Petition to Abolish the Indian Act

[geoffrey]

Canada's potential crimes against humanity. It is a necessary stage of justice ... the 'rule of law' in effect.

How about the roaming gangs of Indian thugs in Saskatoon? Does that mean all white people deserve a settlement from all Indians? Naahhhhh.

[Riverwind]

Are you talking about the government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

There is no such thing. The RCAP called for a Public Inquiry and it makes no mention of genocide or even the idea that the harm caused by the residential schools was intentional. The fairly neutral language of the RCAP proposal makes the bias of your "tribunal" painfully obvious. You may have thought you were making a point but you actually succeeded in demonstrating why no one should take your "tribunal" seriously. Edited August 31, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

There is no such thing. The RCAP called for a Public Inquiry and it makes no mention of genocide or even the idea that the harm caused by the residential schools was intentional. The fairly neutral language of the RCAP proposal makes the bias of your "tribunal" painfully obvious. You may have thought you were making a point but you actually succeeded in demonstrating why no one should take your "tribunal" seriously.

Um ... hate to be disagreeable but there is a federal government Truth and Reconciliation Commission in place now.

http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/english/truth_r...commission.html

(not to be confused with the upcoming International Tribunal that was also mentioned previously)

A call for a public inquiry would not presume the outcome by referring to genocide or intentionality, of course.

It is a call for an investigation of the facts. Those issues would perhaps arise from the inquiry, or as it has been styled, from the government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It is highly unlikely, of course, that a charge against Canada for genocide will arise from Canada's Commission, I certainly agree with that!

[jennie]

How about the roaming gangs of Indian thugs in Saskatoon? Does that mean all white people deserve a settlement from all Indians? Naahhhhh.

Well, street crime is always a legitimate concern, reason to fear.

Not sure about the connection you are making to settlements, though.

bit of a stretttttttcccchhhhh perhaps?

[Riverwind]

--

Edited September 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

A call for a public inquiry would not presume the outcome by referring to genocide or intentionality, of course.

Which is exactly my point. That is why your "international tribunal" is a joke set up by activists and has nothing useful to contribute.

[jennie]

Which is exactly my point. That is why your "international tribunal" is a joke set up by activists and has nothing useful to contribute.

I am interested in your perspective on that ... why would an initiative like that have "nothing" to contribute? Isn't that up to us to judge once we hear it?

And also what about the T&R Commission?

[Riverwind]

I am interested in your perspective on that ... why would an initiative like that have "nothing" to contribute? Isn't that up to us to judge once we hear it?

The "tribunal" has nothing to contribute because it has already decided what the conculsions will be and that it will likely ignore any evidence that contradicts it predetermined conclusions.

[jennie]

The "tribunal" has nothing to contribute because it has already decided what the conculsions will be and that it will likely ignore any evidence that contradicts it predetermined conclusions.

What information can you point me to that I can read up on it?

What about the T&R Commission and its mandate, etc.?

[Riverwind]

What information can you point me to that I can read up on it?

Pfft. You are the one who brought the tribunal up and its claims of genocide. Any tribunal that starts out with presumption that genocide occurred is hopelessly biased. The use of the word itself is an abuse of the language intended to score propoganda points rather than inform.

What about the T&R Commission and its mandate, etc.?

Its mandate is to settle legal claims out of court and to provide help for the people that were victims of crimes at the schools. Nothing in its mandate indicates that your claims of genocide are credible.

[jennie]

Pfft. You are the one who brought the tribunal up and its claims of genocide. Any tribunal that starts out with presumption that genocide occurred is hopelessly biased. The use of the word itself is an abuse of the language intended to score propoganda points rather than inform.

Its mandate is to settle legal claims out of court and to provide help for the people that were victims of crimes at the schools. Nothing in its mandate indicates that your claims of genocide are credible.

I read that there is an International Tribunal on Genocide in Canada. You poo-poo it without providing any backup, links, etc.

Topic ended, I guess, but your opinion not supported by anything as yet.

My opinion is that documented evidence is always useful, so I don't see the harm.

At the same time there is Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I heard the Commissioner Bob Watts speak on TV and he said they are turning records over to the RCMP.

That may be a late change, as was the current investigation into deaths of children in the schools, he said.

I didn't mean to hit a nerve. These are very emotional issues for some, I realize that.

I am sure we will all be relieved to have truth, difficult though the process may be. We hardly have much to complain about, not being the ones who had to go through it. If they can go through it we can certainly hear them out and face the truth.

[Posit]

The issues aren't emotional. Just the people who discuss them are afraid of losing power over them.

Its enough to make an old granny fall backward in her rocking chair....

[Pliny]

Thanks for the opportunity to check this out ...

One criticism of the Austrian school is its rejection of the scientific method and empirical testing in favor of supposedly self-evident axioms and logical reasoning.[6] Bryan Caplan has criticized the school for rejecting on principle the use of mathematics or econometrics which "more than anything else, what prevents Austrian economists from getting more publications in mainstream journals"[7] There are also criticisms of more specific theories.[8]

Rejecting econometrics ... well I can see arguments for that. If one is always predicting on past data, one never considers the unique probabilities of fortuitous events, creativity, perhaps? But then relying on logical (deductive) reasoning has those limitations as well ... and "self-evident axioms" ... well ... I would have to see them to evaluate them I guess.

Self-evident to whom? To me, an economic novice? An example?

Glad you checked that out. One question though. Why start with critiques from mainstream economists? If I wished to understand you, I would not read Riverwind's critique.

They will provide evidence of crimes to be investigated and brought to justice. These may be individual or collective, such as Canada's potential crimes against humanity. It is a necessary stage of justice ... the 'rule of law' in effect.

Sorry, I do not believe it is justice you seek. It seems to me to be some sort of revenge.

I gather they needed the warmth? Ya ... real do-good that is ! ... Livin' in luxury, those kids ...

So you think the government wasted the time and the money? I can agree with that.

Once our governments HONOUR TREATY AND TRADITIONAL LAND RIGHTS AND PAY OUR OUTSTANDING LEGAL LIABILITIES, then the government is free to give up trying to be so "helpful" ... in my 'legal' opinion.

Honouring treaty and traditional land rights is why you find yourself where you are. You would do better to vote for them to do nothing. You are asking them to continue to spoon feed you. I am most certain they will oblige as much as I object to them treating any "special interest" like irresponsible children demanding their allowance.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Pliny

[Riverwind]

You poo-poo it without providing any backup, links, etc.

You tried to claim that this tribunal would have useful insights that everyone should listen to. My response was it would have no useful insights because it advertises its bias in its title. What happened to the natives in Canada was not genocide. If you want links the try a dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

I realize that the aboriginal victim industry has successfully got the UN to define something called 'cultural genocide', however, that is an abuse of the term and is intended to mislead because the critically important prefix 'cultural' is quickly forgotten (e.g. your tribunal calls itself the tribunal on genocide in Canada not the tribunal on 'cultural' genocide). If you want to insist on using the word from the UN definition then you must *always* include the 'cultural' prefix - if you omit the prefix then you are making a false statement. You and other native activists understand this distinction but choose to misuse the word anyways.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

You tried to claim that this tribunal would have useful insights that everyone should listen to. My response was it would have no useful insights because it advertises its bias in its title. What happened to the natives in Canada was not genocide. If you want links the try a dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

In your opinion of course. I will wait for the evidence myself.

I realize that ... has successfully got the UN to define something called 'cultural genocide', however, that is an abuse of the term and is intended to mislead because the critically important prefix 'cultural' is quickly forgotten (e.g. your tribunal calls itself the tribunal on genocide in Canada not the tribunal on 'cultural' genocide). If you want to insist on using the word from the UN definition then you must *always* include the 'cultural' prefix - if you omit the prefix then you are making a false statement. You and other native activists understand this distinction but choose to misuse the word anyways.

This is the relevant definition ... already posted previously, btw. There is no mention of 'cultural genocide', though I think it was perhaps discussed at one time, but it isn't used.

("Native" activist? me? lolol)

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

UN convention on genocide ...

Article 2

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;

( 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.

Criminal Code of Canada ...

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely

(a) killing members of the group; or

( deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

........................................................................

What happened to the natives in Canada was not genocide.

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

Edited September 1, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Glad you checked that out. One question though. Why start with critiques from mainstream economists? If I wished to understand you, I would not read Riverwind's critique.

I just like to cut to the chase.

Sorry, I do not believe it is justice you seek. It seems to me to be some sort of revenge.

I beg your pardon? Me?

Revenge for what? The potato famine? The clearances? Russian revolution? Roma persecution? ... etcetcetc ... get the picture? (wrong assumption there, np)

What is the government's purpose for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission then? (Sorry ... will look it up later unless you know ...)

It is not a court of justice though, true.

I wonder how the church and school staff see it? They have sent in a lot of information, personal accounts that they did not have to send, etc. The first evidence to be collected, of course, is that from the government's own records, and the churches records ... and the clergy/staff submissions, and I understand (from tv) that they have been overwhelmed by the amount of information coming from the churches. That's ... nice to know, I think. Good start, anyway.

eew

Honouring treaty and traditional land rights is why you find yourself where you are.

True, given the above info ... where I am is downtown Canada ... our home on Native land.

... where treaties have not been honoured. yikes

You would do better to vote for them to do nothing.

Just like we usually do ... we vote ... they do nothing ... we pay the money ... we vote ... ... they do nothing ... we pay more money ... the government ... I mean ... jk ... just a little joke but I run out of icons...

Edited September 1, 2007 by jennie

[Pliny]

I just like to cut to the chase.

So that makes you no longer an economic novice.

I beg your pardon? Me?

Revenge for what? The potato famine? The clearances? Russian revolution? Roma persecution? ... etcetcetc ... get the picture? (wrong assumption there, np)

I get that you feel hurt.

What is the government's purpose for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission then? (Sorry ... will look it up later unless you know ...)

It is not a court of justice though, true.

The answer lies in what is the governments purpose. It must be perceived to fulfill it's purpose but it seeks to end it's obligations as regards the matter.

I wonder how the church and school staff see it? They have sent in a lot of information, personal accounts that they did not have to send, etc. The first evidence to be collected, of course, is that from the government's own records, and the churches records ... and the clergy/staff submissions, and I understand (from tv) that they have been overwhelmed by the amount of information coming from the churches. That's ... nice to know, I think. Good start, anyway.

True, given the above info ... where I am is downtown Canada ... our home on Native land.

... where treaties have not been honoured. yikes

A good start to what?

Just like we usually do ... we vote ... they do nothing ... we pay the money ... we vote ... ... they do nothing ... we pay more money ... the government ... I mean ... jk ... just a little joke but I run out of icons...

If governments are promising to do something and are doing nothing then vote for a government that is honest and promises to do nothing.

Listen. This issue is a deep-seated personal concern for you. I am of the opinion that you are the same as I am as an individual and do not consider you my enemy. That you disagree with my opinion and hold that you should be and should remain different and be treated differently by government is asking that you remain in conflict with all who would like to include you as being their equal under the law. You however must see some benefit in remaining different and separate, perhaps that is the government's error. I merely would like to point out that, if you look at what that position has won you, maintaining it can only exacerbate the already horrible conditions a lot of natives live in. I would recommend joining Canada not fighting it.

[Riverwind]

Almost all of the definitions that you quoted support my argument that genocide refers to the deliberate murder or extermination of a group of people - something that never happened in Canada nor is there any evidence that it might have happened.

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

I can see why you would like to think that clause is relevant, however, it is ridiculous to claim that mandatory schooling of children in the majority culture consists 'forcible transfer' (if it was every country would be guilty of genocide even today). Nor would this clause apply to situations where children are removed from the parents for their safety - even if you can find examples of cases where government officials were overzealous.

If you doubt my interpretation then go back and read the dictionary definition of genocide. A group could only be exterminated by 'forcible transfer' of its children in a society where a minority group was racially the same as the majority. IOW - natives sent to residential schools or raised by white families were still natives which means you cannot say that natives were 'exterminated' by going to residential schools or adoptions. Since those policies could have never caused the extermination of natives you cannot claim that those policies constitute 'forcible removal' under the UN's definition.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

The "forcible transfers" do not have to result in "extermination". Those are two different aspects of the same definition of what constitutes genocide.

Children were removed to residential schools (and today into foster homes) with the force of the police, against the permission or wishes of the parents and consistent with the definition of genocide. Whether you want to see with blinders on is your choice. However, I am grateful that in my Canada, the majority do not see it your way. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will expose the extent to which genocide occurred (and is still occurring). I can see why you are afraid of that. Truth in the midst of myths and delusion can spoil your worldview.....

Edited September 1, 2007 by Posit

[jennie]

Almost all of the definitions that you quoted support my argument that genocide refers to the deliberate murder or extermination of a group of people - something that never happened in Canada nor is there any evidence that it might have happened.

There has been no investigation of that in Canada. That process is just beginning. I expect they will withhold judgment until all the evidence is in. Perhaps you should consider that approach too.

I can see why you would like to think that clause is relevant, however, it is ridiculous to claim that mandatory schooling of children in the majority culture consists 'forcible transfer' (if it was every country would be guilty of genocide even today). Nor would this clause apply to situations where children are removed from the parents for their safety - even if you can find examples of cases where government officials were overzealous.

If you doubt my interpretation then go back and read the dictionary definition of genocide. A group could only be exterminated by 'forcible transfer' of its children in a society where a minority group was racially the same as the majority. IOW - natives sent to residential schools or raised by white families were still natives which means you cannot say that natives were 'exterminated' by going to residential schools or adoptions. Since those policies could have never caused the extermination of natives you cannot claim that those policies constitute 'forcible removal' under the UN's definition.

The children were made wards of the state, or in some cases the school principal. They were forcibly removed from their family and their culture and placed in a foreign culture, denied their language and spirituality, etc. It was clearly a program of destruction of their culture and replacement with the dominant culture, which is the key element of genocide. They were also terrorized into submission.

All of this evidence is yet to be produced 'officially', of course, which is why it is not productive to try to prejudge the outcome at this point.

[Pliny]

There has been no investigation of that in Canada. That process is just beginning. I expect they will withhold judgment until all the evidence is in. Perhaps you should consider that approach too.

The children were made wards of the state, or in some cases the school principal. They were forcibly removed from their family and their culture and placed in a foreign culture, denied their language and spirituality, etc. It was clearly a program of destruction of their culture and replacement with the dominant culture, which is the key element of genocide. They were also terrorized into submission.

All of this evidence is yet to be produced 'officially', of course, which is why it is not productive to try to prejudge the outcome at this point.

The key element of genocide is murder.

[jennie]

The key element of genocide is murder.

That is only one of the five genocidal acts. (See UN Convention posted above.)

[Riverwind]

The "forcible transfers" do not have to result in "extermination". Those are two different aspects of the same definition of what constitutes genocide.

You are trying to impose an interpretation that makes no sense given the meaning of the word genocide and the other acts that are listed in the UN definition. No matter how much you protest you cannot escape the fact that the word 'genocide' means murder or extermination.

Here is a link that talks about genocide http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3853157.stm

Some analysts argue that the definition is so narrow that none of the mass killings perpetrated since the treaty's adoption would fall under it

The objections most frequently raised against the treaty include:

...

Proving intention beyond reasonable doubt is extremely difficult

This makes it very clear that 'killing' and 'intent' are the central aspect of genocide.

Mr Destexhe believes the word genocide has fallen victim to "a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist".

The slaughter in Rwanda shocked the world Because of that, he says, the term has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming "dangerously commonplace".

Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, agrees.

"Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood," he said in a lecture about Raphael Lemkin

I like the word 'banality' because it describes perfectly what you are doing when you use the word genocide to describe what happened to natives in Canada.

[Pliny]

That is only one of the five genocidal acts. (See UN Convention posted above.)

The key element is murder. You probably don't differentiate between "murder" and "killing" either, nor does the UN it seems.

We could, if you want to interpret the UN's terms as you do, say that the there is definite intent to replace the Judeo-Christian North American culture extant today. You wouldn't be inciting that would you?

The UN is a rather useless organization which we would all do better to ignore and let pass on. Especially in light of the recent scandals that have originated there. It seems to be a place to skim money from governmentally designed programs and grant privilege to a cabal of insiders.

Let me ask jennie, if you consider assimilation the same as genocide?

Edited September 1, 2007 by Pliny

[jennie]

You are trying to impose an interpretation that makes no sense given the meaning of the word genocide and the other acts that are listed in the UN definition. No matter how much you protest you cannot escape the fact that the word 'genocide' means murder or extermination.

Here is a link that talks about genocide http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3853157.stm

This makes it very clear that 'killing' and 'intent' are the central aspect of genocide.

I like the word 'banality' because it describes perfectly what you are doing when you use the word genocide to describe what happened to natives in Canada.

I did mention that there was a tribunal by that name, but I have not claimed genocide, I have repeatedly stated that I will wait for the evidence and the processes.

This is an interesting clarification, from your link ... it appears that genocide requires an "intentional policy", which I believe was the case in Canada at one time.

The UN panel investigating Darfur concluded that though there was the deliberate targeting of civilians in Darfur using murder, torture and sexual violence, the Sudan government had not pursued an intentional policy of genocide.