Repeal of Article 12

We slide in and out of the discussion of landownership as defined under Article 12. Most haven’t taken the time to read it. Opponents want it repealed saying it violates and infringes upon the basic individual’s rights to full ownership. Proponents have blindly embraced retaining it “as is” while still others wanted to amend certain provisions.

Article 12 or Covenant Section 805 was intended as a “transitional” provision that permits local review of its retention or repeal after 25 years. This aspect was inserted to ensure that time is afforded our people to secure sophistication in the disposition of issues affecting their livelihood. I think we have reached that juncture in our developmental history.

If you recall, private land was fully owned up until 1978. In other words, we’ve had a long history of full landownership until Article 12 came into existence. Was there anything wrong with the long history of full landownership that dates back over five centuries? Or is the advocacy to retain this provision based on the hidden agenda (usually gift-wrapped in bigotry) to ensure that current leadership stays in power? How long must we be told how to dispose of our land?

Advocates of Article 12 use the phrase “protection of our children” as a mouthwash without any clear definition of the blind use of the word “protection”. This is because they can’t see it themselves but a darn good phrase to hide from critical scrutiny. Where’s the protection of our children’s rights when Article 12 denies landowners full ownership? Since when is private land owned on a halfway basis? Where’s the protection when this very provision becomes a displacement tool denying our children their rights to landownership? It is better to convey land to your children by ensuring that you own it 100 percent. Does it make sense at all?

It is the displacement effect on current and future landownership of Article 12 that I find most troubling. It instantly violates and infringes on the individual’s rights to property guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Too, logic dictates that if something is, it can’t be isn’t at the same time. In short, if a certain parcel of land is my land, it can’t be argued that it isn’t my land at the same time. These two issues are being confused and overlooked whenever we engage in lively discussion about Article 12.

You see, retaining this constitutional provision not only denies the original landowner his rights to full ownership, but even the rights of his children. An entire family and generations are denied their rights to landownership. It denies them the rights to full enjoyment of their property, i.e., using the equity of their land to build the first family home or a small family business or meet family needs. Unless the question of ownership is resolved, we’d be in limbo for generations to come, turning landless because we simply refuse to realistically address and resolve an anomaly that exists under Article 12.

If the future of your children matters to you, then let’s rally behind the idea of repealing Article 12 forthwith. It’s become a tool of alienation of the very people it’s supposed to protect in terms of full landownership. Only then would we be able to fully own what we claim as our private land. Si Yuus Maase` yan Ghilisow!