White Privilage

[spilledthebeer]

Here is what you said:


"I thought this was mainly a Residential school problem and it rarely happened in mainstream schools, now what?"


How you came to this conclusion is known ony to yourself, as schools all across North America have been suing the various churches since the 1970s.

"The Christian Brothers in Canada more than 300 former pupils alleged physical and sexual abuse at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland. When allegations of physical and sexual abuse started to surface in the late 1980s, the government, police and local church leaders conspired in an unsuccessful cover-up. In Ontario in January 1993 the Christian Brothers reached a financial settlement totaling $23 million with 700 former students who alleged abuse."

It is time to put aside this residential school stuff- certainly it is a tragedy and should not be ignored but the ugly reality is we have much BIGGER and more immediate problems to face thanks to bigoted LIE-berals and their anti white rhetoric!


Consider this:


Here is an article illustrating the sort of madness that LIE-beral political correctness and twisted policy are fostering. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Wealthy Six Nations businessman wants to be judged by Indigenous family law.

By Sam Pazzano, Courts Bureau. Published: April 11, 2018. Updated: April 11, 2018 11:43 PM EDT

Filed Under: Toronto SUN/ News/ Ontario

A wealthy Six Nations entrepreneur will argue at Ontario’s highest court that Haudenosaunee laws should rule over Ontario family law when it comes to Indigenous people.

(Oh really? I was not aware that natives ever had a body of divorce law! So not only is the guy a slick entrepeneur- he is also apparently a clever writer of legal FICTION- an indigenous John Grisham! Such is the LIE-beral world we live in that such madness come to us as serious news!)

Ken Hill, co-owner of the Grand River Enterprises cigarette company, is battling a claim by his ex-partner, Brittany Beaver, to pay $33,183 per month in child support for their eight-year-old son and $85,701 per month in spousal support.

(These people are selling cigarettes to white people in defiance to tax law and yet in their arrogance HE wants to make up a bunch of native rules to get out of paying child support! Natives want to have their cake and smoke it too! They cherry pick their hypocrite way through lists of white laws that are SUPPOSED to apply to us all and yet natives obey as it pleases THEM- and then whine about RACISTS if or when they get jailed for being criminal morons!)

Hill, 59, will take his Charter challenge to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June, after losing a Superior Court decision last year where his lawyers asserted that court jurisdiction would violate the constitutional rights of natives.

(IN summer of 2017, LIE-berals released SEVEN accused killers and four other men accused of having STOLEN $44 million dollars in a pair of fraud cases - WITHOUT A TRIAL- simply because LIE-berals could not set up a trial in a reasonable time! But they CAN find time to listen to some native tax scammer whine about the rights of his “sovereign nation”- with the truth being that the guy is merely a tax cheat griping that his ex wife is a gold digging witch- and LIE-berals want to turn this into an “indigenous rights” issue? This is LIE-beral madness on a fantastic scale!)

Haudenosaunee family disputes should be resolved “according to the laws and governance of the Haudenosaunee,” argued Hill’s lawyers.

(And can ANY of these goofs PROVE what that native law looked like 200 years back? Uh- NO- they cannot! And there is a larger question related to citizenship and we should now ask if it is fair to allow some people to create their own foreign country within our larger one- especially since the new “Nations” are so heavily dependent on white welfare payments! If LIE-berals had any sense at all, they would shut this goof down for the good of ALL! With NO ROOM for appeals to any other court! After all- the wife would clearly suffer if her divorce was regulated by “native” law and she would then whine about her violated CANADIAN RIGHTS! This is the same argument that will hamper any future effort to impose Sharia Law on the Cdn public- unless LIE-berals get even more dictatorial on us- which is why they are meddling with Islamophobia 103 “Motion” led by hypocrite Iqra Khalid!)

Justice Deborah Chappel disagreed. Hill is appealing her decision.

Hill, who makes more than $2.1 million a year tax-free, has paid $10,000 a month for his eight-year-old son Brody, covered the cost of his private school education and provided a $1-million house in the Kitchener area for Beaver, 31, Brody — and the woman’s toddler son by her new boyfriend — his lawyers stated.

(Gosh- goopd money for a tax cheat!)

“Indigenous mothers and children should not get any less child support than non-indigenous mothers and children,” said Beaver’s lawyer Martha McCarthy.

“Unfortunately, the Ontario government is not stepping up to defend access to Ontario family law for all Ontarians. The task has fallen on our client, a stay-at-home mom of two kids, going to school full-time,” said McCarthy.

Hill’s spokesman Raj Rasalingam said the successful businessman “is not fighting to punish anyone, he’s fighting to change the attitudes that Haudenosaunee cannot determine their own future and family court disputes.”

(Oh no- the hero dad just wants to KEEP more of his gravy!)

Hill and Beaver started dating in 2008, had moved in together by December of that year and she announced she was pregnant and had Brody in January 2009, court documents stated.

Within months, Hill “stopped coming home consistently and would be gone for days,” she stated. The couple’s relationship ended in November, 2013.

(Its hard to be sympathetic to either of these people- he is making a fortune running a business that causes lung cancer and which is made profitable only by breaking stupid tax laws which LIE-berals lack the guts to shut down; and its quite possible she is a gold digger! So I say to stupid LIE-berals: “quit wasting valuable court time; tell the idiots to shut up and have a judge impose a judgement- and lets get on with trying some killers and fraud artists for a change! Or should we just assume that LIE-berals prefer to listen to a native bigot rant about fictional traditional law just so long as he spends big on LAWYERS! Do LIE-berals consider this sort of case to be a bargain since LIE-berals only have to pay for the judge and much of that fee is covered by court costs? Are LIE-berals simply bleeding this native couple for gravy? Are LIE-berals THAT DESPERATE for more gravy? Looks like the answer is YES!)

 

[Twin_Moose]

The untold and ignored story that parallels the 60's scoop, will anybody take this seriously I doubt it even though it affects over 800,000 Canadians

Thousands of Canadian mothers were forced to give up their babies. Some were told to ‘get a puppy’ instead.

TORONTO — Their stories would not seem out of place in an episode of “The Handmaid's Tale”: pregnant women shuttered away, violently restrained during childbirth, banned from looking at their babies — and, finally, coerced by social workers into signing adoption papers.
More than a half-century after unmarried and largely non-consenting Canadian women were sent to maternity homes to give birth in relative secrecy, a report released Thursday by a Senate committee acknowledges a “disturbing chapter” in Canadian history, when the country’s adoption policies led to hundreds of thousands of unwed mothers being forced to give up their babies for adoption.
The report calls on the federal government to issue a formal apology for what it characterizes as a “common practice” from 1945 to the 1970s that has been “shrouded in secrecy.”
“There is another Scoop that needs to be acknowledged,” Art Eggleton, the senator who chaired the committee, told reporters. (He was referring to the “Sixties Scoop,” a 1960s government program that separated thousands of indigenous children from their families and put them up for adoption by non-indigenous parents.)
While adoption policies fell under the jurisdiction of Canada’s provinces and territories, the federal government provided them with social assistance grants, which were often used to address the needs of pregnant women. Those funds “specifically contributed to the maintenance of maternity homes for unmarried mothers, the provision of adoption and counseling services and supporting the casework of social workers.”
The report says that the “unethical” policy was in part rooted in the societal mores of the postwar period, when the social stigma of unwed women having “illegitimate” children and raising them in a nontraditional “nuclear family” was so significant that many women were sent to wait out their pregnancies at maternity homes, often run by religious groups or the Salvation Army. An estimated 95 percent of women who gave birth at maternity homes gave their children up for adoption, according to the report. Data from Statistics Canada shows that approximately 600,000 births from 1945 to 1971 were recorded as “illegitimate.”
According to Origins Canada, a nonprofit that helps people who have been separated from family members by adoption, it was thought that women who gave birth at maternity homes could be “made marriageable” again or “rehabilitated.”
Many of the women who testified before the committee described being subjected to various forms of abuse at maternity homes, having their movements controlled, being forced to assume fictitious surnames and having no contact with the outside world.
Eugenia Powell, who in 1963 was sent to a maternity home at the advice of a priest when she became pregnant at 17, testified that she felt “like a nonentity.”
“Shame and sadness were constant companions,” said Powell, who is the executive director of Origins Canada.
During labor, the report says, doctors would often forcibly strap women to beds or overmedicate them. Many were denied the opportunity to hold, feed or look at their babies, and some were never told whether they had given birth to a boy or a girl.
And then, they were forced — often through misinformation, deceit and violence — into giving up their babies for adoption. None were provided legal counsel or made aware of their legal rights. Others were told that “traditional, white, middle-class couples would provide loving homes without the shame.” And some were lied to, callously told that their babies were stillborn, when in fact they were not.
“I was told that I would eventually get married and forget my baby,” Powell testified. “How does a mother forget her baby?”
Sandra Jarvie, another woman who testified, said she still remembers what a social worker told her after she signed adoption papers: “You will never see your baby again as long as you live. If you search for the baby, you’ll destroy his life and the lives of the adoptive parents.”
Some women, the report notes, were told to “get a puppy” to fill the void of losing child and never to speak of what happened to them. Nearly one-third of the unwed women who were coerced into giving up their babies for adoption were so traumatized that they never had children again, according to the report.
“The treatment of unmarried mothers in postwar Canada may have been a product of the times, but it was cruel, nonetheless, from any perspective,” the report concludes.
“The profound pain and grief of losing my firstborn baby never left and often surfaced,” said Powell, who did get married and have other children. “I have simply never recovered from the trauma of losing my baby. . . . I had lived in what I call a fog because that was the only way I could cope through my life.”
Women and adoptees often faced difficulties trying to reunite. Many encountered bureaucratic red tape and found that their adoption records were fully or partially sealed.
“The journey to find my mother was the most traumatic experience of my life, a complicated mess to untangle,” testified Dianne Poitras, an adoptee.
The report says that the practice of forcing unwed women to give up their babies for adoption was also common in the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.
Australia’s Senate conducted a study of the practice in its country that resulted in a national apology in 2013 by the then-prime minister.
Aside from a formal government apology from the Canadian government, the report recommends that the federal and provincial governments establish a fund to provide counseling for mothers and adoptees and for the country to implement a universal policy on access to adoption files.
“This unfortunate part of Canada’s history needs to be addressed,” Eggleton said in a press release. “We cannot reverse the harms that have taken place, but we can provide support for those who were wronged.”

White privilege in all it's glory SMFH

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Sigh.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Yes it is a sad

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yes it is a sad

Agreed. You are, indeed.

At what point did conservatism go from agreeing about the past, but disagreeing on the solutions to our problems, to denying that things kinda sucked for non-whites back in the day, and trying to prove that with the preposterous, downright stupid, assertion that if any white person ever suffered, that means there was no systemic advantage for white people?

Your version of conservatism tries to deny obvious truths. My version says "Yeah, being non-white carries with it some burdens, as does being ugly, being stupid, or being weak. But the proper solution to that is to ensure strict equity and give everyone a chance to "be all they can be," not to presume that because you belong to some designated group (and not to an undesignated group, like the ugly, the stupid, or the weak), that you are entitled to some standardized compensatory privilege whether or not you personally suffered disadvantage."

 

[Gilgamesh]

The untold and ignored story that parallels the 60's scoop, will anybody take this seriously I doubt it even though it affects over 800,000 Canadians

Thousands of Canadian mothers were forced to give up their babies. Some were told to ‘get a puppy’ instead.

TORONTO — Their stories would not seem out of place in an episode of “The Handmaid's Tale”: pregnant women shuttered away, violently restrained during childbirth, banned from looking at their babies — and, finally, coerced by social workers into signing adoption papers.
More than a half-century after unmarried and largely non-consenting Canadian women were sent to maternity homes to give birth in relative secrecy, a report released Thursday by a Senate committee acknowledges a “disturbing chapter” in Canadian history, when the country’s adoption policies led to hundreds of thousands of unwed mothers being forced to give up their babies for adoption.
The report calls on the federal government to issue a formal apology for what it characterizes as a “common practice” from 1945 to the 1970s that has been “shrouded in secrecy.”
“There is another Scoop that needs to be acknowledged,” Art Eggleton, the senator who chaired the committee, told reporters. (He was referring to the “Sixties Scoop,” a 1960s government program that separated thousands of indigenous children from their families and put them up for adoption by non-indigenous parents.)
While adoption policies fell under the jurisdiction of Canada’s provinces and territories, the federal government provided them with social assistance grants, which were often used to address the needs of pregnant women. Those funds “specifically contributed to the maintenance of maternity homes for unmarried mothers, the provision of adoption and counseling services and supporting the casework of social workers.”
The report says that the “unethical” policy was in part rooted in the societal mores of the postwar period, when the social stigma of unwed women having “illegitimate” children and raising them in a nontraditional “nuclear family” was so significant that many women were sent to wait out their pregnancies at maternity homes, often run by religious groups or the Salvation Army. An estimated 95 percent of women who gave birth at maternity homes gave their children up for adoption, according to the report. Data from Statistics Canada shows that approximately 600,000 births from 1945 to 1971 were recorded as “illegitimate.”
According to Origins Canada, a nonprofit that helps people who have been separated from family members by adoption, it was thought that women who gave birth at maternity homes could be “made marriageable” again or “rehabilitated.”
Many of the women who testified before the committee described being subjected to various forms of abuse at maternity homes, having their movements controlled, being forced to assume fictitious surnames and having no contact with the outside world.
Eugenia Powell, who in 1963 was sent to a maternity home at the advice of a priest when she became pregnant at 17, testified that she felt “like a nonentity.”
“Shame and sadness were constant companions,” said Powell, who is the executive director of Origins Canada.
During labor, the report says, doctors would often forcibly strap women to beds or overmedicate them. Many were denied the opportunity to hold, feed or look at their babies, and some were never told whether they had given birth to a boy or a girl.
And then, they were forced — often through misinformation, deceit and violence — into giving up their babies for adoption. None were provided legal counsel or made aware of their legal rights. Others were told that “traditional, white, middle-class couples would provide loving homes without the shame.” And some were lied to, callously told that their babies were stillborn, when in fact they were not.
“I was told that I would eventually get married and forget my baby,” Powell testified. “How does a mother forget her baby?”
Sandra Jarvie, another woman who testified, said she still remembers what a social worker told her after she signed adoption papers: “You will never see your baby again as long as you live. If you search for the baby, you’ll destroy his life and the lives of the adoptive parents.”
Some women, the report notes, were told to “get a puppy” to fill the void of losing child and never to speak of what happened to them. Nearly one-third of the unwed women who were coerced into giving up their babies for adoption were so traumatized that they never had children again, according to the report.
“The treatment of unmarried mothers in postwar Canada may have been a product of the times, but it was cruel, nonetheless, from any perspective,” the report concludes.
“The profound pain and grief of losing my firstborn baby never left and often surfaced,” said Powell, who did get married and have other children. “I have simply never recovered from the trauma of losing my baby. . . . I had lived in what I call a fog because that was the only way I could cope through my life.”
Women and adoptees often faced difficulties trying to reunite. Many encountered bureaucratic red tape and found that their adoption records were fully or partially sealed.
“The journey to find my mother was the most traumatic experience of my life, a complicated mess to untangle,” testified Dianne Poitras, an adoptee.
The report says that the practice of forcing unwed women to give up their babies for adoption was also common in the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.
Australia’s Senate conducted a study of the practice in its country that resulted in a national apology in 2013 by the then-prime minister.
Aside from a formal government apology from the Canadian government, the report recommends that the federal and provincial governments establish a fund to provide counseling for mothers and adoptees and for the country to implement a universal policy on access to adoption files.
“This unfortunate part of Canada’s history needs to be addressed,” Eggleton said in a press release. “We cannot reverse the harms that have taken place, but we can provide support for those who were wronged.”

White privilege in all it's glory SMFH

It had absolutely nothing to do with white privilege per se.

It has much to do with religion and culture which comes in many flavours and coloure.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Agreed. You are, indeed.

At what point did conservatism go from agreeing about the past, but disagreeing on the solutions to our problems, to denying that things kinda sucked for non-whites back in the day, and trying to prove that with the preposterous, downright stupid, assertion that if any white person ever suffered, that means there was no systemic advantage for white people?

Your version of conservatism tries to deny obvious truths. My version says "Yeah, being non-white carries with it some burdens, as does being ugly, being stupid, or being weak. But the proper solution to that is to ensure strict equity and give everyone a chance to "be all they can be," not to presume that because you belong to some designated group (and not to an undesignated group, like the ugly, the stupid, or the weak), that you are entitled to some standardized compensatory privilege whether or not you personally suffered disadvantage."

Nice rant like I have said before this is apart of my history sorry I'm not FN but I was apart of the scoop as well.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Nice rant

Yeah, throwing tennis balls at a tank.

Well, you can't say I didn't try.

 

[spilledthebeer]

Yeah, throwing tennis balls at a tank.

Well, you can't say I didn't try.

Only LIE-berals and Muslims try to use ANCIENT hardships as an excuse for


THEIR CURRENT BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lots of things in history were tragic such as dying of Small Pox in some immigrant holding centre!!!!


At least our modern "irregular: entry illegals do not have to put up with such!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[spaminator]

'I'M A WHITE, CLEAN GIRL': Woman allegedly tried to avoid DUI arrest with white entitlement
Postmedia News
Published:
August 8, 2018
Updated:
August 8, 2018 8:40 AM EDT
Lauren Cutshaw. (Beaufort County Detention Center)
A South Carolina woman pulled over for suspected drunk driving allegedly tried to use white entitlement as an excuse to avoid being cuffed.
But the cops weren’t buying it and she was arrested anyway.
Officers from the Bluffton Police Department pulled over Lauren Cutshaw, 32, early Saturday morning after she reportedly sped past a stop sign going 96 km/h. According to The Island Packet, Cutshaw was stopped after she drove through a four-way stop.
After being pulled over, the woman told cops she had two glasses of wine, according to a police report. When questioned about the size of the glasses that contained the two drinks, Cutshaw said, “I mean I was celebrating my birthday.”
The police report noted Cutshaw’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, her breath reeked of booze, and she slurred her speech. After failing on-scene sobriety tests – including blowing .18% blood alcohol level on a breathalyzer – Cutshaw gave a number of reasons why she shouldn’t be arrested.
The list of reasons included having perfect grades in school, graduating from a “high accredited university”, being a cheerleader and a sorority member, and that her boyfriend is also an officer.
“I’m a white, clean girl,” Cutshaw reportedly told the arresting officers. When asked what she meant, the woman’s reply was blunt.
“You’re a cop, you should know what that means.’
The arrest reported noted the cops were taken aback by Cutshaw’s comments.
“Making statements such as these as a means to justify not being arrested are unusual in my experience as a law enforcement officer and I believe further demonstrate the suspect’s level of intoxication,” the report stated.
Regardless, Cutshaw was arrested and charged with speeding, ignoring a stop sign, possession of marijuana, driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The woman was taken to Beaufort County Detention Center but was no longer in custody as of Tuesday.

http://islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article216168760.html
http://torontosun.com/news/world/im...ried-to-avoid-dui-arrest-with-white-privilege

 

[Danbones]

“Making statements such as these as a means to justify not being arrested are unusual in my experience as a law enforcement officer and I believe further demonstrate the suspect’s level of intoxication,”

Only an idiot with an agenda holds drunk talk against a drunk.

Now when someone like Bill Clinton says Obama should be off getting coffee for the boys, that's a different ballgame altogether.

 

[spilledthebeer]

Only an idiot with an agenda holds drunk talk against a drunk.

Now when someone like Bill Clinton says Obama should be off getting coffee for the boys, that's a different ballgame altogether.

Right on!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals have INSISTED for years that a drunk woman is not responsible for her actions!!!!!!


And now LIE-beral hypocrites want to pillory a drunk woman for saying stupid things!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Walter]

More exclamation marks, please.

 

[taxslave]

Too bad she wasn't black. Then she could have claimed racial profiling and probably got off.

 

[captain morgan]

'I'M A WHITE, CLEAN GIRL': Woman allegedly tried to avoid DUI arrest with white entitlement

Must be a slow news day for the all-whities-is-bad crowd.


... I feel for 'em

 

[spilledthebeer]

Too bad she wasn't black. Then she could have claimed racial profiling and probably got off.

Yeah- you are probably right about her getting off if she was black!!!!!!!!


But it would have taken gang of lawyers and LIE-beral politicians to spring her!!!!!!!!


Cops would not have done it on their own!!!!!!!!!!!


Cops have more integrity than any number of LIE-berals!!!!!!

 

[Gilgamesh]

I am truly ashamed to be in that (evidently) mentally, spiritually, ethically, & morally crippled group known as 'white males'. Being in my Alzheimers tainted 80's, I can only say-----

Eat my shorts.

 

[spilledthebeer]

I am truly ashamed to be in that (evidently) mentally, spiritually, ethically, & morally crippled group known as 'white males'. Being in my Alzheimers tainted 80's, I can only say-----

Eat my shorts.

Ah!!!!!!!!! Now we have a FULL explanation for the ravings of Gilgamesh!!!!!!!!!!!



He has a long history of working in the nuclear industry "nuking" his brain and an additional problem with Alzheimers!!!!


So what excuse is Our idiot Boy Justin using???????????????

 

[Gilgamesh]

Mea culpa.

Mea maxima culpa.

FTR the word 'maxima' does not refer to a Nissan of that name.

Today the weather is great but I still labour away under the terrible ever-present burden of my despicable white male-ishness (sob).

It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it (more sobs).

 

[DaSleeper]

Ah!!!!!!!!! Now we have a FULL explanation for the ravings of Gilgamesh!!!!!!!!!!!

What is your excuse.... Fool?