Supreme Court to Decide Metis Claim

[jdobbin]

http://cjob.com/news/index.aspx?src=loc&mc=local&rem=43790

The Metis are likely to have a decision from the Supreme Court on land claims in Manitoba. It could be the first time that an entire city is awarded in a land claim in Canada.

[geoffrey]

Better move jdobbin. I wouldn't be suprised if the good ol' Indian activists gave the land to them. I wonder when racially based land grants will end in Canada? I thought we were against that in South Africa??

Hmm...

[jdobbin]

Better move jdobbin. I wouldn't be suprised if the good ol' Indian activists gave the land to them. I wonder when racially based land grants will end in Canada? I thought we were against that in South Africa??

Hmm...

It's a complcated thing that the Supreme Court will deal with. However, the courts might be bound by contract to honor the agreement. I just don't know how it will be done. Through money or land?

I don't know if anyone knows how this will play out although Metis have said it wouldn't mean eviction of the present residents.

[Riverwind]

It's a complcated thing that the Supreme Court will deal with. However, the courts might be bound by contract to honor the agreement. I just don't know how it will be done. Through money or land?

Let's assume that the gov't was found to have expropriated the land without proper compensation. In this situation, the metis groups would be entitled to monetary compensation based on the market value of the land when the illegal expropriation took place. They would be entitled to interest and some compensation for loss of use, however, they would have no right to the land itself - nor may the demand any special rights or considerations.

If the cost of paying compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of transfer is too expensive then the gov't has the option of legislating a limit to the monetary damages and let the Metis take that court again - it is unlikely they court would over turn a settlement that provided reasonable compensation.

The Metis groups have no right expect a lottery windfall or the creation of an aparthied sub-state within a democratic country.

[Charles Anthony]

they would have no right to the land itself

On what basis do you state this?

I realize this is going to start up the whole racially-based-rights thing again but your statement sounds completely arbitrary. Keep the race-card out of it for now and focus on what YOU believe is a right in this case.

If you agree that they have a right to money why deny them a right to the land? why the difference?

[jdobbin]

Let's assume that the gov't was found to have expropriated the land without proper compensation. In this situation, the metis groups would be entitled to monetary compensation based on the market value of the land when the illegal expropriation took place. They would be entitled to interest and some compensation for loss of use, however, they would have no right to the land itself - nor may the demand any special rights or considerations.

If the cost of paying compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of transfer is too expensive then the gov't has the option of legislating a limit to the monetary damages and let the Metis take that court again - it is unlikely they court would over turn a settlement that provided reasonable compensation.

The Metis groups have no right expect a lottery windfall or the creation of an aparthied sub-state within a democratic country.

You are probably correct about compensation.

I think what is unsettling is that no one knows what will happen.

[Riverwind]

If you agree that they have a right to money why deny them a right to the land? why the difference?

The land has already been transferred to third parties who have increased the value of the land by developing it. This 'additional value' belongs to the people who created it and the Metis groups have no claim on it.

If they want land they can buy it on the open market from a willing seller with whatever monetary compensation that they get. The gov't might choose to offer some of its land holdings in lieu of cash, however, the terms of ownership must not discriminate against non-aboriginal land owners. In other words, if they hold the land under fee simple title then there is no racism and the compensation can be considered reasonable (depending on the amount of land involved).

Any attempt to create an 'aboriginal title' concept which gives them more rights than other land owners is racist and, depending on the details, is no different than aparthied.

[jbg]

Better move jdobbin. I wouldn't be suprised if the good ol' Indian activists gave the land to them. I wonder when racially based land grants will end in Canada? I thought we were against that in South Africa??

Hmm...

For the English speaking culture, the rules are they lose no matter what. Heads they win, tails they lose.

[jdobbin]

For the English speaking culture, the rules are they lose no matter what. Heads they win, tails they lose.

Many Metis are unilinigual English. They are often indistinguishable from other people in Manitoba. The Metis themselves will have a hard time determining who is Metis because many Metis themselves are not aware that they are considered Metis.

[jbg]

For the English speaking culture, the rules are they lose no matter what. Heads they win, tails they lose.

Many Metis are unilinigual English. They are often indistinguishable from other people in Manitoba. The Metis themselves will have a hard time determining who is Metis because many Metis themselves are not aware that they are considered Metis.

Interesting. Riel's neck ached over that question.

[jdobbin]

Interesting. Riel's neck ached over that question.

French is no longer a defining characteristic of many Metis you mett nowadays. Many can't speak a word of it.

[geoffrey]

The government should have no obligation to any contract that is based on racism. Apartheid laws where part of the social contract of South Africa, and were thrown out when they saw how ridiculous they are.

Giving land to a group of people because of their ethnicity, whether white, black or Indian, is just ridiculous.

All land claims and treaties should be thrown out because they are all based on racist principles. It's funny how quickly the Charter is disregarded when a majority's right's are abused.

[jdobbin]

The government should have no obligation to any contract that is based on racism. Apartheid laws where part of the social contract of South Africa, and were thrown out when they saw how ridiculous they are.

Giving land to a group of people because of their ethnicity, whether white, black or Indian, is just ridiculous.

All land claims and treaties should be thrown out because they are all based on racist principles. It's funny how quickly the Charter is disregarded when a majority's right's are abused.

What if the treaty was not based on race but by nation? This is what the court will have to decide.

[Riverwind]

What if the treaty was not based on race but by nation? This is what the court will have to decide.

If this is an issue of a treaty between nations then there is no issue: international treaties are political documents - not binding contracts. The recent shenanigans over softwood lumber illustrate this point. In this case the metis 'nation' does not exist anymore so it is not reasonable to expect the gov't to honour any treaties with it.

If this is an issue of individuals seeking redress for property unfairly expropriated from their ancestors then the gov't may be required to provide reasonable compensation.

This discussion turns into a racism issue whenever aboriginal activists demand special rights instead of reasonable cash compensation for historical wrongs. In these cases, the aboriginals are making the claim that they deserve to be treated differently for no reason other than the fact that they have the same DNA as the people who were living in Canada thousands of years ago.

[BubberMiley]

Some define the Metis in these land claims as a person who is able to trace their ancestry back to the original Red River Settlement.

[jdobbin]

Some define the Metis in these land claims as a person who is able to trace their ancestry back to the original Red River Settlement.

That would certainly leave a lot of the present Metis population out. Not all can Metis can trace that reliably back. I have no idea how they will determine who is actually Metis covered within the claim.

It won't be an easy court case at all. And even if the Metis win the case, I'm sure there will be a lot of haggling about who is included and who is left out.

[jdobbin]

If this is an issue of a treaty between nations then there is no issue: international treaties are political documents - not binding contracts. The recent shenanigans over softwood lumber illustrate this point. In this case the metis 'nation' does not exist anymore so it is not reasonable to expect the gov't to honour any treaties with it.

If this is an issue of individuals seeking redress for property unfairly expropriated from their ancestors then the gov't may be required to provide reasonable compensation.

This discussion turns into a racism issue whenever aboriginal activists demand special rights instead of reasonable cash compensation for historical wrongs. In these cases, the aboriginals are making the claim that they deserve to be treated differently for no reason other than the fact that they have the same DNA as the people who were living in Canada thousands of years ago.

The court will no doubt take into consideration if this is a binding contract or a treaty. And there will also be consideration given to possible unfair expropriation.

It is a complicated case and all the moreso because it involves so much land and so many people.

[Charles Anthony]

If you agree that they have a right to money why deny them a right to the land? why the difference?

The land has already been transferred to third parties who have increased the value of the land by developing it.

Stop. Is that your reason??? Your argument is absurd and arbitrary.

Your argument says nothing about WHY they have a right to money but not the land.

If I chase you out of your house, renovate it and rent it while you live on the street and give you your house back next year, will it be fair for me to keep your "additional value" and just give you back your house??????????????

What if you planned to do the renovations too? and rent it out at the same time?

What if you thought my renovations were ugly?

This 'additional value' belongs to the people who created it and the Metis groups have no claim on it.

What YOU call "increased" or "additional value" some people would call raped, pillaged and polluted. The white man's additional value is only additional to a select few white men.

Even if the white man's additional value was a universal an objective observation (like increased wheat production or increased oil production or increased fresh water) you are DENYING the natives the opportunity to develop the same land in a different manner of their own choosing.

Nevertheless, your "additional value" argument is even more absurd because you are suggesting that the natives could not have done the EXACT SAME development.

What if the treaty was not based on race but by nation? This is what the court will have to decide.

If this is an issue of a treaty between nations then there is no issue: international treaties are political documents - not binding contracts.

What makes a contract binding???????

[Riverwind]

Your argument says nothing about WHY they have a right to money but not the land.

The people who own the land today purchased it in good faith and were not in any way responsible for any historical wrong doing. Creating a bunch of new victims is simply not a morally or politically acceptable way to resolve these issues. If aboriginals want land back then they should buy it from willing sellers using whatever cash compensation they can negotiate.

Nevertheless, your "additional value" argument is even more absurd because you are suggesting that the natives could not have done the EXACT SAME development.

But they didn't. So the only way to fix the problem is go back to the 1800s and figure out what they would have got if they had sold the land to the govt at that time.

What makes a contract binding???????

A gov't that is able to enforce it. The gov't cannot enter into a binding contract with other nations because there is no enforcement mechanism. A gov't can not really enter into a binding contract with any of its citizens either because it has the power to override that contract using legislation.

Frankly, if all of these claims are simply a matter of inheritance then the gov't has a simple solution: impose a 100% inheritance tax on lands covered under a treaty. The problem would be resolved in a generation and aboriginals could no longer claim that they have an 'inhieritance' that they are entitled to.

[Charles Anthony]

Your argument says nothing about WHY they have a right to money but not the land.

The people who own the land today purchased it in good faith and were not in any way responsible for any historical wrong doing.

Correct. I understand they purchased it in good faith. They are in possession of stolen property. That is still a crime, albeit not the same as theft.

Creating a bunch of new victims is simply not a morally or politically acceptable way to resolve these issues.

Interestingly, I actually agree. I do not think "possession of stolen" property should be a crime at all in any instance. However, it is.

Thus, we have an inconsistent double standard. It either holds for everybody or nobody at all.

If aboriginals want land back then they should buy it from willing sellers using whatever cash compensation they can negotiate.

No. Compensation should start by giving them their property back.

Nevertheless, your "additional value" argument is even more absurd because you are suggesting that the natives could not have done the EXACT SAME development.

But they didn't.

Duh!!!!! The white man took their land and forced them off!!!!!!!

Do you have no understanding of my "force you out of your house and rent it" analogy? Do you just skip it?

I am now starting to think that marxists are right about class-mentality!

[jdobbin]

Duh!!!!! The white man took their land and forced them off!!!!!!!

Do you have no understanding of my "force you out of your house and rent it" analogy? Do you just skip it?

I am now starting to think that marxists are right about class-mentality!

I am starting to wonder if that is what the conclusion of the court might be. In other words, a solid legal case that the government can't ignore.

If that is the case, I wonder if a cash settlement is a better outcome. While there are some areas of the province that have identifiable Metis communities, that can't be said of Winnipeg. There is no "neighbourhod" that is so-called dominantly Metis. And if there was land within Winnipeg that came as part of a settlement, it is hard to say that Metis would be drawn to it as an area to live. Afterall, it wouldn't be a tax exempt area like a reserve. Or at least that is my understanding of it.

It is complicated to say the least.

[Riverwind]

If aboriginals want land back then they should buy it from willing sellers using whatever cash compensation they can negotiate.

No. Compensation should start by giving them their property back.

Would you donate your own property to the aboriginals to settle a land claim? If the answer is yes then I suggest you find your local native band and sign the property over immediately. If you aren't willing to do that then you obviously are not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

[Charles Anthony]

Would you donate your own property to the aboriginals to settle a land claim?

I do not own any property.

Thanks for the diversion and avoidance of my pointed and direct questions...

If you aren't willing to do that then you obviously are not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

What if YOU are not willing to answer direct questions that deal with issues YOU raised?

You are wasting bandwidth.

[Riverwind]

Would you donate your own property to the aboriginals to settle a land claim?

I do not own any property.

IOW, you expect other people to pay for your definition of what is 'right'.

[What if YOU are not willing to answer direct questions that deal with issues YOU raised?

I answered your original point: the land has been developed by people who purchased it in good faith. They have a right to keep that land and benefit from the improvements they paid for. The fact that aboriginals might have done the same if they weren't kicked off the land by the gov't 100+ years ago is irrelevant.

If someone is a victim of a crime then they can ask for compensation from the perpetrator. In some cases, the immediate children may be entitled to some compensation as well. However, the grandchildren and subsequent generations have no right to compensation.

More importantly, victims of crime are never entitled to compensation paid by the children of the perpetrator. That is basically what aboriginal groups are demanding.

[Charles Anthony]

If someone is a victim of a crime then they can ask for compensation from the perpetrator. In some cases, the immediate children may be entitled to some compensation as well. However, the grandchildren and subsequent generations have no right to compensation.

How ridiculously arbitrary!