Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

750 million dollars is committed to compensate for indigenous children being taken from their families in 1960s.


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Peter F said:

They did contest it!  see the case of Brown vs. the Attorney General for Canada. 

"Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said Tuesday the government would "absolutely not" appeal the ruling, but would push to settle on monetary compensation out of court."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 10:03 AM, blackbird said:

Holding the federal government (which in reality means the Canadian taxpayers) responsible for an alleged loss of "cultural identity" is a classical liberal judge's interpretation of the Charter. 

Refusing to take responsibility for those times when Canadians, through their government, stepped all over the rights of others is a classic conservative's stance:  "money before honor" seems to be the motto.

Quote

The charter of rights has been used as an excuse to give unheard of rights or grant claims that heretofore never existed. 

Clearly, rights that never existed before should absolutely never be given.  I've no doubt that some people said exactly that when women were given the right to vote and that more recently quite a number of Saudi men who object to women driving would agree with you.  

Quote

They are simply not even stated in the Charter of Rights.  That is once again a case of judge's making laws out of thin air.

I found and read Ms. McLaughin's essay and it reminded me that judges have always "made law out of thin air" and that our entire judicial system called "common law" has been based on that.

Quote

Liberal judges think it is their right to make laws.  Read the Supreme Court's chief judge Beverly McLaughlin's essay on what she believe is a judge's responsibility.  She actually has a very similar ideology. 

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but Ms. McLaughlin's essay seems to be saying that judges should be, and are,  impartial and not political.   She points out that the *outcome* of judgements may be considered political, so that citizens such as yourself will say "A Liberal judge made that decision" when in fact a decision was based on Constitutional Law.

Quote

The government should have fought this right up through the Supreme Court, but as in the Kadr case, they just gave in because they are liberals

I'm sure a Conservative government would have been happy to pretend that they didn't fail their citizens, and would have been happy to spend millions trying to prove it, and failing.  In BC, the "Liberal" government (really a Conservative government in Liberal clothing) unilaterally removed a part of an agreement with the teacher's union about class size and makeup.  The teachers sued.  The Government lost, in two of three courts over 12 years.   The Government then had to come up with 250 to 300 million dollars to redress the situation.  How much better would it have been if the government hadn't decided to break the law in the first place?  Or even if they did, had decided not to continue fighting after the first decision?       Instead, they took an illegal action, to 'save money', created hardship for some BC citizens, paid millions in court costs to defend their poor decision, and then had to pay 100s of millions more of taxpayer dollars to right their wrong.   How much money should a government waste on a losing argument?

Quote

This country is in serious trouble.  We cannot afford the billions of dollars Trudeau is handing out. 

The country is not in serious trouble.  This constant claim by conservatives gets tiresome:  in economic terms, Canada is doing fine.  You can disagree about how government is spending money, but to claim our country is in serious trouble is simply hyperbole.

Quote

He could care less for the average Canadian.  We need a new Constitution with realism and a different approach by judges.

How much JT cares or doesn't care about the average Canadian is certainly debatable, but I don't think we need a new Constitution or even a different approach by judges.  Just because conservatives with a poor grasp of why it's important to defend everyone's rights, and don't like a couple of court decisions because they don't think (certain) people are entitled to certain rights is not something I think should be enshrined in our constitution.

Quote

I don't know whether you are left of centre,  conservative, or liberal in thinking.  But if you are liberal which includes left of centre when it comes to native rights, you might believe that it is everyone's responsibility to bend over backwards and use as much taxpayer money as necessary to "protect identity" .  I don't agree.  Canada is made up of immigrants who came from other lands and cultures.  Most of them are influenced by living in Canada, a western culture.  Many from alien cultures don't live in Canada like they may have lived where they came from.  They may wear western clothes, watch movies made in the U.S.

I bet if we were using taxpayer money to 'protect' non-immigrant, Christian Canadian identity, you'd have no qualms about it.   I bet it's only native,  immigrant and non-Christian identity you see no reason to 'protect'.   Personally, I prefer a country that is willing to 'protect' everyone, not just one segment of society.  

Quote

What aboriginal identity was the government supposed to protect and how were they supposed to do that?  

They could have done that by simply keeping their word.  Which they did not do, beginning with the first treaties  in the early 1700s right up until the 1980s.   Now, as a country who has decided that we really do think it's important to honor the promises we made, we are paying the price.   While you may not understand the trauma these kids went through, many people do.  Money cannot make that right, of course.  But doing absolutely nothing is worse.

Quote

I whole idea is far-fetched and just a money grab by special interest groups, which Trudeau and Liberals are more than happy to pay with taxpayer's money to win the favour of some minorities.

Of course you do.  Misunderstand the issue, blame the Liberals because you are partisan, and make that your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Refusing to take responsibility for those times when Canadians, through their government, stepped all over the rights of others is a classic conservative's stance:  "money before honor" seems to be the motto.

Clearly, rights that never existed before should absolutely never be given.  I've no doubt that some people said exactly that when women were given the right to vote and that more recently quite a number of Saudi men who object to women driving would agree with you.  

I found and read Ms. McLaughin's essay and it reminded me that judges have always "made law out of thin air" and that our entire judicial system called "common law" has been based on that.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but Ms. McLaughlin's essay seems to be saying that judges should be, and are,  impartial and not political.   She points out that the *outcome* of judgements may be considered political, so that citizens such as yourself will say "A Liberal judge made that decision" when in fact a decision was based on Constitutional Law.

I'm sure a Conservative government would have been happy to pretend that they didn't fail their citizens, and would have been happy to spend millions trying to prove it, and failing.  In BC, the "Liberal" government (really a Conservative government in Liberal clothing) unilaterally removed a part of an agreement with the teacher's union about class size and makeup.  The teachers sued.  The Government lost, in two of three courts over 12 years.   The Government then had to come up with 250 to 300 million dollars to redress the situation.  How much better would it have been if the government hadn't decided to break the law in the first place?  Or even if they did, had decided not to continue fighting after the first decision?       Instead, they took an illegal action, to 'save money', created hardship for some BC citizens, paid millions in court costs to defend their poor decision, and then had to pay 100s of millions more of taxpayer dollars to right their wrong.   How much money should a government waste on a losing argument?

The country is not in serious trouble.  This constant claim by conservatives gets tiresome:  in economic terms, Canada is doing fine.  You can disagree about how government is spending money, but to claim our country is in serious trouble is simply hyperbole.

How much JT cares or doesn't care about the average Canadian is certainly debatable, but I don't think we need a new Constitution or even a different approach by judges.  Just because conservatives with a poor grasp of why it's important to defend everyone's rights, and don't like a couple of court decisions because they don't think (certain) people are entitled to certain rights is not something I think should be enshrined in our constitution.

I bet if we were using taxpayer money to 'protect' non-immigrant, Christian Canadian identity, you'd have no qualms about it.   I bet it's only native,  immigrant and non-Christian identity you see no reason to 'protect'.   Personally, I prefer a country that is willing to 'protect' everyone, not just one segment of society.  

They could have done that by simply keeping their word.  Which they did not do, beginning with the first treaties  in the early 1700s right up until the 1980s.   Now, as a country who has decided that we really do think it's important to honor the promises we made, we are paying the price.   While you may not understand the trauma these kids went through, many people do.  Money cannot make that right, of course.  But doing absolutely nothing is worse.

Of course you do.  Misunderstand the issue, blame the Liberals because you are partisan, and make that your argument.

No, the provincial governments in the period the children were apprehended were not stepping all over the rights of indigenous children.  That is a completely false narrative and picture.  What happened is simply this.  As a result of family dysfunction, alcohol, unemployment, lack of education, domestic abuse, isolation, and many other factors on reserves, many children were in fact in danger.  The provincial social services department have a legal responsibility to rescue children that are in danger of harm.  This happens in white communities all the time.  I lived adjacent to a native village on an island in the 1960s where there were about 1000 natives and 800 white people.  I could tell you something from personal experience which I observed but have decided it might be better to not put it on a forum.  Apprehending native children is not stealing their identity; it is society carrying out it's responsibility or caring for at risk children.  Not much more can be said about that.  The idea that governments deprived children's culture or identity is irresponsible and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the reality was.  To now give some groups 750 million dollars for allegedly taking their cultural identity from them is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a miscarriage of justice.

The Chief Justice Mrs.  Bev McLaughlin shows in her essay, which I am glad you took the time to read, shows that the Supreme Court (and other courts) do in fact make new laws.  They claim they are interpreting the Constitution or Charter of Rights, but often there is no such subject in the Charter.   For example, show me in the Charter where it mentions doctor-assisted suicide or abortion rights.  It is non-existent.  If you read the essay, you would have seen they make ruling, not so much on the Charter or Constitution, but on what they perceive as would be a society norm or what society would accept as a norm.  That's the plain fact that I got out of her essay and is supported by rulings that have nothing in the Charter to clearly support them.

You claim that women's right to vote is in the same league as some of these court rulings is ludicrous.  Ruling that rescuing at risk children and depriving them of their native identity was not a crime or immoral action by social services workers.  It was just natural if they were moved to a non-native home, they would not be in the same environment as natives living on reserves.  No taxpayers owe anything for that and it was no offence.   Millions of people immigrating to Canada are leaving their former cultures behind.  They are adopting Canadian or western lifestyles and culture (hopefully;  maybe not all).  Nobody receives compensation or should for this.  This is not depriving natives of their culture or identity.  It is a fact of life in Canada.  It has nothing to do with depriving rights.

I fear you have a lack of experience and knowledge in the real world. I don't blame you for that.  Just that you are confusing women's right to vote with court rulings that having nothing to do with any rights.  Aboriginal identity is not a god-given right.  We have certain rights that our western democracies have historically recognized such as the basic freedoms of speech, religion, association, and the press.   Cultural identity might be something the U.N. came up with from cultural Marxists and aboriginal rights activists who are demanding land and money from the western non-native society.  They have been accusing non-native society as being guilty of "cultural genocide".  You should also read the Truth and Reconciliation Committees report on their recommended actions and see how ridiculous the demands they made are.  Google is your friend.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 10:06 AM, OftenWrong said:

I wonder how it would have been done otherwise, since the whole point of it was to remove them from the reserves. Most of them were too young to have established their aboriginal identity.

And they aren't allowed to establish "White identity" either, because if they "look" native, they are "treated" native, regardless of how or with whom they were raised.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 6:54 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Did provincial social services ever remove any "white" children from their abusive parents and place them with native families ?

Don't know ,but many were taken from parents by children services, we better pay them off also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 2:11 PM, dialamah said:

And they aren't allowed to establish "White identity" either, because if they "look" native, they are "treated" native, regardless of how or with whom they were raised.

I know many of native whio have done well in life, because the got off the rez.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackbird:

Quote

To now give some groups 750 million dollars for allegedly taking their cultural identity from them is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a miscarriage of justice.

  No it is not a gross misrepresentation of fact, nor a miscarriage of justice.   The adoptive/fostered children were still members of the band. Adoption/fostering does not remove that status from them.  Those children were removed for their own safety - undisputed by me or by the judgement. The Ontario child welfare people actually sought out places for the children within the band but failed to find anything suitable . So the children were then adopted/fostered out of the band.   That fact does not recind and nullify the childs status as a member of that band. The government of Canada knew this. Yet they left the band in the dark as to where the child was. Even family members were stonewalled and not told where the child went.  It is true that in some circumstances - usually  cases of abuse - where that is a good thing. But not all cases are abusive. Sometimes death of the parents results new guardians for the children then family members are not forbidden from knowing the childs whereabouts.  The guardians of the child were not told where the child came from and what that childs status is. This is information that the guardians themselves testified that they should have been informed.  If they had have known then they could have contacted the band. If the band had have known they could have made contact with the guardian. Or, as the judge pointed out,  there was no reason in the world not to inform the child once they reached the age of majority.  

   But the Government of Canada - or the Canadian taxpayer, as you prefer, - refused to consult and issued blank stares to further inquiries. That resulted in harm . It was the Canadian Taxpayer's actions that caused the harm to occur, and the Canadian taxpayer, as pointed out by the judge, knew they were doing it wrong. 

Restitution is right and proper. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending native children to other provinces, the U.S., and even Europe was abusive, regardless of intent.

I ask again...how many "white" children were taken from abusive families and placed with native foster parents ?

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 10:12 AM, dialamah said:

Refusing to take responsibility for those times when Canadians, through their government, stepped all over the rights of others is a classic conservative's stance:  "money before honor" seems to be the motto.

Clearly, rights that never existed before should absolutely never be given.  I've no doubt that some people said exactly that when women were given the right to vote and that more recently quite a number of Saudi men who object to women driving would agree with you.  

I found and read Ms. McLaughin's essay and it reminded me that judges have always "made law out of thin air" and that our entire judicial system called "common law" has been based on that.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but Ms. McLaughlin's essay seems to be saying that judges should be, and are,  impartial and not political.   She points out that the *outcome* of judgements may be considered political, so that citizens such as yourself will say "A Liberal judge made that decision" when in fact a decision was based on Constitutional Law.

I'm sure a Conservative government would have been happy to pretend that they didn't fail their citizens, and would have been happy to spend millions trying to prove it, and failing.  In BC, the "Liberal" government (really a Conservative government in Liberal clothing) unilaterally removed a part of an agreement with the teacher's union about class size and makeup.  The teachers sued.  The Government lost, in two of three courts over 12 years.   The Government then had to come up with 250 to 300 million dollars to redress the situation.  How much better would it have been if the government hadn't decided to break the law in the first place?  Or even if they did, had decided not to continue fighting after the first decision?       Instead, they took an illegal action, to 'save money', created hardship for some BC citizens, paid millions in court costs to defend their poor decision, and then had to pay 100s of millions more of taxpayer dollars to right their wrong.   How much money should a government waste on a losing argument?

The country is not in serious trouble.  This constant claim by conservatives gets tiresome:  in economic terms, Canada is doing fine.  You can disagree about how government is spending money, but to claim our country is in serious trouble is simply hyperbole.

How much JT cares or doesn't care about the average Canadian is certainly debatable, but I don't think we need a new Constitution or even a different approach by judges.  Just because conservatives with a poor grasp of why it's important to defend everyone's rights, and don't like a couple of court decisions because they don't think (certain) people are entitled to certain rights is not something I think should be enshrined in our constitution.

I bet if we were using taxpayer money to 'protect' non-immigrant, Christian Canadian identity, you'd have no qualms about it.   I bet it's only native,  immigrant and non-Christian identity you see no reason to 'protect'.   Personally, I prefer a country that is willing to 'protect' everyone, not just one segment of society.  

They could have done that by simply keeping their word.  Which they did not do, beginning with the first treaties  in the early 1700s right up until the 1980s.   Now, as a country who has decided that we really do think it's important to honor the promises we made, we are paying the price.   While you may not understand the trauma these kids went through, many people do.  Money cannot make that right, of course.  But doing absolutely nothing is worse.

Of course you do.  Misunderstand the issue, blame the Liberals because you are partisan, and make that your argument.

It seemed to me the judges were being political when harper was in power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 8:37 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Sending native children to other provinces, the U.S., and even Europe was abusive, regardless of intent.

I ask again...how many "white" children were taken from abusive families and placed with native foster parents ?

 

 

Generally, they try to place minority children with parents of a similar lineage, so their culture is maintained. 
Because there are more first nations children removed from their parents than any other group in Canada, any qualified native parents who want a child, would go to the front of the line to adopt a native child, so there wouldn't be any situations where a native couple would adopt a child of a different race. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jariax said:

Generally, they try to place minority children with parents of a similar lineage, so their culture is maintained. 
Because there are more first nations children removed from their parents than any other group in Canada, any qualified native parents who want a child, would go to the front of the line to adopt a native child, so there wouldn't be any situations where a native couple would adopt a child of a different race. 

 

Understood, but my cheeky question was specifically pointed at temporary, foster parenting which is a mainstay in child protection service.    It is clear by any measure that "aboriginal" families were decimated for reasons and outcomes that "white" families did not have to similarly endure, regardless of risk or abuse.

I suspect that native parents who tried to foster or adopt "white" children would be denied, then and now.

In an unrelated development, media are now reporting the gross incompetence of a "hair testing" lab used by social workers to snatch children away from their parents.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎06 at 4:54 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Did provincial social services ever remove any "white" children from their abusive parents and place them with native families ?

Ever been on a reservation ? These people have suffered for years but we have to stop dumping money for the sake of a pat on the back. Lets get some first nations people that are great at looking out for people and start really changing how we view them and they view us. You can burn money forever and never get it back..Invest in people and see a return I know it would take time but we have time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, peoples advocate said:

Ever been on a reservation ? These people have suffered for years but we have to stop dumping money for the sake of a pat on the back. Lets get some first nations people that are great at looking out for people and start really changing how we view them and they view us. You can burn money forever and never get it back..Invest in people and see a return I know it would take time but we have time.

 

Yes...many times, but this only deflects from my pointed question and perpetuates the stereotype.

There are many first nations families who live in Canada's cities and towns, just like "white people"...were "white" children ever placed with them for foster care or adoption by social services agencies and policies ?

I suspect not....

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

$750 million dollars is a bargain if it ends all the other lawsuits against the government for the residential schools. Between all the various individual judgments and the court costs, the final tally would likely have been multi-billions. 

Unfortunately, I don't think this is where it ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...