[BigSteve]

Well, the actions and inactions of the Canadian government were deliberate.

They resulted in deaths, so there was killing.

And a particular ethnic group was targeted.

So, we can see that this is the same as other genocides when looking at those three criteria.

Since the evidence for intent has already been discussed in this thread, this particular criticism is too little and too late.

So, do you contend that the Canadian government intended to kill these people?

Because that's what they would've had to have done for this to be genocide...

[Pants-of-dog]

So, do you contend that the Canadian government intended to kill these people?

I have already answered this question.

I will repeat myself:

I agree with the report that Canada is guilty of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" primarily through omission of services.

Because that's what they would've had to have done for this to be genocide...

I am not really interested in the exact word used to describe a set of deliberate government decisions and inactions that targeted a specific ethnic minority and resulted in thousands of deaths and disappearances.

If you wish to use another word to describe this, please do so.

[BigSteve]

I have already answered this question.

I will repeat myself:

I agree with the report that Canada is guilty of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" primarily through omission of services.

My question actually only required a "yes" or a "no". Your bloviating is nonsensical, at best.

I don't believe the Canadian government set out to kill these people...

If you wish to use another word to describe this, please do so.

I already have.

You know, for someone who whines so much about repeating himself, you think you'd pay closer attention...

[Pants-of-dog]

My question actually only required a "yes" or a "no". Your bloviating is nonsensical, at best.

Since your only response is insults and ridicule, I will assume you have no actual argument.

I don't believe the Canadian government set out to kill these people...

You continually express apathy when other people share their beliefs with you.

Please assume the feeling is reciprocated.

I already have.

Sure. Then your musing about this word is irrelevant.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Not really, since you were basing your predictions on the premise that the word “genocide” was used to mean the same thing as in these other cases. Do you agree that if the report was careful to define how this genocide was different from others, that problems confusing the two should not happen in professional legal discussions?

It means the "same thing" in that they are all supposed to be genocides and that was the basis for my arguments, but as I already mentioned, of course no two of them are exactly the same.

You have not explained why. Please explain why Canadian deliberate government policy targeting an ethnic minority that resulted in mass death is different from other government policy targeting an ethnic minority that resulted in mass death.

For one, the Canadian state is not determined to eliminate or destroy indigenous people. It isn't keen on seeing the indigenous population gone or even substantially reduced.

What we actually have here is an elevated murder/missing rate some of which is attributed to state policies. At the same time, Canadian policies and public services have directly led to a tripling of the indigenous population since 1980, while the state was allegedly intent on its destruction. The result is that Canada is responsible for the addition of 1 million indigenous people and a reduction of an unknown proportion of the 1,000 to 4,000 murdered/missing over 4 decades.

I submit that genocide looks qualitatively and quantitatively different and any definition or interpretation that allows the commission's conclusion is not fit for purpose.

[Pants-of-dog]

It means the "same thing" in that they are all supposed to be genocides and that was the basis for my arguments, but as I already mentioned, of course no two of them are exactly the same.

Do you agree that if the report was careful to define how this genocide was different from others, that problems confusing the two should not happen in professional legal discussions?

For one, the Canadian state is not determined to eliminate or destroy indigenous people. It isn't keen on seeing the indigenous population gone or even substantially reduced.

How do you know this?

The inaction about MMIW is only one example. There was also the residential school system, the eradication of the buffalo (which was openly genocide, even by the strictest definition) the Indian Act, underfunding of infrastructure for indigenous communities, and whole host of other pieces of evidence that the Canadian state is trying to eliminate indigenous people and cultures.

What we actually have here is an elevated murder/missing rate some of which is attributed to state policies.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

At the same time, Canadian policies and public services have directly led to a tripling of the indigenous population since 1980, while the state was allegedly intent on its destruction. The result is that Canada is responsible for the addition of 1 million indigenous people

You seem to be assuming that population growth among indigenous people is due to Canada’s policies. Do you have any evidence for this?

and a reduction of an unknown proportion of the 1,000 to 4,000 murdered/missing over 4 decades.

Again, where do you get this information?

I submit that genocide looks qualitatively and quantitatively different and any definition or interpretation that allows the commission's conclusion is not fit for purpose.

Since the report found that Canada is guilty of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" primarily through omission of services, I will go by the report instead of your unsupported musings.

[QatzelOk]

So, do you contend that the Canadian government intended to kill these people?
Because that's what they would've had to have done for this to be genocide...

...

Well, the actions and inactions of the Canadian government were deliberate.
They resulted in deaths, so there was killing.
And a particular ethnic group was targeted.

I don't think the "missing and killed First Nations women" story is genocidal in and of itself. Unless we back up and look at the entire history of Canada since the British conquest of 1760, we can't see the genocidal intent. But if you want to see how genocidal intent was (is) a huge part of English Canada (allied with the Catholic Church), just pick up the following book: Black Book of English Canada by Norman Lester

It lists a series of hundreds of historical events, policies, and mass killings, that demonstrate that Canada is primarily a genocide-machine that extracts minerals. And the deaths of innocent First Nations women in our lifetime is just the latest chapter.

But I don't feel that this chapter is enough in itself to demonstrate "genocide."

(Trudeau has probably not read this book, and it's in his interest to not mention its contents if he wants to build more pipelines for his 1% oil company sponsors)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Do you agree that if the report was careful to define how this genocide was different from others, that problems confusing the two should not happen in professional legal discussions?

Legally, the commission's case is flimsy at best and designed to conflate, as I have already pointed out, qualitatively and quantitatively very different things. Legal professionals won't be confused, unless they are politically motivated, as they are well aware that this doesn't amount to genocide as understood in international law (on which the commission claims its case is based). I'm assuming that you are familiar with the arguments.

They have obviously also raised expectations that there will be legal consequences which almost certainly won't materialise, undermining the case even more.

How do you know this? The inaction about MMIW is only one example. There was also the residential school system, the eradication of the buffalo (which was openly genocide, even by the strictest definition) the Indian Act, underfunding of infrastructure for indigenous communities, and whole host of other pieces of evidence that the Canadian state is trying to eliminate indigenous people and cultures.

Since it is claimed that the genocide is ongoing, I'm talking about the alleged genocidal policies of today and the recent past. "Cultural genocide" is not a concept I subscribe to and neither does, to my knowledge, international law, notwithstanding progressives' attempts to wish it into existence.

You seem to be assuming that population growth among indigenous people is due to Canada’s policies. Do you have any evidence for this?

I'm assuming that Canada is much like other western countries in that living standards rose and welfare and health provision expanded, leading to decreased infant/child mortality and other deaths and increased life expectancy. A country which overseas a dramatic population increase such as this is very unlikely to be engaged in eliminating or destroying the same population.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

The Canadian state is not charged with actually murdering/kidnapping the women, but the claim is that the state has neglected and not properly investigated some unknown proportion of them.

Again, where do you get this information?

These are the lowest and highest estimates I've come across in news articles.

Since the report found that Canada is guilty of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" primarily through omission of services, I will go by the report instead of your unsupported musings.

As I pointed out above, legally the commission stands on very shaky ground. It's basically engaging in wishful thinking and makes a case about what the law should be rather than what it is.

My argument is about whether current and recent actions and policies by Canada can be construed as genocide, as understood colloquially. It's pretty clear in my view that this is not the case. A genocidal state acts very differently to the modern Canada of the last few decades.

[Pants-of-dog]

Legally, the commission's case is flimsy at best and designed to conflate, as I have already pointed out, qualitatively and quantitatively very different things. Legal professionals won't be confused, unless they are politically motivated, as they are well aware that this doesn't amount to genocide as understood in international law (on which the commission claims its case is based). I'm assuming that you are familiar with the arguments.

I understand that you claimed that the report tried to conflate qualitatively and quantitatively very different things. This is why I pointed out that the report was actually very careful to show how this genocide was qualitatively different from the examples you gave.

If you doubt this, please see the excerpt I quoted from the Wikipedia article which deals with this exact criticism.

They have obviously also raised expectations that there will be legal consequences which almost certainly won't materialise, undermining the case even more.

The case could be rock solid and it still would not matter. Western citizens in general do not care if their leaders engage in crimes against humanity. The fact that they do so yet again in this case does not affect the veracity of the claims.

Since it is claimed that the genocide is ongoing, I'm talking about the alleged genocidal policies of today and the recent past. "Cultural genocide" is not a concept I subscribe to and neither does, to my knowledge, international law, notwithstanding progressives' attempts to wish it into existence.

Since the only one that did not take place in the last few years was the buffalo eradication, and most of the ones I mentioned are ongoing, this seems like an odd criticism.

Again, how do you know that the Canadian state is not determined to eliminate or destroy indigenous people?

The historical and contemporary evidence is against you.

There is also the fact that the Canadian state directly profits from indigenous genocide. So, there is a strong economic incentive, or motive if you prefer.

I'm assuming that Canada is much like other western countries in that living standards rose and welfare and health provision expanded, leading to decreased infant/child mortality and other deaths and increased life expectancy. A country which overseas a dramatic population increase such as this is very unlikely to be engaged in eliminating or destroying the same population.

I see the confusion.

You are assuming that the improvement in living standards that non-indigenous Canadians enjoyed were equally enjoyed by indigenous people and communities. This is incorrect.

Many of the medical improvements, for example, were denied to indigenous people since they cannot access the public system, according to the Indian Act. Actually, we benefited at the expense of indigenous kids and the medical tests that were conducted on then without consent.

The Canadian state is not charged with actually murdering/kidnapping the women, but the claim is that the state has neglected and not properly investigated some unknown proportion of them.

Yes, I know this, and this is part of the deliberate government inaction I referred to earlier. This is the inaction that resulted in deaths.

These are the lowest and highest estimates I've come across in news articles.

I am not concerned about where you got the numbers. I am wondering where you got the evidence that the growth was due to Canada’s polices.

As I pointed out above, legally the commission stands on very shaky ground. It's basically engaging in wishful thinking and makes a case about what the law should be rather than what it is.

My argument is about whether current and recent actions and policies by Canada can be construed as genocide, as understood colloquially. It's pretty clear in my view that this is not the case. A genocidal state acts very differently to the modern Canada of the last few decades.

This seems like you want to have a semantic discussion about what “genocide” means. Please do so.

I am discussing the fact that Canada is guilty of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" primarily through omission of services.

If you wish to ignore the fact that Canada has done this so that you can discuss what a word means, please do so. Also note that in so doing, you provide support for my claim that westerns do not really care about such crimes.

And if wish to use another word that captures the lethal, racist, and intentional neglect with which Canada has targeted indigenous people, please go ahead.

[QatzelOk]

I'm talking about the alleged genocidal policies of today and the recent past.

And so is Pants.

You have both eliminated the first 150 years of Canadian history because that's what we learn to do from mass media.

And Trudeau is also ignoring the rest of Canada's history (as if it never happened) because it's too difficult for him, his sponsors, or the brain-erased Canadian electorate to deal with.

And this strategy (of Trudeau's handlers ) is guaranteed to result in less compensation (another cute-face apology?) than an admission that Canada is a genocide project aimed at profit maximization for the 1%.

[ness31]

I don’t mean to take the thread off on a tangent, I just thought it interesting that ‘genocide’ seems to be topic of the month https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaoch ... a6a30b2eeb with China under scrutiny for its organ harvesting.

[Patrickov]

I don’t mean to take the thread off on a tangent, I just thought it interesting that ‘genocide’ seems to be topic of the month https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaoch ... a6a30b2eeb with China under scrutiny for its organ harvesting.

China is under scrutiny only because Xi Jinping messed up big time. Falun Gong had been accusing CCP about this for nearly two decades but no one gave a damn until recently.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I understand that you claimed that the report tried to conflate qualitatively and quantitatively very different things. This is why I pointed out that the report was actually very careful to show how this genocide was qualitatively different from the examples you gave. If you doubt this, please see the excerpt I quoted from the Wikipedia article which deals with this exact criticism. The case could be rock solid and it still would not matter. Western citizens in general do not care if their leaders engage in crimes against humanity. The fact that they do so yet again in this case does not affect the veracity of the claims.

It's a conflation because the commission claims Canada is committing genocide and it also claims that this is the case under international law, hence the arguments must stand up to scrutiny which they don't.

Since the only one that did not take place in the last few years was the buffalo eradication, and most of the ones I mentioned are ongoing, this seems like an odd criticism. Again, how do you know that the Canadian state is not determined to eliminate or destroy indigenous people? The historical and contemporary evidence is against you. There is also the fact that the Canadian state directly profits from indigenous genocide. So, there is a strong economic incentive, or motive if you prefer.

From what I've read, by the late 70s there were only a few residential schools left and the last one was closed in the 90s. There was also a compensation programme and a public apology. Since the policy was discontinued, together with an acknowledgment that it was unjust, it seems odd to claim that it is evidence for an ongoing genocide. As for under-funding, overall federal spending has increased from 2bn in the early 80s to currently 10bn. I can find infrastructure spending figures only for the last few years when it was around 1bn per year (which is part of the overall spending already mentioned). Again, it is difficult to reconcile this with a desire to eradicate the indigenous population.

How is the Indian Act in its current form genocidal?

I see the confusion. You are assuming that the improvement in living standards that non-indigenous Canadians enjoyed were equally enjoyed by indigenous people and communities. This is incorrect. Many of the medical improvements, for example, were denied to indigenous people since they cannot access the public system, according to the Indian Act. Actually, we benefited at the expense of indigenous kids and the medical tests that were conducted on then without consent.

It is you who is confused as I'm not claiming that the benefits were equal across all Canadians. They rarely ever are. However, indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. dramatically improved for the indigenous population around the same time as for the rest of the population. Again, this is hardly support for a wish to wipe them out.

This seems like you want to have a semantic discussion about what “genocide” means. Please do so. I am discussing the fact that Canada is guilty of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" primarily through omission of services.

It has become an annoying pattern for progressives to make the most extreme accusations using the most emotionally charged terminology, only to subsequently retreat, complain and claim that people shouldn't be so hung up on words when they face objections. Never mind that in this case we also have a legal charge that is supposedly based on international law.

Regarding the alternative you propose above, I'm no less skeptical of the claim that Canada's aim is to annihilate indigenous people than of the term genocide.

If you wish to ignore the fact that Canada has done this so that you can discuss what a word means, please do so. Also note that in so doing, you provide support for my claim that westerns do not really care about such crimes. And if wish to use another word that captures the lethal, racist, and intentional neglect with which Canada has targeted indigenous people, please go ahead.

Westerners generally seem to have a lower threshold for what are unacceptable behaviours and actions by their governments, so they are likely to care somewhat more than non-westerners. Disparities in funding or how services are administered is not comparable to a targeted campaign of destruction with the objective to wipe out a group of people.

[Edited for clarity.]

[QatzelOk]

I don’t mean to take the thread off on a tangent, I just thought it interesting that ‘genocide’ seems to be topic of the month ...with China under scrutiny for its organ harvesting.

China is "under scrutiny" because the USA is attempting more genocidal behavior against another people it doesn't respect.

And let me take this thread on a more meaningful tangent...

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... r+genocide

Leader of the other two-party duopoly - Andrew Scheer - has said he disagrees that the latest attack on First Nations should be called a genocide.

We are a few months away from an election, and the two leaders (teleprompter readers) are already arguing about semantics (which will amount to nothing) and they are arguing about nothingness because they agree on everything important like building new pipelines, cutting taxes for the rich, and helping corporations make money off of the 99% and steal resources from Africa and South America.

This is another sterile argument that gives the media something to say while all the important stuff is hidden before the election.

/democracy in the 21st Century

[Pants-of-dog]

It's a conflation because the commission claims Canada is committing genocide and it also claims that this is the case under international law, hence the arguments must stand up to scrutiny which they don't.

It is not a conflation because the commission was careful to show how the definition they used was different from other uses.

Since both definitions are both applicable under international law, this is not a relevant criticism.

And if you feel the arguments do not stand up to scrutiny, please show how.

From what I've read, by the late 70s there were only a few residential schools left and the last one was closed in the 90s. There was also a compensation programme and a public apology. Since the policy was discontinued, together with an acknowledgment that it was unjust, it seems odd to claim that it is evidence for an ongoing genocide.

Since the Canadian government has yet to enact the recommendations and policies that the TRC commission proposed, many of the negative impacts from this system, including deaths, are still ongoing.

The fact that no one has bothered to hold the government accountable for this dereliction of duty is yet another point if evidence for my claim that westerners do not care about crimes against humanity.

As for under-funding, overall federal spending has increased from 2bn in the early 80s to currently 10bn. I can find infrastructure spending figures only for the last few years when it was around 1bn per year (which is part of the overall spending already mentioned). Again, it is difficult to reconcile this with a desire to eradicate the indigenous population.

This number is meaningless without comparing it to the amount of money actually needed. If you wish to claim that there has not been chronic underfunding, pease provide evidence.

Until then, I will simply note the report has provided this as an argument and has provided evidence, and since no one has shown how this has not stood up to scrutiny, I will continue to assume the reports are true.

How is the Indian Act in its current form genocidal?

It is a deliberate government policy targeting an ethnic minority for the purposes of eradication.

It is you who is confused as I'm not claiming that the benefits were equal across all Canadians. They rarely ever are. However, indicators such as infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. dramatically improved for the indigenous population around the same time as for the rest of the population. Again, this is hardly support for a wish to wipe them out.

Please provide this evidence. Thanks.

It has become an annoying pattern for progressives to make the most extreme accusations using the most emotionally charged terminology, only to subsequently retreat, complain and claim that people shouldn't be so hung up on words when they face objections. Never mind that in this case we also have a legal charge that is supposedly based on international law.

This is simply unverifiable musings about feelings. i will ignore it.

And again, I am not interested in your debate about semantics.

Regarding the alternative you propose above, I'm no less skeptical of the claim that Canada's aim is to annihilate indigenous people than of the term genocide.

Why not?

Why do you automatically assume western governments could not do things like this even when there is evidence.

Westerners generally seem to have a lower threshold for what are unacceptable behaviours and actions by their governments, so they are likely to care somewhat more than non-westerners.

Yes and no. They seem to have a low threshold when non-westerners who are not our allies do it.

When we or our allies do it, no one cares. This thread is evidence of that: everyone cares more about Trudeau’s word usage than about the actual crimes committed.

Disparities in funding or how services are administered is not comparable to a targeted campaign of destruction with the objective to wipe out a group of people.

[Edited for clarity.]

And again, I am not interested in your debate about semantics.

If you wish to ignore the fact that Canada has done this so that you can discuss what a word means, please do so. Also note that in so doing, you provide support for my claim that westerns do not really care about such crimes. And if wish to use another word that captures the lethal, racist, and intentional neglect with which Canada has targeted indigenous people, please go ahead.

If you wish to argue that Canada has not done this, please provide evidence or minimally address the arguments from the report.

[QatzelOk]

Canada and the USA 8 years ago: "Gaddafi is going to genocide his own people! We must bomb the country to shreds!"

(Canada and the USA were created through genocide)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It is not a conflation because the commission was careful to show how the definition they used was different from other uses. Since both definitions are both applicable under international law, this is not a relevant criticism. And if you feel the arguments do not stand up to scrutiny, please show how.

I'm aware that they invented a kind of "genocide" that doesn't warrant the name and is not covered under international law, hence why there is a conflation. The strongest arguments against their legal reasoning are that they retroactively apply a law that didn't exist before 1945, treat Canada as a state before it was one and expand the genocide definition beyond physical destruction. Hence, Trudeau knows that he can engage in this political stunt, as he has nothing to fear from an international court or tribunal.

Since the Canadian government has yet to enact the recommendations and policies that the TRC commission proposed, many of the negative impacts from this system, including deaths, are still ongoing. The fact that no one has bothered to hold the government accountable for this dereliction of duty is yet another point if evidence for my claim that westerners do not care about crimes against humanity.

This number is meaningless without comparing it to the amount of money actually needed. If you wish to claim that there has not been chronic underfunding, pease provide evidence. Until then, I will simply note the report has provided this as an argument and has provided evidence, and since no one has shown how this has not stood up to scrutiny, I will continue to assume the reports are true.

It is a deliberate government policy targeting an ethnic minority for the purposes of eradication.

Not addressing all of the alleged legacy is not committing genocide when the policy itself has been stopped decades ago, and that I have to even say this is proof how far off the rail your side of the debate has gone. A five-fold increase in federal funding doesn't look like genocidal intent either and I'm none the wiser about the Indian Act.

Please provide this evidence. Thanks.

Do you deny that these indicators have dramatically improved for the indigenous population in the latter half of the 20th century?

This is simply unverifiable musings about feelings. i will ignore it. And again, I am not interested in your debate about semantics. Why not? Why do you automatically assume western governments could not do things like this even when there is evidence. Yes and no. They seem to have a low threshold when non-westerners who are not our allies do it. When we or our allies do it, no one cares. This thread is evidence of that: everyone cares more about Trudeau’s word usage than about the actual crimes committed. And again, I am not interested in your debate about semantics. If you wish to ignore the fact that Canada has done this so that you can discuss what a word means, please do so. Also note that in so doing, you provide support for my claim that westerns do not really care about such crimes. And if wish to use another word that captures the lethal, racist, and intentional neglect with which Canada has targeted indigenous people, please go ahead. If you wish to argue that Canada has not done this, please provide evidence or minimally address the arguments from the report.

If you don't want to argue whether a particular word is applicable, I'd recommend not using it as a charge. I will ignore the musing about your feelings with respect to that issue from now on. There's no evidence whatsoever that Canada wants to wipe out its indigenous population, so people will invariably have a hard time taking this claim seriously. You shouldn't be surprised that westerners don't appreciate being baselessly called genocidal maniacs.

[QatzelOk]

There's no evidence whatsoever that Canada wants to wipe out its indigenous population...

"Canada" is so badly governed (by corporations) that it is poised to exterminate all populations of all species. It's that corporate, and it always has been. It's just a creation of corrupt railroad companies (Grand Trunk, etc) and it just got more and more corrupt as it extracted minerals from the pre-genocided land.

The most negiligent governance in human history is building pipelines at a time when the planet is burning and flooding. And the roots of Canada's poor corporate-shill pseudo-governance was the genocide of the Acadians, the creation of reservations concentration camps, the genocide of the Metis - and this type of "removal" and "pacification" has never stopped for any period of our short history.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm aware that they invented a kind of "genocide" that doesn't warrant the name and is not covered under international law, hence why there is a conflation. The strongest arguments against their legal reasoning are that they retroactively apply a law that didn't exist before 1945, treat Canada as a state before it was one and expand the genocide definition beyond physical destruction. Hence, Trudeau knows that he can engage in this political stunt, as he has nothing to fear from an international court or tribunal.

How did they retroactively apply a law that did not exist before 1945? That would mean that they are looking at actions before that time, and applying the standards of 1945, but this particular commission was set up to look at the MMIW issue, which did not begin until 1980.

Are you expanding the scope of this report to include those genocidal actions and inactions that happened before 1945? It seems that you are since you are referring to events that happened prior to Confederation.

As for the “definition of genocide” debate, I have already addressed that multiple times.

Not addressing all of the alleged legacy is not committing genocide when the policy itself has been stopped decades ago,

These are the facts:

The government created this system with the deliberate intent of destroying indigenous communities.

This system was still going on during this generation, and by that I mean that some of the survivors are my age, and some of the ones who did not survive would have been my age. So this is not ancient history.

This system created a vast legacy of negative impacts focused on a specific ethnic minority. These impacts are so bad that widespread death, drug abuse, et cetera are common.

The government has studied these negative impacts and created a set of policies to address them, and then deliberately chosen not to enact any of them, knowing it is still causing death to a specific ethnic minority.

Now, please explain where I wrong about any of this.

and that I have to even say this is proof how far off the rail your side of the debate has gone. A five-fold increase in federal funding doesn't look like genocidal intent either

Again, this number is meaningless unless we compare it to how much is needed by indigenous communities.

We also have to look if this is just money that Trudeau has promised, or if it actually has been delivered.

and I'm none the wiser about the Indian Act.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act

It is, in essence, an additional set of laws that are imposed on a specific ethnic minority that has historically been used to oppress them, and that many argue still serves that role.

Do you deny that these indicators have dramatically improved for the indigenous population in the latter half of the 20th century?

I deny that they occurred as a result of Canadian government policy.

If you don't want to argue whether a particular word is applicable, I'd recommend not using it as a charge. I will ignore the musing about your feelings with respect to that issue from now on. There's no evidence whatsoever that Canada wants to wipe out its indigenous population, so people will invariably have a hard time taking this claim seriously. You shouldn't be surprised that westerners don't appreciate being baselessly called genocidal maniacs.

Again, the evidence that Canada is deliberately following policies that lead to the death of indigenous people and communities is the following:

1. Refusal to enact the TRC policies.
2. Refusal to enact the RCAP polices., both of which lead to...
3. Incredibly high rates of suicide, violent crime, drug abuse in indigenous communities.
4. Massive underfunding of infrastructure for indigenous communities, which leads to...
5. Widespread health issues, lack of schools, property loss and property damage, which leads to...
6. Widespread use of the foster care system to take indigenous children away from their families and raise them as white, which leads to...
7. All the problems listed in the TRC report and which the government has not addressed.

Do you feel like I have called someone a genocidal maniac?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

How did they retroactively apply a law that did not exist before 1945? That would mean that they are looking at actions before that time, and applying the standards of 1945, but this particular commission was set up to look at the MMIW issue, which did not begin until 1980. Are you expanding the scope of this report to include those genocidal actions and inactions that happened before 1945? It seems that you are since you are referring to events that happened prior to Confederation. As for the “definition of genocide” debate, I have already addressed that multiple times.

It's the commission which expands the scope in order to make its argument for a genocide (as did you earlier in our conversation). You haven't addressed the fact that the definition of genocide doesn't go beyond physical destruction. You have just expressed a wish that it should. I don't accept it and neither is it accepted under international law.

These are the facts: The government created this system with the deliberate intent of destroying indigenous communities. This system was still going on during this generation, and by that I mean that some of the survivors are my age, and some of the ones who did not survive would have been my age. So this is not ancient history. This system created a vast legacy of negative impacts focused on a specific ethnic minority. These impacts are so bad that widespread death, drug abuse, et cetera are common. The government has studied these negative impacts and created a set of policies to address them, and then deliberately chosen not to enact any of them, knowing it is still causing death to a specific ethnic minority. Now, please explain where I wrong about any of this.

It was an assimilation policy, not a genocidal one, but the policy was being phased out and then discontinued decades ago anyway and hence you can no longer use it as evidence that Canada today intends to "destroy indigenous communities". You've shifted the goalposts and now talk about the legacy that Canada has not addressed. I'm sure Canada could do more, but that it hasn't until now does not mean it wants to wipe out the indigenous population.

Again, this number is meaningless unless we compare it to how much is needed by indigenous communities. We also have to look if this is just money that Trudeau has promised, or if it actually has been delivered.

A five-fold increase over 4 decades is not meaningless with respect to your charge. Can you explain how it makes sense that the Canadian federal government is currently spending 10bn on a population it wants to eradicate and that it has substantially increased its spending on people it wants to wipe out? It's probably also worthwhile noting that this federal funding is for the indigenous population on reserves (a bit less than half of all indigenous people) whereas the other half who don't live on reserves gets the same funding as everybody else in Canada. This is not pledged money but what has been spent. I believe Trudeau has promised to spend at least another 4bn over the next few years but I didn't include that in the figures I mentioned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act
It is, in essence, an additional set of laws that are imposed on a specific ethnic minority that has historically been used to oppress them, and that many argue still serves that role.

The many who argue it "still serves that role" presumably includes you, yet you seem to be unable or unwilling to explain how the Indian Act in its current form is used to oppress the indigenous population, never mind how it shows genocidal intent or a wish to destroy indigenous people which was your original claim.

I deny that they occurred as a result of Canadian government policy.

Canada provided welfare/social and health services to the indigenous population, both living on and off reserves, during that time. You seem to now claim that the welfare state does not contribute to the welfare of the people living in it.

Again, the evidence that Canada is deliberately following policies that lead to the death of indigenous people and communities is the following:

For a genocide charge (or any of the alternative phrasings you have offered so far) you have a much higher hurdle to clear than this. I know of no government which doesn't deliberately follow policies that lead to the death of people and it is very common for policies to disproportionately affect certain subgroups of the population because there are variations in the way people respond to these policies, including variations between ethnic groups, e.g. see alcohol, so making alcohol freely available invariably leads to different rates in health conditions and deaths in any population.

1. Refusal to enact the TRC policies.
2. Refusal to enact the RCAP polices., both of which lead to...
3. Incredibly high rates of suicide, violent crime, drug abuse in indigenous communities.
4. Massive underfunding of infrastructure for indigenous communities, which leads to...
5. Widespread health issues, lack of schools, property loss and property damage, which leads to...
6. Widespread use of the foster care system to take indigenous children away from their families and raise them as white, which leads to...
7. All the problems listed in the TRC report and which the government has not addressed.

I realise that there are disparities and that in some cases they are quite severe. This is not, however, evidence for a desire to eradicate a group of people.