Jump to content

Peter F

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter F

  1. I certainly hope so. About time too.
  2. So simple! By the power of M-103, I do hereby and forthwith say Islamophobe! and point my finger.
  3. But you don't destroy the world even when you hear music that makes you feel like it. Whats holding you back? Couldn't possibly be your mind, could it? The very thing that is controlled by music?
  4. is it instrumental or does it have lyrics? If it has lyrics are they used to undermine Western Sensibilities? Or are they of the approved type?
  5. My mind was controlled by Barry Manilow, Abba, Supertramp, Pink Floyd and Gordon Lightfoot. All at the same time!

      Gabriel Feraud : I knew a man who was stabbed to death by a woman; gave him the surprise of his life. 

      Laura : I once knew a woman who was beaten to death by a man. I don't think it surprised *her* at all.

      From 'the Duellists' (1977)

    1. bcsapper


      I looked that up.  Ridley Scott's first movie, no less.  I'm going to find it and watch it.  Thanks.

  6. How about concerned citizens getting themselves organized and running a preferred candidate for parliament? Too much effort, and besides , then it would be necessary to somehow convince others that the preferred candidate is not a one-issue candidate but would address their concerns too. Sort of a being accountable to the electorate kinda thing. This Geomocracy idea is a fantasy of the lazy who want influence but have no desire to lift a finger in the process.
  7. Very little as I recall. Southern states uses slaves so slavery is legal there. Northern states don't allow slavery. Eventually this issue comes to a head and the Southern states cecede for fear that the more numerous northerners will force and end to southern ways. Not a hell of a lot but it does lead to the next section of history on what the Northern victory means for Canada . That bit takes many more classes to cover.
  8. Fool. You live in a house full of rats. You have had rats for years. You have lost your mind because now you see a rat that has a white spot on its nose and think if you get rid of that rat then all will be well.
  9. What is a 100% imported problem? Folks opening fire on crowds in Vegas or folks driving vehicles into crowds in New York? But Khadr is Canadian albeit perhaps not home-grown considering the time he spent here compared to the time he spent away prior to incarceration . But then thats a terrible measuring stick since there are vast numbers of non-homegrown Canadians living quite peaceful and law-abiding lives in this country. yet, many extremely violent folks, like the entirely assimilating long established American in Vegas, was a radical. Again, your assimilation solution appears to solve nothing. Terminating immigrants solves nothing. And why this desire to expel? Are not court-rooms and prisons better? Besides, many folks associate with radicals without a clue that they are doing so. See all the neighbours and co-workers and family members who say things like 'This is a complete shock' and 'he seemed like a nice quiet guy' etc etc. I think your desire to solve vicious murders by refusing anyone to live here is daft.
  10. How's about not sending Canadian government flunkies off to partake in clearly illegal (in Canada) activities. Or, How's about our security agencies getting their shit together and facts straight afore feeding such crap to foreign powers . Or, How's about having our government agencies not lie and bullshit and cover-up their involvement whenever they do the crap listed above. I think that would be a rational policy.
  11. and again no knowledge of the cases approved or rejected. You have a gut feeling, a suspicion, but no facts.
  12. ...and ~30%, according to the article, have been rejected. I assume because they didn't meet the definition of refugees. So, Argus, if the IRB accepts refugee's because they don't meet the definition of a refugee and reject refugee's because they don't meet the definition of a refugee, what is one to think? Well I think we have this obvious contradiction because you have assumed, without a shred of evidence, that those accepted by the IRB don't meet the definition of a refugee. You did not sit on the board and hear the cases. You have nothing at all to base your assumption on. Nada. On the other hand, If the IRB heard the cases - as the article linked claims - and based on the evidence before them accepted 70% of the claims and rejected 30% of the claims then that results in no conundrum at all. This seems entirely sensible. The article points out that the government claims this is a rational result considering that the IRB backlog is huge so they would naturally deal with expediting some obvious claims while letting the dubious (on the face of it) claims wait. So, again, the IRB heard some claims, considered 70% to be legit and 30% not good enough dammit. Whats your claim? These so-called refugee's don't meet the definition of refugee's. How so? They're Haitians! I believe the IRB knows a hellofalot more about the claims that were accepted than you do by a mile.
  13. And, the law here is banning face-coverings not burka's. Once cans still wander around with the machete's and bombs and AK-47's under the burka.
  14. I agree with that. It is fundamentally abusive regardless of intent. But the court wasn't asked to address the intent only the results. '
  15. Blackbird: No it is not a gross misrepresentation of fact, nor a miscarriage of justice. The adoptive/fostered children were still members of the band. Adoption/fostering does not remove that status from them. Those children were removed for their own safety - undisputed by me or by the judgement. The Ontario child welfare people actually sought out places for the children within the band but failed to find anything suitable . So the children were then adopted/fostered out of the band. That fact does not recind and nullify the childs status as a member of that band. The government of Canada knew this. Yet they left the band in the dark as to where the child was. Even family members were stonewalled and not told where the child went. It is true that in some circumstances - usually cases of abuse - where that is a good thing. But not all cases are abusive. Sometimes death of the parents results new guardians for the children then family members are not forbidden from knowing the childs whereabouts. The guardians of the child were not told where the child came from and what that childs status is. This is information that the guardians themselves testified that they should have been informed. If they had have known then they could have contacted the band. If the band had have known they could have made contact with the guardian. Or, as the judge pointed out, there was no reason in the world not to inform the child once they reached the age of majority. But the Government of Canada - or the Canadian taxpayer, as you prefer, - refused to consult and issued blank stares to further inquiries. That resulted in harm . It was the Canadian Taxpayer's actions that caused the harm to occur, and the Canadian taxpayer, as pointed out by the judge, knew they were doing it wrong. Restitution is right and proper.
  16. That is correct: The fault lay in taking the kids without consulting the bands. The judge heard testimony describing the harm done by the fact that the bands were not consulted nor the taken child informed nor their adoptive/foster parents informed of the childs origin. This led to the harm of loss of cultural identity. That testimony was undisputed by the Government. So the harm was not caused by the taking but by the refusal to consult the band and by their refusal to inform the child and their guardians. Up until 1980 , it seems, when the government then started consulting/informing. As for cultural identity, I don't think anyone expected the guardians to raise them as natives. But, as the judge points out, to keep the child and the guardians in the dark regarding the childs heritage was certainly a failure of the governments duty, which they seem to have recognized in 1980 and after. That harm was actual real harm: The government claimed they were keeping the childs due treaty money in trust until the child reached the age of majority. Then made no effort to inform the child nor the guardians that they were doing so. Same goes for the native education benefits. The child and guardian were left in the dark on that too. Those things were the childs birthright. Much like any other adoptive childs inheritance. It wasn't the taking itself, but what the government failed to do that caused the harm.
  17. You guys haven't actually read the decision. The judge spells out what the Gov.of.Canada should have done - by the Gov.of.Canada's own reckoning to boot: and so the judge concludes that Canada had a duty to consult. This duty, that the Government was aware of, went unfulfilled from 1965 when the practice began to 1980 when the Feds finally took up their duty. Theres much more in the decision that explains this and why the failure of the Governments common-law duty to natives resulted in harm. Thus the settlement. Folks should actually read this decision and not jump to a bunch of conclusions about what they think it says.
  18. I Sure. That was in para 7 of the summary of the "Background" . The Background goes on though to say... [9] All of this, however, is background and is not determinative of the legal issue that is before the court. The court is not being asked to point fingers or lay blame. The court is not being asked to decide whether the Sixties Scoop was the result of a well-intentioned governmental initiative implemented in good faith and informed by the norms and values of the day, or was, as some maintain, state-sanctioned “culture/identity genocide”10 that was driven by racial prejudice to “take the savage out of the Indian children.”11 This is a debate that is best left to historians and, perhaps, to truth and reconciliation commissions. [10] The issue before this court is narrower and more focused. The question is whether Canada can be found liable in law for the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity after they were placed in non-aboriginal foster and adoptive homes. the judge then goes on to state what the issue is before him. (1) Did the Federal Crown have a fiduciary or common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent on-reserve Indian children in Ontario who were placed in the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents from losing their aboriginal identity? (2) If so, did the Federal Crown breach such fiduciary or common law duty of care?12 note what is said in para 12. : The actual apprehension and removal of the children from the reserves by provincial child-care workers is not an issue that is before the court. and para 13: [13] Put simply, the common issue asks whether Canada had and breached any fiduciary or common law duties (when it entered into the 1965 Agreement or over the course of the class period) to take reasonable steps in the post-placement period to prevent the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity. So, you see, the issue isn't that the children were removed but was was the governments responsibility towards the removed children once they were removed. like I said , this is not about the removal of children from the reserves for their well - being and safety but what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done .
  19. You have it wrong. The money isn't being paid out because these kids were adopted out or fostered out. That was fine, for the reasons you suggest: protection from harm. The money is being paid out for what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done . The court decision that caused this payout is available here Superior Court of Justice - Ontario, Brown vs Attorney General of Canada viewable at the bottom of the linked CBC story.
  20. If he keeps writing stuff on public property after he gets out then good. Is there supposed to be an exception if you approve of whatever graffiti he pens?
  21. Thats right, so his head remains on his shoulders.
  • Create New...