Premier Wab Kinew’s refusal to criminalize residential school denialism protects public debate and keeps the Crown out of a historical dispute that Bill C-254 would ask it to settle.
Culturally, our society has drifted far from the facts of reality.
While making economic decisions involving large purchases most people are fully rational, taking their financial position into account and considering the consequences of their choice. Generally, the same applies to other life-changing decisions, such as choosing a career or just getting a job.
However, in matters involving ideas, especially political ideas, most have no conception of how they came to hold their positions. Instead of introspecting and considering the facts, along with their own understanding, they rely on their emotions as the final authority.
To continue on such a path is not only self-destructive, but if widely held by members of society, that society will also self-destruct.
No one is denying that there were serious offenses at some of these schools.
However, there were many who attended who had a positive experience. Why do we not hear about them? Any inquiry should be transparent and present both sides so that any decision should be impartial and nonpartisan.
Many cultures come to Canada, learn English or French, obey the laws of the land, integrate and contribute greatly to Canadian culture. First Nations should realize that they are not a separate nation but part of Canada and have much to contribute just like everyone who is here and is coming here.
One more generation, and no denialism law will be necessary. Everyone still alive will have been given the correct information. And the realities will not be found in any archives either. Besides, there will BE no enquiring minds. More and more Winston Smith comes to mind.
There were many testimonials from parents of the children who were so grateful for the schools. And many students who were grateful. All of these are now almost entirely inaccessible behind "walls" for the "privileged". Or these testimonials have been destroyed. The people knew that the world was changing and that their children would have to fit into the new world. This does not mean that there were no problems. Heck, i had some mean teachers, terrible teachers. Student who got the strap or the paddle. And at home, i had to do chores! A ton of chores..imagine that.
IMO, this is a diversion brought upon us by Trudeau and the UN. This is being used as a means to further restrict free speech. I know little about Wab Kinew. But, I appreciate his position on this matter.
It is my understanding that generally, without physical evidence, hearsay in a criminal charge is not compelling. Meanwhile with compelling physical evidence, hearsay is corroborated. The accuser bears the burden of proving guilt. The duty to provide all relevant information to the accused - whether it helps or hurts the claim - ensures the accused can make a full answer and defense. Not providing full disclosure to the accused is a breech of the Canadian Charter of Rights. From the claim we know where to look for evidence, yet haven't attempted to retrieve any. Frustrating as exhuming bodies would prove or disprove guilt. To make matters more complicated, the State cannot charge the Crown for a crime. The International Criminal Court cannot charge an entire government, it has to charge people and it cannot try cases for crimes committed before the ICC was established in 2002. Meanwhile, the Canadian Government and Canadians face growing immense political and financial accountability as Indigenous leaders, legal scholars and human rights groups pursue this case. Why? We're likely not facing a criminal charge but a civil suit. A civil suit operates under a completely different set of legal rules, making possible to hold the government or "Crown" legally and financially responsible with a much lower "burden of proof". It would focus less on criminal intent, and more on broader harms and institutional system failures. The question is, are Canadians willing to accept a lower burden of proof? Considering the magnitude of the accusation and magnitude of the outcome if found guilty, I hope no. Aside from compensation, If untrue, our history will be falsely altered, reputation irreparably harmed, and all generations, past, current and future, will unjustly carry a tremendous burden. And so it seems considering the historic weight of accused crime, requiring physical evidence is not negotiable, but required. Accusers must be ordered to comply for the sake of truth and reconciliation. If Accusers refuse to comply by exhuming evidence, they should be found in contempt of law.
Culturally, our society has drifted far from the facts of reality.
While making economic decisions involving large purchases most people are fully rational, taking their financial position into account and considering the consequences of their choice. Generally, the same applies to other life-changing decisions, such as choosing a career or just getting a job.
However, in matters involving ideas, especially political ideas, most have no conception of how they came to hold their positions. Instead of introspecting and considering the facts, along with their own understanding, they rely on their emotions as the final authority.
To continue on such a path is not only self-destructive, but if widely held by members of society, that society will also self-destruct.
No one is denying that there were serious offenses at some of these schools.
However, there were many who attended who had a positive experience. Why do we not hear about them? Any inquiry should be transparent and present both sides so that any decision should be impartial and nonpartisan.
Many cultures come to Canada, learn English or French, obey the laws of the land, integrate and contribute greatly to Canadian culture. First Nations should realize that they are not a separate nation but part of Canada and have much to contribute just like everyone who is here and is coming here.
Stop wasting taxpayers' money.
One more generation, and no denialism law will be necessary. Everyone still alive will have been given the correct information. And the realities will not be found in any archives either. Besides, there will BE no enquiring minds. More and more Winston Smith comes to mind.
“The residential school policy does not constitute the occurrence of a genocide.”
Donald J. Ashman
Come and get me,
Ms. Gazan.
There were many testimonials from parents of the children who were so grateful for the schools. And many students who were grateful. All of these are now almost entirely inaccessible behind "walls" for the "privileged". Or these testimonials have been destroyed. The people knew that the world was changing and that their children would have to fit into the new world. This does not mean that there were no problems. Heck, i had some mean teachers, terrible teachers. Student who got the strap or the paddle. And at home, i had to do chores! A ton of chores..imagine that.
Marco, thank you.
IMO, this is a diversion brought upon us by Trudeau and the UN. This is being used as a means to further restrict free speech. I know little about Wab Kinew. But, I appreciate his position on this matter.
It is my understanding that generally, without physical evidence, hearsay in a criminal charge is not compelling. Meanwhile with compelling physical evidence, hearsay is corroborated. The accuser bears the burden of proving guilt. The duty to provide all relevant information to the accused - whether it helps or hurts the claim - ensures the accused can make a full answer and defense. Not providing full disclosure to the accused is a breech of the Canadian Charter of Rights. From the claim we know where to look for evidence, yet haven't attempted to retrieve any. Frustrating as exhuming bodies would prove or disprove guilt. To make matters more complicated, the State cannot charge the Crown for a crime. The International Criminal Court cannot charge an entire government, it has to charge people and it cannot try cases for crimes committed before the ICC was established in 2002. Meanwhile, the Canadian Government and Canadians face growing immense political and financial accountability as Indigenous leaders, legal scholars and human rights groups pursue this case. Why? We're likely not facing a criminal charge but a civil suit. A civil suit operates under a completely different set of legal rules, making possible to hold the government or "Crown" legally and financially responsible with a much lower "burden of proof". It would focus less on criminal intent, and more on broader harms and institutional system failures. The question is, are Canadians willing to accept a lower burden of proof? Considering the magnitude of the accusation and magnitude of the outcome if found guilty, I hope no. Aside from compensation, If untrue, our history will be falsely altered, reputation irreparably harmed, and all generations, past, current and future, will unjustly carry a tremendous burden. And so it seems considering the historic weight of accused crime, requiring physical evidence is not negotiable, but required. Accusers must be ordered to comply for the sake of truth and reconciliation. If Accusers refuse to comply by exhuming evidence, they should be found in contempt of law.