Well argued as usual. As I posted elsewhere, this is the kind of issue many of us will go to the wall for. Poking the silent bear. Oddly, as you point out, the “secret graves” narrative has started to turn. Gazan is now looking desperate, not innovative. I cannot see her motion if (horrors) passed as a Bill, can possibly withstand a Supreme Court ruling. Maybe this needs to happen to stop this smouldering insanity ?
The Law Society of BC just rejected a resolution that sought to correct wording in their course materials (from “the discovery of an unmarked burial site containing the bodies of 215 children” to “the discovery of a potentially unmarked burial site”).
We don’t know how the vote broke down in terms of For, Against, or Abstain, but apparently only “21 per cent of eligible lawyers voted on the resolutions, either online in advance or at the meeting.” That seems like a pretty dismal participation rate, especially for a virtual vote. It sort of suggests that 79% of the membership essentially abstained. Is that good? Or bad?
The BC First Nations Justice Council and the BC Civil Liberties Association (which had both weighed in against the resolution) deemed the wording change to be offensive and disrespectful to indigenous perspectives. The BCCLA consider the “disputed facts” (i.e. the bodies of 215 children) to be a “minor detail” that “distracts from the larger truth.”
I’m sure all Hell would break loose if WE were to characterize the bodies of 215 (potentially murdered) indigenous children as a “minor detail.”
An additional thought: given the draft bill refers to “misrepresenting facts”, would this not also apply to those claiming there are mass graves or buried bodies, if there are none? Wouldn’t Gazan be culpable in her own bill? Or does this come down to KNOWING misrepresentation, and she is just confused and believing things that are untrue.
I think you might be right about this biting her in the bum. Her misrepresentations could be extended further, I think, in her claiming the IRS was a genocide.
I wonder how former IRS students feel about having positive memories of a genocide?
Thank you for writing this letter despite the risk of becoming a denialist felon. At any other time in history such a bill would be laughable, but in today's dark age of unreason our decision makers will give it respectful consideration for fear of being ostracized from the heard and branded a racist by their fellow Lilliputians. I think it would be more than timely for a little, "Wenecwtsínem (truth telling) " right now.
“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore” (The Wizard of Oz, 1939)
This is incredible. What is "cruel, harmful and hateful" is coming up with such a proposal. So no one should be allowed to comment, discuss, criticise, or say a word about anything to do with aborigines. Oh, wait, even if you remain silent - that could also be criminal... your silence can be construed as condoning and denying all or any of their ludicrous claims.
Tell that woman you would all agree - only after the Criminal Code were amended to include offence of willfully promoting hatred against non-aboriginal Canadians, as she does.
Well argued as usual. As I posted elsewhere, this is the kind of issue many of us will go to the wall for. Poking the silent bear. Oddly, as you point out, the “secret graves” narrative has started to turn. Gazan is now looking desperate, not innovative. I cannot see her motion if (horrors) passed as a Bill, can possibly withstand a Supreme Court ruling. Maybe this needs to happen to stop this smouldering insanity ?
I doubt the bill, if passed, would survive a Charter challenge.
Don't be too sure. We have an activist legal system.
The Law Society of BC just rejected a resolution that sought to correct wording in their course materials (from “the discovery of an unmarked burial site containing the bodies of 215 children” to “the discovery of a potentially unmarked burial site”).
We don’t know how the vote broke down in terms of For, Against, or Abstain, but apparently only “21 per cent of eligible lawyers voted on the resolutions, either online in advance or at the meeting.” That seems like a pretty dismal participation rate, especially for a virtual vote. It sort of suggests that 79% of the membership essentially abstained. Is that good? Or bad?
The BC First Nations Justice Council and the BC Civil Liberties Association (which had both weighed in against the resolution) deemed the wording change to be offensive and disrespectful to indigenous perspectives. The BCCLA consider the “disputed facts” (i.e. the bodies of 215 children) to be a “minor detail” that “distracts from the larger truth.”
I’m sure all Hell would break loose if WE were to characterize the bodies of 215 (potentially murdered) indigenous children as a “minor detail.”
"Life is like a box of chocolates. You just never know what you are going to get"
Forest Gump
we certainly do.
An additional thought: given the draft bill refers to “misrepresenting facts”, would this not also apply to those claiming there are mass graves or buried bodies, if there are none? Wouldn’t Gazan be culpable in her own bill? Or does this come down to KNOWING misrepresentation, and she is just confused and believing things that are untrue.
I think you might be right about this biting her in the bum. Her misrepresentations could be extended further, I think, in her claiming the IRS was a genocide.
I wonder how former IRS students feel about having positive memories of a genocide?
Thank you for writing this letter despite the risk of becoming a denialist felon. At any other time in history such a bill would be laughable, but in today's dark age of unreason our decision makers will give it respectful consideration for fear of being ostracized from the heard and branded a racist by their fellow Lilliputians. I think it would be more than timely for a little, "Wenecwtsínem (truth telling) " right now.
“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore” (The Wizard of Oz, 1939)
Excellant.
This is incredible. What is "cruel, harmful and hateful" is coming up with such a proposal. So no one should be allowed to comment, discuss, criticise, or say a word about anything to do with aborigines. Oh, wait, even if you remain silent - that could also be criminal... your silence can be construed as condoning and denying all or any of their ludicrous claims.
Tell that woman you would all agree - only after the Criminal Code were amended to include offence of willfully promoting hatred against non-aboriginal Canadians, as she does.
Gazan isn’t a representative of her constituents. She’s an activist with an axe to grind and not interested in what’s best for Canada and Canadians.
Thank you, Michael.