Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: JMT 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Child safety is far more important than aboriginal identity.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When you say 'many Canadians' doe's that include you?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Is that connection more important than child safety.
From what Peter F posted, "child safety" is a red herring. The ruling didn't criticize them being taken from their homes--it criticized what happened afterwards. Do you disagree with the ruling? In other words, do you think these children and their foster families should have been kept in the dark about what bands they were from? Should they have been denied any knowledge of their cultural heritage in that way? The courts didn't say they should have been left with their parents, if I'm reading Peter F correctly. They said that they should have had access to information about who they are and where they are from.
-
The argument as I understand it goes beyond that. It states that they should be (should have been in this case) kept within their culture and their community. Often that wasn't an option.
I'm not saying everything was done properly, nor would I defend some of what Peter is talking about. What I don't have time for is putting culture before child safety. It isn't a red herring.
-
The argument as I understand it goes beyond that. It states that they should be (should have been in this case) kept within their culture and their community. Often that wasn't an option.
You're saying it wasn't an option, but that's saying every last family in their culture or community were dangerous. I don't buy that for a second.
-
You're saying it wasn't an option, but that's saying every last family in their culture or community were dangerous. I don't buy that for a second.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there are and were so many kids in care, that there weren't enough good homes on reserve to accommodate them. As a result, today, they often end up with family members that are no more equipped to raise them than the broken homes that they left. Sometimes they leave their parents to end up with grandparents that know nothing more about making a good home than the parents they taught. I know it's different for most people because they don't actually see it.
Absolutely, aboriginal children should be kept with aboriginal families in aboriginal communities where possible - but that isn't always possible. In such situations, child safety should always be first. Losing culture is secondary. I disagree with the parts of the decision related to that.
-
Then you have to consider that if so many kids were removed from their homes, perhaps the situations weren't as bad as the government made them out to be.
-
Then you have to consider that if so many kids were removed from their homes, perhaps the situations weren't as bad as the government made them out to be.
Some of the situations probably weren't as bad as they seemed. It was a different time and we didn't understand differences of culture. I have no way of knowing that though. I know there are some pretty terrible situations today that I can imagine existed just the same then.
This ruling feels wrong to me on so many levels. Aboriginal people and aboriginal culture should be respected. The welfare of children is still above all of it.
It doesn't really make sense to me, either:
"The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff's experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides," he said, siding with the plaintiffs.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/60s-scoop-ruling-aboriginal-1.3981771
Children are children and are very flexible. Culture is learned. A change of cultures at an early age shouldn't create such problems.
-
This ruling feels wrong to me on so many levels. Aboriginal people and aboriginal culture should be respected. The welfare of children is still above all of it.
You keep saying this, but Peter F already pointed out how this doesn't relate to the ruling.
-
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.
I didn't snatch any children from anyone.
The sad thing is if this keeps up taxpayers will say enough and it won't be pretty. How much tax money should go to this? What are you willing to give up? Sadly there isn't enough money and we can't afford it.
-
Again, people are missing the point of the court case referenced in the OP. The case was not about the actual scooping.
As the judge says in the decision :
[
(8)...The court is not being asked to point fingers or lay blame. The court is
not being asked to decide whether the Sixties Scoop was the result of a well-intentioned
governmental initiative implemented in good faith and informed by the norms and values
of the day, or was, as some maintain, state-sanctioned “culture/identity genocide”10 that
was driven by racial prejudice to “take the savage out of the Indian children.” 11 This is a
debate that is best left to historians and, perhaps, to truth and reconciliation commissions.
(9) The issue before this court is narrower and more focused. The question is whether
Canada can be found liable in law for the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity after
they were placed in non-aboriginal foster and adoptive homes.
The children were members of the band - By Law, no less. The government does not get to recind Natve status by fiat, which is what was, in effect, done with the scoop. At the same time, the government claimed, truthfully and in good faith- way back in 1965, that they were holding all monies due the child, by virtue of that child being a registered band member, in trust until that child reached the age of majority and claimed what was due them. Not only that, but the children were entitled to the education benefit granted to band members by the government. Very decent of them, but then they refused to let the band leadership know where the effected children were and also refused to inform the adoptive/foster parents themselves of the childs entitlements, nor did they deign to inform the actual beneficiary child. That was the what the scooped children were to get - no matter the cultural milieu in which they found themselves. They never got those things and, by admission of the Government they should have got those things - so they sued the government for those things.
Damages have yet to be figured out. The court did not address damages. But, now that the judge determined that the government failed in its Duty to the children involved, another trial will take place to figure that out.
-
You keep saying this, but Peter F already pointed out how this doesn't relate to the ruling.
How can such a question actually be separated? The judge attempted to do so, but it's not really possible. The motivation for any crime should always be a factor.
-
You keep saying, "would someone think of the children!" (I'm paraphrasing). They are thinking of the children. When you listen to the interviews with the people involved in this court case, you get to see that they completely lost the connection to their culture and language. Those who tried to re-integrate into indigenous society had a hard time (one interviewee I heard said it was "impossible") because culture is a negotiated understanding of communication and interaction. In our everyday lives we carry on conversation without elaborating on things because we've grown to understand our mutual culture (example below). When these kids were taken from their homes, they were not given any cultural support. They were robbed of their culture. It's not about taking them from their homes. That may have been the right thing to do, but the government did not provide the children nor the foster parents any support in preserving the kids' connection to their culture. It's not a stretch to say it was systematic cultural genocide. But without being so harsh, the government failed to provide the cultural support that it promised and ought to have provided.
So, we take for granted our cultural awarenesses. Here's an example of what happens if you break that. This is a conversation between two friends, where one of them was a social psychology student playing the role of breaking with the cultural awareness that I'm talking about.
"Hi, Ray. How's your girlfriend feeling?"
"What do you mean how is she feeling? Do you mean physical or mental?"
"I mean how's she feeling? What's the matter with you?" (visibly irritated)
"Nothing. Just explain a little clearer what you mean."
"Skip it. How are your Med School applications coming?"
"What do you mean 'How are they?'"
"You know what I mean."
"I really don't."
"What's the matter with you? Are you sick?"
When we interact with people in our everyday lives, we expect that they are going to understand things that are unsaid. We speak in vague references with the expectation that people are going to meet us halfway. In this way, we negotiate meaning through interaction. Therefore, when a child is pulled not just out of his home, but denied access or even knowledge of his culture and community, he loses that ability to "fill in the blanks" in culturally negotiated interactions. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to re-integrate into that culture. As a result, they were robbed of their heritage and identity when this didn't need to happen. A concrete example is the fact that the vast majority, if not all of these children lost the ability to communicate in Ojibwe, for example. This is not only horribly unacceptable, as I said above, it is cultural genocide and was carried out systematically by the government via a deliberate shirking of their responsibilities and promised supports.
-
Children are children and are very flexible. Culture is learned. A change of cultures at an early age shouldn't create such problems.
This is what I used to think as well, and it was supported by all the 'experts' of the day and so when my children were very young I felt no guilt at separating from their father before they were old enough to really "feel" it. Wasn't for years that I realized that even young children "feel" that kind of thing.
It's also true that humans react differently to similar situations. In a family I know, both children were adopted; the adoptive family was financially secure, there was no abuse, there was lots of love, lots of support. Nonetheless, one of the children felt the rejection of her birth mother intensely and as a young teenager got involved with drugs and crime; she ended up spending almost 30 years in jail. The other child had much less of a problem, married to the same person for 30+ years and lives a good life.
It's unfortunate that people still believe all young kids are so emotionally flexible that you can uproot and disrupt their life without any long-term affects. Young kids can look relatively unaffected by what's going on around them; it's often when they hit puberty that their early life experiences become influential in the way they feel about themselves and in the choices they make. Just because many or even most traumatized children grow up to be relatively decent people regardless of their early life does not make it ok to dismiss evidence of harm that was done them and resulted in some of the kids having very bad outcomes.
-
So what would have been the better solution?
-
So what would have been the better solution?
Do nothing. Free money is just as big of a problem if not moreso than the 60s scoop itself, the residential school system, and the systemic racism policies of the past (actual laws passed).
-
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.
What destroyed childhood? How is society responsible for their destroyed childhood vs their parents who abused them and their neighbors who couldn't be trusted to take them in or who didn't want to take them in?
-
"The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff's experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides," he said, siding with the plaintiffs.
I'm confused about this justification. He says the loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in all kinds of things which we KNOW are statistically much more common on reserves. I.e, psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and suicides. This seems bizarre to me. On top of that he's claiming these people lost their aboriginal identity. If that was the case they'd all be leading happy normal whitebread Canadian lives, wouldn't they? So clearly they didn't lose their aboriginal identity.
-
So what would have been the better solution?
In my opinion a better solution would have been to offer more support for families (instead of the prevailing attitude "They're just lazy Indians") and when kids did have to be removed, to have supported their connection to their community instead of trying to obliterate it.
-
I'm confused about this justification. He says the loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in all kinds of things which we KNOW are statistically much more common on reserves. I.e, psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and suicides. This seems bizarre to me. On top of that he's claiming these people lost their aboriginal identity. If that was the case they'd all be leading happy normal whitebread Canadian lives, wouldn't they? So clearly they didn't lose their aboriginal identity.
Considering that these kids were often housed in dormitories, like orphanages, dressed differently than other kids, sounded different and looked different and the prevailing attitude of Whites toward Aboriginals at the time the expectation that they'd 'live happy normal whitebread Canadian lives" seems pretty bizarre to me. In the rural school I attended and which had a bunch of these kids, they weren't accepted into 'whitebread Canadian society' and any non-aboriginal kid who befriended them was ostracized and demeaned, just like the native kids were. So they lost their aboriginal heritage and they weren't accepted by the society they were expected to integrate into.
-
What destroyed childhood? How is society responsible for their destroyed childhood vs their parents who abused them and their neighbors who couldn't be trusted to take them in or who didn't want to take them in?
Exactly - there was nowhere else for them to go in many cases. Their childhoods could conceivably have been far worse.
-
Considering that these kids were often housed in dormitories, like orphanages, dressed differently than other kids, sounded different and looked different and the prevailing attitude of Whites toward Aboriginals at the time the expectation that they'd 'live happy normal whitebread Canadian lives" seems pretty bizarre to me. In the rural school I attended and which had a bunch of these kids, they weren't accepted into 'whitebread Canadian society' and any non-aboriginal kid who befriended them was ostracized and demeaned, just like the native kids were. So they lost their aboriginal heritage and they weren't accepted by the society they were expected to integrate into.
These were kids who were placed in foster care, not kids in the residential school system. And again, if they'd lost their heritage they wouldn't now be considering themselves natives. You are also trying to suggest they be compensated for the racism in society in the past, but that would require we compensate ALL natives who lived outside the reserves for yesterdyear's racism.
-
People are adopted all of the time and do not have a huge issue.
What does that have to do with being forcibly removed from your family and put into foster care?
-
What does that have to do with being forcibly removed from your family and put into foster care?
That also happens to a lot of people who live in bad homes.
-
That also happens to a lot of people who live in bad homes.
These were not bad homes, they were simply not white Christian homes.
-
These were not bad homes, they were simply not white Christian homes.
No - this isn't a case of that. This is a case of provincial CFS agencies stepping in to do what parents couldn't.
-
These were not bad homes, they were simply not white Christian homes.
You don't know that. The fact is standards for removal of children have changed as the definition of abuse has changed. Used to be letting kids walking to school unsupervised was expected. Now it can get you a visit from child services. In any case, the prevalence of substance abuse and other social dysfunctions on aboriginal reserves was likely as bad then as it is now so I would be very surprised if there was not a valid reason for removal for any of those kids.
-
How is society responsible for their destroyed childhood
Because "society" is responsible for what society did to the first nations.
-
Because "society" is responsible for what society did to the first nations.
Overall, I would agree. This event seems far more benevolent than malevolent though.
-
Overall, I would agree. This event seems far more benevolent than malevolent though.
I think for anyone who is part of the dominant social group, it would be very difficult to imagine what it would be like to be entirely divorced from your culture and identity.
-
I think for anyone who is part of the dominant social group, it would be very difficult to imagine what it would be like to be entirely divorced from your culture and identity.
You're probably right. On the other hand, I think (know) it would be hard to live with rampant substance abuse and frequent child molestation. Reserves are that bad for many children to this day. That is our real failure.
-
You're probably right. On the other hand, I think (know) it would be hard to live with rampant substance abuse and frequent child molestation. Reserves are that bad for many children to this day. That is our real failure.
Yeah, but no one is saying they should have stayed in abusive homes. The argument is that the government didn't provide the promised care and help to the foster parents to avoid divorcing these children entirely from their cultures and heritage, not to mention their rightful benefits as status Indians.
-
Yeah, but no one is saying they should have stayed in abusive homes. The argument is that the government didn't provide the promised care and help to the foster parents to avoid divorcing these children entirely from their cultures and heritage, not to mention their rightful benefits as status Indians.
And I agree with that part of it (to an extent). I simply think it's not really possible to just narrow it down to that.
-
Welcome to court judgments.
-
These were kids who were placed in foster care, not kids in the residential school system. And again, if they'd lost their heritage they wouldn't now be considering themselves natives.
You are right, I was thinking of the kids in the residential school system. Although I don't think fostering the kids makes a lot of difference: they are still marked out as 'different' and not accepted by the community into which they were placed, nor do they have any kind of connection with their own community.
You are also trying to suggest they be compensated for the racism in society in the past, but that would require we compensate ALL natives who lived outside the reserves for yesterdyear's racism.
Really? Were 100% of the native children removed from their homes in the 60s?
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/uprooted/
So here we go again. What are they supposed to do with these kids, exactly? Is it better for them to be in a broken home than a white one?
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/uprooted/
So here we go again. What are they supposed to do with these kids, exactly? Is it better for them to be in a broken home than a white one?
False dichotomy. :P
-
False dichotomy. :P
But that's what it comes down to in this case, isn't it?