Second-class Canadian

Another solution I could see is to simply abrogate the language requirements of the Packaging and Labelling Act. You don't label it in my language, I won't buy your product, simple as that. I think the Chief's real intent was to say that what the law applies to one, it must apply to all. There could be many ways of conforming to that principle.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ( a ) Killing members of the group; ( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; ( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; ( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Every one of these points applies to the residential school system, each to varying degrees.

If the details were well worked out, that proposal seems reasonable.

There were at least 2000 confirmed and it's believed it might have been closer to 3000. And that just deals with ( a) above. Then there are all the other actions that were taken.

There were at least 2000 confirmed and it's believed it might have been closer to 3000. And that just deals with ( a) above. Then there are all the other actions that were taken.

While official bilingualism blocks them to access to the jobs they need to pay those taxes?

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ( a ) Killing members of the group; ( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; ( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; ( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." The label fits.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/aboriginal/cultural-genocide-label-for-residential-schools-has-no-legal-implications-expert-says-1.3110826

I read it as being parallel to holocaust denial. On the matter of cultural genocide, that does not exist on international law sinse the Canadian and other governments had rejected it. On the plus side though, genocide itself was worded broadly enough that it could be called genocide. But to not hurt the feelings of proud Euro-Canadians too much, we call it cultural genocide.

No I can't so you might want to put me on ignore for your own safety.

As far as I'm concerned, second language instruction ought to be compulsory, but it should leave it up to the school to decide what second language to teach and to the student to choose the one in which he wants to be tested. In faxt, ideally Canada's official language would be a common second language, thus making all Canadians bilingual.

“In order to educate the children properly we must separate them from their families. Some people may say that this is hard but if we want to civilize them we must do that.”Hector Langevin, Minister of Public Works under John A. MacDonald Yes, other linguistic communities suffered too, bUT nothing compared to those who went to residential schools.

"Recommendations made in this report followed the examinations of hundreds of children; but owing to the active opposition of Mr. D.C. Scott, and his advice to the then Deputy Minister, no action was taken by the Department to give effect to the recommendations made." Dr. P.H. Bryce, A National Crime, 1920

Some did not return in the summer month, being kept to work on the school farm instead to produce food for the following year.

Only because of a lack of funding. And even those in day school suffered active suppression of their languages too.

Actually there is no international legal definition of cultural genocide because Canada among other countries had opposed its inclusion. That said, the definition of genie was worded broadly enough to arguably be able to accommodate cultural genocide. Going by the proposed definition of the time though, it was a deliberate act of cultural genocide.

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habituating so closely in the residential schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards a final solution of our Indian Problem." Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian Affairs

"When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men." John A. MacDonald

“In order to educate the children properly we must separate them from their families. Some people may say that this is hard but if we want to civilize them we must do that.” Hector Langevin, Minister of Public Works under John A. MacDonald

So an official government policy of separating children from their families to put them in residential schoold in which they are prohibited by force to speak their languages does not amount to cultural genocide?

So I'm hired by foreign entities to post here?

As for voluntary assimilation, it can be a good thing, but not always. In our ever shrinking world, integration is usually preferable to assimilation so as to allow Canadians to maintain business and other beneficial ties abroad.

The fact that many Canadians agree is irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy. I don't subscribe to the democratization of knowledge. I believe that it was an act of genocide based on the facts of the matter and not because most Canadians agree with me.

Even if they had list, your point would be moot. A human right is universal and should not be conferred only on victors.That said we also need to distinguish between rights and privileges.

I don't use the term genocide for emotional effect, but to call something what it is. Eating apples is healthy, but its being healthy does not make sticking a tube down someone's throat to force him to eat apple puree desirable. And that's not even a good example since we can legitimately question the value of assimilation itself.