Aaron…I may this wrong, but aren’t the folks who run blogs…especially ones that label themselves “political”…supposed to try to promote discussion?

Quite a bit, actually. My wife and her sister are contributing their reparation payments to a fund that underwrites treatment programs for second generation youth at risk.”

Just as I’m sure all natives in Canada do.

Was this supposed to be a serious response to Shane’s question?

“What your wife and her sister are doing is admirable, but it would cost Canadians less to create such programs directly rather than administrate a payout, then rechannel the voluntary submissions of those who are as altruistic as yourselves into a new program to support whose victims.”

Heh.. are you a Communist or a Socialist, Shane? This is what they claim with regard to social programs.

Of course, it’s not true re your assertion of “costing less.”

I completely don’t understand your concept of “responsibility” here. It seems to be meaningless if there are no reparations paid to victims, whether the victim is a victim of some fraud scam or robbery.

But for me, this is just another sign of the silliness of Statism and Partisan Supporters of different Partisan Governments.

Statism - whatever flavour - screws things up - and then folks like you argue about who should pay for what when the State creates victims.

Pathetic.

Let’s say that Canada decides that a nice big tract of land in BC would make a great national park. There are several corporations with land holdings there, and a few folks with estates. A fair settlement is agreed to between Canada and the current owners, the owners move off the land, and wait for their cheque.

And then an election happens. A new government comes to power.

In your view, is that new government liable for the debt incurred by the preceding government owed to the estate holders and corporations they dispossessed?

2. Contributors to said church are under no compulsion to tithe, whilst denizens of Canada MUST pay taxes.

3. The Church heirarchy is in no way beholden to any supporting members of that local church. They are appointed by the bishops, who are appointed by the archbishops, who are appointed by the Pope. Hence, any responsibility or culpability in this case rests with the authorities in the church, not with any individuals in the congregation, who are under no obligation to pay all or part of the settlement. The church members are not required to pay for any part of the settlement unless they specifically are named in the suit.

So too should Canadians not have to pay… unless they were named in the suit. That is what I call personal responsibility, and that is why I maintain it is still wrong. Go after the perps, the complicit, all you want. Don’t go after ordinary Canadians.

Knowing that the recent Los Angeles archdiocese settlement will be paid by the diocese which raises funds through the members of that diocese, as opposed to being paid by the officers and/or members of the clergy employed by that diocese who are accused of the sexual abuse, did the 508 claimants who are part of the settlement extort money from the church?

The Crown is the nation, as opposed to the political representatives who govern it for a short period. Treaties are with “the Crown”, not with “the government”. Obligations are incurred by “the Crown”, not by “the Government”.

Let’s say that Canada decides that a nice big tract of land in BC would make a great national park. There are several corporations with land holdings there, and a few folks with estates. A fair settlement is agreed to between Canada and the current owners, the owners move off the land, and wait for their cheque.

And then an election happens. A new government comes to power.

In your view, is that new government liable for the debt incurred by the preceding government owed to the estate holders and corporations they dispossessed?

A distinction between “the Crown” and government does not matter with respect to who ultimately pays the tab. The Queen of England isn’t shelling out. That leaves the general revenue coffers of the government… and thence to John and Joanna Q. Taxpayer in every corner of this country.

There is a difference in law between a government and what is referred to in law as “The Crown”. Do you understand that distinction?

But the government as an entity that represents all of Canada and encompasses many many programs, services, and millions of employees, who were NOT ALL INVOLVED or even COMPLICIT in the abuse. Yet you say they should be punished. But more than that, you maintain that ALL CANADIANS must pay for the abuser’s sins.

That’s just wrong, my friend.

I note the Iraq analogy was ignored.

As will reference to Rwanda, and, if you choose to bring them up, Sudan, South Africa, Uganda, the taking of ears in Vietnam, Mao’s suppressions, the Russian purges, the Japanese invasion of China, South American pygmy headhunters, and a host of other unrelated events and countries.

You have made some very specific statements that I have asked you about, let me remind you of them.

You have said that the Aboriginal people affected are extorting money from the public purse, that settlement payments are a reinforcement of victim hood, that they are a salve for the public conscious, and you have said they are a waste of money.

I drew your attention to the very recent, and very relevant, Los Angeles archdiocese settlement and asked if those claimants were extorting money from the church, I also asked

Is their settlement, or the settlements of countless other churches, or orphanages, or schools, nothing more than a “reinforcement of victimhood”?

Is their settlement “a salve” for the congregations conscience?

Is their settlement a “waste of money”?

Are you really against civil suits for sexual, physical, or mental abuse?

Awaiting your answers, I remain

stageleft

It is not “the government” that is held responsible, Shane. It’s “the nation”. “The government” is an interim caretaker, mandated for a short period to manage “the nation’s” affairs.

The Government of Germany is still paying reparations to Jew who were murdered in Nazi camps during WWII. Do you believe that’s wrong?

As I said, Stageleft, if a person can be held responsible, by all means. If persons can be held responsible, by all means. If your penal code includes concepts like “accessory” then prosecute them too. But somewhere it has to stop, doesn’t it. I just don’t think all governments of a nation for all time should be held responsible for the sins of some members of a government during a given period of time.

Another example to ponder is that if Rwanda. By your exacting standards, who should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity? Just the leaders? How about the sub-leaders? How about the members of Interahamwe who raped and tortured and murdered Tutsi women and children? How about the Hutus who weren’t formal members of the Interahamwe but still participated in the killings? What about the Hutus who did nothing but watch? Where does it stop?

The government is not responsible for its’, or its’ agents, actions, or negligence, if public money is concerned?

Civil suits for sexual, physical, mental abuse are a reinforcement of victim hood, a salve for the conscience, and a waste of money.

With regard to your closing question, it’s one of those apples and oranges things; lets rephrase it and make it more relevant.

A murder is committed. The murderers friend stood by and watched it happen, did nothing when he could have, rendered no aid, denied the event ever took place, and lied when the body was found - is he still criminally responsible when the truth comes out 20 years later?

You are missing the point, again. We are not talking about an individual. We are talking about a nation of which we are part, and which acts ON OUR BEHALF. WE are accountable for its actions, not some criminal.

The Canadian Government seized millions of dollars in assets from the Canadian citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. The restoration of that property to them and their descendents was opposed by a small group of Canadians who said “hey…it wasnt US. Why should we pay?” Well, because most Canadians thought a debt was owed.

Our government did an enormous amount of damage to Aboriginal people in this country, through policies that were sometimes well meaning, sometimes simply vicious. You have a right to deny that restitution is due, or that it makes a difference in individual and collective lives. You are wrong, but you have a right to that belief. Fortunately, most of Canada, including our the government, disagrees with you.

I have looked into and researched many human tragedies - some greater than the residential schools question. It has pained my soul to read them. I do not question the pain of those who were subjected to those torments. I only question the legitimacy of salving their thirst to make someone… anyone… pay for the wrong done to them.

As for Stageleft,

Lets compare apples and apples why don’t we Shane? It was not thousands of white kids in public schools being abused, or their parents who were abusing them. It was the teachers, nuns, and priests in a federal institutions that the children were forced into by federal policy.

My grandfather came from an orphanage. He was placed there by his mother because she couldn’t afford to feed him. His experience in that orphanage was harrowing - I don’t know all the details to this day, but perhaps it could be on par with what people in the residential schools experience. There certainly was abuse. The orphanage was a government one, run by the Catholic church. Much the same. (In fact, now that I think about it, it might have been a residential school. I remember him saying that there were a lot of native kids there…)

Do I think he should get together with all the other orphanage kids and sue? No, I don’t. Why? Because to me, he proves my point that you don’t need to be a victim of your past. That was a choice. He worked hard and made a life for himself, got married, had kids, and I came to be who I am because of him and that overcoming spirit. My family would not have existed had he chosen the route of the victim.

Secondly, I don’t think he should because “government” is not a person. Yes, the people in government at that time were criminally negligent. They should be tried on that basis.

People are responsible for crimes, not governments. Hussein was an evil man - under his regime Iraq did bad things. Hussein was tried and executed. Should the people of Iraq be punished too? That seems to be what you are saying.

You can paint me as a money-grubbing conservative if you want. It won’t be true. I am not just talking about my tax dollars, I am talking about all Canadians’ tax dollars. I am talking about your tax dollars. I am also talking about what is fair. What is fair is not punishing people for things they did not do and had no part of.

Let me ask you this: if a child’s father is murdered, and then the murderer dies of natural causes, should the child be then able to hold all of that murderer’s children responsible and take money from them in “reparations”?

When do you think the last residential school closed Shane? Another hint, it was later than the 60’s.

You are quite purposefully, IMO, by the use of the phrase, “Grandchildren paying for the sins of previous generations” seeking to make these events appear to be a lot older than they are.

Why am I bringing them up? Because they have one disadvantage that cannot be overcome - they are the children of white people. They can’t get a DIME from the government, not matter how badly they were abused by their WHITE parents, their WHITE teachers, their WHITE priests.

Lets compare apples and apples why don’t we Shane? It was not thousands of white kids in public schools being abused, or their parents who were abusing them. It was the teachers, nuns, and priests in a federal institutions that the children were forced into by federal policy. The federal government was negligent in their responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment for students, and they are doing exactly what the Los Angeles archdiocese is doing today, paying for that negligence.

But the difference is they don’t have the recourse to extort money from the public. Because “the man” didn’t do it, they get NOTHING.

They can most certainly launch law suits, or if they’re underage their guardians can launch them on their behalf. Is that what the claimants in the Los Angeles archdiocese were doing? Extorting money from the church?

“The public” you talk about is the “institution of government”, do you think that simply because you are forced to pay for that institution that it should bear no responsibility for its’ actions or negligence?

You’re not happy because in this case your tax dollars are helping to fund the settlement. If you were a church going Catholic in LA, or even if you’re a Catholic in Canada for that matter, would you be shitting on the church for their settlement? Or craping on the people who sought it?

Is their settlement, or the settlements of countless other churches, or orphanages, or schools, nothing more than a “reinforcement of victimhood”?

Is their settlement “a salve” for the congregations conscience?

Is their settlement a “waste of money”?

Are you really against civil suits for sexual, physical, or mental abuse?

Or are you just against law suits for sexual, physical, or mental abuse, brought by Aboriginal people against a criminally negligent government because some of your money is involved?

a) My initial comment to you referred to your erroneous remark about the locus of responsibility for claims.

b) Canada is a nation administered by a succession of governments. The government of the day is not synonymous with “Canada”.
Canada has many hundreds of binding agreements that have nothing to do with the the government of the day. NAFTA, our participation in the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, our agreements on currency exchange, hundreds of other agreements…these are not contingent on the government. Treaties and Land Claims are not contingent on any single government: they are between Canada and First nations.

Canada’s residential school policy, developed under and implemented by several successive governments, was the policy and the act of a country, not a single government.

“2. What good will reparations do?”

Quite a bit, actually. My wife and her sister are contributing their reparation payments to a fund that underwrites treatment programs for second generation youth at risk.

But Shane…you’re accusing me of being brutal in accusing you of ignorance. Have you actually looked into the impact the residential schools on the kids who went to them> Seriously, with an open mind?

I am not talking about treaties. The residential school issue and the treaty process are two different subjects. You are mixing them and then accusing me of ignorance on that basis. I freely admit I may not know as much as you on the treaty process, but that is immaterial to the residential school issue, where I have two simple points, neither of which require me to “work” in the field or do research.

1. Other people have suffered as much or more. Why are aboriginal victims entitled to tax dollars when others are not? The closest you’ve gotten to this is that “the government is responsible to the people” but today’s government is not yesterday’s government. Those responsible are not in power anymore. Those that were should be tried and punished for their crimes. That is what a just society is about. That has nothing to do with “reparations” which is what we are really talking about. Again, I say, what makes aboriginals deserving of reparations when so many others will never have a chance to collect “reparations” for the evils done to them?

2. What good will reparations do? I have never heard this one explained. Would you care to address that? How does cash help heal their wounds? How does taking other people’s money help heal their wounds? How does holding “the people” (since you insist that the government represents the people) responsible for the wrongs done to them help anyone?

You really don’t get it, do you?

You can express any opinion you want. If you express an opinion based on misinformation - especially one that has big policy implications - then I am going to call you on it.

“I can’t honestly believe that you are telling me that their pain is somehow of a lesser quality because of the colour of their skin or their genetic bloodline.”

Son, not one of the examples you cite was a deliberate policy of a government, designed and implemented by bureaucrats and politicians. Individuals are accountable to whatever god they worship for the evil they do; governments are accountable to the people they serve.

“I don’t appreciate your ad hominem attacks or your attempts to caricature myself or Aaron as engaging in “debate clubs” for our amusement.”

Sorry, but I see no evidence to the contrary. You’ve both posted some singularly stupid and uninformed comments that suggest you don’t have a clue about the nature of Aboriginal title, treaty, or claims. You have the option of actually doing a bit of research on the topic, but I’ve seen no indication that you’re the least bit interested in learning. So get used to being mocked for your ignorance - or (HERE’S a radical thought!) learn something real about the area before you publish your views.

“If you need to call us uninformed and uncaring to feel like you are right, well I think that tells us how willing you are to actually engage in reality, as opposed to your little delusions of your perfect political and social views.”

No, I don’t need to call you uninformed to feel like I am right. This is the area I work in.

“Shall we commence adoration at your altar now or upon your appointed feast-day, o exalted one?”

Heh. And you don’t want to be accused of playing “debating club”?

Grow up and learn something, or stop posting shit about areas you know nothing about.

You know what? You can call me ignorant. You can call me anything you want. The fact is, and this is irrefutable, that there are BILLIONS of people who have been hurt on this planet, 99% of whom are not aboriginal, have never been to a residential school, have never been ripped from their parents by government officials who were, at the time, unquestionable agents of evil. They faced their own evils in their own ways, whether it was the girl-child raped by her brothers for her entire childhood while her parents denied it; whether it was the boy who was beaten over and over again within an inch of his life by school bullies and then told by his father that he was a wimp for losing the fight; whether it was another child, forced to live in a cage in a closet for a decade. These are all horrible things that have happened to people on this earth, and I can’t honestly believe that you are telling me that their pain is somehow of a lesser quality because of the colour of their skin or their genetic bloodline.

This ain’t just a thought experiment. I don’t appreciate your ad hominem attacks or your attempts to caricature myself or Aaron as engaging in “debate clubs” for our amusement. If you need to call us uninformed and uncaring to feel like you are right, well I think that tells us how willing you are to actually engage in reality, as opposed to your little delusions of your perfect political and social views.

Shall we commence adoration at your altar now or upon your appointed feast-day, o exalted one?

My wife was relocated to a residential school, son.

I may never get over the fact that while I do use my real name on here (and risk real life reprisals as I anger people like you, Stageleft), I’ve never actually heard or read your real name. Ah well. Back to your long-winded vent.

Quickly, I never said the residential schools abuse was 100 years ago. In fact, I said the 40’s. I am willing to concede I may have been inaccurate, that it was still going on in the 60’s, and for that I have to ask your forgiveness. It is immaterial to my point though, as you will read.

I’ve been involved with the foster care system for about 9 years now and have seen absolutely harrowing tales, much like you have described. In another place, at another time (unconnected to fostering, but with adults instead) I have met people who have been abused, much like you’ve described. I’ve seen them work, cry, fight, and scream their way to a place where they can function, then deal, then heal. And you know what? In the first case, they have done nothing but take what they can from the systems in place. They won’t get anything else from the rest of us. In other cases, I have seen people well past the point of using anything our social safety net has to offer. I’ve seen them pull themselves up and out, with the help of other people, with trust in a power higher than themselves, than government. Never asking a dime from the government.

Why am I bringing them up? Because they have one disadvantage that cannot be overcome - they are the children of white people. They can’t get a DIME from the government, not matter how badly they were abused by their WHITE parents, their WHITE teachers, their WHITE priests. They are unhelped victims.

You may find this hard to believe, but I deeply care for people who have been hurt. I do everything I can to help, personally help. I will sacrifice my time, my skills, and yes, even my money, voluntarily to help people like that. As a conservative, I prefer to choose my charity as opposed to having it imposed upon me. I would help you, your friends, and whoever else I might encounter who has been hurt, whether they were abused by a priest in a residential school or whether they were abused by alcoholic or drug-addicted parents. The abuse may be just as damaging as anything you or your friends had suffered. But the difference is they don’t have the recourse to extort money from the public. Because “the man” didn’t do it, they get NOTHING. There is nobody to sue. There is nobody to lobby. Tell me WHY your hurts give you the RIGHT to TAKE my money from me, when all these others hurt from the pain of evil men cannot?

I am sorry for your pain. I am sorry that there is pain at all in the world. I would love to be the one who salves the wounds of the innocent who have been hurt. But one more thing: I have never heard of ANYONE who has received a handout like that, say that the money made everything all right. Money won’t take your pain away from you, your past away from you. It does NOTHING but reinforce victimhood and salve the public conscience. And waste money. That is why I am against it.

At it again are you?

“Completed an Indian Residential School Agreement - again, Grandchildren paying for the sins of previous generations. Again. I’ll say it one more time: again, I never got a check from the government signed, “courtesy of government sanctioned social engineering experiments of the 40’s”. So why am I paying for it?”

How many times do people like you have to be told that this is not something that happened 100 years ago Shane? Given that I know I’ve had this type of discussion here before I am inclined to believe that you are quite knowingly and purposefully spreading disinformation, and that the site owner/editor is quite knowingly and purposefully allowing it - so why don’t you folks just come clean and tell us why?

The residential schools took people my age away from their parents Shane. My age…. so either I’m really, really, f*cking old or I had auditory and visual hallucinations of people my age sitting across a table from me, drinking coffee, and having a smoke, and telling me about the physical, mental, and sexual abuse they suffered in the residential schools.

Damn man, I would so like to have you sit down with a few of my friends and let them tell you about being forced crying from their parents and put on planes to be sent to schools where they were beaten for speaking their own language or using too many squares of toilet paper.

Tell me Shane, just what would you say to my friend who was forced to get down on his knees to suck the dick of the government approved priest when he was a kid - and he either took the load or was beaten again. And he had no where to go Shane, no where, and nobody to turn for help. His parents were hundreds of miles away, his family was hundreds of miles away, the people who the government forced him, and his friends, and his relatives, to live with were telling him to get down on his knees and suck that dick, and the government authorities of the day ignored him and his situation. What would you be telling him when, in his adult years, he doubted his sexuality because after a while he sucked that dick and took that load without being beaten first? I want to know Shane, WTF would you tell him, while sitting across the table having a coffee and a smoke?

What would you tell someone my age who went back to their parents after being beaten so hard, and so often, for speaking their own language, that when they finally did get home to their non-English speaking parents they found they had great difficulty speaking their language at all?

I also want to know if you would be willing to stand up in front of a room full of my peers Shane, people my age, who were physically, sexually, and mentally abused in the residential schools. A whole room full of non-geriatric survivors of government funded and ignored abuse, and talk like you, and others, do here?

Here’s the invitation Shane, come visit me, come visit me and I’ll give you the opportunity to sit in a chair across the table from a group of residential school survivors and have a cup of coffee. You’ll find it’s not just one or two old fellas who remember what happened to their grand pappy lo these many years ago though - will you really be surprised that they are people my age? People who carry a pretty heavy burden and, in some cases, a whole lot of hurt and anger about what was done to them? I’ll give you the opportunity to hear the just exactly what life was like for them as kids who were taken from their parents, forced into residential schools, and treated like shit, year, after year, on the government dime. And then, after you’ve heard them out, I’ll give you the opportunity to tell these folks, face to face, exactly why you think they, or their brothers, or their sisters, or their family, or their friends, should just shut the f*ck up about what the government allowed to be done to them and be happy they survived this particular government funded assimilation program in the first place.

“Completed an Indian Residential School Agreement - again, Grandchildren paying for the sins of previous generations. Again. I’ll say it one more time: again, I never got a check from the government signed, “courtesy of government sanctioned social engineering experiments of the 40’s”. So why am I paying for it?”

How many times do people like you have to be told that this is not something that happened 100 years ago Shane? Given that I know I’ve had this type of discussion here before I am inclined to believe that you are quite knowingly and purposefully spreading disinformation, and that the site owner/editor is quite knowingly and purposefully allowing it - so why don’t you folks just come clean and tell us why?

The residential schools took people my age away from their parents Shane. My age…. so either I’m really, really, f*c|

Don’t fret too much over the course of the summer - nothing of any value, politically, gets done during the summer months. Once September comes, we’ll see a lot more.

I hate to repeat an oft-repeated and oft-denied line, but you can’t pass legislation that slashes taxes and pretty much everything else you’ve outlined if you do not have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The opposition parties will defeat everything, and you will end up achieving nothing.

Harper’s philosophy is that is it better to slightly reduce the strength of policy initiatives, and to actually accomplish something, than to have every bill defeated and throw the country into political chaos.

Arguing about ideological purity accomplishes nothing but bigotry, hatred, infighting and irrelevance.