PM apologizes for 1914 Komogata Maru incident

[g_bambino]

When I use that term, I mean that the person speaking can create an obligation that the entire nation must fulfill. Not just the segment of the population that may have voted for that person. When a foreign minister appears before other foreign ministers and makes a commitment, by international law other countries can then hold the foreign minister's country to that commitment. The words of the minister are considered binding on the nation. Why is this? Because no one outside the country cares how that country is organized. It does not matter if it has a Cabinet or a Governor General or a Queen. The person representing the nation committed the nation to a course of action and the nation will be held accountable. This is why I say that it is not just the Queen who can represent Canada. It may be true that a flag or other object can symbolize a nation, but an object can never represent the nation or speak on its behalf in this way.

That's just a laziness in perception; as you put it: no one cares. Well, being ignorant of what one is dealing with can always bring some unexpected results. So, anyone can believe they're entitled to hold a nation responsible if a minister does not live up to a promise he made, but all they can really try and hold accountable is the government. Say, for instance, a foreign minister makes some grand plans at a Commonwealth meeting, but never follows through in giving his direction to the executive authority. Other governments can badger him for his procrastination, but, should the government fall and be dismissed, that now ex-minister is no longer in a position to tender his advice to the Crown, and whatever cabinet is appointed in place of the old one is not obligated to support that previous minister's plans; regard Kelowna and Kyoto. If, however, the minister gives his direction to the Governor General and the plans he made at the meeting are put in place - the treaty becomes law - then the nation is bound to follow the agreement, regardless if the government falls after that or not. Clearly, then, the minister only makes promises on behalf of the government to which he belongs; the state can only make promises through the laws it makes, whether those be legislation, orders-in-council, royal proclamations, or otherwise.

Beacause the Prime Minister is a prime minister and not a foreign minister makes no difference. He's simply the head of a committee, one that presently has the (shaky) support of the House of Commons. He's just an advisor. Hence, his words only reflect the political leanings of the majority of the populace, not the entire populace, which is what the nation is. Any politician can pretend that because they have the support of the largest segment of the voting population that they represent the entire population, but it's glaringly obvious that he doesn't. Thus, republics need impartial, apolitical, non-partisan pieces of cloth and paper to represent them in a unified way, and settle for a divisive politician as their mouthpiece to the world because a flag can't speak. You say there are those who oppose the monarchy, and there are, but you're confusing opposition to how the state is symbolised with opposition to what that symbol says on their behalf. Similarly, there are people who don't like the Canadian flag, but that doesn't mean they don't like Canada. I can't think of much that the Queen has publicly expressed that could make a Canadian feel ostracised; as I said earlier, some of her past words on national unity have irked Quebec separatists, but it's not news that they disagree with the nation of Canada anyway. And, though the sovereigntists would never want to believe it, the Queen does still represent them; as a constitutional monarch, she is apolitical, and would not oppose Quebec succession should the populace and their government decide to do so in accordance with the laws of the state that she embodies. This is the same as would happen for any Canadian, regardless of their views, including republicans. I have my doubts that a president would be as guaranteed to be so flexible; his actions are more likely to be guided with his personal and his party's success in mind. Same for the Prime Minister and whatever he says: he is a spokesperson for a conservative party, and a conservative government, but not a conservative Canada; there is no such thing. That's my opinion, anyway.

[bk59]

So, anyone can believe they're entitled to hold a nation responsible if a minister does not live up to a promise he made, but all they can really try and hold accountable is the government. Say, for instance, a foreign minister makes some grand plans at a Commonwealth meeting, but never follows through in giving his direction to the executive authority. Other governments can badger him for his procrastination, but, should the government fall and be dismissed, that now ex-minister is no longer in a position to tender his advice to the Crown, and whatever cabinet is appointed in place of the old one is not obligated to support that previous minister's plans; regard Kelowna and Kyoto. If, however, the minister gives his direction to the Governor General and the plans he made at the meeting are put in place - the treaty becomes law - then the nation is bound to follow the agreement, regardless if the government falls after that or not. Clearly, then, the minister only makes promises on behalf of the government to which he belongs; the state can only make promises through the laws it makes, whether those be legislation, orders-in-council, royal proclamations, or otherwise.

If this were true then your opinion would carry more wait. It is not true.

Say a foreign minister A promises foreign minister B that country A will not do X. It does not matter whether or not A goes back to the Cabinet (in Canada's case), it does not matter if country A passes a law, etc. If country A attempts to do X then country B can demand that they stop. And according to international law, country A must stop (i.e. because country A has an obligation to stop). It does not matter if a law has been passed; it does not matter if there has been an election within country A and there is a new party in power. Now country A can still continue doing X, but it would be in violation of its obligations. An obligation created by a foreign minister.

You say there are those who oppose the monarchy, and there are, but you're confusing opposition to how the state is symbolised with opposition to what that symbol says on their behalf.

That isn't really what I am saying at all. I am saying there is a difference between how the state is symbolized and who can speak on the state's behalf (or who can represent the state). You see, "the symbol" is not the only person who can represent the state. That has been my point all along. Different people in different capacities all have the power to represent the state.

You have said that a politician cannot represent the state because not everyone in the state will agree with the politician. But the same is true for the Queen. Not everyone in the state will agree with the Queen. So, under your own theory, how can the Queen represent the state? I am curious to see why it is you think your logic does not apply to the Queen.

[g_bambino]

Say a foreign minister A promises foreign minister B that country A will not do X. It does not matter whether or not A goes back to the Cabinet (in Canada's case), it does not matter if country A passes a law, etc. If country A attempts to do X then country B can demand that they stop. And according to international law, country A must stop (i.e. because country A has an obligation to stop). It does not matter if a law has been passed; it does not matter if there has been an election within country A and there is a new party in power. Now country A can still continue doing X, but it would be in violation of its obligations. An obligation created by a foreign minister.

You still seem confused as to who does X. The minister does not do X, only the Crown can do X. The minister can bluster on as much as he wants about how X will happen, but he can't make X happen. Only the Crown, the embodiment of the state, can.

That isn't really what I am saying at all. I am saying there is a difference between how the state is symbolized and who can speak on the state's behalf (or who can represent the state). You see, "the symbol" is not the only person who can represent the state. That has been my point all along. Different people in different capacities all have the power to represent the state.

The state is a concept; it thus needs tangible symbols to represent it to us. Some symbols can speak and some cannot. If the state is going to be symbolised by a person, then that person, in that role, cannot say anything that the entire state would not say; hence, no political opinion. A politician can't avoid political opinion, so the state cannot be represented by one; flags, constitutions, and more concepts such as "The People," emerge to do so where no person is available. I already addressed your comments about people supposedly disagreeing with the Queen, and I've yet to hear of any examples where one has, without also justifiably being seen as disagreeing with the state.

[bk59]

You still seem confused as to who does X. The minister does not do X, only the Crown can do X. The minister can bluster on as much as he wants about how X will happen, but he can't make X happen. Only the Crown, the embodiment of the state, can.

Yes, it is the country that does X. In your post, the Crown. Fine. But what happens at that point is that someone from country B shows up and says, "Wait, you can't do that. You guys promised not to. Here is the promise from Foreign Minister A not to do X." And, even if Foreign Minister A's party is no longer in power, by international law country A is obligated to stop doing X. Even if it is the Crown that is doing X. The obligation entered into by the person (foreign minister A) is binding upon the nation, including the Crown.

Now country A, or the Crown in your example, could conceivably continue to do X. But they would be held as violating international law and (depending on what X is and who countries A and B are) there can be consequences.

So again, we have a person who is representing the country and can bind the country to a course of action. Has this cleared up your confusion?

If the state is going to be symbolised by a person, then that person, in that role, cannot say anything that the entire state would not say; hence, no political opinion.

By that definition no one would ever speak for the state. 30 million people will not agree on how to say anything.

I already addressed your comments about people supposedly disagreeing with the Queen, and I've yet to hear of any examples where one has, without also justifiably being seen as disagreeing with the state.

Then please give me the 30 second recap, because in all of these posts I still have no idea how you can say that politicians cannot speak on behalf of a nation because the individuals have different opinions, but the Queen can speak on behalf of a nation even though the individuals have different opinions. It seems to me that if a politician cannot speak on behalf of a nation because someone might disagree with him or her, then neither can the Queen.

Your request for an example is fairly pointless, but here it is anyway. From a speech given by the Queen in Vancouver in 2002 (see here):

I have watched with admiration as familiar European traditions have been enriched by the deep, spiritual cultures of the First Nations and by the entrepreneurial and artistic flair of newer communities, coming together in mutual respect against the breathtaking, wide-open backdrop of the land itself to produce a particular Canadian genius for altruistic openness and reconciliation, for enterprise and creativity.

I am willing to bet that there are some Canadians who do not have admiration for multiculturalism and how immigrant cultures have affected Canada. (Have you seen some of the posts on this forum?) And they oppose multiculturalism because they do support Canada and see multiculturalism as hurting Canada. They definitely do not "admire" it. And they would think it inappropriate for their representative to express any admiration for what they see as the erosion of Canadian traditions.

[1967100]

I don't really see the need for an apology for the Komogata Maru. These people came here illegally, and the ship itself was owned by the illegal black markets (sponsored by a Sikh leader in BC). For god's sake, many of these people fought with Canadian officers upon docking in Vancouver.

Robert Borden made the right decision when he sent the ship back to India.

[bk59]

I don't really see the need for an apology for the Komogata Maru. These people came here illegally, and the ship itself was owned by the illegal black markets (sponsored by a Sikh leader in BC). For god's sake, many of these people fought with Canadian officers upon docking in Vancouver.

I've asked the question before, but it hasn't been answered: wasn't the point of the apology that the immigration laws at the time were racist? People keep saying "they arrived illegally" but the whole point was that the only reason they were illegal was because of their race.

[KGM14]

Many in the Vancouver Sikh community are demanding that the government apologize for the Komagatsu Maru incident. Apparently the Conservatives are considering this according to documents obtained by the Vancouver Sun under the Access to Information act. But that incident involved Canada refusing to allow into Canada an entire boatful of illegal immigrants. Why does Canada need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country? Why do we today refuse entry into Canada of illegal immigrants yet feel that we need to apologize for refusing entry to illegal immigrants in 1914? Beyond courting the Sikh vote, does Harper have any rational or principled reason for doing this? Shouldn't apologies be reserved for those who suffered racial injustice after moving to Canada?

Canada at that time was technically not fully independent (not until 1982 at least) and was part of the British Empire. The passengers aboard the Kamagata Maru were from India, a country that was being ruled also by the British Empire. At the time, there was a rule that if a person is a citizen of the British Empire, they have the right to move freely elsewhere in the empire. Sikh soldiers fought for and died for the British Empire during WWI and WWII. They fought in places like France, Germany, Japan, etc. In the 1890s, the first Sikhs to visit Canada were soldiers of the British Empire. When the Sepoy Mutiny took place in 1857, Indians of other religions rebelled against the British. Sikh soldiers stayed loyal to the British Empire and helped to stop that mutiny. Naturally, the passengers aboard the Kamagata Maru were under the impression that they had the right to come to Canada as they were citizens of the British Empire. They were not informed of the racist immigration laws in Canada that excluded anyone non-white from entering.

The Kamagata Maru was refused entry due to RACIST immigration laws of the time that were deliberately setup to keep out non-Whites from Canada. If Canada apologized to the Chinese for the head tax and to the Natives for the Residential Schools or the Japanese-Canadians that were imprisoned during WWII for no reason other than their race and ethnicity, they should do the honourable thing and also apologize to Sikh-Canadians for the Kamagata Maru in the House of Commons.

Harper should have known better than to try to slip a quick apology in Surrey, BC at a cultural event for Sikhs. This event did not just cause pain, suffering, and insult to Canadian-Sikhs in 1914, but also to Sikhs as a whole. The Kamagata Maru incident is part of any Sikh history lesson. The event that Harper showed up at was full of Punjabi-only radio show hosts and other media personalities. Again, he should have known better. His handellers really dropped the ball. Him and his party probably have lost some seats and votes in BC for good. Like it or not, Sikhs are very politically active in both the Conservative and Liberal parties.

This gaffe by Harper will cost votes. It is up to him and his party to try to minimize it. If they don't do a full apology in the House of Commons, it will lead to even the loss of some seats in Sikh areas of the lower mainland.

Don't underestimate the voting power of Sikhs in BC. More than 50% of the lower mainland population is either ethnic Chinese (mostly in Richmond and parts of Vancouver) or East Indian (most of whom are Sikh by religion and have population all over the lower mainland, notably in places like Abbotsford, Surrey, etc.). It was only a few years ago that BC had a Sikh Premier (Ujjal Dosanjh - now a Liberal MP). No other visible minority group in Canada can make a similar claim of having a Premier of a major province. Aside from BC, Sikhs have become a voting block in Ontario capable of swinging a few seats either way. Those Ontario seats are ones that Conservatives need.

This is the view from the other side of how Canada is viewed by Sikhs for what happened in 1914 in Vancouver:

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/event...magatamaru.html

Killings of Kamagata Maru Passengers

In the year 1900 the census reported 2050 people from India on the North American continent. The majority of these people were Punjabis who had settled in Canada. They had come with the hope of finding work so that they could improve their economic situation from what it had been in the Punjab. Upon arrival in Canada they encountered numerous hardships and discrimination. Canadians wanted the "brown invasion" to stop. They felt that the growing number of Indians would take over their jobs in factories, mills and lumber yards. It was these insecurities which led British Columbia to pass stringent laws discouraging the immigration of Indians to Canada. Indians had to have at least $200 on their person to enter British Columbia and had to have come via direct passage from India. These were very unreasonable laws as the average Indian only earned about ten cents a day. The Canadian government was also pressuring steamship companies to stop selling tickets to Indians. In 1907 a bill was passed denying all Indians the right to vote. They were prohibited to run for public office, serve on juries, and were not permitted to become accountants, lawyers or pharmacists. All this was done to stop the "brown Invasion." On the other hand Japanese and Chinese were immigrating in unlimited numbers.

rest of article deleted by moderator

more on the incident:

http://www.sikhpioneers.org/komagata%20maru.htm

Return to home page

Dr. Hugh Johnston

Department of History, Simon Fraser University

The Komagata Maru incident belongs to a racist and narrow-minded past that Canadians have not left far behind. In the Spring of 1914, a committee of Sikhs led by Baba Gurdit Singh, a wealthy Sikh from Singapore, chartered the steamer, the Kamagata Maru, to carry Indian emigrants to Canada. They had a sense of mission, and they called the steamer Guru Nanak Jahaz after the first Sikh Guru.

rest of article deleted by moderator

Edited August 20, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied articles

[KGM14]

More on the Kamagata Maru incident and some info on Sikhs and their struggles in Canada:

http://www.sikhreview.org/sikh_diaspora1.htm

SIKH DIASPORA IN CANADA

The Government of India sent Sikhs Lancers and Infantry Regiment to London, to attend Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 1897. These Sikh Soldiers returned to India by way of Canada. They traveled from Montreal to Vancouver by train. On the way they saw fertile land, great rivers and lakes, open skies, mountains, forests and wild life. These beautiful sceneries attracted them. These land hungry sons of Punjab, who were also fond of hunting wild animals, decided to settle here to fulfill their dreams. Some of these soldiers deserted the army and stayed behind. Others went back and later, returned to Canada in small batches. Listed below are some interesting facts, which were demonstrated to the students, by showing the old recorded pictures and statistical records, through a slide-projector -

I guess our guys were banging whitees back then too....heh...

Legislation was passed in 1908 & 1910, which virtually put a stop to East Indian Immigration.

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

Shaheed Bhai Mewa Singh or Martyr Mewa Singh, after whom the langar hall at Ross Street Gurdwara (Sikh Temple) in Vancouver is named after and in whose memory there is a holiday celebrated by Sikhs worldwide every year.:

----

After this, violence broke out in Vancouver. Bela Singh Jain an informer and agent of Hopkinson pulled out two guns and started shooting at the Khalsa Diwan Society Gurdwara. He murdered Bhai Bhag Singh, President of the Society and Battan Singh on Sunday September 6, 1914. Bela Singh was charged with murder, but Hopkinson decided to appear as witness in his case. On October 21, 1914, Mewa Singh, Granthi of Khalsa Diwan Society shot William Hopkinson in the Assize court corridor with two revolvers. Mewa Singh was hanged on January 11, 1915. In the court of Judge Morrison, Mr. Wood the attorney of Mewa Singh in his statement said, " The Sikh community felt that Hopkinson was in part responsible for the failure of the plans to land the Sikhs aboard the Komagata Maru. He was born in India (English Father and East Indian mother). He could speak Indian languages fluently. He established a ring of informers to report about the activities of the Sikh community. Bela Singh Jain was his chief informer and an employee of Immigration department. He acted as a victorious lord over his community and was backed by his boss Hopkinson". Mewa Singh made a historical statement in the Court:

" My religion does not teach me to bear enmity with anybody, nor had I any enmity with Mr. Hopkinson. He was oppressing poor people very much. I, being a staunch Sikh, could no longer bear to see the wrong done both to my countrymen and Dominion of Canada. This is what led me to take Hopkinson’s life and sacrifice my own life. And I, performing the duty of a true Sikh and remembering the name of God, will proceed towards the scaffold with the same amount of pleasure as a hungry babe goes towards his mother. I am sure God will take me into His blissful arms."

---

Some of the info towards the end hasn't been updated as there are actually even more Sikh MP's and MLA's NOW. There's also more Sikh police officers across Canada who wear the turban with their uniform. Baltej Singh Dhillon has icon status in the Sikh community for taking on racists and beating them at the Supreme Court.

complete articles deleted by moderator

Edited August 20, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied article

[KGM14]

More on Shaheed Bhai Mewa Singh:

http://bcsikhs.com/2007/commemorating-the-...i-mewa-singh-ji

Commemorating the Sacrifice Made by Shaheed Bhai Mewa Singh Ji

January 11th, 2007 by admin

Gurdwara Sahib Sukh Sagar, New Westminster will be celebrating the sacrifice made to the community by Shaheed (Martyr) Bhai Mewa Singh on January 12th to 14th 2007, who was the first and only Sikh to be executed in Canada.

rest of article deleted by moderator

Edited August 20, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied article

[normanchateau]

The Kamagata Maru was refused entry due to RACIST immigration laws of the time that were deliberately setup to keep out non-Whites from Canada. If Canada apologized to the Chinese for the head tax and to the Natives for the Residential Schools or the Japanese-Canadians that were imprisoned during WWII for no reason other than their race and ethnicity, they should do the honourable thing and also apologize to Sikh-Canadians for the Kamagata Maru in the House of Commons.

The Kamagatu Maru incident had nothing to do with Sikh-Canadians. The Canadian government was simply preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country. The apologies to the Chinese, Aboriginals and Japanese Canadians had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Canada has no need to apologize for deporting illegal immigrants.

[bk59]

The Kamagatu Maru incident had nothing to do with Sikh-Canadians. The Canadian government was simply preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country. The apologies to the Chinese, Aboriginals and Japanese Canadians had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Canada has no need to apologize for deporting illegal immigrants.

We don't need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country. But maybe we should apologize for being racist. That is what the real issue was.

After all, we did not apologize about the residential school system based on the legality of the policy. At the time the schools were legal. We apologized because what happened at those schools was wrong. Likewise the immigration policy at the time was legal. But it was racist. And so we apologize not because they did not meet the immigration criteria, but because the criteria was racist.

[normanchateau]

We don't need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country. But maybe we should apologize for being racist. That is what the real issue was.

After all, we did not apologize about the residential school system based on the legality of the policy. At the time the schools were legal. We apologized because what happened at those schools was wrong. Likewise the immigration policy at the time was legal. But it was racist. And so we apologize not because they did not meet the immigration criteria, but because the criteria was racist.

Certainly Canada and much of the world were racist in 1914. If Harper's apology was an apology for Canada being racist in 1914, then why did it not warrant an apology in Parliament? His apologies to Chinese-Canadians and natives for racist Canadian policies were made in Parliament. Could it be that Harper viewed denying immigrant status to illegal immigrants as being less worthy of an apology?

[normanchateau]

But maybe we should apologize for being racist.

Why just racism?

Should we also apologize for being sexist? At one time, women in Canada could not vote.

Should we apologize for being anti-Semitic by not allowing Europeans attempting to flee the Holocaust into Canada.

Should we apologize for jailing gays for homosexual behaviour?

Where does it all end?

Have the French apologized for 1066? Has Macedonia apologized for Alexander the 'Great' sending armies in all directions? Has Rome apologized to Carthage? Has Cain apologized to Abel? Have Adam and Eve apologized to God? And what about the snake?

[KGM14]

The Kamagatu Maru incident had nothing to do with Sikh-Canadians. The Canadian government was simply preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country. The apologies to the Chinese, Aboriginals and Japanese Canadians had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Canada has no need to apologize for deporting illegal immigrants.

I guess dipshit rednecks like you just don't get it.

Nothing to do with Sikh-Canadians? 80%+ were Sikhs aboard the Kamagata Maru. Not only does it have to do with Sikh-Canadians, but also Sikhs worldwide. 90%+ of Indian-Canadians (what whites call East Indians) in Canada are Sikhs.

What illegal immigrants are you talking about? There was no such thing as a Canadian Citizen until 1947. In 1914, Indians aboard the Kamagata Maru and Canadians were British Subjects. British Subjects were allowed to travel anywhere within the British Empire. The Canadian Government made a law to target and exclude non-whites (specially `Asiatic` people). That was systemic racism. The Chinese headtax and Natives in Residential schools along with Japenese-Canadians interned during WWII all have one thing in common with the Kamagata Maru incident: RACISM. If they are good enough for an apology in Canadian Parliament and if their descendents are good enough for compensation, then the same applies for the Kamagata Maru incident.

Edited August 22, 2008 by KGM14

[KGM14]

Why just racism?

Should we also apologize for being sexist? At one time, women in Canada could not vote.

Who is this 'we'? The Canadian Government now and also back then does not and did not include you in the decision making process.

This was a major incident in a series of racist policies aimed at visible minorities within Canada at the time. A White person would never understand what racism is like. How many times have a white man had their teeth knocked out (or worse) for calling someone a nigger, a chink, or, pakie or wop etc? What whites were thinking and advocating in 1914 was mainstream throught (racism). Today, such thoughts are limited to a few bigots online who hide behind computers anonymous and lack the balls to go out and say any of these out in the open. If you have balls, go out in the open and advocate your racism there. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes it illegal to treat anyone differently due to skin colour, race, ethnic origin, or creed.

Edited August 22, 2008 by KGM14

[KGM14]

We don't need to apologize for not allowing illegal immigrants into the country. But maybe we should apologize for being racist. That is what the real issue was.

They were NOT ILLEGAL. They were British Subjects that wanted to travel to another part of the British Empire. There was no such thing as a `Canadian Citizen` at the time.

The issue was outright systemic racism by the Government of Canada.

[DogOnPorch]

They were NOT ILLEGAL. They were British Subjects that wanted to travel to another part of the British Empire. There was no such thing as a `Canadian Citizen` at the time.

The issue was outright systemic racism by the Government of Canada.

Whatever. They more or less created a mutiny, took over the ship and pelted Canadian authorities with bricks/rocks/coal et al. Pirates. Screw them. Sounds like a similar lot to those who burnt down a Montreal neighborhood or blocked Vancouver International Airport. Who needs 'em?? That why we had cruisers guarding our harbours.

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

My lord, I will tell you what the case was. I was coming up within a league of the Dutchman, and some of my men were making a mutiny about taking her, and my gunner told the people he could put the captain in a way to take the ship, and be safe.

---Captain William Kidd

Edited August 22, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[White Doors]

90%+ of Indian-Canadians (what whites call East Indians) in Canada are Sikhs.

really now? cite?

[normanchateau]

I guess dipshit rednecks like you just don't get it.

What illegal immigrants are you talking about?

Of course they were illegal immigrants:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...86-ba5a451fff78

Yes, Canada was racist but that's no reason to apologize for turning back illegal immigrants.

[AngusThermopyle]

If they are good enough for an apology in Canadian Parliament and if their descendents are good enough for compensation, then the same applies for the Kamagata Maru incident.

Thank you for clarifying your agenda KGM14, it always comes down to "show me the money" doesn't it. All I have to say to that is screw you, get a job and earn your own money. Canada, the land of outstretched hands and demands, a never ending supply of freeloaders, enough is enough.

[normanchateau]

Who is this 'we'? The Canadian Government now and also back then does not and did not include you in the decision making process.

I have not seen a text of Harper's apology to Sikh-Canadians but when Harper apologized in June 2008 for the Aboriginal Residential Schools system, he apologized not only on behalf of the Government of Canada but also on behalf of all Canadians. Source:

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2146

Prime Minister Harper is not including me in the decision making process but he is apologizing on my behalf. Given that he is apologizing on my behalf, why is he not apologizing for historical sexism, anti-homosexual legislation and Canada barring entry of European victims of the Holocaust? The Canadian government, with the full support of then Prime Minister Mackenzie King, did everything in its power to bar the door to European Jews attempting to escape Nazi persecution and murder.

Those attempting to escape the Holocaust in the early 1940's were fleeing for their lives. The Sikhs attempting to enter Canada in 1914 were looking for improved financial opportunities. Why are Sikhs ahead of Jews in the queue for apologies from Mr. Harper?

[normanchateau]

"The question of whether the Canadian government should apologize for past injustices or alleged injustices committed against minorities has long been contentious. Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau took a firm stand on the issue when he stated that today's society could not be held responsible for all of the misdeeds of the past -- otherwise the list of demands would be endless.

The position adopted by Trudeau began to erode, however, during the campaign prior to the 2006 federal election when an increasingly desperate Liberal Party sought to shore up its support in the Chinese community by promising to atone for the imposition of the head tax more than a century earlier. Not to be outdone, the Conservatives then made similar commitments. As Trudeau anticipated, the queue of those seeking redress of one kind or another has now become rather long."

Source:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...66-48b4a2928163

Trudeau got it right with his policy of no apologies and no financial compensation.

[HisSelf]

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

He set a very low standard with his apology for residential schools. He stood up and said his piece and refused to let aboriginal groups stand up in the house and say what they had to say. A week later he let the President of the Ukraine address the House.

Harper degrades democracy yet again.

[HisSelf]

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.

O heavens. Damages. How on earth could that possibly be justified? Death? Disease? Oh I know. Damages only apply if somebody hits DogOnPorch's car!

[HisSelf]

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.

Your info shows you are from Canuckistan. You realize that this is a term American neocons used to mock us for not signing on to the Iraq war, even though we were fighting and getting killed in Afghanistan.