Why do we discuss Canada's attempted cultural genocide as it's

[Machjo]

And why deos a Reverend of the United Church get defrocked and then harassed and attacked right up till 2005 and possibly beyond for having spoken out? 2005 is not even 5 years ago yet:

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/chro...ks.html#attacks

[Machjo]

January 11, 2005: A forum held by Kevin in Gold River, BC is sabotaged by a non-native official of the state-funded Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council (NTC), who "orders" local native counsellor Margaret Amos not to attend the forum, despite Amos' support for it. Amos is told that she will lose her job if she supports Kevin in any way.

[Machjo]

December 5, 2004: Revenue Canada notifies Kevin that it intends to take him to court for non-payment of bogus "back taxes". The same day, a caller leaves a message on Kevin's pager which keeps repeating the musical refrain "This gun for hire ...".

[Machjo]

October 12, 2004: Kevin receives an anonymous (and untraceable) phone call from a woman claiming to work at the "E" Division office of the RCMP in Vancouver. She says that Kevin's name is on a "possible terrorist" list being compiled by Inspector Peter Montague, who engineered both the armed attack on native protestors at Gustafson Lake in 1995, and the government "spin" and disinformation campaign around residential schools since 1996.

Ah, yes, the war against terrorism?

[Machjo]

October 4, 2004: Kevin and supporters resume their Sunday protests outside downtown Vancouver churches (Catholic, Anglican and United), demanding to know the location of burial sites of children who died in residential schools. Death threats against Kevin resume.

Hey, what's one more death?

[Machjo]

August 2, 2004: Kevin's wife Pamela leaves Vancouver suddenly and without warning, and informs Kevin by phone that she has moved back to Nova Scotia without offering an explanation. Kevin is forced to move from his home in Maple Ridge and relocate to Vancouver Island.

[Riverwind]

Evidence of genocidal mortality:

Here is the data for 1982 to 2002:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/tbcan0...bcan_2002_e.pdf

TB incidence was highest in the Canadian-born Aboriginal population (23.3 per 100,000)

followed by an incidence of 19.4 per 100,000 in the foreign-born population. In the Canadianborn

non-Aboriginal population, TB incidence was 1.0 per 100,000 (Figure 9; Appendix II, Table)

Not a lot different than from 100 years when this alleged 'genocide' was going on. Now the higher incidence rate in Aborignals is a problem that requires action but I think this recent data illustrates pretty clearly that the rate of TB in the past is not evidence of anything.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[charter.rights]

Here is the data for 1982 to 2002:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/tbcan0...bcan_2002_e.pdf

Not a lot different than from 100 years when this alleged 'genocide' was going on. Now the higher incidence rate in Aborignals is a problem that requires action but I think this recent data illustrates pretty clearly that the rate of TB in the past is not evidence of anything.

No comparison.

100 years ago, tuberculosis was not a problem in native communities. It was introduced and became a problem in residential schools. Today tuberculosis is a disease of poverty and higher rates are in the lower incomes class of Canadians, as well.

[Machjo]

Ottawa Citizen, 1907:

Schools Aid White Plague:

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/keyn...hiteplague.html

[Riverwind]

Schools Aid White Plague:

Nothing in there supports your claim that anything other than bureaucratic incompetence and underfunding was beind the problems.

[Machjo]

Coverups in the new millennium:

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/intro2.html

"July 22, 2002 - A gag order in the form of a defamation lawsuit is brought by the government of Canada against Rev. Annett and others through its paid agent, Chief Edward John of the state-funded First Nations Summit.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction banning Rev. Annett from discussing the allegations of secret land deals, murder, drug trafficking and pedophilia made against Chief John and other state-funded native chiefs by members of his own tribal council, Frank Martin and Helen Michel. Chief John's lawsuit is handled by Queen's Counsel Marvin Storrow of Blake, Cassels and Graydon law firm in Vancouver. Storrow is a personal friend and legal counsel to Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

August 22, 2002 - Although Rev. Annett was never notified or subpoenaed, the lawsuit goes ahead and Ed John wins his injunction against Rev. Annett in the British Columbia Supreme Court. The injunction is granted by Judge James Taylor, who on behalf of the Law Society of BC helped disbar lawyer Jack Cram in April, 1994 after Cram had made similar allegations as Rev. Annett concerning possible pedophilia and corruption among judges and politicians in BC involving native children.

September-October, 2002 - Despite the injunction banning his constitutional freedom of speech, Rev. Annett continues to refer publicly to the allegations against Ed John and the conflict of interest of Judge Taylor, over Annett's radio program, Hidden From History, in Vancouver.

October 18, 2002 - A Restraining Order against Rev. Annett is issued by Judge Taylor, who also bans native eyewitnesses Frank Martin and Helen Michel from discussing their evidence about Ed John, and strikes their statements from all BC court records. Judge Taylor also indicates his intention to seek a banning of Rev. Annett's book on genocide in Canada, "Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust".

November 1, 2002 - Rev. Annett's latest book, "Love and Death in the Valley", is published by First Books in the United States. Acting for Ed John, lawyer Marvin Storrow tries to prevent its publication, but fails.

Early December, 2002 - An all-party Parliamentary meeting in Ottawa discusses "Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust", and "hashes over how to deal with all the Indians who are starting to talk about murders in residential schools", according to a source who was present.

December 14, 2002 - A sheriff from the Port Coquitlam office of the Attorney-General attempts to serve court documents on Rev. Annett, but is unable to locate him. The documents are reported to be either a summary arrest warrant for Rev. Annett or a more severe Restraining Order.

December 18, 2002 - A spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva confirms that the Commissioner will "probably" be sending an official investigator to Canada in the spring of 2003 to examine evidence of crimes against humanity committed against native peoples. She confirms that Prime Minister Jean Chretien could theoretically be summoned to publicly answer charges of complicity in Genocide.

December 28,2002: Kevin Annett is interviewed on KFI radio station in Los Angeles about genocide in Canada, and is heard by an audience of over two million people. Kevin discusses the attacks he is experiencing from the government of Canada through the law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon in Vancouver."

If there is nothing to hide, why so many coverups?

[Machjo]

If you look at the video on this site:

http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

There are plenty of adults there testifying on video that as children they were 'forced' to play with kids with tuberculosis. This would suggest that the only survivors would be those who were either very lucky or had natural immunity. Even then, we knew that the proper procedure was quarantine, not purposeful exposure! This was murder.

[Machjo]

"I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our residential schools to spread infectious diseases... The mortality rate in the schools often exceeds fifty percent. This is a national crime."

Dr. Peter Bryce

The Story of a National Crime, 1907

He was employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and had his position eliminated soon after his allegations. He was an insider and so would certainly have known something. If his opinion was that this was deliberate murder, then how can we think otherwise. And rememebr, this was 1907, when our notion of human rights was even less developed than now!

If he thought it was a crime, how can we not if we are people of integrity?

Edited August 16, 2009 by Machjo

[CANADIEN]

An attempt to balance the blantent misrepresentation of the past being presented by others.

Let me know when you start doing that

[Machjo]

And to think Aboriginal women were being involuntarily sterilized in 1975. I was alive then already.

[Riverwind]

And to think Aboriginal women were being involuntarily sterilized in 1975. I was alive then already.

Of course in your world such things never happened to non-aboriginal women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leilani_Muir

Muir was given the formal label of "Mental Defective Moron." Although she was not told at the time, the board ordered that she be sterilized on the basis of her IQ score, her Irish-Polish background, her Catholic religion, her presumed inability to raise children properly and the fact that she had shown definite interest in the opposite sex.

[Machjo]

Of course in your world such things never happened to non-aboriginal women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leilani_Muir

Of course, and that's shameful too. I'm not ignoring that this happened to others, and we could certainly create a thread on that. Here however, it was not focussed exclusivly to 'morons', but to an entire race of people.

[Riverwind]

Of course, and that's shameful too. I'm not ignoring that this happened to others, and we could certainly create a thread on that. Here however, it was not focussed exclusivly to 'morons', but to an entire race of people.

There is no evidence that the eugenics movement was specifically targeted at natives (Muir was a Polish Catholic). All minority groups were disproportionately affected by those laws. Trying to cast the issue as a native issue misrepresents the history. Edited August 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Machjo]

There is no evidence that the eugenics movement was specifically targeted at natives (Muir was a Polish Catholic). All minority groups were disproportionately affected by those laws. Trying to cast the issue as a native issue misrepresents the history.

But certainly not on the same scale as the others. We did not see Catholics or Poles being forcefully separated from their parents and forced into residential schools. We certainly didn't hear stories of nuns getting pregnant off of Aboriginal boys and then killing the babies, etc.

We're talking about a whole different level here.

[Riverwind]

But certainly not on the same scale as the others. We did not see Catholics or Poles being forcefully separated from their parents and forced into residential schools.

Only because the other minority groups happened to live near the schools. The government seized children from any minority group that refused to send their kids to school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites

Among the reactions of the British Columbia and Canadian government [took] away Freedomite children. Abuse of these children was later alleged, and a formal apology demanded. The BC government made an official Statement of Regret that satisfied some, but not others. The Government of Canada has not apologized for its role in the removal, saying that it is not responsible for actions taken by the government in place 50 years ago.

Forced assimilation was the universally applied doctrine.

We certainly didn't hear stories of nuns getting pregnant off of Aboriginal boys and then killing the babies, etc.

The residential schools were a magnet for pedophiles because of poor government oversight and the government is definately vicariously liable because it had a duty to ensure a safe environment for the children. But people who imply that the child abuse was a deliberate government policy are misrepresenting the facts. Edited August 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Machjo]

Only because the other minority groups happened to live near the schools. The government seized children from any minority group that refused to send their kids to school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites

Forced assimilation was the universally applied doctrine.

The residential schools were a magnet for pedophiles because of poor government oversight and the government is definately vicariously liable because it had a duty to ensure a safe environment for the children. But people who imply that the child abuse was a deliberate government policy are misrepresenting the facts.

Not the abuse, but the forced sterilization and intentional exposure to tuberculosis, as quoted above. Do you have any record of others being intentionally exposed to tuberculosis?

[Riverwind]

Not the abuse, but the forced sterilization and intentional exposure to tuberculosis, as quoted above. Do you have any record of others being intentionally exposed to tuberculosis?

As I pointed out the forced sterilization was done to people from many different minority groups and was not specifically targeted at aboriginals.

The only evidence of "forced" exposure to TB is evidence that the schools had no ability to deal with sick children that were forced to be there by government policy. It is one thing to note that the procedures when it comes to dealing with TB were known at the time but it is another thing to assert that the people running the schools had the knowledge, training and resources to implement those procedures but chose not to for some nefarious purpose.

There is a general rule that I think applies here: never assume conspiracy when incompetence is sufficient to explain what went wrong.

[Guest TrueMetis]

As I pointed out the forced sterilization was done to people from many different minority groups and was not specifically targeted at aboriginals.

The only evidence of "forced" exposure to TB is evidence that the schools had no ability to deal with sick children that were forced to be there by government policy. It is one thing to note that the procedures when it comes to dealing with TB were known at the time but it is another thing to assert that the people running the schools had the knowledge, training and resources to implement those procedures but chose not to for some nefarious purpose.

There is a general rule that I think applies here: never assume conspiracy when incompetence is sufficient to explain what went wrong.

How hard is it to keep the Kids with TB away from the kids that don't?

[Riverwind]

How hard is it to keep the Kids with TB away from the kids that don't?

Next to impossible if you are dealing with more kids than the buildings were designed to house. Overcrowding was an issue at these schools and that would have exacerbated any disease problem.

[eyeball]

As I pointed out the forced sterilization was done to people from many different minority groups and was not specifically targeted at aboriginals.

The only evidence of "forced" exposure to TB is evidence that the schools had no ability to deal with sick children that were forced to be there by government policy. It is one thing to note that the procedures when it comes to dealing with TB were known at the time but it is another thing to assert that the people running the schools had the knowledge, training and resources to implement those procedures but chose not to for some nefarious purpose.

There is a general rule that I think applies here: never assume conspiracy when incompetence is sufficient to explain what went wrong.

Incompetance is certainly grounds for significant financial settlements in many other cases, gross incompetance even more so. At some point gross incompetance becomes criminal negligence and in the case of residential schools and other policies designed to address Canada's issues with aboriginals, its clear the government crossed this line a long time ago.