- 12 Jun 2019 04:24
#15011625
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?
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?