[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources

[Lee Dilkie]

I couldn't pass this on up because I almost replied to a thread some
while back with a similar (but opposing) argument.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>   
> The long and short of it is that the only argument that has any weight at
> all
> for letting the legacy holders continue to get a free ride is that they
> somehow
> have a "moral" right to get a free ride because they were promised one.  Of
> course,
> the American Indian made the same argument when the Europeans pushed them
> out
> of their homelands and onto reservations and we know what happened there.
>
>
>   
Yes, we know what happened to the "legacy" land holders when an annexing
power arrived on the scene and made promises that they later broke and
then tried to change their own laws to suit themselves. It worked. For a
while. But here we are, a couple of hundred years later, *still* dealing
with those issues that just won't go away. And now, our own courts are
resolving these land claim issues in the "legacy holders" favour.

I can't speak for the US, but up here in Canada we've had a similar
history wrt native peoples and perhaps we are a bit ahead of the game,
due probably to our smaller size (population). It was only 15 years ago
that 750,000 square miles (3 times the size of Texas) of our land was
carved off from this country and returned to the original inhabitants.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut). In that battle, we (the
annexing power who broke promises) did *not* win. The native people of
Canada still do not pay taxes, still get free education, free medicine
and social assistance when they need. Those were promises made many
years ago and the courts will always rule against us if/when we try to
break those promises. The next few years ought to be interesting,
resolving claims on the better part of the city of Toronto, for example.
But that's what you have to deal with in the end if you do not honour
promises.

And BTW. To those that think that simply not offering "new services" to
legacy holders is a way of dealing with the issue. Think about the above
analogy. We are not housing our native peoples in tents anymore, they
get whatever is considered "modern". Housing, medicine, education, all
modern. Same as the folks in the rest of Canada who are paying for these
"free loaders" (understand, I'm using your terms here, I certainly don't
believe this).

Now, the internet is a far different place and the above analogy can
only be taken so far. But is it so different that the law and contracts
and promises do not apply?

-lee