Scott Mayers

Hyperbole is a functional use of rhetoric to add emphasis to an argument. It is NOT a fallacy of argument unless that is all that is being used without any true substance. Since most people are more affected by emotions and preferentially ignore sincere logic, rhetorical devices become necessary. As to the topic, the argument against the Zionist's position is about the fact that the State of Israel acts in ways against a whole class of people -- the original Palestinian and particularly Muslim residents -- by ghettoizing them ("refugee camps"), using walls to both barricade and hide them from Israelis as well as preventing them from naturally being able to compete fairly to earn an economy, and bullying them using these capacities along with their extraordinary military powers (Israel as a Goliath against the Muslims). Many interpret the desperate acts of war/fighting of the Muslims as "terrorism" merely on the basis that they use methods that literally affect the general population of the dominant sides with overt disgust (suicide bombings, unpredictable random attacks, and the blood-and-gut appearances of such attacks, etc.). But what gets missed is how NEGLECT-type acts bear the vast majority of abuses and actually have far stronger impact, force, and harm against others that cause worse suffering than much of the direct overt forms of abuse. The Palestinian Muslims are virtually imprisoned by the Israelis (among others) and being purposely cornered and starved in an attempt to destroy them. So, to use the supposed "hyperbole" of comparison of Israeli to Nazis is even more fair and appropriate than the reverse. While the Holocaust was horrific, the act was identical in goals to the present Israelis against the PRESENT population of trapped Palestinian Muslims; But worse, the Nazis opted to use tactics that attempted to destroy their enemy in a way that was both obvious to their hatred (honest) as well as in ways that was direct and quick; In contrast, the PRESENT Israelis are acting in ways that attempt to both hide their hatred (dishonesty) as well as act in ways that cause the neglectful and more torturous suffering against their enemy. You cannot corner a starving dog and expect it not to both bite AND act with more unusual volition and apparent violence. This is what explains the acts of "terrorism" and actually justifies them. This does NOT mean that Muslims are any more fair moralistically under equal conditions. And while I might actually prefer the cultural aspects of the Jews over the Muslims, to the case of Israel, the Zionists here are being the more sincere "terrorists". They just have the support, position, and capacity to cleverly hide this with great effectiveness.

I'm late to follow all that's been written here but can anticipate much of what I've read and heard before is not new. I am male but grew up with a strong sense of a 'belief' in feminism from early on. This was mainly due to my understanding that women were oppressed while men dominated throughout time. I agree that all sexes should have an equality in fairness. But as I now see it, it appears that a shift towards an intolerance towards sex depends on your sex and our own selfish desires to control. Women actually seem to have an unusual overbalanced power today regardless of claims to the contrary. "In 2009, 58.3% of women, representing 8.1 million women, were employed." [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11387-eng.htm] We are also being lead to understand is that women are also getting less paid and this is somehow unfair. Yet while attention is give to particular wage amounts, what doesn't fairly get addressed is how women have unusual benefits that if placed in dollar amounts either equal out or actually disadvantage men in a more disproportionate way. When you go to a restaurant, how often will you see a male serve you as opposed to a female? And while the wages may be 'minimum', the tips most often take such wages to a much higher bracket. If you've been a male server, you'd also witness a strong negative difference in how you get tipped as opposed to females. Many jobs available out there favor both sexes but for those that are less physically involved, women get precedence. Nothing prevents strong physical women from taking on hard labor but are often not taken NOR accepted by women more than the presumption that men command this behavior. Women judge women with stereotypical hype far more than men on women or men on men. Women have absolute control on whether a relationship will occur or not with priority over any man. Women demand prerequisite requirements upon men based on a fundamental genetic factor that can't even be altered or improved no matter how much 'makeup' can be applied: that is, men must be tall, and have dark natural hair at least. Men are still culturally expected to be the bread-winner and even where women may 'opt' to work, the men in such relations are still expected to be employed. Men must be self-sufficient while no restrictions are placed on a women's self-supporting status. Overt male-only limited groups are frowned upon while female-only ones are boasted and normalized. (For instance, we have a group here for 'atheists' and another that is strictly for women only. Their icon is a cartoon girly girl with caption: "Little Miss Atheist". I'm not sure what such a group would discuss in difference to the regular groups but while I find the vast majority to be men in the regular group, I cannot find such need as no one except for those women who strictly oppose men in some significant way and/or feel that such a difference should matter contrary to equality.) Women are allowed to opt for abortion but the men involved are not! (Note that I don't refuse the right of a woman to abort here but that if some man didn't opt for such a child when the woman decides to keep them, how is it fair that these men should be assumed to be held accountable for them too?) ... I brought some of these up with some women-only supporter groups to which I was recommended that 'we' as men should also create our own such advocacy groups. Isn't this, however, what initiated the women to initially begin to fight for their rights in the first place. [i.e. men only parlors of the late 1800s as an example.] I don't believe in establishing any differential rights for men any more than I agree with women having such special privilege. The only differentiation should deal with sincere chemistry differences of which social ones seem to get more priority.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term for "hearsay" as it may legally only refer to the report of another report by someone else. To clarify, just because someone declares a charge or claim, it is not enough to assure it is true simply because they say so. Where is your head at to presume that these people are so assuredly sincere as to be somehow perfectly honest? Does no one ever lie in testimony? Does anyone ever misinterpret observations? No doubt you believe that if someone tells any incredible story, you ask yourself, "why would anyone lie about such a horror story?" But this happens all the time. And you should investigate how groups of individuals in the past have coincided with accusations [like the Salem witch trials] or more recent with the similar horrific accusations of child abuses in day-care centers where once the kids grew up, they revealed how they were lead into asserting false claims. And if you think me being unreasonable, how would you like it if someone simply accused you of something horrible regardless of its truth? Do you deserve to be aware of the charge [Miranda rights?] and have due process to a trial with the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty?" To me, you (and others of this opinion) are being severely criminal when you presume the guilt of others without charge as the penalties place the burden on us as a society to have to pay the penalties. Major question you should ask yourself: How can anyone deny or disprove the charges in this/these cases? We (as a society witnessing mere media reports) are not capable of even being privileged to deny nor disprove as we have no actual awareness of who has particularly done any abuses. And if these people assert abuse within some report, unless they name their accusers and the accused has their ability to be heard, this whole thing is a sham. Note too that any court decisions where they negotiate settlements tells me these are cases of being sued and are not a function of criminal courts. As such, unless anyone is convicted of crimes here, we as a society should not be convicted as 'we' have here.

Evidence, NOT hearsay testimonials. Perhaps you might try to think of the problem in a different way. If it is true that such a giant conspiracy existed by the government and these residential schools to such an extraordinary extreme as you believe this to have been, then you would have to agree that at least such conspiracies can be true of anyone, correct? Add to this how such a conspiracy was able to prevent not one person to be accused and convicted directly of a crime let alone all the 37, 999 other claims of extraordinary abuses, this conspiracy MUST BE VERY POWERFUL indeed! So, given you believe such an incredible conspiracy is both possible and has occurred among varied and many people of different competing religions and political bodies, then is it at least possible that you can imagine that the many people of one common set of objectives would and should have even more such potential, right? Do you not think it possible that the collective interests of the first nations people here are potentially more vulnerable to conspiratorial behavior here? Note too that the incentives to both the natives AND the politicians representing the established cultures of the churches involved are extremely high. Accepting of these claims as 'true' with the negotiated agreements to protect all perpetrators (including any potential perjurers on all sides), adds even more force to enable a more likely conspiracy since no individuals have to be held accountable. If there is no risk to you to report some abuse in which you are certain to benefit from, who would be stupid NOT to report such abuses even if it is made up? Politically, this benefits politicians if they are able to use the accounts to compensations as a means to excuse financial losses elsewhere. The scandals affecting all parties here dealing with financial mismanagement gives justice for why politicians would favor some scapegoat to excuse potential (and likely) misuse of money. To the established 'white' cultures of the catholic churches (Anglican & Roman) as well as to the impositions of our specifically two-official-languages, these groups benefit by keeping our attention away from their abuses.

I got the impression you personally heard the testimonies. But how is any testimony hold weight unless they are agreeing to one particular incident involving the exact same people, etc.? Claiming that these cases were all universally held in secret to protect people doesn't hold up as sufficient reason for the public to simply take BLIND FAITH in these claims. Nor should they. It's worse than Salem-witch-trial behaviors since the jury (the people) are NOT privileged to the evidences. Do you really think that you are being a fair person to presume it alright for us to transfer our faith into testimonials of various people with highly biased rationales to benefit in some ways or others? I demand the evidence. And I'm getting tired of our present Canadian momentum towards irrational appeals to emotional claims without fair justice. (The right of formal charges against accused, due processes, a trial prior to presuming guilt, etc.) You don't just think, "wow, that sounds horrible....therefore it is true that the accused is guilty and doesn't even deserve the fairness he/she didn't give to his/her victims." If these cases are closed to the public, we as a society should NOT have any onus to providing any compassion or compensation to it.

Accountability Now, On the MacLean's pictures there: Many South Asians have a certain intolerance to alcohol. I'm not sure what 'belief' the girl in the veil is representing, but if this was a Muslim of Osama Bin Laden's clan, is suicide by virtue of religious cause AND without depression count? On the (Jewish boy?), how is this NOT representative of non-religious too?

I'm guessing that you weren't being literal on listening to all 7000 people testify, Jacee. 38, 000 accounts? This is absurd to believe even possible. It's understandable that a few such people can maintain such abuses but to presume 38,000 AND not to mention the fact that not even one culprit is being named is too suspicious. This story should be world news! Even the Nazis were a relative minority and certainly the ones who did the killings. Note that even within the Germans doing such acts, many disapproved of it to the point as it affected them so much to have given rise to the Nazis to try to find easier ways to kill without as many people. My point is that while we may all have evil tendencies, it is absurd to presume such a conspiracy as these natives are claiming without at least a body for evidence other than hearsay testimonials (without even a trial of the accused too!)

"We didn't fight any wars against Indigenous People"; "We made peace treaties with them." Prior to Canada actually existing as a formal country, 'we', including those 13 colonies that eventually would form the U.S. did so 'war' against the North American natives. When the States formed, our (not quite Canada yet) survival depended DESPERATELY on any groups that would collectively conspire to hold back American's attempt to take over the whole continent. As such, certain Natives, British loyalists, and the abandoned Quebec French [France supported American independence and NOT favorable towards Catholics in their period of enlightenment] only agreed to work together out of desperation. WE (all of these original Canadian peoples) were those loyalists to dictatorial Kings and/or Gods and/or a collection of remnant desperadoes fighting against the progress of the concepts of 'freedom' and the other enlightenment ideals of intellectual and the democratic concepts of the newly formed United States. North American natives and European immigrant cultures could NOT coexist. You seem not to recognize this and should try to place yourself within the times and places to understand that none of the people back then were any more 'fair' in comparison to our present understanding of respect towards each other. No one today, including modern Natives, would accept our ancestors moral conduct. But since we progressed to being more civil (That is, less caveman mentality), even modern Natives would be against their own ancestors with equal force intellectually than the 'European' immigrants of the past. It is NOT simply about some feigned "cultural" differences. And...we don't make "peace treaties" unless we were seeking 'peace' out of some prior conflict(s) (war!) "We..." "We..." I am not a part of this "we" as I don't own my ancestor's faults (NOR gains) even if "WE" all have benefited AND suffered the consequences of their acts. I also see ALL ancestors as belonging to all of us regardless of genetic relations. Note that I, just as many other, was adopted from birth and so where does that place us? We don't 'own' our genetic parent's culture but rather the families that raise us and/or the culture of our present environments. To me, I and most others are being culturally murdered when we are dictated that inherent rights belong only to those groups that have ethnic cultures/religions based on historical precedence. Asserting that we purposely attacked the Native culture is simply your own religious/cultural belief. I say, "religious/cultural" because while you seem to think it necessary to accept ALL cultures, I have no doubt that you'd likely NOT accept ALL cultures. It is NOT possible to have all cultures coincide and be tolerant of each other because the nature of them necessarily require differentiating between groups of people based on social constructs that come from struggles that always involve an us-and-them(s). "All Canadians benefit..." You can always pick some arbitrary origin in which some such group or people reigned prior to another. However, this says nothing nor means anything. If you are the first to 'arrive' on some island, and then 100 other people from some ship wreck later land there too, do you have some intrinsic God-like right to claim control (ownership) of the people, the space, and the resources? "Ownership" is only a force by the management of the people who manage to take such control to manage ORIGINALLY by force. Even if some ancestor of humanity was at some place 'first', how does that assure they have any more right to dictate how others in some far future agree to behave?

You're saying that if the British didn't war on Turkey (Lawrence of Arabia related?), the Jews would have still succeeded in taking over Palestine? That if it wasn't for Nazi Germany and the world 'feeling sorry' for a people victimized they didn't personally want to accept as immigrants but would look away as Zionists walk into Palestine to take over? Like I said, I think it is about hypocritical actions that I'm concerned about here. How can others sympathize with a people who insist on reminding us of the horrors of the Holocaust and then turn around and behave in a similar and worse manner towards the Palestinians? P.S. Does anybody other than myself recognize that the original 'promised land' was NOT Palestine, but rather Egypt?

No "permission"? It's existence was based significantly on both direct and indirect supports of other countries in an unusually extreme way. The British irresponsibly handed off their occupation in Palestine to Jews in a synchronous discriminatory way against those already settled there. And if you think the Israelis should NOT be apologetic for their thefts and other crimes in the name of 'war', then why in hell should anyone disagreeing? So we should simply be ignoring the disputes in the Middle East without prejudice. That is, you can't assert Israel as being just in stealing the land as an act of 'war' but dismiss the Muslims as "terrorists" should they do what it takes to take back what was more recently theirs. I already disagree with my own country to be acting in certain ways. But your concern about my country in comparison is just a diversion (Tu quoque fallacy in classic rhetoric). What intrinsic 'right' does Israel have over other people to be allowed to barricade a subgroup of humans with walls, bulldoze and build over occupied homes, and arrogantly built whole communities on disputed territories? I'm the nihilist here. So please tell me why you believe Israel's existence is fair in light of your own sense of morals?

RE: jacee and Accountability Now discussion: I would have to question whether force (of culture or against it) is essentially a bad thing in certain times and places. The way the language is worded, we speak today of how the European-Canadians set up a plan to simply destroy the Native culture(s). However, the "European" culture had more time to evolve in a way that made the differences between the cultures impossible to coexist. Imagine, if you will, a day when while you are setting in for the evening at home watching a movie when a stranger or two walks in your door non-nonchalant, sits down right beside you, and begins to help themselves to your popcorn. This is the type of extreme cultural difference that existed between North American natives and the Old-world immigrants of Europe.

I'm an "equal opportunity" cynic and skeptic against anyone, including myself. Once you get to know me you'll see what I mean. But as to this topic, Israel represents a severely unfair country and should never have been granted 'existence' in our day. While I am non-religious and quite nihilistic, I could overlook this in the sense that I don't believe in any actual moral right (or wrong) to nature. But I find hypocrisy of those who DO claim moral uprighteousness as rational causes of their acts necessary to be questioned if the goal of finding prosperity for all or most is at issue. Israel is the major cause of Middle Eastern (and world) conflict. Whether you doubt this or not, this IS the impression of the Muslims of the Middle East and the more universal perception of this (true or not) is sufficient enough to justify their acts of war. I assure you that if they (Muslims) had the military and financial powers of the Israelis, they wouldn't opt for the extreme acts we refer to as "terrorism". Personally, the way Israel acts is a form of slow torture as they trap and starve the Palestinians.

You are missing my point(s). Israel's population is 8.3 million. Canada's is 35 million. The U.S. is 325 million. Diversity in Israel? 76% are Jews and 21% Arab [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel] which doesn't leave much for the 'others': 3%. Just to explain myself a bit here: I believe that a 'fair' government is one that perceives the individual as the ultimate minority as well as the whole. It is also necessary to grant special privileges in law to certain 'groups'. But such groups should be defined in logical terms and similarly fit appropriately with its subject matter. Unfortunately, culture, religion, ethnicity, and race gets adapted as the lead classification heading while logical classes like "poverty", get classed as belonging to one of these other headings. For instance, our government(s) perceive the class, "poverty" as a symptom of discrimination against some "culture/ethnicity" since some given culture/ethnicity often has a plurality (sub-majority within the class of "poverty") as owning an unusually high burden of poverty. However, when we make laws that act to end poverty, the focus gets placed on the nature of the culture, ethnicity, or race. The laws tend to 'balance' out the economies of populations of segregate groups as if this is more significant than attending to the real problem: poverty of ALL people. And the laws that get created in culturally favored governments is to grant these groups privileges that, though can sincerely aid in balancing the economies between such accepted groups [short-term], they actually foster this through enhancing pride and segregation of people in a way that makes them more discriminatory later on [long-term]. I feel this way about ALL cultural, ethnic, and religious groups since they heighten the significance of nationalism and 'pure'-breed love and by such favoritism neglects and disfavors mixed-breed people (those of us who have NO particular ancestral roots). I apologize for using breed here but see this division of high significance in most world conflicts. This is one of the major reasons I disagree with Israel. It represents one of the extremes of cultural cohesiveness that favors their cult (Jews) over all other people. And an extreme love for one's own requires differentiating themselves from those they do NOT like and some with extreme hate. I don't agree to the begged claim that Judaism is NOT a race. At least, while it may NOT be intended, they don't normally evangelize outside their community as the Christians do and so they naturally tend to still have favored those most genetically familiar. As such, while it may merely be an accident of association, many Jews throughout time act as both a culture and a race. This is no different than our classification of "First Nations" people here in Canada. They are NOT one race. Yet they are still mostly of the gene pools that derive from those who crossed over the land bridge and first discovered the New World. Israel [not Jews] to me is as severe as Hitler's nationalist regime. In fact, while Hitler may have acted in hate, his motives and philosophy were more likely derived from the very distinctness and culturally closed community of the Diaspora Jews. Seeing the advantages, he borrowed many of these from such a culture because the strength that the Jews (at least appeared) to have. Also, while many attempt to downplay the nature of dominance that the Jews have as a 'group' in this world, they do have such higher "apparent" plurality of those who DO succeed in most economic areas over other groups. They may NOT be a 'race' but this excuse is just a smoke-screen that attempts to hide the power and nature of cultural family cohesion and is a deliberate attempt to divert our attention away from abuses of those like present Israel. All (even most, likely) Jews are NOT Israeli nor do I believe that even within Israel all Israelis believe in their government actions. But for those who are sincere Israelis of the coinciding beliefs against the Muslim Palestinians the are abusing, these particular people DO believe in a more strict genetic relation between members. Note, I hate picking on Israel or Aboriginals, etc. But I feel that there is a larger plurality of humans out here that don't 'fit' in with any cult, ethnicity, pure race, etc, and WE are being abused by the nature of cultural established groups imposing an acceptance of segregation and an acceptance of ignoring those outside. And I also believe the people as individuals within these plural groups are as equal and significant. I'm against the culture (imposed) just as this was a major concern with our Natives in Truth and Reconciliation against the schools.

I see you're being protective of Israel. Israel may have evolved with some of these industries since their inception. However, unlike any other country, it is purposefully non-diverse with respect to race or ethnicity of a Jewish identity and functions to foster this nationality using highly discriminatory practices against others. Your claim that foreign ownership is on par with Canada is a joke. Our country's economy is completely mineral/agricultural-resource based; Israel has no (or trivial) such industry. While no doubt in this day manufacturing is at least being privileged to Israel (unlike Canada as we are being repressed from doing this) their major income has always come from a world collective of the Diaspora just as the Roman Catholic Church. Here the significant difference is that while the Christian Churches allow open entry to anyone, while the State of Israel acts with a preference for genetic (Semitic) connections which makes it race-biased. I haven't heard much about that BDS movement but according to something I saw on the news our Conservative government wants to criminalize anyone even siding with a boycott against Israel; (and we are a 'free' country?) Those supporting such a movement are considered "terrorists" by our government. How is it that one special racial/ethnic group so over-protected?

It's not the 'diversity' I am referring to. And this is seriously begging even by that wiki entry. "Technological advancement" isn't something unique to a given people as it can be earned anywhere given the luxury to invest in. I was asking of what their physical resources are, what "native" (home industry, not simply ownership internationally) manufacturing, tertiary services (communications/transport), etc. I ask in my own rhetorical way here because I see the State of Israel as merely functioning as a base of its own racist and discriminatory policies and IS the impetus of continued world-related problems. [i am hoping that the Israeli children grow up to rebel against this in time but at present, the old stereotype guards are running things.] And they ARE the (significant) cause of all Middle-Eastern conflict. I wouldn't completely blame the U.S., however, for their support or non-supports (for those that do not) of Israel as these are about politics external to what people feel they can control. While it might be undesirable to favor or penalize other nations, it is necessary to deal with particular issues at hand separately and distinctly since they are not privilege to their people's rights or governments in practice.

I am not completely read into Communism but, unless I misinterpreted some of their explanations in their works, the idea of their "democracy" begins in interest and work groups (unions). These unions are devised such that the workers within them nominate then elect their work 'leaders'. It is like hiring your boss from among your peers. Then, these elected officials act as representatives of that group in a higher-order class and such groups of group interests nominate another person(s) to represent that larger common interest. This is done all the way up to the formal law making politicians who then create the laws. This idea seems to be way more "democratic" and intellectually run (since the 'leaders' represent professors of a particular area). Now I could have misinterpreted what I've read and likely adding my own subconscious ideals, but I believe this is what and how the Communistic ideal was intended. Can anyone else here confirm or deny this? Either way, what is/was/maybe the problems in this type of "democracy"?

I think that the definitions of words are important to at least assure that people are on the right page prior to any attempt to resolve anything. (I was partially responding to Michael above who, among many, may believe that we need to move on to seeking better resolution in practice. Only once everyone agrees to the same understanding of each other's meanings can you begin to communicate things with better effect (and affect). As to potential solutions, I agree that certain compensations should be made to repair imbalances. But I think they should be based on logical and functional grounds external to culture. It is inappropriate to address the logical/functional concept of poverty by addressing the race(s) or minority racial groups that hold the majority plurality of that class. Treating real problems by addressing them through ethnicity is a dishonest attempt by the dominating established cultures to preserve their own status by granting (by their present political clout) relief to other particular groups that they believe they can appeal to conspiring to agree to segregate. The Catholic and French, for example, desire to keep their legal status in law that allows funds that would normally go to non-biased secular public institutes to be redirected to them. This is literally favoring religions by law (against the American concept in their first Amendment) and would be considered criminal by most enlightened people. But the only way that this could be continued to be supported by a growing population is if these established groups conspire to share such benefits in an equally prejudiced and discriminatory way. As such, they created the concept of "Multi-culturalism" and paint it into a false but convincing appeal to a love for the diversity. But diversity doesn't persist if people are allowed to segregate (with formal government support) in closed communities that are often more against the common cultures in a more intolerant way than the average secular individual. This is what we NEED to address to make proper reparations to our system.

What does Israel have for an economy? I ask this since it is one of the world's most powerful country's and yet they appear to have no mineral resources, no manufacturing, nor a sufficiently reasonable place for tourism (due to the ever-constant state of fear and war.) I am reasonably guessing that the State of Israel is merely a platform for what some subset of Jews believes is their supremacy to a God. But there are many Jews who do NOT favor this religious and pious mentality. Also, it is clear that the Christian world supports it in an odd temporary 'friendship' to assure their prophesy of the end comes true. As such, this 'State' appears merely as a type of conspiratorial collaboration of mixed interests. Is this ALL that Israel's economy is based on or do they have something else to support them realistically?

Well, I consider myself, "atheist". But I know that the majority of people in certain crowds presume the meaning, "someone who denies the existence of God" to which doesn't match my personal meaning. As such, while it is NOT fair, I have the onus in such a crowd to restate my definition in a way that communicates what I mean if I continue to choose using that word. (one who asserts a lack of belief in a God or gods...) So when any media (including the Internet) uses a term, if its intended audience is general, the words it uses is intended also to speak to the minds of those listening.

If these are literal, it begs the question: Do we NOT ALL have these rights or is this something that these people deserve apart from the rest of us? If so, this reinstates "apartheid" as a legitimate function.

When using terms that the mass public adapts, you have to reduce it to the most common understanding in use. As such, "genocide" is a term understood to both define mass murder and the emotive associations of those involved from historical references in the conscious mind of the public at large. To add the conjecture that culture itself can be murdered is very poetic (using the term, "cultural genocide" )and descriptive to arouse the emotions tied to the speaker using it is NOT simply a phrase meaning, "doing acts that impose others to alter or adapt to the contemporary culture"; "Cultural genocide" is intended to imply the meaning, "acting purposefully with hateful intent to destroy the traditions and cultures of some people who are disliked on the basis of such culture to the degree of mass murder." Can you not see how the rhetoric of the phrasal word creates a claim of actual hatred and intent to do harm? As such, using it assures us that the one using it believes that hatred and harm were intended. But then the onus should be up to such people to prove this. Do you Jacee have proof of even ONE crime and further justice (charge AND conviction) of a particular person or persons who acted this way? Of course, this wouldn't simply be enough since the accusation is upon the WHOLE of the Residential School system. Thus, you'd also have to follow this up to demonstrate that such abuses was the norm in the same legal manners AND show how this is UNIQUE (that, for instance, it isn't simply about the fault of "boarding school" abuses that can be found in other similar places.)

You can't dictate the definitions as being understood by the people using them. The legal or formal definitions are used to make particular laws and is necessary. As to this political controversy, here we are discussing the meaning(s) and intents of the words being used and so is alright to question the various meanings whether formal or not. The term "genocide" to most people regardless of any new or specialized legal definition MEANS at least: an attempt to annihilate the gene pool of a particular group of people and understood as a pejorative term referencing mass murder. Asserting any phrasal term using "genocide" is innuendo because it is purposely intended to associate the listener to presume crimes of the nature of mass murder involving at least one group of people who are hating and criminal perpetrators while the other as perfect victims. So "cultural genecide" is a term intended to make us think of this connection and is therefore an unfair term. A more 'fair' and neutral word might be, "cultural imposition". Personally, I don't see a crime for natural evolutionary cultural changes. In some cases, even imposing some is normal. As humans we do this to ensure cohesion of common interests and what we use to determine our right to encourage others to adapt our ways and be more communal. It might be nice for us to revive old languages and cultures for us to understand history. But to command that we assure certain people a 'right' to conserve, preserve, or revive ancient traditions and cultures is MORE unfair as it does two things: (1) It asserts an 'ownership' of a cult, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc, to specific people based on nothing more than genetic inheritance of most recent eras (I have to say this because in actuality, unless some want to propose us as different species, all humans are ancestors...and... I don't see too many fighting for returning rights to Africa!) (2) It biases those not belonging to such special recognized groups in law to the neglects living in a society that opts to allow others to suffer without the same benefits of the privileged groups without a choice. I can't "choose" to be of some culture genetically determined. Example, although I have successfully quit smoking, I smoked my whole life and have had to pay the extortionate taxes even though I share the similar background to many native families within my community. Namely, I've mostly been in poverty with all the similar family troubles involved in things like drugs and other abuses. Yet my native comrades don't have to pay taxes on tobacco products on the basis of some ancestral right to smoking. (...because their great grand parents smoked...) My Euro- ancestors drank alcohol likely for even longer than even the aboriginal discovery of the Americas. Yet do we have a right to alcohol without taxes based on this even stronger cultural factor of Europeans?

If this is worthy of investment, you'd think that there would at LEAST be one such case that the media would have already been able to present of an illegitimate action or crime other than innuendos. You don't need to read the Bible in order to determine whether it is written by a God or not, contrary to some who'd like to think otherwise. Likewise, we are not given (or privileged) to have a media report that justifies further reading. (I probably will be investing the time to read it but do NOT represent the average person who wouldn't and yet pass strong judgment in sincere ignorance.)

It is so in question as I and others are doing so here. To declare we use such a clear rhetorically biased term begs the question of its justice in a neutral way. Governments cannot nor should speak using language loaded with emotional indication of preferential biases if one does not want to set a permanent precedence. By accepting such derogatory terms and the claims they imply, it fixates our view to some set of beliefs based solely on emotions and NOT the facts, if there even is any. You who command this group-speak IS bullying as you assert us as naturally already believing in the faults of the Residential Schools when WE as a pubic are NOT even privileged to see ANY evidence of the multitude of supposed abuses being claimed. Note that if such judgments are done in closed doors no matter who or why it is being used to 'protect' victims, etc, it is still UNPROVEN to the rest of us and should NOT be used to accept such authorities rights to declare official 'truths' on the matter. What does, "6 thousand children died in Residential Schools," mean? By simply claiming this, as an example of such crap rhetoric, is clear innuendo that actually communicates: "6 thousand children were murdered by scrupulous means through hatred and genocidal intents." This has NOT been proven. The truth is that this whole thing is a smoke-screen to hide those actually culpable (where true) and for others to take advantage of any benefits that can be endured by continuing in this. Governments siding with this can easily use such debts (reconciliation expenses) to hide (launder) or excuse moneys being used inappropriately later on and is why most parties would accept it regardless of any untrue claims; The particular natives who went to these schools (even without ANY abuses) can use this to receive financial claims. When the incentives to gain on these political claims against moral conduct of the past without adequate evidence benefit many groups both in government and in the public, this sets and even worse precedence than addressing any supposed injustice it is meant to relieve.

Right from the start, I disagree as I see all humans on Earth as "Indigenous". Do I have a 'right' to go to my (multiple) ancestral countries and make claims upon the nature of my inheritance there based on whether I had an ancestor who was there 'first'? North American 'aboriginals' are less aboriginal than the animals evolved to the land. Should we NOT respect the wild aboriginal animals first. And since I have no real inheritance and no genetic relation to the 'first' people who got here, what does that make me born to this same Earth. Claims of a right to original peoples is in itself a religious belief when we reference claims of ancestry long dead. I don't OWN my great-great-great grandparent's beliefs, claims, or dictates upon future unborn children who must automatically accept perpetuities unnegotiated by them. And for those who question this rationale, if your belief in inheriting things should be held up for benefits, then this should hold true about debts. That is, I question if you believe that if you should be allowed to inherit your parent's fortunes, should you also not accept their misfortunes regardless of your direct responsibility?