Trudeau's 'genocide' comment sparks international probe - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15011625
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:You point out yourself how this affects Canada.

In the unlikely event that individuals are charged, I don't see why Trudeau would be the only one, e.g. there are previous governments and there could be people other than Trudeau in his government who might have been involved.


I don't see this affecting Canada and I don't see it affecting Trudeau either. As I said, Trudeau doesn't decide punishment or who receives it. Although some minor research into this and I can see why some would describe it as genocide.

From my understanding, your problem is you only consider genocide to mean deliberate attempt of mass extermination and that in Canada we don't have the death figures to your liking. On a political platform, the choice of words is perhaps a bad one. On a moral platform correct. Trudeau decided to use it, perhaps to highlight the scale of the problem, and now he has said it he will suffer the consequences if there are any. So rather get upset over this perhaps embrace it. We may now get some insight and justice on historic evils for indigenous people. Is that a bad thing?
#15011629
ness31 wrote:.... Unfortunately, it’s obvious to all and sundry that the actual term “genocide” was not the way to go.


How so?

Are you discussing Trudeau’s tactics and optics?

Or are you saying that the report was incorrect to describe this as a genocide?

...What idiot pulls out the word genocide unless you want to bury this issue? And stop blaming Western leaders for being indifferent.


I think that speculation about the motives for using the word are only worthwhile when analysing the tactics and strategies of political figures. In this case, I completely agree that Trudeau used the word in order to bury the issue, in a way.

And in this particular case, they have been indifferent. Thousands of disappearances over decades, countless petitions and awareness raising campaigns by indigenous communities, UN scrutiny, and they are only now beginning to admit there is a problem. They have yet to do anything about it.

I’m very sorry for the Indigenous women and children of Canada. They are being done a disservice.


And that is a noble sentiment.

Do you agree that if it can be shown that the government deliberately chose a policy of inaction in order to target a specific ethnic minority in such a way that caused thousands of deaths and disappearances, that the government should be held accountable?
#15011652
Look, all I’m saying is, when you push this stuff into the realm of the UN and “genocide” you lower the chance of any meaningful action gaining any traction.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned police work? You find the paper trails of corruption, negligence, and name the sons’a bitches who perpetrated the crimes and you prosecute. If there is enough evidence to constitute “genocide” then ‘ordinary’ murder, case by each individual case should be a breeze.
#15011675
ness31 wrote:Look, all I’m saying is, when you push this stuff into the realm of the UN and “genocide” you lower the chance of any meaningful action gaining any traction.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned police work? You find the paper trails of corruption, negligence, and name the sons’a bitches who perpetrated the crimes and you prosecute. If there is enough evidence to constitute “genocide” then ‘ordinary’ murder, case by each individual case should be a breeze.


Yes, that would be a great idea.

What would you call it if the government then refused to do any murder investigations?
#15011676
So I googled, but to be honest it’s all a bit of a dogs breakfast, and wish I’d saved myself the trouble of being tracked :|

I couldn’t get a reliable stat on national missing persons in Canada. Just the numbers of reported missing.

Wikipedia says the 2019 commission found that Canada didn’t have a missing persons database until 2010, which I find hard to believe. The source was Niagra something and it didn’t seem very reliable.

What was abundantly clear is that, as usual, it’s a socio economic issue combined with a persistence to wanna hitchhike down a stretch of highway that’s notorious for snatching lives. Why no one put some public transport in is definitely odd. Who was in charge of that shit over the last decade or two?

I would like to know if there are any patterns in tribal ethnicity for the disappeared women and girls, but I won’t get that from google (thanks for all your help Pod :roll:)

I still don’t see genocide, but I guess the best serial killers don’t leave any finger prints...
#15011679
ness31 wrote:So I googled, but to be honest it’s all a bit of a dogs breakfast, and wish I’d saved myself the trouble of being tracked :|

I couldn’t get a reliable stat on national missing persons in Canada. Just the numbers of reported missing.

Wikipedia says the 2019 commission found that Canada didn’t have a missing persons database until 2010, which I find hard to believe. The source was Niagra something and it didn’t seem very reliable.


Yes, government inaction in terms of setting up a database was one of the ways in which government inaction has led to continuing deaths.

What was abundantly clear is that, as usual, it’s a socio economic issue combined with a persistence to wanna hitchhike down a stretch of highway that’s notorious for snatching lives. Why no one put some public transport in is definitely odd. Who was in charge of that shit over the last decade or two?


The government was in charge. And by withholding funding for services like this, they endangered lives and led to deaths and disappearances of many women.

I would like to know if there are any patterns in tribal ethnicity for the disappeared women and girls, but I won’t get that from google (thanks for all your help Pod :roll:)

I still don’t see genocide, but I guess the best serial killers don’t leave any finger prints...


Again, what would you call it if the government openly refused to investigate the murders and disappearances?
#15011683
Yes, government inaction in terms of setting up a database was one of the ways in which government inaction has led to continuing deaths.


A national database hadn’t been formed? So there were databases of missing people from state to state I assume? A picture must have been forming in British Columbia surely?

The government was in charge. And by withholding funding for services like this, they endangered lives and led to deaths and disappearances of many women.


Federal, state, local? This is a line of enquiry which should be pursued.

Again, what would you call it if the government openly refused to investigate the murders and disappearances?


Im not convinced this happened in the majority of cases. I’m happy to be persuaded to the contrary. But remember I only have online news stories, Wikipedia and an unhelpful online poster from which to gather my information.
#15011685
ness31 wrote:A national database hadn’t been formed? So there were databases of missing people from state to state I assume? A picture must have been forming in British Columbia surely?


I believe that some provinces had started to create databases in response to community calls for action, but they did not come about until the turn of the century or thereabouts,

Federal, state, local? This is a line of enquirer which should be pursued.


All three, probably.

Im not convinced this happened in the majority of cases. I’m happy to be persuaded to the contrary. But remember I only have online news stories, Wikipedia and an unhelpful online poster from which to gather my information.


I suggest reading the report, or at least an executive summary, then.

I would like to thank you for at least making an effort to do some research. None of the other critics of this report did any research or reading beyond the editorial in the OP.
#15011755
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would like to thank you for at least making an effort to do some research. None of the other critics of this report did any research or reading beyond the editorial in the OP.


I honestly believe that if there are some very, very important issues which must be tackled, they can actually be easily stated in some alarming numbers or description.

For instance, if someone asked

What's the deal with the Armenian thing in Turkey?

I could say It is believed that 1.5 million Armenians were murdered from 1915-1923 through massacres and starvation at the governments behest.

The rest of it is the story of how this happened, right.

So you should tell us what the deal is in a nice summary, and not complain if people don't want to read a hundred pages about something that doesn't look like an orchestrated catastrophe by the government and would rather spend 2-3 hours reading something else.
#15011762
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since the report clearly distinguishes between the particular type of genocide that Canada is perpetrating and other genocides, we need not worry about “a new word for what happened in the Holocaust” nor does this make “a mockery of the genocide charge if this conclusion stands”. Nor should we worry that “this will invariably lead to a lack of legitimacy and credibility with respect to the law and the decisions based on it in large parts of western countries as well”.

I'm aware that they have invented a type that isn't really genocide but they wish to use the word because it still carries a punch. Everything I said still holds.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In many ways yes, but they are identical in that in both cases, people of a specific ethnic minority will or would be killed as a result of a deliberate government policy if the situation does not change.

That doesn't make a genocide. Again, they are worlds apart and no reasonable person would put them into the same category or regard them as equivalent.

B0ycey wrote:I don't see this affecting Canada and I don't see it affecting Trudeau either. As I said, Trudeau doesn't decide punishment or who receives it.

You said it "puts Canada a step behind everyone else when condemning human rights violations". That's an effect.

It's unclear how this will affect Trudeau politically, but the consequences or lack thereof will show how serious the Canadian PM takes this genocide charge. If nobody in this or previous governments suffers any consequences, it will be obvious that "genocide" has become just another meaningless label to throw around.

As for consequences in terms of international law, I agree that nothing will happen, mainly because with few exceptions the courts have so far refused to expand the interpretation of genocide in the way the commission would like them to. Trudeau is of course aware of this, hence why I called this posturing and virtue signalling.

B0ycey wrote:Although some minor research into this and I can see why some would describe it as genocide. From my understanding, your problem is you only consider genocide to mean deliberate attempt of mass extermination and that in Canada we don't have the death figures to your liking.

We probably have dozens of recent and current genocides on our hands worldwide, if we follow the arguments the commission is making in their legal case. For instance, the treatment of travellers and Roma people by several European countries might well be construed as genocide in a similar way. If we tweak the argument a little more, disparate outcomes where minorities have lower life expectancy, higher crime victimisation rates, etc. can fall under it if the government has been aware of this but hasn't changed its policies, e.g. I've certainly already heard the term "black holocaust" by activists.

If this happens, at one point so many different events will fall under it and its occurrence will be so widespread that we'll need a new category that is reserved for the holocaust and similar atrocities which are qualitatively and quantitatively different than the others in terms of scale, motive and actions. This doesn't look like a slippery slope but a slippery cliff.

B0ycey wrote:On a political platform, the choice of words is perhaps a bad one. On a moral platform correct. Trudeau decided to use it, perhaps to highlight the scale of the problem, and now he has said it he will suffer the consequences if there are any.

It's the commission who used it and also made the legal argument. Trudeau accepted it.

B0ycey wrote:So rather get upset over this perhaps embrace it. We may now get some insight and justice on historic evils for indigenous people. Is that a bad thing?

We don't need the frivolous use of legal concepts and language to deliver justice. What is needed is the political will to do it. Is that so hard to understand?
#15011766
BigSteve wrote:Dereliction of duty.

Not genocide...

Negligence and looking the other way, are just two strategies among many, in Canada's long genocide against First Nations people and culture.

It started in the 1740s with the intentional scalping and killing of Mi'cmaq and Maliseet. Then the deportation (50% kill rate) of the Acadians. Followed by boatloads of immigrants to culturally genocide the remainder.

Then most of the First Nations and Metis are mass murdered to build railroads. Then thousands of targeted immigrants are brought into Western Canada to culturally extinguish whatever is left.

Throughout it all, Canada and the provinces have used secret sterilization, hiring the USA KKK to terrorize these groups, residential schools (torture centers), Catholic Priest sexual and social abuse, poisoning of hunting and resource-important lands by industry, economic isolation, social smearing in media, and murdered women.

Seriously, what's really impressive about our own very Canadian genocides is how integrated and essential they are to the Canadian identity. Or at least, ignoring them is important to our identity. Making us historical amnesiacs in the process.
#15011877
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm aware that they have invented a type that isn't really genocide but they wish to use the word because it still carries a punch. Everything I said still holds.


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?

That doesn't make a genocide. Again, they are worlds apart and no reasonable person would put them into the same category or regard them as equivalent.


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.
#15011878
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not explained why.


The definition of genocide is why: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation".

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.


In order for it to be genocide, one would have to be stupid enough to believe that the government acted (or didn't) with the intent of killing them.

Some of you make some fantastic leaps of logic from time to time, but to make such a leap would be the height of ignorance...
#15011882
BigSteve wrote:The definition of genocide is why: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation".


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.

In order for it to be genocide, one would have to be stupid enough to believe that the government acted (or didn't) with the intent of killing them.


Since the evidence for intent has already been discussed in this thread, this particular criticism is too little and too late.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

I'll accept that as your acknowledgement that an[…]

Yeah, he was 30 years old when he did that stupid […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Forgot the past. She intends to call off Brexit, w[…]

EU-BREXIT

@Kaiserschmarrn is a wannabe Anglo from down-un[…]