Jump to content

Peter F

Members
  • Posts

    2,732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Peter F

  1. Quote

    Individuals who do so are now at the mercy of the newly empowered pro-Sharia proponents to merely point their finger and say a single word "Islamophobe" to shut down the conversation.

    So simple!   By the power of M-103, I do hereby and forthwith say Islamophobe! and point my finger. 

     

  2. 6 hours ago, Anthony said:

    How about our individual ability to see a simple or complex problem within society yet feel powerless as our only chance is to vote someone who claims to care about our lives. Hoping that the Prime minister and cabinet brings up our issues.

    Geomocracy may not be the answer, but do we really want to accept a 150 year old governmental system that makes decisions that are not for the benefit of Canada or Canadian citizens?

    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. 

       

  3. 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. 

  4. 1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

    So, if you have a rat in your house the solution isn't to get rid of the rat, it's "oh well, lets get more rats".

    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. 

  5. 53 minutes ago, cannuck said:

    Michael, I hoped you would know better.

    It is not the Antioch Baptist Church that is radicalizing NA borne Muslims.  That is a 100% imported problem. 

    Of course not.  Most of all, the community that SEEMS to be "moderate" is in most cases abundantly aware of the radicals within, and does nothing to expose them.

    Nor is it a competitiion between WASP terrorists and those from Islam.  It is a problem that can easily be dealt with by terminating immigration and expelling all who have associated with radical elements or aided, assisted or covered up for them in any way.

    What is a 100% imported problem?  Folks opening fire on crowds in Vegas or folks driving vehicles into crowds in New York?

    Quote

    By saying that by being borne here (such as Khadr) that makes them "Canadians" and "Home Grown" is nonsense.   Their families and the commun ity imported from outside has not assimilated, in fact done exactly the opposite.

    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. 

    Quote

    Have ALL Muslim immigrtants become radicals?   Of course not.   BUT: were those who did influenced by assimilating long established Canadian (or American) values?  Of course not. 

    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.

    Quote

    It is a problem that can easily be dealt with by terminating immigration and expelling all who have associated with radical elements or aided, assisted or covered up for them in any way.

    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. 

  6. 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.

  7. Quote

    So far 70% of those who have applied have been accepted. Even though most don't meet the definition of refugees.

     ...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. 

      

  8. 1 hour ago, dialamah said:

    ...It would be equally as difficult to hide a bomb, machete or gun under a face veil.  Perhaps you meant the burqa, with which I would agree that you could hide a lot of things. 

    But if hiding lethal items in one's clothing is a concern, then baggy jeans, full skirts, hoodies and trench coats should also be banned, not to mention large bags.  Perhaps only skin tight clothing, no pockets or bags larger than a few inches will have to be legislated in the name of security.

    Unless one is presupposing that women in burkas are more of a threat than men in baggy jeans and hoodies.   

     

     

     

      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. 

  9. Blackbird:

    Quote

    To now give some groups 750 million dollars for allegedly taking their cultural identity from them is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a miscarriage of justice.

      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. 

     

  10. 2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

    Somehow the idea of asking permission to remove a child does not work well. Children's Aid does not ask the parents permission, it's a moot point. But they should have handled the whole episode completely differently, yes. So there should be blame and something done to compensate. Throwing them a few bucks didn't help much.

    The fact that it was not contested by this government is certainly no surprise...

    They did contest it!  see the case of Brown vs. the Attorney General for Canada. 

  11. 5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

    Thanks for that. I don't see how it would have ensured they maintain their cultural identity under the care of their adoptive parents. Also if I understand it correctly it implies the fault lay in taking the kids without consulting the Indian bands. That seems like two separate issues, whereas earlier you stated the problem wasn't due to the children being removed:

     

    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. 

  12. 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:

    6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

    I wonder how it would have been done otherwise, since the whole point of it was to remove them from the reserves. Most of them were too young to have established their aboriginal identity.

     

    Quote

     

    Obligation to consult under section 2(2)

    [20] Ontario’s undertaking to extend the provincial welfare programs as set out in s. 2(1) was made “subject to (2).” Sub-section 2(2) of the Agreement said this:

    No provincial welfare program shall be extended to any Indian Band in the Province unless that Band has been consulted by Canada or jointly by Canada and by Ontario and has signified its concurrence.

    [21] It is obvious not only from the plain meaning of this provision but also from the circumstances surrounding the execution of the 1965 Agreement that the obligation to consult with Indian Bands and secure their concurrence was intended to be a key component of the Agreement. One only has to consider what was said in a background memorandum prepared by Canada for use at the 1963 Federal-Provincial Conference:

    The utmost care must be taken ... to ensure that the Indians are not again presented with a fait accompli in the form of a blueprint for their future which they have had no part in developing and which they have been given no opportunity to influence. This means that the Federal Government should make crystal clear that before any final arrangements are made, the Indians must be fully consulted.

    [22] Consider as well what was said by Mr. Tremblay, the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in October 1964 to the Federal-Provincial Conference, as summarized in the minutes of the meeting:

    Consultation with Indians. Mr. Tremblay, in introducing this topic, said that it is an extremely important one as the success of any federal- provincial effort to extend a provincial service will depend on the Indians accepting the proposal and participating in its development. From past experience, we believe acceptance and cooperation by the Indians will not be secured without adequate consultation with them.

    [23] And, in a “circular” dated December 9, 1964, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Indian Affairs Branch of the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration advised his federal colleagues that he would view it as a “serious breach of faith with the Indian people if any provincial services were forced on a Band against its wishes”:

    It is departmental policy ... to encourage the extension of provincial services to reserves in those areas where Provinces are competent to provide services but under no circumstances must action be taken towards this end – that is to actually extend a service to a reserve – without the consent of the Indians concerned ...

    If an agreement can be arrived at, the next step will be to explain it to each individual Band in the Province and to ascertain whether the Band wishes the provincial service extended to it. If it is unacceptable to any Band, no extension of that particular service will be made to that Band and the service provided by the Federal Government will continue.

    It is important that the Indians understand Federal policy in this regard and this circular may be helpful to you in your future discussions with them.

    I would consider it to be a serious breach of faith with the Indian people if any provincial services were forced on a Band against its wishes. (Emphasis added).

     

    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.

    • Thanks 1
  13. I

    Quote

    took a look at your link.  It says " "The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff's experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides," he said, siding with the plaintiffs. "

    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 . 

  14. 12 hours ago, blackbird said:

    ...  So what were the provincial government's social services workers supposed to do in the circumstances where they believe children were in danger of harm?  Now we are being forced to pay 750 million dollars for the alleged mistakes of past governments in Canada.  I understand Liberals today think these children had been taken away from their culture but what was the alternative?   How else could the government and social workers have protected children at that time.  I think the same problems exist today and some children are being apprehended from native homes to take them to a safe location.  Perhaps they are not being adopted any more, but may be put in foster care temporarily.   Another 50 million is being set aside for reconciliation.  

    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.

     

×
×
  • Create New...