CdnFox

IF we're being honest - the problem is that the gov't DIDN"T help the native kids with schools, they subbed it out to the churches and then washed their hands of it. They didn't inspect or follow up to make sure everything was good or the like. And that really was an error. They should have at least had min standards and made sure they were met and inspected for abuses. Most of the res schools were decent enough i think - but there are a few where its clear there are horror stories. And a report was given to Laurier (liberal) showing that there WERE concerns and that bad things were happening in some places and that was ignored. So - while obviously it was not the intent of the gov't for bad things to happen they shirked their duty of care to make sure the kids were being looked after and just signed the cheques. And of COURSE predators are going to infiltrate the church, there's a prosperous hunting ground there for a scumbag who can fake his belief and then be turned loose amongst the sheep. We should have done more. But that's not the same as 'we committed the crimes'.

I can't think of an example of any off the top of my head. I can think of maybe a few who've later admitted that things that happened a long time ago were bad but i can't think of any that were held liable. I feel like that would be like jews suing spain for the inquisition.

Mistakes happen. But i doubt that it ever will be offically ruled as a genocide. It doesn't match the definition unless you twist it out of shape entirely and it cheapens the term. That's why you see it watered down often with things like "cultural" genocide, which is just silly. The problem for the gov't is that an actual ruling on genocide would have serious consequences - none the least of which would be with the chinese. Can't call what happened with the first nations a genocide and NOT call what's happening with the uyhgurs there genocide. The fact is if they'd actually wanted a genocide that would have been very easy. That's npt what they wanted. Obviously. It was an attampt at assimilation. We can talk about how smart an idea assimilation is, or other things that could have been done maybe, but that's what it was. No genocide.

Where did the supreme court rule that? I'll wait...

Not only is there no proof- there is ample proof that it never happened. THe goal of the gov't was to integrate and assimilate first nations into the new nation being born. That is not genocide. The children died at res schools because of illness - especially tuberculosis which affects first nations more and killed people on the reserves just as much. To this very day first nations catch tuberculosis at something like 40 times the rate of everyone else. That accounted for something like 80 - 90 percent of the dead children Of the remainder the majority died of spanish flu. Of the small remainder of deaths after that a number were to other illness A tiny tiny number died of injury or misadventure. IS it possible some of those were abused or killed? Maybe - but there's no evidence so far. So no genocide.

I was literally just posting about that in another thread. And i really can't find a lot of gay sources saying "Maybe we shouldn't do that kind of thing" with regards to this or the pride parade sex content, etc etc. In fact i did find a bunch that say it's good for kids to be exposed to kink and homosexual sex at a very early age.

Family event at a toronto museum https://twitter.com/elie_mcn/status/1664396851313881094?cxt=HHwWjMC9_cWHkJkuAAAA A man shows children his penis & denounces "white privilege" as part of a performance at the Quebec City Museum of Civilization's new "Love me gender" LGBTQIA2S+ exhibit. "Because a black trans woman proceeded my route, I can emancipate myself tonight at the museum." So basically he's in cling wrap and they cut it and his underwear off and stands naked talking about how great it is to be gay to children. Sorry - but i'm having a very hard time finding ANY gay source references saying that this or things like this are questionable for children. So when someone claims 'not all gays' - it's hard to corroborate that. It kinda seems like all gays.

I was more thinking of converting the areas into individual stalls rather than a communal space. More wasteful but safer for everyone and no gender issues. It's a little wasteful and inefficient but - we are where we are.

Or the irish. Hell - if we could find a black irish woman we'd basically have to turn the country over.

Nobody was forced out of their lands. Some land was set aside not to be messed with so they'd always be able to live in their traditional way. But they were free to live wherever they wanted. Not a lot of buffalo hunting to be done in downtown toronto tho, so living away from the land reserved for their use elusively meant living differently. And no that wouldn't have been possible. Development of the land meant things were going to change.

They target whatever group they feel is most afraid or the most angry. Fear and anger have been selling snake oil for shysters for 2000 years now. And basically the left wing these days is like if the shysters and the mafia had a love child and it's demanding you use it's preferred pronoun.

Even if the school just keeps quiet. They'll be targeted because they're not being 'inclusionary' enough.

At the end of the day, this is one of the insurmountable problems. A physical male is going to 'outgun' a physical female 9.5 times out of 10. So a woman with a trans woman in their bathroom has little physical chance if that person becomes violent. Same is true of sports. I'm all for making serious efforts and spending money to convert to 'gender neutral' bathrooms instead of boys and girls but until that happens i think we have to keep biomales out of girls bathrooms.

Are you kidding? The slaves in the second picture have it WAY worse. I mean they didn't even have color or anything.

It could not be argued thusly. Our system is a confrontation based system with one party forming gov't. While opposition parties can present bills if they like they are under no obligation whatsoever to propose 'better' solutions. That is NOT their job. Their job is to put the solutions proposed by the gov't to the 'acid test' and be critical - which in theory allowes the gov't to detect weaknesses in their policy and bills and improve them before they are law. If people don't like the gov't solutions then they are free to pick a different gov't. No - the first pension act was under mckenzie king - liberal and the cbc was also king in '36. However if you want to look at history of ideas how about supply managment. The conservatives proposed it, and ran on it and trudeau (the first) trashed it up and down and made it sound horrible and people voted against it and trudeau won the election. 6 months later he brought in supply management this is why you don't give your plan away early. Yeah. Too bad. Yeah. It's what political parties are there to do. That's how the system works. The voters don't reward parties for giving up ideas early for the opposition to use. Would you do something at your work that would get you fired even if it helped the company? Probably not - you'd probably rather keep your job. If the company wants to you to do things differently then they should promote you for that behavior.

But that is not your agenda. Do we have a national straight month where we celebrate the glory of being hetero? You're part of the problem.

Sure - but we don't put it in our parades. Well i'm not religious but i'm going to go with yes anyway I feel the need to lock him up and throw away the key. If we stand idly by and watch them happen we're complicit. Including those marching in the parade? I beg to differ and good luck with defending your position there

They have won however by pointing out that what is being called a 'crime' is in fact common practice. And that is a perfectly good defense. The fact that slavery was common, legal and part of normal accepted behavior strongly argues that they did nothing wrong. In other words it's the 'if every body did it then we can't consider it 'bad' given the times" defense and it works. Sorry - you really kind of suck at these 'legal defense' examples.

you misspelled 'longingly'

Nobody with half a brain gives away any of their policy other than the very big picture 10,000 ft view before the election. Look at even what he has released. The other day in parliament justin says a whole bunch of things they need to do to improve housing - pressure municipalities to improve density, etc and then says too bad Pollievre doesn't have any ideas - and PP points out the fact he's said those things WORD FOR WORD over the last 18 months numerous times. Turns out trudeau's people screwed up and thought this was a new policy idea instead of an old one and Justin was trying to steal it to rob PP of a talking point. And that's what the liberals do and have done forever. If they think a policy is popular they steal it, if they don't they spend the next 10 months smearing it. BTW - if you had bought bit coin when PP was talking about it - you'd have made good money. it went back up. That's why the libs don't like talking about it anymore

Oh for sure - back then i could have split your head open with an axe (or in your case a butter knife), crapped in your skull and used your skin to make a blanket for my dog and sold your family into slavery and nobody would have said a thing. Nowadays if i did that i'd have to sit through the judges lecture... "Look, i totally get where you were coming from and considering his stupidity i think everyone agrees with it in concept but.. "

You don't get it. It doesn't matter where you did. You will. And you will again and again and again without trying to without solicitation etc etc. Simple fact. And it's a simple fact many people are sick of it. You personally may not be but a lot of people are. And seeing this came up with dylan - i'll offer bud lite as my proof. You can argue till you're blue in the face but there's two things that are absolute fact - whether you want to or not you're being exposed to the issue all the time and so is the public, and a lot of people are demonstrably fed up with it.

Walt Disney would like to have a word with you.

We did stop. We're a constitutional democracy. The king has no power or authority here in reality. Well fair enough but there are some serious problems in practical terms these days I'm pretty sure justin THINKS he's king if that helps.

You couldn't even get away for the weekend And at the end of the day you hear about it. Maybe for you it's on the social media you prefer, maybe for someone else its a combination of social media and newspapers or schools or whatever. But at the end of the day, one way or another it happens. So 'where' it happens is irrelevant. And people are getting fed up.