PM apologizes for 1914 Komogata Maru incident

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/komogata_maru_apology

An apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper Sunday for the 1914 Komogata Maru incident in which hundreds of Indians seeking a better life in Canada were turned away has failed to win over Sikh community members.

Harper was speaking to a crowd of about 8,000 people in Surrey, B.C., which has a large east Indian community.

Kenney said the apology won't be repeated and blamed the Liberals for it not being accepted.

[maldon_road]

But as soon as he left the stage, members of the Sikh community rushed to the podium immediately denouncing the apology. They said they wanted it delivered on the floor of the House of Commons.

"The apology was unacceptable," said Jaswinder Singh Toor, president of "The Descendents of Komagatamaru Society."

"We were expecting the prime minister of Canada to do the right thing. The right thing was ... like the Chinese Head Tax.," said Toor, referring to Harper's full apology to the Chinese-Canadian community in 2006 for the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants who came to Canada between 1885 and 1923.

The PM might have set the standard with the apology for residential schools and other groups may expect no less.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm working on an apology for the Romans attacking my ancestors in ancient Germany. $75,000,000 should do...oh wait....$750,000,000...my bad.

Seriously...the Sikh community really looks like they were going for some sort of cash grab at tax-payer's expense. I guess they were jealous of the Head-Tax payments. Either way they look like dorks. Harper also looks the fool...apologizing to gain the finicky Sikh vote. C'mon Harper...these same "Sikh community members" build parade floats honoring Air India bombers.

If the comment section on this CBC article is any indicator, many Canadians also feel this is the case.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...er-apology.html

---------------------------------------------------

The apology was unacceptable. We were expecting the prime minister of Canada to do the right thing. The right thing was...like the Chinese Head Tax...

---Jaswinder Singh Toor: The Descendants of Komagatamaru Society

Edited August 4, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[cybercoma]

The way the Sikhs handled this makes them appear pretty ungrateful. They could've simply said thank you for the public apology, but made it clear they were still waiting for an apology to come from the floor of the house.

What concerns me is that this is the third apology in less than two years and that could hurt the credibility of them. Harper first apologized to Native Canadians about residential schools in 2006, then he apologized two months ago to the Chinese about the head tax. I can appreciate that he's trying to make right some terrible blemishes in our history, but too many apologies too quickly may appear to be insincere.

[g_bambino]

What concerns me is that this is the third apology in less than two years and that could hurt the credibility of them.

There never was any credibility to them in the first place; Harper was in no way responsible for any of the events he's apologised for. Only if he meant "we feel sorry for you" - speaking on behalf of the Cabinet (the only body he can speak on behalf of) - could there be any true feeling to the words. But, somehow I doubt that's his intent.

Edited August 4, 2008 by g_bambino

[maldon_road]

What concerns me is that this is the third apology in less than two years and that could hurt the credibility of them. Harper first apologized to Native Canadians about residential schools in 2006, then he apologized two months ago to the Chinese about the head tax. I can appreciate that he's trying to make right some terrible blemishes in our history, but too many apologies too quickly may appear to be insincere.

Like the Pope's apologies for the pedophile priests. They seem to mean less each time they are repeated.

[capricorn]

There never was any credibility to them in the first place; Harper was in no way responsible for any of the events he's apologised for. Only if he meant "we feel sorry for you" - speaking on behalf of the Cabinet (the only body he can speak on behalf of) - could there be any true feeling to the words. But, somehow I doubt that's his intent.

When Harper apologizes, or any Prime Minister for that matter, for past injustices, he does so on behalf of all Canadians. As soon as the words "on behalf of the Government" comes out of a PM's mouth, that includes all Canadians.

Therefore, on behalf of the government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you,

in this chamber so central to our life as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for

Canada's role in the Indian residential schools system.

http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/TextofApology.pdf

Harper may not be sincere in rendering these apologies, but honestly how many Canadians feel any sincerity or really care about these apologies made by the Government on their behalf. It seems there is plenty of insincerity and indifference to go around.

[cybercoma]

Frankly, I'm disgusted by this because I feel these groups are looking for apologies to cash in on their ancestors' misfortunes. What is a financial settlement going to offer? A lot of the people sent back were killed when they got there and no amount of money in the world is going to make that better. Regardless, those ancestors were not financially abused, so I have a hard time understanding why the families today feel they deserve monetary restitution on the taxpayers back.

[g_bambino]

When Harper apologizes, or any Prime Minister for that matter, for past injustices, he does so on behalf of all Canadians. As soon as the words "on behalf of the Government" comes out of a PM's mouth, that includes all Canadians.

Not so. The Prime Minister is only the leader of a political party that has the most seats in the House of Commons - barely the most, at the moment. In such a position, he cannot speak on behalf of all Canadians; I doubt Liberal, NDP, Green, or whatever other party, supporters would see Harper as speaking for them.

Harper may not be sincere in rendering these apologies, but honestly how many Canadians feel any sincerity or really care about these apologies made by the Government on their behalf. It seems there is plenty of insincerity and indifference to go around.

I don't know how many people care; not too many, I hope. It's just meaningless, political showmanship.

[Wilber]

Harper may not be sincere in rendering these apologies, but honestly how many Canadians feel any sincerity or really care about these apologies made by the Government on their behalf. It seems there is plenty of insincerity and indifference to go around.

Why should they feel any sincerity, they bear no responsibility and the Sikhs who came since are owed no apology. What has this country done to them except give them an opportunity for a better life.

[capricorn]

Not so. The Prime Minister is only the leader of a political party that has the most seats in the House of Commons - barely the most, at the moment. In such a position, he cannot speak on behalf of all Canadians;

The same thing applied with the Chinese head tax apology.

Harper apologized on behalf of the people and government of Canada for the head tax and the exclusion of Chinese-Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/immigration/headtax.html

We may not like it but it doesn't change the fact that the apologies were made on behalf of all Canadians.

I doubt Liberal, NDP, Green, or whatever other party, supporters would see Harper as speaking for them.

Well I haven't heard their elected officials criticize these apologies so I presume they were in support.

In prior election campaigns in 2004 and 2006, opposition parties, including the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois had already stated their support for an apology and redress for the head tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_tax_(Canada)

It's just meaningless, political showmanship.

It's more than that. It's a form of blackmail on the Canadian taxpayers. The Sikhs want the apology in the House of Commons because they think it will make a monetary reward more forthcoming. The Sikhs have taken a page out of the Chinese head tax case and intend to pursue their demands vigorously.

[g_bambino]

The same thing applied with the Chinese head tax apology.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/immigration/headtax.html

The media treats the PM like a president; there's no sense in looking there for accurate facts. We can't even look at the politicians' own words; all of them seem to feel they speak "on behalf of Canadians" or know "what Canadians want." But do they? Of course not. A politician is elected by a specific group of people; the Conservatives, which Harper leads, don’t even have the largest share of the populace behind them. So the PM (or any politician) can't even speak on behalf of the majority of Canadians, let alone all of them.

In coming from a politician, these apologies become political matters, and in political matters there is never unanimity.

[capricorn]

What has this country done to them except give them an opportunity for a better life.

The Sikh leadership is cognizant that the 2 groups who received apologies for injustices have received monetary compensation and they want some moolah too. They're thinking if aboriginal residential school residents and the Chinese, and their spouses and descendants received money, why shouldn't they? In large part, that's why they want the apology in the House of Commons and made such a fuss over the apology in a public forum. In their view, an apology in the House of Commons would give legitimacy to their claim for monetary redress and they could continue their activism regardless of which party is in power.

[capricorn]

all of them seem to feel they speak "on behalf of Canadians" or know "what Canadians want."

Just like Dion when he said: "Canadians are hungry for an election." Kinda cocky eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hold the phone......Baba Gurdit Singh purposely organized the doomed voyage for the express purpose of challenging Canada's exclusion laws. It was a contrived event with even more dire consequences back home.

[capricorn]

Hold the phone......Baba Gurdit Singh purposely organized the doomed voyage for the express purpose of challenging Canada's exclusion laws.

Well in that case, his descendants will probably get double any compensation awarded and then some.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well in that case, his descendants will probably get double any compensation awarded and then some.

Logically then, followers of Marc Emery and the evil weed will also be due an apology and compensation in the future. Such a deal!

[g_bambino]

Just like Dion when he said: "Canadians are hungry for an election." Kinda cocky eh?

Exactly.

[MontyBurns]

If I were Harper I wouldn't be apologizing for this or anything else. We could use a few more Komogata Maru incidents in this country IMO.

[Keepitsimple]

There's a big different between racist government policies that persisted for many years and the turning away of a single ship. The Chinese Head Tax was a policy that endured for 40 years - residential schools for just as long if not longer.

[madmax]

There's a big different between racist government policies that persisted for many years and the turning away of a single ship. The Chinese Head Tax was a policy that endured for 40 years - residential schools for just as long if not longer.

I agree. Turning away a single ship can be tragic. But it is not the Canadian Government imposing the attrocity upon return. I am no historian on this, but wouldn't it be reasonable for the Indian Government to be the one compensating those people whose ancestors were condemned to death or imprisonment?

Unlike the above

It was our government who imposed the Head tax and the residential schools.

Unlike some others here, I believe our government must be responsible for its actions of the past and for our present actions in the future, should they be unjust.

It reads to me, like an apology was given, and those who received it, (as printed in the papers), have dismissed it.

As a country, we must always think about what could happen if a person or group is returned to their native country, and not repeat those mistakes. Obviously anyone reading our history will know that we made similar errors decades later with even greater horrors to those turned back

http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/EVENTS/HOLO...4/st_louis.html

"NONE IS TOO MANY"

Canada was the last country to reject the plea of the St. Louis ship,

before it was sent back to Germany with all its desperate passengers.

In Canada, Prime Minister Mackenzie King felt, that this was not a "Canadian problem," ignoring the pleas of many influential Canadians. Frederick Charles Blair, director of the Immigration Branch of the Department of Mines and Resources said, "No country, could open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands Jewish peolpe who want to leave Europe: the line must be drawn somewhere.

Of the more than eight hundred thousand Jews seeking refuge from the Third Reich in the years 1933-39 Canada admitted approximately four thousand.

The voyagers' last flickering hope extinguished and the Jews of the st. Louis headed back to Europe, where many would die in the gas chambers and crematoria of the Third reich.

Edited August 5, 2008 by madmax

[bk59]

The media treats the PM like a president; there's no sense in looking there for accurate facts. We can't even look at the politicians' own words; all of them seem to feel they speak "on behalf of Canadians" or know "what Canadians want." But do they? Of course not. A politician is elected by a specific group of people; the Conservatives, which Harper leads, don’t even have the largest share of the populace behind them. So the PM (or any politician) can't even speak on behalf of the majority of Canadians, let alone all of them.

In coming from a politician, these apologies become political matters, and in political matters there is never unanimity.

Actually, the Prime Minister does speak on behalf of the Canadian government and on behalf of all Canadians. (This is the entire Canadian government, not just Cabinet.) That is part of his or her job description. Now Harper as Conservative Party leader cannot speak on behalf of either the government or Canadians, but this wasn't Harper in that capacity. This was Prime Minister Harper giving the apology. It does not matter how many people did, or did not, vote for the Prime Minister. He or she speaks for all of us because he or she leads the government.

[g_bambino]

Actually, the Prime Minister does speak on behalf of the Canadian government and on behalf of all Canadians. (This is the entire Canadian government, not just Cabinet.) That is part of his or her job description. Now Harper as Conservative Party leader cannot speak on behalf of either the government or Canadians, but this wasn't Harper in that capacity. This was Prime Minister Harper giving the apology. It does not matter how many people did, or did not, vote for the Prime Minister. He or she speaks for all of us because he or she leads the government.

The Prime Minister is head of government, yes. But that does not mean he speaks on behalf of all Canadians, as the government - which, in this case, is just the Cabinet - is transient, and only reflects a certain segment of the population at a given point in time. In Canada, neither the Cabinet, nor the Prime Minister, is the embodiment of the state.

Edited August 5, 2008 by g_bambino

[bk59]

The Prime Minister is head of government, yes. But that does not mean he speaks on behalf of all Canadians, as the government - which, in this case, is just the Cabinet - is transient, and only reflects a certain segment of the population at a given point in time. In Canada, neither the Cabinet, nor the Prime Minister, is the embodiment of the state.

I think you need to look at how this country is actually run. Practically speaking, if the Prime Minister only speaks for those who voted for one party, how could Canada ever represent itself in the world today? Who would speak for those other Canadians? The Queen certainly does not do this. The Governor General does not. It is the Prime Minister who represents Canada to other states. The Prime Minister and Cabinet that enter into agreements with other states - agreements that bind all Canadians, not just those who voted for the Prime Minister's party.

When the Prime Minister talks on behalf of Canadians, he or she is actually doing just that. Under your theory, who speaks on behalf of Canadians?

[g_bambino]

I think you need to look at how this country is actually run. Practically speaking, if the Prime Minister only speaks for those who voted for one party, how could Canada ever represent itself in the world today? Who would speak for those other Canadians? The Queen certainly does not do this. The Governor General does not. It is the Prime Minister who represents Canada to other states. The Prime Minister and Cabinet that enter into agreements with other states - agreements that bind all Canadians, not just those who voted for the Prime Minister's party.

When the Prime Minister talks on behalf of Canadians, he or she is actually doing just that. Under your theory, who speaks on behalf of Canadians?

I am looking at how the country is run, and it is run in such a manner that the Prime Minister is not the embodiment of the state. Hence, he does not "represent Canada" to other states or to itself. The head of state does that, whether that be the Queen (who has done so) or the Governor General (who has done so). The Prime Minister heads, and represents, government. That's it.

Edited August 5, 2008 by g_bambino