Ottawa to declare federal holiday to mark legacy of residential school system
- Thread starter White_Unifier
- Start date
4 years ago I overheard 4 Native gangbangers talk about needing a bigger dungeon to keep the "bitches in control".
It took 6 months for the gang unit to come talk to me about it.
It took 6 months for the gang unit to come talk to me about it.
Don't even talk about CPAC. I used to watch and found flipping between the English and French channels tiring: I don't trust the interpretation not because I think the interpreters will lie but just because I know how complex it is and the high risk of misinterpretation. The dubbing is very irritating.
Wow, the chairman of the panel just told one of the speakers that her testimony about relocation has no bearing on the inquiry; that her inability to answer questions about how it bears on the topic adds nothing to the discussion and that since she can't explain what value it is to the inquiry, they should move on.
Now they are back to the woman who wants the review done of the RCMP and she can't answer the panels questions about why she wants that done. So much for being prepared.
Apparently, the women are asking for unlimited funding for a series of programs they want to see funded that again have nothing to do with the reason for the inquiry. The questioner is calling it 'forever funding' and is trying to get to the bottom of why there is this need but is being stonewalled by the inability of the women to give her a straight answer. They did say there are already several programs already up and working and the questioner is asking if there isn't a lot of overlap. Again, the woman answering says there is but her programs still need unlimited funding even if there is overlap.
Jaysus now they are talking about making moccasins out of seal hides - one of the women wants to see funding for the women who make them because it is a very long process and it is necessary to Elder health.
Still nothing about anyone missing or murdered close to two hours since I tuned in.
Now they are back to the woman who wants the review done of the RCMP and she can't answer the panels questions about why she wants that done. So much for being prepared.
Apparently, the women are asking for unlimited funding for a series of programs they want to see funded that again have nothing to do with the reason for the inquiry. The questioner is calling it 'forever funding' and is trying to get to the bottom of why there is this need but is being stonewalled by the inability of the women to give her a straight answer. They did say there are already several programs already up and working and the questioner is asking if there isn't a lot of overlap. Again, the woman answering says there is but her programs still need unlimited funding even if there is overlap.
Jaysus now they are talking about making moccasins out of seal hides - one of the women wants to see funding for the women who make them because it is a very long process and it is necessary to Elder health.
Still nothing about anyone missing or murdered close to two hours since I tuned in.
The women testifying are asked to take questions from a French speaking native via video-link. Several minutes into her question, the chairman of the panel interrupts her to say that that she must start all over because the women being questioned don't understand French and didn't bother to put their head-sets on.
Not that what the French woman has anything to ask about murdered and missing women either as she is stuck on the harm done by colonialism, the need for the 'south' to understand the richness of Inuit culture, and of course, a large influx of federal money to further study all of it - whatever 'all of it' means.
That's it, my head feels like it is going to explode trying to understand what anything I've seen and heard today has to do with the inquiry in any way at all.
Thanks for the readers digest version. I'm way too busy for listening to that dog and pony show.
All you did was show they are natural politicians or that they could be posters on some threads here. Perhaps a inquiry where the panel just answers whatever question is asked and they quit stonewalling with the 'off topic' comment used will show that they came prepared.
Didn't the Residential Schools gave debating classes? You should watch Americans investigate something if you want the real comedy show.
Just enough time for a snide and off topic comment thought? lol You are white Right?
Excuse me? You may have a problem with CPAC but I don't. I've watched many great programs on CPAC including the Monk debates. I am glad they are televising the inquiry as it gives Canadians a first hand look at what at how it is being conducted and what is being said. I've also noticed that the panel goes to extreme lengths to ensure that everyone understands what is being said - to the point that some comments are repeated several times.
Money for funding programs that already have counterparts but are deemed too 'colonialist' to suit certain activist types who though recognizing that the current ones are a help to the people, still feel that they should be in complete charge in spite of admittedly not having the proper personnel or professionals in place to deliver the services. And around it goes.
You are welcome, ts. Back at it again today but I did come across some information this morning that puts some of my questions about the testimony into perspective. Apparently, though it is under the auspices of the MMWI, this series of meeting with the Inuit is not about murdered and missing women at all - it is simply to hear the women talk about their perceived lack of resources in all areas of their society. It is also about 'making safe spaces for all Inuit women pursuing higher education; 'making safe spaces' for Inuit women seeking health care; 'making safe spaces' for Inuit women when they need to travel to cities for whatever reason and 'making safe spaces' in general for Inuit women.
Instead of earning the right to attend a university, the Inuit women speaking believe that a designated number of Inuit women should be give the right to attend simply because they are 'qualified' members of their culture group. No wonder they will need 'safe spaces'. If they haven't actually attended school and attained the necessary grades with which to advance their education how on earth will they be able to keep up with the curriculum? It really beggars belief.
Now we are being treated to a very long and very involved talk about how the brain reacts to trauma - that alone took up a good 35 minutes. Very interesting but necessary?
The current speaker, an Inuit medical practitioner, who had spoken previously about trauma is listing the reasons why there is a desperate need for more funding, more programs and having no one but Inuit in charge of their affairs. It is due to the ongoing colonial violence being perpetrated against the Inuit people. It is due to the colonialist attitudes displayed in every single facet of society. It is due to settler mentality.
She is now speaking about 'rules of engagement' and how they are different both within Inuit communities themselves and without when Inuit are dealing with other Aboriginals. She is insisting that 'rules of engagement' no matter how varied and admittedly somewhat incomprehensible they are, must be respected and must be a part of any training given to non-Inuits as well as other Aboriginal groups who may have any interactions within the Inuit communities. This is being called 'cultural safety training.'
She believes that everyone coming to Canada as well as those of us born here must take responsibility for getting their own 'cultural safety training.'
"Rural areas, urban areas, cities, on-reserve and off-reserve are simply 'boxes' imposed by colonialist governments and don't properly define indigenous people." I really have no idea what that means.
The same medical practitioner is now speaking about the trauma of Inuit women having to travel to cities to have their babies. I can well imagine that it would be traumatic as it is for every single person of any other nationality living in small rural areas who also need to travel long distance in order to deliver their babies.
'Culturally sensitive universal health-care' is a term being used to encompass a long list of requirements that include healing circles, Eagle feathers, smudging, drumming, being surrounded by all one's family members, being treated by Inuit only, by receiving any care for mother and baby by Inuit only and by building hospitals and medical facilities in all Inuit communities staffed by Inuit or those who have passed the 'culturally safety training'.
I find the repetitious use of the word 'right' by the speaker to be really distracting as I do with anyone who overuses such a word. Literally she uses it after every single statement she makes.
To those it may concern - I consider following the Inquiry to be a huge portion of my own 'cultural safety training.'
Last edited:
I was referring more to Parliamentary discussions. I'd go nuts relying on interpretation in Parliament just as I do having to flip channels.
Edit to add: I also choose CPAC as the only channel I watch for coverage of Federal elections as it reports results and updates without a shred of the nuances and personal prejudices evident in those of the MSM.
Ah, well in that I do agree WU. I too find it tiresome to listening to long speeches in the H of C that need translation. If I am that interested I can always look up the English text version of the speech for that session.
I do you know the text translation is any more correct? My guess is that they just transcribe what the interpreter interpreted. remember that Parliamentary interpretation is simultaneous, on the spot, with no time to revise or make a correction. Given how Parliamentarians are discussing the pros and cons of different laws, one would think they'd be required to know a common language. Yes, I get the right of any citizen to vote, but to run for office should demand a higher standard. Anyone running for office should know a common language so that they can communicate without the aid of an interpreter.