Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[Accountability Now]

you must note, AN, unbelievably, continues to deny that it existed.

Where have I denied that it existed? Please quote the exact location where I said it didn't exist. I even said that the events that happened to my family (including verbal and physical abuse) were not to same level as what happened at the residential schools.

Are you just playing dumb now?

Edit...where have I denied that verbal and physical abuse existed? I have said the term genocide is not correct

Edited June 1, 2015 by Accountability Now

[jbg]

Instead of always assuming, have you ever considered something really crazy, like maybe researching?

For your personal benefit, not a chance.

[Je suis Omar]

Where have I denied that it existed? Please quote the exact location where I said it didn't exist.

AN: Its not genocide....no matter how many times you say it is. But go ahead....say it once more.

[Accountability Now]

AN: Its not genocide....no matter how many times you say it is. But go ahead....say it once more.

It's not genocide. Verbal, physical abuse and even death do not equal genocide.

[Je suis Omar]

It's not genocide. Verbal, physical abuse and even death do not equal genocide.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a Genocide;

(b Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e Complicity in genocide. "

Discussion:

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

...

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

Edited June 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Accountability Now]

It's not genocide. Verbal, physical abuse and even death do not equal genocide.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a Genocide;

(b Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e Complicity in genocide. "

Discussion:

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

...

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

Thanks for posting the UN's definition of genocide. Has the UN itself declared it genocide?

[eyeball]

So what you're saying is they would want back 90% of Canada. Good luck with that. The reality is the only way this would ever work is if all 630 First Nations agreed on what land including their reserves was actually used and work out some agreement based on that. With that said, the vast majority of these First Nations would be completely bordered by Canada and therefore would be subject to high duties for any exports leaving.

I'm pretty certain their negotiators will ask for nearly everything and go from there. That's been the case out on the coast. In light of potential vindictiveness from us - the duties you mentioned for example - would require aboriginal title to continuous swaths of Canada to ensure trade routes to the rest of the world remain open. If anything I would expect the reverse of what you're suggesting could just as easily be the case. Around here 1st Nations are to be consulted re development in local municipalities regional districts however these have no say on development on treaty lands

By the same token, the prudent thing from a negotiating point from a First Nations perspective is that they're the senior partner in Confederation.

As such there really is no way for this to work which is something they already know.

We probably said the same thing back when the first 1st Nation started entertaining the thought of re-asserting their rights.

[jacee]

The only mandatory thing in place was that First Nations kids had to attend school (day, industrial or residential). The problem is that in some areas the only thing offered were residential. Not sure if there was an option to move to an area with the other options. It's estimated that 30% of First Nations children went to residential schools with the other 70% going to the others

Link?

Not correct. If you researched your claims, you could avoid the embarrassment of being wrong.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0848-e.htm

In 1920, attendance at residential schools became compulsory under the Indian Act. Children aged 6 to 15 could be forcibly removed from their families if they were not sent willingly.

"(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

is an act of genocide in international law.

.

Edited June 2, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Thanks for posting the UN's definition of genocide. Has the UN itself declared it genocide?

Interesting question.

That would happen via a lawsuit taken to the International Courts of Justice, if justice within Canada is ineffective in resolving issues.

So far, lawsuits have only been taken to Canadian courts, resulting in success and the Indian Residential School Settlement with court mandated settlement payments to survivors and the Truth Commission (overseen by the UN International Centre for Transitional Justice) currently reporting and making recommendations.

If genocide is acknowledged in Canada, it will be acknowledged by the UN and there may be no need to resort to the International courts.

/perry bellegarde afn chief says reconciliation means closing poverty gap and acknowledging genocide

.

Edited June 2, 2015 by jacee

[jbg]

Interesting question.

That would happen via a lawsuit taken to the International Courts of Justice, if justice within Canada is ineffective in resolving issues.

So far, lawsuits have only been taken to Canadian courts, resulting in success and the Indian Residential School Settlement with court mandated settlement payments to survivors and the Truth Commission (overseen by the UN International Centre for Transitional Justice) currently reporting and making recommendations.

If genocide is acknowledged in Canada, it will be acknowledged by the UN and there may be no need to resort to the International courts.

/perry bellegarde afn chief says reconciliation means closing poverty gap and acknowledging genocide

.

Canada would rightly treat the ICC as the joke that it is.

[Black Dog]

As many times as you want to say it....aggressive assimilation is not genocide.

That was the crux of the policies towards the First Nations, of which residential schools were just one aspect.

[Accountability Now]

I'm pretty certain their negotiators will ask for nearly everything and go from there. That's been the case out on the coast. In light of potential vindictiveness from us - the duties you mentioned for example - would require aboriginal title to continuous swaths of Canada to ensure trade routes to the rest of the world remain open.

There would be no aboriginal title any more. They would have their land and we would have ours. Our land would be the land they ceded long ago. The areas in BC without treaties would be the most contentious but pretty much any undeveloped, non-treaty areas would be theirs.

Again....you would need all 630 First Nations to agree as this would be an all or none sort of deal

[Accountability Now]

Link?

Not correct. If you researched your claims, you could avoid the embarrassment of being wrong.

I did research it. Here:

An amendment to the Indian Act made attendance of a day, industrial or residential school compulsory for First Nations children and, in some parts of the country, residential schools were the only option.^[1] The number of residential schools reached 80 in 1931 but decreased in the years that followed. The last federally operated residential school was closed in 1996^[2]}. In total, about 150,000 First Nations children passed through the residential school system,^[3] and at least 4,000 of them died while attending the schools.^[4] (Approximately 30% of native children were placed in residential schools nationally.)^[5]

There has long been significant historiographical and popular controversy about the conditions experienced by students in the residential schools. While day schools for First Nations, Metis and Inuit children always far outnumbered residential schools, a new consensus emerged in the early 21st century that the latter schools did significant harm to Aboriginal children who attended them by removing them from their families, depriving them of theirancestral languages, sterilization, and exposing many of them to physical and sexual abuse by staff and other students, and enfranchising them forcibly.

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

The numbers alone should make you question the 'mandatory' clause. The average population of First Nations from 1900 to 1960 alone was around 150,000. Assume that half of those are children that means 75,000 at any given time. Also assume that this number replenishes itself every 15 years meaning that from 1900-1960 there would have been 4 x 75,000 which is 300,000 kids. From 1960 to 1980 the average population was around 350,000 so add another 150,000 or so in that period alone. By crude estimate alone there would have been about 450,000 kids during that time of which 150,000 went to residential schools which is roughly 30% (as stated above).

If this system was 'mandatory' then why did 300,000 other native kids not go? Like I said, it was mandatory that they went to school and if the residential system was the only option then that's where they went.

[bush_cheney2004]

There would be no aboriginal title any more. They would have their land and we would have ours. Our land would be the land they ceded long ago.

How could the land be ceded without prior "title". Where did the Crown's "title" come from ?

[Accountability Now]

If genocide is acknowledged in Canada, it will be acknowledged by the UN and there may be no need to resort to the International courts.

The UN was presented a letter in 2013 to the UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya urging him to declare genocide based on this information. His report did nothing of the sort. They won't even go as far as calling it 'cultural genocide' like the TRC does.

I don't think the UN will even look at this. The settlement was made in 2007 and action was taken.

[Accountability Now]

How could the land be ceded without prior "title". Where did the Crown's "title" come from ?

The land was ceded by the Aboriginals. The Crown got title from them through the treaties.

[bush_cheney2004]

The land was ceded by the Aboriginals. The Crown got title from them through the treaties.

Right, but the "Aboriginals" never had "title". So where/how did "title" originate, not just HBC resource extraction.

[Accountability Now]

That was the crux of the policies towards the First Nations, of which residential schools were just one aspect.

The more I view this I have to say that the intent of the program was to bring the aboriginals into British society and to ensure that they had a chance of flourishing within the country that was to become. I do think the intent was good but everything about the application including handing it over to the Churches and the overall idea of trying to have them lose their culture was horrible.

When the treaties were signed, one of the main components was that the Government would provide education. Both sides at that point agreed that this education would be necessary for living in the new world. Of course, it was never expected to be the way it was but again the intent at the beginning was true.

[Accountability Now]

Right, but the "Aboriginals" never had "title". So where/how did "title" originate, not just HBC resource extraction.

The Royal Proclamation gave them title.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Royal Proclamation gave them title.

The "Royal Proclamation" ? OK....so why is there any conflict over lands that were never ceded ?

[eyeball]

We gave it to them so we could just turn around and take it back. The US performed the same legal alchemy and called the aboriginal 'Magna Carta' they pulled out of their asses the Indian Intercourse Acts. How counter-Orwellian is that?

Of course none of this business has a shred of principled integrity or will stand the moral test of history but for the moment at least it's all still perfectly legal. That said the battle field will probably shift away from the courts and onto the streets and slosh back and forth between those two for a couple of generations. It's how all this crap surrounding sovereignty and title seems to roll.

[Accountability Now]

The "Royal Proclamation" ? OK....so why is there any conflict over lands that were never ceded ?

Most of those lands are in BC where by that point in settlement most other treaties were made and a lot of assumptions were made. Natives went to the reservations and everyone assumed all was good. It wasn't until later they realized that treaties weren't made and the lands were never ceded. Keep in mind the Royal Proclamation was generic and said anything east of the Appalachians not having a full understanding what was this far out west. Also, there were other players in the game including the Spanish to the south and the French involvement which ultimately lead to the Louisiana purchase. All in all, development started happening and no one stopped to ask questions.

[Big Guy]

Many questionable activities by governments and organizations in the past appear as outrageous under the magnifying glass of history and time. I do not believe that the people at the time thought that they were doing anything bad or improper (except of course for the sexual assaults). I have little use for people trying to right the wrongs of the past with imposing wrongs of the present. I also have no use for people to-day apologizing for folks in the old days who did what they thought was right.

For me, this includes the internment of Japanese nationalists during the war as well as the treatment of Canadian aboriginals of the past or the treatment of Chinese imports on the West Coast to build railways or ....

[Argus]

Which is why they want their country back.

They never had a country. They had hundreds of little villages scattered around, and lots and lots of empty space.

[Argus]

What you are trying to say is that the only way this would ever work is if First Nations somehow acquired the power to forcibly take the land and commit genocide like the white folks did.

The White folks never committed genocide, which is why there are so many natives still around today.

Where is that right wing meme about personal responsibility, how crucial it is for people to be held accountable for their actions.

It doesn't hold people responsible for the actions of people who died before they were born.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Argus