Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6752
Reputation: 240.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:

if you owned an investment property in South Africa and the government said they were going to take it away and not provide any financial compensation cause you were not black would you be willing to give it to them ? in the name of social justice ?

I may not have any choice really. Happy, probably not but thats not to say the others are wrong or right.,\
If it can be shown that land was stolen then it has to go back and be damned with the rest. It is the only way apart from compensation from the govt to those slighted (the blacks)

Look, it does suck but it is the only way to do things. You have a prized old Camaro stolen (this happen3ed in Cali by the way) ay back in 1977. Worth..?...not much really.

But now....worth a fortune. Car was re-registered a number of times and no one saw it on the stolen list. Each subsequent owner thought he had clear title, afterall the Cali DMV gave him a n ownership.....right?

Jump ahead to last year, car is worth up to a $100, 000 and then is discovered to be stolen. Cops seize the car, call the original owner and its theirs now.

Right or wrong? Same thing there.
Quote:

how can you not say this is reverse racism ,

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

Theres racism...period. saying 'reverse' is saying only whites commit racism. We know that isnt true.
Quote:

we have a black led government , a corrupt one at that , saying there going to take away the land from the white farmers and not even provide a cent of financial compensation for there lifetime of work and investment on the property

this is by far one of the most racist policies I have ever seen come out of a so called modern era government , clearly its racist cause it only targets white farmers

I dont mean to belittle anyone here, but I think you need to read up on S. Afr and everything thats gone on there in the past 100 years.

Blacks were treated horribly, worse than most anyone else. Murdering a black would get you a cup of coffee from the local barista.
The cops? They more than anyone would kill blacks for shits and giggles so there'd be no worries on your part for killing some black dude.

Again though, the salient part is that the courts will have to deal with it and that wont be easy.
Is there racist policies coming from the black run govt? Yes. The tide has turned. But the issue of land stolen or not, of compensation or not, has to be bourne out in a court.

I can tell you who will win in the end. The chinese, they are already taking over large swaths of Africa and sadly they dont give a shit about anyone. They will kill beat and force workers into a shallow grave as a cost of business.
These are huge farms...as in HUGE. They build a fence, man their people with guns and enforce their own laws. These places are so large their own planes can come and go to re-supply.

So, best learn their history to understand. I am no expert, but a very close friend of mine works in Africa as a security consultant and he sees it everyday up close. He criss crosses Africa , alone w $1000US as his 'weapon' to plan out aid runs.





no one is denying the fact there was a period in time in South Africa when blacks were treated poorly and that this caused feelings of resentment towards the british government and whites in general

but is turning the table and now deciding to treat whites really badly going to make things better ? is the road to black prosperity thru destroying the lives and long time investments made in South Africa my white people ?

this whole plan makes no sense and is doomed for failure


and in terms of " modern law " these farmers have legal title to there land , just as someone in Canada has legal title to there land that there ancestors got from the former british government . on paper and by any legal paperwork they own the land and our the legal owners of the property , someone can't just come along and decide to take it from them and not even provide them a cent in compensation
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:


What TC shows us here is how our institutions are being undercut by the Courts. Fifty years ago, this wouldn't have been possible in Canada.

The Courts are one of our institutions. They apply the law.

Is there something particularly hard to understand about that?


Quote:

TC is telling us that it can be reversed depending on how you got the property.

Yes, simple as that.

The books are full of illegally obtained property rulings.
Quote:

Is that the kind of country we're living in?

Yes it is.

Have you thought otherwise?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:

no one is denying the fact there was a period in time in South Africa when blacks were treated poorly and that this caused feelings of resentment towards the british government and whites in general

but is turning the table and now deciding to treat whites really badly going to make things better ?

No, not reaslly. But do not consider my stance as being in agreement to any of this apart from the legal aspects.
Simply put, if a person can prove the land left his ownership through illegal means then that same person gets it back without having to be compensated for it.

And a period of time is over 100 years so there is a metric shit ton of built up anger and so on to overcome.
Quote:

is the road to black prosperity thru destroying the lives and long time investments made in South Africa my white people ?

this whole plan makes no sense and is doomed for failure

Have a gander at your statement.

The white prosperity was largely built on the backs of blacks who were considered 2nd class citizens without rights. In most of these places anything of any value was white owned and prospered because the black need not be paid or very little .

Quote:

and in terms of " modern law " these farmers have legal title to there land , just as someone in Canada has legal title to there land that there ancestors got from the former british government . on paper and by any legal paperwork they own the land and our the legal owners of the property , someone can't just come along and decide to take it from them and not even provide them a cent in compensation

But yes...yes they can. Through a court of law the ownership can switch hands.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6752
Reputation: 240.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:

no one is denying the fact there was a period in time in South Africa when blacks were treated poorly and that this caused feelings of resentment towards the british government and whites in general

but is turning the table and now deciding to treat whites really badly going to make things better ?

No, not reaslly. But do not consider my stance as being in agreement to any of this apart from the legal aspects.
Simply put, if a person can prove the land left his ownership through illegal means then that same person gets it back without having to be compensated for it.

And a period of time is over 100 years so there is a metric shit ton of built up anger and so on to overcome.
Quote:

is the road to black prosperity thru destroying the lives and long time investments made in South Africa my white people ?

this whole plan makes no sense and is doomed for failure

Have a gander at your statement.

The white prosperity was largely built on the backs of blacks who were considered 2nd class citizens without rights. In most of these places anything of any value was white owned and prospered because the black need not be paid or very little .

Quote:

and in terms of " modern law " these farmers have legal title to there land , just as someone in Canada has legal title to there land that there ancestors got from the former british government . on paper and by any legal paperwork they own the land and our the legal owners of the property , someone can't just come along and decide to take it from them and not even provide them a cent in compensation

But yes...yes they can. Through a court of law the ownership can switch hands.



ok but under your logic pretty much any land , anywhere on the planet could technically belong to someone else . if they could prove there ancestors once lived there and had not legally given up the land before other people took it


wouldn't we be opening a huge can of worms ? that would create a crisis relating to land ownership ?
because many current owners have only legally owned the land for 100 or so years and there was no doubt past people who used the same lands


personally feel that if someone has the legal paperwork that says they own the land , they are the rightful and legal owners , we have systems like this in place for a reason and it would create a needless crisis to try and challenge them
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:



ok but under your logic pretty much any land , anywhere on the planet could technically belong to someone else . if they could prove there ancestors once lived there and had not legally given up the land before other people took it


While not my logic , Yes, that is essentially correct and rare.
Quote:

wouldn't we be opening a huge can of worms ? that would create a crisis relating to land ownership ?
because many current owners have only legally owned the land for 100 or so years and there was no doubt past people who used the same lands

The can of worms is sorting it out. So no, I dont agree.
Quote:

personally feel that if someone has the legal paperwork that says they own the land , they are the rightful and legal owners , we have systems like this in place for a reason and it would create a needless crisis to try and challenge them


Absolutely not.

My old landlord, years ago (decades actually) was a sly little f**ker. He befriended all the widows he could find in Leaside. He cut their grass, did odd jobs, sat for tea and coffee.

Why?

Because he befriended lonely old woman to get their house.....in Leaside....a very expensive place to live.

How did he get the houses? Fraudulently from my angle, having them sign it over to him and shady shit like that.
So...if it were your parents or Gr parents house and could prove it was fraudulently obtained would you just casually look at the title and say "oh well, guess he owns it " ?

I know your answer is No.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6752
Reputation: 240.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:



ok but under your logic pretty much any land , anywhere on the planet could technically belong to someone else . if they could prove there ancestors once lived there and had not legally given up the land before other people took it


While not my logic , Yes, that is essentially correct and rare.
Quote:

wouldn't we be opening a huge can of worms ? that would create a crisis relating to land ownership ?
because many current owners have only legally owned the land for 100 or so years and there was no doubt past people who used the same lands

The can of worms is sorting it out. So no, I dont agree.
Quote:

personally feel that if someone has the legal paperwork that says they own the land , they are the rightful and legal owners , we have systems like this in place for a reason and it would create a needless crisis to try and challenge them


Absolutely not.

My old landlord, years ago (decades actually) was a sly little f**ker. He befriended all the widows he could find in Leaside. He cut their grass, did odd jobs, sat for tea and coffee.

Why?

Because he befriended lonely old woman to get their house.....in Leaside....a very expensive place to live.

How did he get the houses? Fraudulently from my angle, having them sign it over to him and shady shit like that.
So...if it were your parents or Gr parents house and could prove it was fraudulently obtained would you just casually look at the title and say "oh well, guess he owns it " ?

I know your answer is No.



ok but your using a true example of a legitimately bad business deal and trying to say its the same thing

the colonial settlers who were given land grants by the british government in Canada and also in South Africa , didn't chase off natives from the property and steal the land

it was legally given to them by the government at the time and they were given ownership of the land thru legal means and have paperwork that says they are the legal owners of the land

its true someone else lived there at some point in time but for the last 100 or so years they have been the legal owner and have all the legal paperwork that says they own the land

and they built all the buildings on the property and have spent countless years turning the land into farmable land , a lot of the land was likely barren and worthless before they arrived
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


ok but your using a true example of a legitimately bad business deal and trying to say its the same thing

No, it is not a bad business deal , I am using a simple example of a type of fraudulently gained property. There are many similar examples out there.
Quote:

the colonial settlers who were given land grants by the british government in Canada and also in South Africa , didn't chase off natives from the property and steal the land

Oh ? Did the fine folk just say 'ok, heres my land. Hope you like it"

While I concede that most land did become the property of the crown, there is enough and or were enough people around who would have held title.......if title existed.
If title doesnt exist...and then it does, once cannot just title some property and voila, case solved.
Quote:

it was legally given to them by the government at the time and they were given ownership of the land thru legal means and have paperwork that says they are the legal owners of the land

Right.

But then some were able to prove that the govt had no right, nor business to give away that which they didnt own. Its rare I grant you, but as we see in the Native land disputes , there are cases whereby the govt should not have done so.
Quote:

its true someone else lived there at some point in time but for the last 100 or so years they have been the legal owner and have all the legal paperwork that says they own the land

And once again.....irrelevant should the prior owner prevail in court.
Look....you stole my Car, then put $5000 rims, a dual exhaust and so on. I get my car back once the Police find it.

Are you seriously going to come claim I owe YOU something? If you answer yes, then we should be done.
Quote:

and they built all the buildings on the property and have spent countless years turning the land into farmable land , a lot of the land was likely barren and worthless before they arrived

Thats nice.

So?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7528
Reputation: 301.2Reputation: 301.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From an International Law perspective this entire situation is an interesting one.

I wonder if someone dug deep enough in history they would find that any properties I own were likely never properly sold, purchased, or even seized illegally.

And for that matter how many historic claims I could make on behalf of my ancestors across the world on any number of properties that were never properly sold, purchased, or even seized illegally over the last even two centuries, in Europe likely within the last century, maybe even inside of 80 years.

Fingers crossed some European Powers adopt a similar mindset to South Africa.

Summer house on the Baltic would be sweet!
However, I would always live in fear that one day someone from Scythian lineage may knock on my door and demand it back.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6752
Reputation: 240.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( finally a bit of an update on what has been going on there , some details of the bill have been released )


Government finally explains how it plans to take land in South Africa

By Staff Writer March 28, 201766 Comments

Share on LinkedIn

Government finally explains how it plans to take land in South Africa



Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform Gugile Nkwinti has set out what to expect from the incoming land reform bill, and criticized recent comments by the ANC, saying that the country needs clarity on the ruling party’s current stance on land.

Speaking at a parliamentary media briefing on Tuesday, 28 March, Nkwinti noted that the ANC was still guided by the provisions in the Constitution and that this would inform the new land reform bill, as prescribed by the current agricultural land holdings bill.

“The Bill introduces a Land Commission because people who own land in South Africa must register with that Land Commission … so that we know who owns South Africa so that we can use that as a measure to determine the extent to which land is being redistributed in the country,” said Nkwinti.

Speaking specifically on President Jacob Zuma’s recent comments on “expropriation without compensation”, Nkwinti said that the comments reflected “aspirational ideas”, for the purposes of debate and would not form the basis of the new bill.

He noted that party would still debate the idea at its upcoming June conference but that the idea did not form part of the ANC’s current policy.

The new bill – key points

•The department of rural development and land reform bill was officially published for public comment on 17 March, with private citizens given until 17 April before it is officially introduced to parliament.

•The key purpose of the bill will be to establish a new land commission to address current transformation targets and redress the socio-economic injustices of the past.

•The Land Commission would also be able to assist the state to determine the true extent of land ownership in the country, said Nkwinti. To aid in this auditing, there will need to be full disclosures in respect of the present ownership of private agricultural landholdings, including the race, gender and nationality of the owner, the use and size of the agricultural land holding and any real right registered against and licence allocated to the agricultural land holding.

•To aid the Commission in its determinations of land, the bill will divide all qualifying commercially viable land land into three broad categories, namely small, medium and large-scale. This determination of categories will be performed by the minister and published in the Government Gazette at a later date.

•It will then aid in the transfer of agricultural land, in line with the Constitution while also seeking to limit the amount of agricultural land any individual owner can hold beyond a certain threshold.

•Those who own commercial land outside of the designated thresholds will then be compensated for the outstanding property using a just and equitable calculation.

•The remaining portions will be transferred back to the State, or converted into a lease agreement.

•Government has the first right of refusal by the state in respect of redistribution agricultural land.

https://businesstech.co.za/news/business/166707/government-finally-explains-how-it-plans-to-take-land-in-south-africa/
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6752
Reputation: 240.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( there claiming they won't go the Zimbabwe route but does anyone believe them ? also looks to be a government in total crisis , other articles on the side from last couple of days . indicate the south African finance minister quit and PM was considering resigning early and there was a major re shuffling of cabinet )



SA 'will not follow Zimbabwe over land'


BABALO NDENZE | 31 March, 2017 07:55



President Jacob Zuma. File photo.
Image by: GCIS


South Africa is going to deal with the thorny issue of land reform in a "legal way" and will not "go the Zimbabwe route".



This is according to President Jacob Zuma, who yesterday repeated his call for a constitutional amendment to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation.

Zuma was responding to a debate in the National House of Traditional Leaders, where he responded to a number of issues, ranging from crime to the land question.

Land reform has become a topical issue after ANC MPs rejected a motion by the EFF last month for the constitution to be changed to allow for expropriation of land without compensation.

The president said yesterday that resolving the land issue was central to the achievement of real reconciliation in South Africa.

He said the country needed to use "democratic methods" to address the limitations of the constitution if it did not adequately address the issue.

"The land question is central to achieving reconciliation. How do we have peace and stability when the land is not resolved?

"If we go the Zimbabwe route then it will be a problem," said Zuma.

"We are not saying let us now go and take the land. We are saying let us amend the constitution."

http://www.timeslive.co.za/the.....-over-land
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7528
Reputation: 301.2Reputation: 301.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we need to take a step back for a moment;

The idea of taking "white lands" without compensation is a central part of what the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) ran on in the last election.

They were the ones who tabled legislation to move this forward and it was Jacob Zuma's own AUS that voted it down.

Zuma is under siege politically at the moment;
In the last hour he sacked his Finance Minister who was likely going to be the guy the AUS rallied around if they ditch Zuma.

He has a lot going on around him politically;
The EFF came out of nowhere in the last election, very vocal, very left of center, and very grassroots.

They are claiming that since the last election they have gained a half million members and if there is even a fraction of truth to that the AUS may find itself having its base (traditionally black voters) split.

Zuma declaring in public he wants to expropriate land without compensation, yet having his party vote down every piece of legislation pertaining to even investigating going down that route in the National Assembly is somewhat of a mixed signal no?

This looks to be a lot of tough talk;
But we will see shortly.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


South African pres seeks power to expropriate white land

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB