonies it would be tens of thousands of pages. It is impossible for a home purchaser (or a notary) to make a similar amount of research so they trust what the title registry says.
Even in treaty areas, you can't be sure 100%. An FN could later claim that the land was promised as a reserve but not fulfilled.
This is the whole point of having a title registry so transactions are more efficient.
It’s true. Stop making this about the indigenous. All they are doing is taking what is theirs. This is an issue between the buyer and whoever sold them the land.
If I sold you a house that doesn’t belong to me, the sale is null and void. Same principle applies.
Do you currently own any property?
A lot of landlords here awfully concerned that other people should not have their own property rights. Can you confirm for me one person that has been evicted, explicitly by the people who are fighting for their land claims?
This is a poor argument. That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not a possibility.
As someone who is part of the reconcilation movement, but not an extremist, this argument is ridiculous and should be discarded, and I sincerely hope the rest of you understand that this is not where our movement comes from.
We simply believe that the government did something wrong generations ago, and since those people are no longer alive to atone for their sins, we should do our best to try and correct them.
For example, if my great grandpa stole your great grandpas house, lived in it for decades, and passed it on to me after using it to accumulate generations of wealth with the way housing prices went up; meanwhile, your family was forced to live in a tent miles away. If a bunch of people came to my house and told me I should return it to your family, I might not say that I should be stripped down to nothing and sent to live as poor and awful a life as you had to endure, but I would agree that you and your family deserve something of it, arguably at least half the value it has accumulated.
Theres many who would have a leg to stand on saying that a thief should get none of their spoils of a crime, and others who would say now that its been stolen so long, its been developed and transformed, that the original owners arent entitled to the work put into the land, just the land itself. Thats why I think splitting it is the most fair call. Im not saying every private deed should be immediately turned over to the first nations, but if they were to add, say, a property tax addition for those lands, that gave maybe 0.1% of the value of the home every year that was given to the reserves, Id support that. The number is negotiable.
And what about the people who are alive now, who weren't alive then, and had absolutely nothing to do with any of this? Why should they be penalized for actions of people who are long dead?
I simple believe that people should be held responsible for their actions as individuals, not by their skin-colour and what their ancestors may or may not have done. I am curious how you will reconcile this logic?
Easily.
Lets say my grandfather stole your grandfathers antique comic book worth $100k, then when he died gave it to me in his will. Meanwhile, it was supposed to one day belong to you.
Do you feel that simply because I received it without committing a crime, that I have no obligation to give it back? If thats the case, what are the exact circumstances that make it so? Does it have to have passed as a will through death, or simply as a gift? Lets say my grandfather didnt give it to me, but sold it to me. Does that give me any right to keep it? Does it have to have gone back further than that to be safe, like if my grandfather gave it to my father who gave it to me, or great great grandfather to my grandpa to me, etc. Etc.?
The truth of the matter is that we cannot simply say "it wasnt me who did the bad thing" and believe that means you have no role to play in the solution. The real question is can both sides come to the table in good faith, and acknowledge that perhaps when the comic book was stolen it was only worth $5k, but now its worth $100k, so I didnt steal $100k from you, but in a sense I did. This is comparable to lands being developed and invested in, as well as noting the damage this may have done to it from the perspective of what they would have used the land for had it not been stolen in the first place.
Nobody from either side deserves to be left out in the cold or forced to accept unreasonable terms. But both sides should be able to acknowledge the injustices of the past, and do their best to find what the most just path is moving forward.
You are not the criminal in your hypothetical, so YOU did nothing wrong. It was your grandfather who did. This distinction is incredibly important. Re; a moral obligation to give it back, that is your own feelings and decision. You didn't commit a crime so I find it hard to reason why punishment should or would be enacted upon you.
I don't really want to get into some kind of (performative?) algebra of making past wrongs right. History is history; we could be here all day. In your scenario, your grandpa was the thief and mine the victim. No one else. It's between them as it were. Full stop. If he is still alive in this scenario, then he should be held responsible for the crime. Period. If he's not, then should responsibility be arbitrarily assigned to someone else who IS alive? I think that's silly.
Take my own context: My dad is British and grew up during WW2. He lived through the bombing raids and the whole family went through suffering during this time (including material loss). Am I supposed to sue the German government for past transgressions? No, that would be ridiculous! That's victim mentality mindset.
Same thing applies to Canada with the FN stuff, conceptually speaking. If an individual can prove they were the victim of a crime, then absolutely! That's what the legal system is there for. Pursue it and try for (just) compensation. I just think it should be by an individual, case by case basis only.
Counter-point: If you didn't know it was stolen, and had operated for your whole life that it was yours and made some lifestyle-plan based around it, would your argument hold water still? Innocence is innocence.
No. This land-claim nonsense is far past an individual vs individual level, and is in the realm of two-tier citizenry stuff based upon ethnicity (again, wild and insane, IMHO). Please consider how your scenario is about an individual object, and any court case would be those individuals litigating against each other as individuals.
Land =/= a comic book, nowhere close in fact. You are not going to live and raise a family in or on a comic book.. but you will do that in a home (ie. land). Again: not a fair comparison.
I will say I completely agree with you here. However, good faith discussion does not mean promises or guarantees on a thing. For instance: I'm fairly certain we could spend money on housing for all citizens regardless of skin-colour, and that would be more effective at 'not leaving anyone out in the cold', than it would be to pump more money into the FNs.
Bottom line: it is an incredibly hard sell that people whom are not responsible for a thing, should be made to be (fiscally/financially/economically/etc) responsible for a thing. I don't agree with collective punishment, I am sorry.
I have said this before: if we (as a species) cannot get past the grievances of those whom are already long-dead, and we put that BEFORE what those whom are currently alive are wishing.. then we'll never get anywhere. Much love and thanks for sharing; I appreciate the discussion.
There are roughly three groups, not two tiers citizenship. Both thief and victim groups are so diluted, yet the victim is now forcing unrelated bystanders to pay for past crimes.
The treaty of Versailles practically started the war in east Asia, why us asians don't get paid?
Should I mention Indians? You think the Indians have an easy time in the last 400 years of colonial/Sultan rule?
What about African? You are making children of slaves pay?
Even if you are white, there are so many innocents' children. Canada is a country of immigrants, Act of God: deal with it
Okay, so if I steal your stuff and gift to my kids as quickly as possible, does that mean they get to keep it even if I go to jail?
Like thats the whole inherent flaw in your argument, ans theres not much point in addressing anything else
Is that how you view the history of Canada? ie. that 'settlers' came in and stole everything as quickly as possible to gift to their kids..?
If so: I think you have a mindset problem. And, in turn, I would argue this is the inherent flaw in your own argument.
Again: this goes back to how I disagree with this notion of collective punishment of the innocent for the injustices of the past. And I would agree that there is not much point going further until this is addressed for what it is.
You said you could reconcile the logic easily, and then you compare apples to oranges as if they are identical.
Its obviously not exactly how I view Canada, but you again failed to address and answer my question: Do my kids, who recieived these items without committing a crime, deserve to keep them simply because taking them away would be 'punishment'?
The answer to this question will almost certainly contradict your views on why settlers and their children should get to keep the land they stole and developed, and when you can describe exactly why you hold that view, Ill likely change my mind.
There are only apples here friend, just because you dont like dem apples doesnt mean they become oranges. Both scenarios involve someone taking something of substantial value, and passing it on to their next of kin for them to build their life around. Both scenarios involve people who have suffered injustices, and both scenarios have similar concepts to what justice looks like.
Is the actual thief still alive in this scenario, ie, are both parties that are directly affected still alive? If the answer is yes: that the thief is still alive, has gone unpunished, that the material goods are still retrievable and finally that the retrieving of such goods will not jeopardize the well-being of the children..
Then no, your kids do not get to keep the items you just stole lol. Hopefully this is making sense.
Your example is one where the actual criminal is able to be held to account, whereas in reality, we are discussing an issue (FN land-back etc) that deals with 'past transgressions' and an attempt to hold people culpable or liable for things they themselves had zero party in or of. See again, the notion of collective punishment. I hope this makes sense.
You once again are missing my point entirely, my dude. That's like saying "air is a medium, and so is water; therefore, they must be entirely the same and therefore, so must everything to do with them!". And I'm telling you: whilst there is 'technically' a small sliver of truth to that.. you're missing a major point in that: nuance exists, the scenarios are not actually the same things. This is, IMHO, the more truthful view or perspective to have on this.
Please explain to me why you think collective punishment is a good thing?
I can prove you dont actually believe this to be the criteria.
The addition of this clause feels like the "if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family" loophole to the extreme. If I could prove that returning your expensive jewelry I stole would heopardize the well being of my kids, would you let me keep it?
Because as far as Im concerned, that clause and the theif still being alive are two massive loopholes that would essentially legalize crime lmao. Do old people on their death beds just start committing crimes left and right, hoping that if they die before theyre punished that their family can keep the stuff they stole?
The reason you feel the need to include both these clauses is because without them, youd be on my side. The stolen goods (land) is still retreivable, and the injustice has not been punished yet.
You are right that these things are not identical, but Im not asking them to be treated identically. Im asking them to be treated similarly, because they are similar. Sorry if that confused you at all.
Lol, okay. I personally don't think that you can but by all means, please enlighten me. I'm just trying to say that two wrongs don't make a right and I think you're missing this.
Is the man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family such a wrong thing, in truth? (in b4 we go deep down a rabbit hole of moral philosophy or some such lol). The family is starving now, in that scenario, no? Are we seeing a recurring theme yet (see: notion of time and it's linear flow)?
Yes, I would. This is assuming of course that the definition of your children's well-being being jeopardized, equates to a genuine inablity to get food/water/shelter/etc. If you could prove that, then yes! But it's different if the argument is like "Oh, but my kids need it to keep up with their car payments."
Again, particularly if I myself am housed and am doing 'okay'.. why would I wish suffering upon an innocent person for something they did not do but someone else did?
If I let you keep it, would you commit to working to pay back the money of the object stolen?
No, they don't lol. Why do you think that is?
My brother in Christ, lol, you're still missing my point entirely.
First off, we have different opinions on 'stolen' (see: human history as an example of nations having warred/competed for land since, well.. the beginning of recorded history). Now, I would grant you that this is not a good or desired thing for our species to be doing. We should be growing out of our tribalisms etc. However, I would not go as far as to enact collective punishment on a people, for the actions of a people whom are long dead. Have you heard of the concepts of mens rea and actus reus and how both are needed for culpability to be proven?
Once again: this is the fundamental difference. Past vs present; victim-mentality vs moving forward in good faith. Punishing people for things they didn't do or have a choice in.
You did not answer my question: Please explain why you think collective punishment is a good thing?
So you support Israel, then?
You understand the Jews were there first and were kicked out, right?
This is why moral principle isn't the only thing that matters, we have to look at the consequences of these decisions too. Compromising private property ownership compromises the entire system.
Nobody is talking about Israel right now. What a random comment.
Point went right over your head dude
Yeah, it must be that..
Sometimes, all it takes is a couple rereads to understand something...
I was even explicit lol I directly said what my point is. 🤦
Thats why you responded to him before my response huh lol
BRUH. Im responding to order i got the notifications 🤣 youre not the center of the world. You just sitting there waiting for people to reply or something? What a weird thing to say.
If that were the case, youd have noticed i responded before this guy lmao. Im definitely not sitting around waiting for your reply, but if it looks like youre dodging discussion to engage in squabbles, ima call you out lmao
I did answer your other comment dude, dafuq is wrong with you? Just clawing at the chance to discredit me. Lol ad hominem finds it's way into every conversation it seems nowadays. Really sad.
The Israelites took the land from the Cananites.
There are no more Canaanites. Jews are the oldest living settlers of that land.
Edit: forgot a word
That is a large leap from my initial stance, considering only one of them is trying to establish an ethnostate lmao.
But yea, in general I agree with the idea that if something was unjustly taken, it should be attempted to be returned. Thats why I support the British Museum being forced to return the artifacts they looted.
I disagree that compromising (not abolishing, just compromising) property rights to include new ideals will collapse the whole system. If that were the case, did the system collapse when property taxes were enacted? What about when governments forced people to get clean water, electrictiy, and plumbing into homes? Did the system collapse when the government ruled you werent allowed to booby trap your property to deter intruders?
Paying a small fee to compensate for what has historically happened should not be the be all and end all of this discussion. And there are certainly some areas of land that could reasonably be bought out legally and fairly, such that they have some of their land returned. Not forced, optional, with money raised from the small fees. Please explain in simple terms why this is unreasonable?
It's not a leap and you addressed the reasons why already.
It's not reasonable because of how they continue to ask for more and never stop. They don't pay taxes, get free education, subsidized living expenses in the city, they literally have everything in place to become modern and get off the reserves like I've heard so many of them talk about.
They have what they need to buy their own property but they consistently drop the ball and teach their kids to hate Canada because they think being a victim will get them perpetual handouts.
Enabling self-victimization is all that youre doing.
Yeah, if I stole $1000 from you, and you asked me to pay you back and I gave you $10 and told you to go away, and you remained mildly happy with that, and then came back and asked for more money, would you feel like I still owed you something? Additionally, do you feel like them choosing to walk away from the negotiating table unhappy is somehow the wrong answer here? Like logically, if youre opposed to them continuing to ask for things, you think they should have asked for everything they wanted in the first shot?
They absolutely do pay taxes, they just dont pay every tax, the same way I dont pay a wealth tax because Im not wealthy, and my siblings dont pay property taxes because they dont own property. They have tax exemptions, can you name a specific tax exemption you dont believe they should have? some of them qualify for some assistance in living and tuition, but thats extraordinarily underfunded. And lastly, do you think they should be forced to move off the reservations and "become modern"? Because the way I see it, especially if they arent disturbing us with it, their actions and lifestyle are inconsequential to the conversation.
They do not have everything they need to buy their own property, nor should they need to if the property was already theirs to begin with lmao. They teach their kids the true history of Canada, and its mostly coincidence that once kids know how awfully our ancestors treated people, they start disliking them. Do you think history classes also teach kids to hate slave owners, or do kids simply come to that conclusion after being given all the facts?
And finally, if being a victim got them perpetual handouts, why are you able to claim theyve always been victims, but they also have nothing? Your own logic is self defeating, and they arent "being victims" so much as they have been actively victimized by generations of governments, the same way most of us have. The fact that youre doing the governments bidding of having us be pitted against each other about this is half the problem.
Im not arguing the grift with you buddy. Learn to recognize when people have made up their mind already, I'm not going to listen to you, nor will I ever. You cant plea to my morality, you cant give me any reason that will change my stance.
You're being super weird, clawing at my other comments as if I'm dodging you when this stuff is time stamped.
I presented clear logical facts and arguments, and you just dip cause you've
I dont know how to say thats anything other than pure ignorance, and thats not attempting to be disrespectful or an ad hominem. Its just definitional.
And i mean, all the power to you, its not illegal to be immoral, nor is it to
Just seems weird to brag about it. At least, more weird than bragging that youre right about time stamps that youre wrong about, hoping no one checks your work.
Cool, didnt read anything you said. I dont care. The grift is over. Anyone who doesnt think they have enough just isn't good with finances.
I can tell, its just so strange to brag about.
Like buying a cybertruck, like why would you let everyone know...
Who cares?
What you are describing is the worst case for legal homeowners. You are not going back over 100 years to redo something. There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers. And you might not love how things shook out, but that is how they did in fact, shake out. Maybe we should give them that fund and cut them off. But we all know you would the same thing that happens now in most bands, the chief takes the cash and leaves the rest without proper drinking water. Sounds like a band problem. I know the reserves in my town are in various states of decay, how is that my fault? Why should other areas be reduced to the same? And dont get me wrong I wish it was better, but we all know that the exact same thing would play out, or again this might be specific to my town, but they are taking farm land out of the alr to put condos on, best part? They have 99 year leases and dont go to first nations. So again, if bands wont help themselves...
This is a very similar argument to the idea that Kony was corrupt, therefore we shouldnt help anyone in Africa from the generations of hardship we bestowed upon them with servitude cash crops.
Band leaders being corrupt is a problem. Full stop. But that is an entirely separate problem, requiring its own separate solution, and doesnt inherently invalidate the solution we want to bring in.
There is a mix of band leaders that are hereditary chiefs who are corrupt, the same way we had corrupt kings. There are democratic chiefs that were installed in an almost coup like fashion, who are also corrupt. There are proper democratic chiefs elected by their own people who are corrupt. And, all three flavors of chief also have non corrupt examples. By your own logic, do you support any money going to any band leader that isnt corrupt?
Condo leases for 99 years are actually just about to expire in the town Im in, and its a battle because the lease expiring makes them think they have rights to the development upon it; on the other side, those who developed it are willing to burn it to the ground just to make sure someone else cant have it. Both sides seem willing to take a suicide pill over it, so thats how I know they both care and are both incorrect in how they want to handle the scenario.
This idea that "they wont help themselves" is just misguided. There are some people, the same way there are some Canadians, who have no interest in bettering their own life. They do not invalidate the class. And again, by your own logic, if any individual from a reserve came to us/the government and said they did want to better themselves, through housing or schooling, etc., would you support that?
Not everyone white person in canada has family that anything to do with settlers or residential schools. I don't. My father is native in the usa and my mom's family came over from concentration camps after ww2. I worked hard for my house that I own. I live in BC where everything is Uber pricey. So it was even harder, so if they take my house, fine take the land. You are not getting my house.
As far as Africa, I dont have much comment. Mostly because it has nothing to do with me, or us here in canada. Again. I did not do anything to Africa or the people there.
There is this new fad of thinking that I need to carry the burdens of people who I had nothing to do with, nor did my family. So why? They should be the wealthiest continent on the planet, yet they are not. How is that my fault? Why should I carry that burden of making them better when my own province falls apart?
And it is the same for the first nations here. I did not do anything. Neither did my relatives, so what wrong am I to right? Working hard, settling, creating business to further my local economy? Paying taxes in too many forms to a corrupt government. That is what I do. If some group of people want to say we are the bad guys go ahead. But I am just trying to make my way through this system i did not create. I am merely navigating. So please explain, what did I do? Am I supposed to walk away from everything I have worked my life for, to give it to the admittedly, corrupt band leaders? Because the answers to that, is no. Do I give over my property rights to sign a 99 year lease? Also, that is a no from me. I would rather burn it down and start again then have it taken from me for no reason, other than, oh someone 100 years ago hurt me and they had the same skin tone? That my friend, is racism.
I cannot install empathy for you friend, Im sorry. If you dont know why we should look at people who have suffered an injustice, and try and bring justice to them, I cant really help on that. The entire conversation just needs to be a good faith look from all angles about what justice looks like.
Nobody is suggesting that you be kicked out of your privately owned home if you own land (ie not a leasehold, which realistically is just developers huffing about a contract they dont like). At least, no one i consider good faith. But if Crown land is owned, we should return it, or find another way to compensate them for it. Band leaders being corrupt is a problem that I honestly think could be fixed with this incentive; we have a set of criteria to know if a leader is corrupt, if they are, their band doesnt get the compensation. Two birds, one stone.
Empathy and fixing the mistakes of people who I have never met or hurt are 2 different things. Band leaders being corrupt is a problem, again, not mine though. Not every single person needs to be accountable for things that do not, and have never involved them.
The 1 solution I would consider, pay me 25k over what I paid and deal, take it. House included. I am leaving BC anyways, and a lot of that is due to this. I am terrified of losing my home, for a foolish reason that has nothing to do with me. I challenge you to send pics of a reserve taken really great care of, with people all doing great. I got time. You will need it. My father's band in the us is doing good. They get great casino checks and he lives in what would be here, a million dollar home. So if borders dont matter to them, how come the ones here arent spreading the wealth? I know for a fact the one close to me is run by a family for generations that have been keeping their own family down, holding all the riches and wealth and distributing them among the chiefs 3 kids. How do I know? I went to school with 2 of them.
They admitted back then how corrupt it is and nothing has changed, so yeah give them more right? That will help. The same people. Again in my community, that are bleeding the land with quarry's and selling off farmland to be shitty overpriced condos that noone will ever own. This is who you want me to what? Turn my home and land over to? Nah, not without a fight. And no, youre answer of give them more is honestly silly and ludicrous. But thanks for the laugh.
Mayhe the government turns over that fund and then cut them off. There, govern yourselves you have lots of cash and lots of land. Do it right and you quickly own more canadian land than mainland China does. Dont just cry and whine and expect more handouts.
What bothers me about this is how my ancestors on both sides were booted out of places where they lived in Europe, and had to come here ( to the prairies, not bc specifically) to eke out a living but we have Europe so self righteously telling us what we should do, with recognizing how often they shat the bed there (my grandfather on my dad's side saw his family exiled from their property in the 1920s from Romania, which is part of the EU).
Give us our farm back, Europe.
Luckily not everyone believes the same as your BS movement.
Can you explain why you dont believe what I believe, and more importantly, what you believe and why?
Im open minded to a new stance if it makes sense, and im open to abandoning the current stance if that also makes sense. All the information Ive gathered and the values I hold tell me that this is the morally and logically correct stance, but new information or new values can always change that.
To quickly summarize, I believe in righting the wrongs committed, regardless if you are the one who committed them, as long as you have the power to do so. My metaphor of an ancestor stealing a house/tool and using that to acquire generational wealth, for example, demonstrates that some of the value was created by those who stole it, but that some of the value inherently existed before it was stolen.
Thought experiment for you to consider:
I do a DNA test tomorrow. DNA matches some fossil records somewhere in BC. It proves (with scientific credibility too vs.... trusting FNs on their word) that my ancestors lived here before FNs who claim to have been the first ones.
Now on to reconciliation: Can I have your house please? Can I start taxing you and pick the tax rate? If not, why not?
How many centuries or millennia of history are we trying to undo?
If your DNA test proved that to be true, Id say you have as equal a case as they do, which is a moderately strong one. I dont think theres much of any evidence that discredits their position just with your DNA test, but it would elevate you to their position, and probably classify you as part of their group.
You individually cannot just have my house off the rip, but instead of going for millenium of fossils, pretend you found a deed to my house that belonged to your grandfather, and that I had illegally taken that deed. You have FULL rights to my house at that point. The reality is a lot less clear simply because its more akin to if i stole the house and sold it, then they sold it, then that buyer sold it too. But there's very few people I would feel would say you have no rights to the house or compensation; merely that a court should step in and determine who gets what.
As for how much history we should be trying to correct, Id argue about as much as we can remember. Thats why I support repatriation of artifacts in the British Museum, even if they were looted thousands of years ago. Its also why fascists try so so hard to erase history; so we dont have to acknowledge or atone for it. Its also why Ive done history classes with monsters who say things like "we should have just wiped them all out, it would have been easier". If no one remembers the history, we cant really correct it.
If you dont agree with that stance, can you tell me why?
I do not believe that just because someone is “indigenous” that automatically gives them some divine right to financial claim over a business, a building, or someone’s labour, simply because something awful happened to them, and buddy down the street in now responsible for 6% of the population. That yearly .1% tax you mentioned for instance. On a 500k condo, this would lead to a 5k tax that would need to be paid yearly, where no service is provided to the occupant. Now multiply that on every other home, at every other value. How exactly do you not bankrupt every person? Reconciliation is vague enough that nobody seems to be able to give a straight answer to what the end game is, and when money taps can be turned off. The fact that land access, governance, infrastructure delays, and giving financial veto over any given project is taken into account, the collective good is in danger, and the wellbeing of every person you would like to saddle with this burden. I do not believe you are open minded, just as I wouldn’t change my stance. Yeah it sucks what happened in the past, but it’s the past, and I would rather focus on moving forward together instead of relying on an unelected representative.
Thats good, because we happen to agree on this. Likewise, I dont believe that being "Canadian" automatically gives you a divine right to say that youre exempt from the laws of theft, or returning stolen land.
You are confused, this is not payment for a service, unless you technically classify "the right to use land you do not own" as a service. This is compensation. If you punch someone in the face or steal their stuff, and a court determines you owe them money, youre not paying them "for a service".
Because im not personally paying for every home on all stolen land, Im paying for my use of the stolen land I occupy. If you own a $500k house, and you cant afford a $5k tax, then you likely shouldnt own that $500k house in terms of financial responsibility. Most homeowners can handle a bill like that, and they should, because its the right thing to do even if they cant.
This is a mostly valid complaint, so I want to acknowledge it. I can understand the idea that they feel like they will show up forever, never being satisfied, and the fear of "when will it end" never seeming to disappear. I also support the idea of having a cut off, say 2030, where all land disputes need to be acknowledged and resolved. But, to try and help you see where Im coming from: imagine I steal $1000 from you, and you ask me to pay you back. I give you $30, because thats the amount I determine youll need to leave me alone. We can both agree that just because you left the table doesnt mean the issue is fully resolved.
I think this is projection from your end, and Im sad to see it tbh. I understand being so strong in your convictions that you feel there doesnt exist evidence to change your mind, but I can assure you this is not the case for me or all. If someone could reasonably explain the difference between stealing a valuable collectible worth thousands, and stealing land worth thousands, and why one should be returned immediately while the other should be shrugged off for one colonial reason or another, Id be willing to hear it.
I will say I do look towards the future while using the past to inform and guide it. Deciding exactly how bad the past is is nearly meaningless to me though if we can agree that all people, deserve justice, equality, and opportunity to prosper, as well as all the helo required to overcome ant systemic hurdles they may face
I understand the desire to fix the past injustices. I don't see a fundamental problem with this. But I think the current system is unfair.
If a non-indigenous Canadian were to bring a land dispute from 150 years ago to court, the courts would throw out the case because statute of limitations would apply many times over.
The courts even invented a new legal concept called "honour of the Crown" which makes sure government is held to a much higher standard when dealing with indigenous disputes. So when there is ambiguity it is often resolved in favour if the indigenous people. But of course it doesn't apply when a non-indigenous person sues the government.
This is the closest thing to a good argument raised so far, but I dont personally with the statute of limitations except in cases where it makes it impossible to find evidence. We dont need evidence, we still have it.
I would be strongly in favor the government saying "look, this issue will be resolved by 2030, any land claims after that are dead, and you have 4 years to decide exactly what you think is fair and be done with it." As far as Im concerned, this issue is still unresolved, which is part of what makes it problematic
When courts began recognizing Aboriginal rights and title, governments should have acted urgently to settle claims and provide legal clarity. Instead, they avoided hard decisions and left them to the courts. And they are still doing the same thing today.
Alaska set a firm deadline to file and settle claims in a single process. Something similar would have worked better here, but I think it’s too late now. With Aboriginal rights constitutionally protected, Indigenous peoples have little incentive to accept limited settlements of money or land.
I fully agree on the should have, I dont believe its too late necessarily, but you are right that they have little incentive given current protections. Ideally, we could trade a holstering of those protections for a speedy resolution today, but itll be unlikely to achieve that given its mostly only rational middle of the road people who seem to agree with that, not extremists of either side.
I wish more people saw things the way you did, at least it feels grounded in logic
Aboriginal rights are already constitutionally protected. This is the highest level of legal protection you can have in Canada. Courts are also happy to interpret the scope of those rights generously. I don't know what more "holstering" the goverment can offer.
As a side note, this is another example of unfairness between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in Canada. Aboriginal title is, in some ways, a better form of land ownership than fee simple because it is constitutionally protected (e.g. no expropriation) and includes additional rights, such as rights relating to minerals. Aboriginal title is available only to Indigenous peoples, while fee simple is available to both indigenous and non-indigenous people.
As a non indigenious person, do you understand why they get additional privileges? Like Im not even going to remotely argue its "unfair", because it is fair, its just not equal. This is very similar to that story of a twacher who had 5 kids hurt themselves in different areas, and then gave the first kid a bandaid on his elbow because thats hwere he was hurt, then gave the other 4 kids who scraped their knees a bandaid on their elbow, to demonstrate how whats equal isnt always what each individual needs.Since we took what we did from the FN people, whats "fair" is returning it or some equivalent compensation
I am not against compensation for the victims. If land is taken, why not return it as fee simple and apply same laws? Why invent a completely new form of ownership (aboriginal title)?
We are to assume that had those lands been left in the hands of the Indigenous that they would have been developed like they are today. If reserved lands are any indication or example I would say no. Development came from the settlers. Compensation needs to take that into consideration
I fully agree, if I stole your car and spent $10k adding upgrades, I dont believe youre entitled to the upgrades much the same as Im not entitled to the stolen car.
Justice requires both sides coming to the table in good faith and acknowledging that. Currently, it feels like the land owners side of it is very unwilling to do that, because that feels like cedeing the underlying argument that the land is not their land to develop; likewise, the other side doesnt want to acknowledge that even if they would not have built an airport on the land, that that land would not be worth what it is today without it. That being said, if you would have used that land for hunting and survival, perhaps that "development" is actually a negative in your head.
Its a sticky situation for sure, anyone who pretends its cut and dry is ignoring things for convenience.
Dude if you think this then you are an extremist. No way shape or form should someone today be paying for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Is the Cowichan tribe going to have reconciliation with the tribe that they took they land from? Are they going to pay them money and give them the land back too? It’s either free simple title or crown land.
In regards to FN in general, I believe, where applicable, in today’s modern world we need help preserve their culture and support them as they are a part of our heritage. I am fine of they want to shut down a park to help it heal in peak tourist season. But that means everyone, no segregation, no kicking everyone out except for FN. We are equals and we should all be treated at such. No fishing means no fishing. It can be done where both sides can end up happy here but both sides are also not going to be happy About thing at the same time.
I wanted to start here because it felt small, but I understand the frustration. For the record, the reason they do this is A) this wasnt their hobby, it was and for some still is, their grocery store, and B) because they have soent generations learning what renewable/sustainable fishing practices are, while most Canadians fishing have little understanding or regard for it, and its almost impossible to prove any individual will follow that without supervision.
Again, I understand where youre coming from in a sense, but this feels like a sort of "well it happened so long ago, cant we just forget about it" mentality. I happen to believe that whether the british museum stole something 1000 years ago, or last weekend, that it should be returned to the people it was stolen from. Without teying to be rude, do you have a cut off of some kind that does t feel arbitrary? Like if I stole your car and it became a collectible today, how long ago in your mind did I or my ancestors have to have stolen it to be allowed to keep it? If I stole it in the 1990s, 35 years ago, is that enough? If my Dad stole it from your dad in the 70's, is that enough? If my great grandpa stole it in the 1920s, thats more than a 100 years, is that enough?
I dont ask this as a way to say "we should litigate every single 100 year old crime, and make sure that Timmys great great grandfather the blacksmith owed Johnnys great grandfather a two pence for shining his shoes one day", but this scenario with land is markedly different. For one, the facts of the situation have not been lost to time. We know who used to own it, we know who currently owns it, we know where the stolen property is, etc. For two, this scenario has never been properly resolved in a fair scenario. If I stole $1000 and you asked me to pay you back, and I said "heres $30, thats all youre getting from me, we'll call it even" and you leave because I have the power of force on my side, that doesnt mean you accepted the deal as fair. And when you show up with more support for your side, but not a lot, I might give you $100 and hope thats enough to appease you and the small mob of support you have. But we both know that issue isnt resolved.
I would like to see the government give a cut off date, like 2030, to say all land disputes are resolved, and give a real good faith resolution to this all. Remove the realistic fear that Canadians have that this is a mever ending cycle of getting something and asking for more, and remove the frustration for the other side that we will never reach a fair conclusion, and just keep stringing them along with crumbs.
No land owners deserve to get shafted or left out in the cold, nobody in this deal should feel that way on either side. But we should all come to the table with good faith and empathy to decide what justice looks like, and how to achieve it best.
If your grandpa stole my grandpa's house, and lived in it for decades, and then passed it on to you, how did he accumulate generations of wealth. He never sold the house. Paying property taxes, utilities and presumably upkeep and then giving the house away to you, would make your grandpa... less rich
You really are doing gods work aren’t ya. Keep up the good fight!
Also curious if you currently own any property
I do actually, me and my wife bought a condo a few years ago. More than anything, that fact makes me feel more justified in my current stance; its easy for the have nots to say the haves should give things up, but to be someone who has and still hold my convictions feels more powerful.
I appreciate the kind words, based on the typical people in this sub that almost felt like sarcasm lol.
Do you guys have anything real to complain about?Or are you guys just freaking about stuff that could happen while all of the important things are actually being dealt with in court right now.
Well, to give the legal profession it's due, that's what conveyancing lawyers are for - to check into the legal situation surrounding the sale.
I once cycled along the river from Queesborough to Steveston. I got so far and then had head inland, along Westminster Highway and then back down near Highway 99 to the river.
Not even a cycle route had been built through along the river, so somebody knew it was disputed land....