Author Topic: The 60s Scoop Verdict  (Read 179 times)

Offline jmt18325

  • Moderator in Chief
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
    • View Profile
The 60s Scoop Verdict
« on: February 14, 2017, 07:17:28 pm »
I'm very against what happened today.  Children should always go to the best home.  That home should be determined by safety before anything else.  In the 60s, many aboriginal homes were broken (many still are).  They weren't places for children. 

That doesn't mean that aboriginal children should never be placed in aboriginal homes.  They should not however, be placed in homes just because they are aboriginal, when there are other questionable aspects.  We owe it to the children to keep them safe.

Social Buttons


Offline Peter F

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2017, 08:12:14 pm »
I'm very against what happened today.  Children should always go to the best home.  That home should be determined by safety before anything else.  In the 60s, many aboriginal homes were broken (many still are).  They weren't places for children. 

That doesn't mean that aboriginal children should never be placed in aboriginal homes.  They should not however, be placed in homes just because they are aboriginal, when there are other questionable aspects.  We owe it to the children to keep them safe.

I'm very for what happened today (yesterday, actually). I think you may have conflated another issue with the issue that was at court. This case was not about harm being caused to subjects of the scoop. This case was about the Federal government failing in two areas. First: Failure to consult with the bands when they allowed provincial Child Services to remove children from the band. Second: Then failing to inform the adoptive/foster family or scooped child what services and information that child and adoptive/foster parent were entitled too. It wasn't up to the provincial functionaries to provide that information but the Federal Government.
 That the government failed on both those things is what led to the harms suffered by the subjects of the scoop.

As the learned Judge concludes:
"For the reasons set out above, when Canada entered into the 1965 Agreement and
over the years of the class period, Canada had a common law duty of care to take
reasonable steps to prevent on-reserve Indian children in Ontario, who had been placed in
the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents, from losing their aboriginal identity.
Canada breached this common law duty of care."
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/60s-scoop-ruling-aboriginal-1.3981771)

That the government entered into an agreement to allow provincial Child Services to take children away isn't the issue.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 08:29:38 pm by Peter F »
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2017, 08:53:33 pm »
I am tired of courts applying today's standards to actions in the past and expecting taxpayers today to shell out billions for wrongs they are not responsible for.

Actions should be judged based on the mores of the time. At the time, complete assimilation was believed to give the best opportunity for success. Not this revisionist hooey.

Offline jmt18325

  • Moderator in Chief
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2017, 09:04:41 pm »
Child safety is far more important than aboriginal identity. 

Offline bcsapper

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2017, 09:48:35 pm »
Child safety is far more important than aboriginal identity.

Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a decent life for a child is more important than any kind of cultural identity.
Time for bed said Zebedee...

Offline jmt18325

  • Moderator in Chief
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2017, 09:58:10 pm »
Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a decent life for a child is more important than any kind of cultural identity.

So would I.  There is a far larger supply of aboriginal kids who need care than aboriginal families to put them in even today.  As a result of needing to put them in an aboriginal home, I've seen first hand situations that just shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Offline Peter F

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2017, 11:45:27 pm »
   This case was not about the rightness or wrongness of child services removing children from homes. This case is about whatthe government failed to do when the provinces were given permission for child services to remove children from reserves and how the government failed to inform the adoptive/foster parents of what the child was entitled to as a registered band member or simply letting the adoptive/foster parents know which band the child belongs to, amongst other things. That they were removed from the home is not the issue here. Its about what the government should have done after the child was removed.
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.

Offline cybercoma

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2017, 06:36:51 am »
I'm very against what happened today.  Children should always go to the best home.  That home should be determined by safety before anything else.  In the 60s, many aboriginal homes were broken (many still are).  They weren't places for children. 

That doesn't mean that aboriginal children should never be placed in aboriginal homes.  They should not however, be placed in homes just because they are aboriginal, when there are other questionable aspects.  We owe it to the children to keep them safe.
I don't know what happened yesterday, but I think it's important to consider the ethnic and cultural heritage of a child when placing them in homes. That's not to say parents from a different race or culture can't make good parents, but it's important for them to maintain a connection, especially when it's a culture that our government has systematically attempted to stamp out.

Offline cybercoma

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2017, 06:38:16 am »
   This case was not about the rightness or wrongness of child services removing children from homes. This case is about whatthe government failed to do when the provinces were given permission for child services to remove children from reserves and how the government failed to inform the adoptive/foster parents of what the child was entitled to as a registered band member or simply letting the adoptive/foster parents know which band the child belongs to, amongst other things. That they were removed from the home is not the issue here. Its about what the government should have done after the child was removed.
This makes more sense. Thanks for providing the verdict in your previous post.

Offline jmt18325

  • Moderator in Chief
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2017, 08:59:11 am »
I don't know what happened yesterday, but I think it's important to consider the ethnic and cultural heritage of a child when placing them in homes. That's not to say parents from a different race or culture can't make good parents, but it's important for them to maintain a connection, especially when it's a culture that our government has systematically attempted to stamp out.

Is that connection more important than child safety.  This reminds me a lot of this ruling (the initial ruling):

As the patient and her mother looked on, the judge who first ruled on the case in November then took the rare step of agreeing to change his decision at the request of lawyers involved in the affair.

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/first-nations-girl-who-sought-alternative-cancer-treatments-back-on-chemotherapy-after-leukaemia-returns?__lsa=a203-a0b5

It's equally stupid and shortsighted.  In the 60s, there weren't the systems on reserves to place children in the care of their own cultural surroundings.  In many cases there still isn't.  Political correctness makes it so that aboriginal children are often in situations that are unsafe.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2017, 10:52:42 am »
   This case was not about the rightness or wrongness of child services removing children from homes. This case is about whatthe government failed to do when the provinces were given permission for child services to remove children from reserves

This case was really just about maintaining the only industry Canadian natives have, the victim industry. The 'poor us, give us money' industry which keeps coming up with new claims for every imaginable manner in which they feel they were not properly treated - and are thus deserving of enormous compensation from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. It's an example of why so many Canadians feel contempt for natives and think of them as nothing more than leeches and a drag on the country.

Offline Peter F

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2017, 01:43:09 pm »
When you say 'many Canadians' doe's that include you?
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2017, 02:36:38 pm »
When you say 'many Canadians' doe's that include you?

I feel contempt for all lawyers and whiners. The Eagles' song "Get over it" pretty much expresses my view.

I also feel frustration and anger at the state of natives in Canada and would like to see it remedied, but not by this continuous victim industry which continually seeks payments for real or imagined past injustices.

Offline ?Impact

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2017, 02:59:06 pm »
I am tired of courts applying today's standards to actions in the past and expecting taxpayers today to shell out billions for wrongs they are not responsible for.

How do see them not being responsible?

It is not billions, it is a paltry $80k for destroyed childhood which has extreme implications on the persons entire life.

Offline TimG

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: The 60s Scoop Verdict
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2017, 03:38:52 pm »
It is not billions, it is a paltry $80k for destroyed childhood which has extreme implications on the persons entire life.
80K times 60K is billions. I also don't by the destroyed life BS. It is an opportunitist cash grab. People are adopted all of the time and do not have a huge issue. The only problem is as soon as a native kid has problems they make up some condescending BS about natives being genetically incapable of functioning unless  they "learn about their heritage". I know lots of Canadians of various backgrounds that could not care about their "heritage" and are getting a long fine. Some of them are adopted and they know it.