NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering... I'm fascinated that these things took place during a Liberal adminstration (well, internment and turning away Jews also took place under FDR, so it's not just Canada). So I've been wondering (since I'm not a Canadian), how the Liberal Party has taken steps (if any) to distance itself from the Liberal Party of old.

On July 1, 1923, the Canadian Parliament replaced the long-standing Chinese Immigration Act, which imposed a heavy head tax on would-be Chinese immigrants, with legislation that virtually barred new ethnic Chinese immigrants. This barrier remained in place for the next 24 years until its repeal in 1947. However, restrictions on Chinese immigration remained in place until 1967. Along with the repeal of the Exclusion Act in 1947, Chinese and East Indian citizens were given the right to vote in federal and provincial elections (two years before Japanese Canadians were granted the same right).

Three months after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour and Hong Kong, some 21,000 Japanese living in Canada within 100 miles of the Pacific Coast, were removed from their homes and sent to detention camps or farms in interior B.C., Alberta or Manitoba. About 75% of those detained were Canadian citizens. Initially the government said the move was necessary for national security. Later, it claimed it was protecting ethnic Japanese from reprisals by angry B.C. residents. Over the next four years, the federal government confiscated and sold off all the property of those interned. At the end of the war, the detainees were forced to choose between relocation east of the Rocky Mountains or repatriation to Japan. Most chose to remain in Canada. In 1988, the federal government formally apologized to the Japanese community for its treatment during the war and provided for a payment of $21,000 to each survivor of detention.

And was there something natural about the anti-Semitism that allowed Canada (as well as the US) to turn away the SS St. Louis, condemning its passengers to death in German concentration camps? I recall that the Canadian Prime Minister said of Jews at the time, "None is too many."

The Canadian Government (much like the US Government, now that I think about it) has never apologized for the remark, nor for turning away the ship, even during Liberal governments. Is there some reason they feel a need to apologize to interned Japanese, but not to Jewish survivors?

And as far as prosecuting abuse by the Canadian Military (of Somalis), should we assume that there is a government cover-up all the way up to the Prime Minister (as so many assume in the US about Abu Gharaib), especially in the case of the Canadian Airborne men who were convicted while their senior officer was acquitted (indeed, other officers who were within earshot of the abuse were never charged). And when a new commander tried to clean up the unit, he can't, because the men (supposedly elite) are too undisciplined and the leadership too impotent. So they disband the whole thing.

If that had been an American unit, would people say that the President ordered the whole thing? That there was a conspiracy?

You thought the canadian goverment was infallible, hahahahahha. No goverment is but some are a helll of a lot better than others.

You thought the canadian goverment was infallible, hahahahahha. No goverment is but some are a helll of a lot better than others.

I'm not of the opinion that they're infallible - just that they are soooo much better at making up for their mistakes. And for not having any conspiracies from the top down to commit heinous acts.

You know, like having a severely anti-Semitic Prime Minister say that "none is too many" where Jews are concerned. And never apologizing for it.

Or having soldiers abuse prisoners on video and despite never prosecuting the chain of command, or investigating the Prime Minister's office, no one in Canada seems to have said that the PM was in on it in a grand conspiracy.

Canada is really, really good at covering things up. We call $260 million of stolen tax money a 'scandal' instead of theft...and spend $60 million to do an inquiry that will probably be scrapped because of accusations of prejudice towards the judge. We assume our politicians will do dirty and underhanded things...we accept it, as long as it isn't too obvious. When our RCMP spied on people in the 70s, when they go too far and pepper spray protestors, when they kidnap a protest organiser and drive him around for hours, bound and gagged, nothing is done, no outcry is heard, and all inquiries are internal. Canada needs some serious transparency.

As for your specific question, why the Japanese and not the Jews...well, I'm not sure about that...are you certain the Canadian government has not apologised for this? In any case, it seems that groups have to agitate a lot to get noticed...Native groups have been somewhat compensated for Residential Schools, but the Churches have been the main scapegoats for that one...

Canadians and Americans are more different than you might think...we share different values...but that doesn't mean our goverment is any less corrupt, or historically racist.

FDR was anti semitic, dint know that liked him before,well now he gets one minus point in my book.

I'm not of the opinion that they're infallible - just that they are soooo much better at making up for their mistakes. And for not having any conspiracies from the top down to commit heinous acts.

Sorry, are you saying that the US is so much better at making up for its mistakes? Chile is still waiting for an apology, so is Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, East Timor, etc, etc, etc....

Sorry, are you saying that the US is so much better at making up for its mistakes? Chile is still waiting for an apology, so is Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, East Timor, etc, etc, etc....

The US is hardly better. I'm just wondering why if the US does something, everyone jumps up and claims it is a conspiracy perpetrated by the President on down.

But when someone else does the same thing (e.g., a Canadian), no matter how heinous the act, it's never the PMs fault, and no one would consider the PM to even possibly be involved in a conspiracy.

As for your specific question, why the Japanese and not the Jews...well, I'm not sure about that...are you certain the Canadian government has not apologised for this? In any case, it seems that groups have to agitate a lot to get noticed...Native groups have been somewhat compensated for Residential Schools, but the Churches have been the main scapegoats for that one...

As of 2000, there was still no apology by the Government.

http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/00/nov16-00/front5.asp

Sorry, are you saying that the US is so much better at making up for its mistakes? Chile is still waiting for an apology, so is Guatemala, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, East Timor, etc, etc, etc....

You just said U-R-Gay

The US is hardly better. I'm just wondering why if the US does something, everyone jumps up and claims it is a conspiracy perpetrated by the President on down.

But when someone else does the same thing (e.g., a Canadian), no matter how heinous the act, it's never the PMs fault, and no one would consider the PM to even possibly be involved in a conspiracy.
Oh, ok. I think it is a cultural thing, and maybe has something to do with our differing political systems. We Canadians don't like to cause a fuss, and aren't big on conspiracy theories (even when we should be). Also, our Prime Minister doesn't have nearly the singular power that your President does. Our PM can't just go and order the military or the federal police or ANYONE really all by his lonesome...his cabinet however has a bit more clout taken together...but that means more people involved, and likely some differing opinions that might make it difficult to get some actions through below the radar.

Looking at the past, the whole country was fairly anti-semetic, and racist...that was just how things were at the time. The government of course mirrored (and fanned the flames on) that.

As of 2000, there was still no apology by the Government.

http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/00/nov16-00/front5.asp
Excellent link, thank you. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen to eventually get results. The government will only respond when it feels pressured enough. They have never just 'spontaneously' apologized for something...but then again, what government does?

WL...I was really getting into this....come back!

Oh, ok. I think it is a cultural thing, and maybe has something to do with our differing political systems. We Canadians don't like to cause a fuss, and aren't big on conspiracy theories (even when we should be). Also, our Prime Minister doesn't have nearly the singular power that your President does. Our PM can't just go and order the military or the federal police or ANYONE really all by his lonesome...his cabinet however has a bit more clout taken together...but that means more people involved, and likely some differing opinions that might make it difficult to get some actions through below the radar.

Looking at the past, the whole country was fairly anti-semetic, and racist...that was just how things were at the time. The government of course mirrored (and fanned the flames on) that.


Thats not true, the pres has less power than the PM does...

WL...I was really getting into this....come back!

I'm back.

One thing I've been wondering about. I've been reading John Keegan, and he says that the reason that men abuse prisoners has less to do with official policy (it happens in every war, every conflict, despite conventions to the contrary), and more to do with small group dynamics.

In essence, the morality of the small group outweighs, especially in combat or a foreign land far from home, any morality imposed from outside.

Why then is there ALWAYS this conspiracy crap whenever something American happens?

FDR was anti semitic, dint know that liked him before,well now he gets one minus point in my book.
Nah the NAzi's always ca;;ed him the Commie Homo Jew
America was still in the depression maybe.-Im not a big fan of his.
Maybe he was tired of accepting Europe's trash?*
*In general.

every one please read the book 1984 By George Orwall.

Canada has an obsession with niceness.

Thats not true, the pres has less power than the PM does...
How's that exactly?

I'm back.

One thing I've been wondering about. I've been reading John Keegan, and he says that the reason that men abuse prisoners has less to do with official policy (it happens in every war, every conflict, despite conventions to the contrary), and more to do with small group dynamics.

In essence, the morality of the small group outweighs, especially in combat or a foreign land far from home, any morality imposed from outside.

Why then is there ALWAYS this conspiracy crap whenever something American happens?
Maybe because its because of all the ACTUAL conspiracies. Like Operation Condor. Like the Iran-Contra affair. Like all that weird crap...people just get paranoid and think everything else is probably a conspiracy too. They're bound to be right some of the time...

Canada has an obsession with niceness.
Na...the rest of the world has an obsession with Canadian niceness.

A man stands at a vending machine. How do you know he's Canadian? He says "thank-you" to the machine when he gets his chocolate bar.

A man is walking in New York. Someone rudely pushes into him. The mans says, "Oh, sorry about that!". Damn Canadian.

The US is hardly better. I'm just wondering why if the US does something, everyone jumps up and claims it is a conspiracy perpetrated by the President on down.

But when someone else does the same thing (e.g., a Canadian), no matter how heinous the act, it's never the PMs fault, and no one would consider the PM to even possibly be involved in a conspiracy.


I'm curious, but given that our current and past PM's were BOTH in front of a tribunal in the past two weeks that was delving into some highly suspect spending of federal dollars - what makes you think that the we DON'T hold them at fault or consider them to be involved in ongoing events (a.k.a conspiracies).

I mean - besides three issues you've managed to cherry-pick from the past century?

For one thing, it almost could never be the Prime Ministers fault. One difference between canadian and american governments is the the PM is not directly elcted to office. so he can never be impeached of arressted unlike the american president, plus the canadian style of government lacks the checks and balances that the american system has. this is why political scientists calls prime ministers dictators. they have more power with in a nation than any other democraticly elected leader in the world.

For one thing, it almost could never be the Prime Ministers fault. One difference between canadian and american governments is the the PM is not directly elcted to office. so he can never be impeached of arressted unlike the american president, plus the canadian style of government lacks the checks and balances that the american system has. this is why political scientists calls prime ministers dictators. they have more power with in a nation than any other democraticly elected leader in the world.
Zep...step in here and help me out...I am under the impression that our PMs have less DIRECT power than Presidents...am I out to lunch?

Zep...step in here and help me out...I am under the impression that our PMs have less DIRECT power than Presidents...am I out to lunch?

They have more direct power to influence the members of their party - i.e) threat of tossing them from the caucus if they fail to vote along party lines, and less in the way of needing approval to name their cabinet.

However they do not have the same level of power as in the US as far as installing top-level bureaucrats to run departments, nor can they force issues via Presidential Findings in quite the same way.

The powers are actually pretty equivalent - but also very different.

the Wiki entry on the differences is actually pretty well done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_politics_compared#Summary




However, to get back to the initial subject - if Legs really thinks that we let our PMs off the hook, perhaps he might enlighten us on why our past two PMs are generally refered to by the public as: King Jean, and Lyin' Brian.

I'm curious, but given that our current and past PM's were BOTH in front of a tribunal in the past two weeks that was delving into some highly suspect spending of federal dollars - what makes you think that the we DON'T hold them at fault or consider them to be involved in ongoing events (a.k.a conspiracies).

I mean - besides three issues you've managed to cherry-pick from the past century?

Well, if you want to drop the first two (as they were the same PM), and just deal with a military incident, the Canadian Airborne in Somalia seems to fit quite well with a US parallel.

I don't see the PM being "held accountable" as people want to hold Bush "accountable".

I don't see Canadian troops (elite ones at that) as being any more disciplined than US troops, nor do I see a system in place that prevented or detected such an event (it seems to have surfaced in the same ugly way as Abu Gharaib - through photos and video shot by soldiers), nor did Canada come up with a way to stop the bad behavior and create disciplined troops - they were forced rather to disband the Airborne altogether.

Senior officers were either never charged (most of the officers, including ones who were witnesses and are therefore accountable) or were acquitted. No one above the unit level were ever questioned - no one asked the PM about his scandalous policy on the treatment of prisoners.

I would think it's a fair question.

I would also wonder why, if especially the Liberals in Canada find the behavior of the US so morally egregious, why they haven't apologized for their own behavior? I mean, how much could it cost to get on TV and apologize for sending the people of the SS St. Louis to their deaths?

Zep...step in here and help me out...I am under the impression that our PMs have less DIRECT power than Presidents...am I out to lunch?
Technically, he has more. For instance, he's the one to appoint Judges without so much as a review. The checks and balances are mostly the same when it comes to law but the Prime Minister has much more power when it comes to appoint someone to any post. However, I'm not sure though, he is not considered the commander in chief of the armed forces. So he could not be held responsible for scandals like Somalia or Abu Grahib (sp?).

Technically, he has more. For instance, he's the one to appoint Judges without so much as a review. The checks and balances are mostly the same when it comes to law but the Prime Minister has much more power when it comes to appoint someone to any post. However, I'm not sure though, he is not considered the commander in chief of the armed forces. So he could not be held responsible for scandals like Somalia or Abu Grahib (sp?).

Well that explains perfectly why they wouldn't wonder about the PM when soldiers do the "Troops Gone Wild" videos.

So who is the commander in chief of the Canadian Armed Forces? Was he held over a fire concerning the Canadian Airborne?

Well that explains perfectly why they wouldn't wonder about the PM when soldiers do the "Troops Gone Wild" videos.

So who is the commander in chief of the Canadian Armed Forces? Was he held over a fire concerning the Canadian Airborne?

I couldn't say. But there was some changes implemented afterwards, IIRC.
You'll tell me it's a little too late and I agree but what can we do?

I couldn't say. But there was some changes implemented afterwards, IIRC.
You'll tell me it's a little too late and I agree but what can we do?

Apparently the changes involved getting a new commander and shaking things up. Then the Airborne went out and did something else nearly as stupid, and so the Canadians just closed down the whole thing.

So evidently, they were unable to come up with an effective policy and strategy to keep their own elite forces from doing stupid things. They had to give up having those elite forces. It was, in the end, their only option.

Well, if you want to drop the first two (as they were the same PM), and just deal with a military incident, the Canadian Airborne in Somalia seems to fit quite well with a US parallel.

I don't see the PM being "held accountable" as people want to hold Bush "accountable".



Perhaps because the Canadian PM did not have his personal legal counsel look into torture and issue memos saying that it was OK prior to the event. Perhaps because there were no instructions being passed down the chain of command changing the rules for prisoner treatment as part of policy. And perhaps because this was not a case of abuse by supposedly trained prison guards at a proper facility.

It was a case where the soldiers on guard duty at the Caandian camp caught, tortured and killed a single intruder who was trying to sneak into camp.


I don't see Canadian troops (elite ones at that) as being any more disciplined than US troops, nor do I see a system in place that prevented or detected such an event (it seems to have surfaced in the same ugly way as Abu Gharaib - through photos and video shot by soldiers), nor did Canada come up with a way to stop the bad behavior and create disciplined troops - they were forced rather to disband the Airborne altogether.

Senior officers were either never charged (most of the officers, including ones who were witnesses and are therefore accountable) or were acquitted. No one above the unit level were ever questioned - no one asked the PM about his scandalous policy on the treatment of prisoners.

I would think it's a fair question.


What "policy" is that exactly? If you have some indication that the PM at the time set a policy to allow the next infiltrater into camp to be tortured and killed then please bring it forward!

Now, although your characterization of why the Airborne was disbanded is only partially true, the fact is that many Canadians felt that there was some coverup within the military to protect officers. You would have known that had you been following the story at the time. However, given that there was no chain of orders setting a policy to abuse infiltrators - the reason why it did not go above the unit level should be quite clear.

To differentiate: The mistreatment and death of the Somali who was caught attempting to infiltrate the camp was a far more isolated event than the systemic abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And those directly involved went to jail and the officers didn't.

It was a huge scandal that the Government and Military at the time was raked over the coals for. You are treating it as if it were all quietly swept under the rug unlike Abu Ghraib.

And on that - you could not be further from the truth. You just didn't notice it at the time because it wasn;t on the news in the US.


I would also wonder why, if especially the Liberals in Canada find the behavior of the US so morally egregious, why they haven't apologized for their own behavior? I mean, how much could it cost to get on TV and apologize for sending the people of the SS St. Louis to their deaths?

Maybe the current liberal party doesn't feel responsible for the actions of it's predecessors 70 years ago. And maybe because saddly there is noone to apologize to. Besides - do you apologize to Jews in general for not being able to forsee genocide in '39 when people tried to force themselves into our country? Should the government have been able to predict death camps in '39?

It is a little different when you have the people still around such as with those who were in the Japanese internment camps.

Well that explains perfectly why they wouldn't wonder about the PM when soldiers do the "Troops Gone Wild" videos.

So who is the commander in chief of the Canadian Armed Forces? Was he held over a fire concerning the Canadian Airborne?

Yes, actually TWO were plus the Minister of Defence.

Chief of the Defence Staff General John de Chastelain was first forced out , then his successor General Boyle was forced to resign only a few months after accepting the role when he refused to take responsibility for the destruction of documents by his officers.

The Minister of National Defence David Collenette was also forced to resign.



So, how many senior people at the Pentagon are gone yet due to Abu Ghraib?

However, to get back to the initial subject - if Legs really thinks that we let our PMs off the hook, perhaps he might enlighten us on why our past two PMs are generally refered to by the public as: King Jean, and Lyin' Brian.

You certainly let King off the hook.

Maybe the current liberal party doesn't feel responsible for the actions of it's predecessors 70 years ago. And maybe because saddly there is noone to apologize to. Besides - do you apologize to Jews in general for not being able to forsee genocide in '39 when people tried to force themselves into our country? Should the government have been able to predict death camps in '39?

It is a little different when you have the people still around such as with those who were in the Japanese internment camps.

There were survivors of the SS St. Louis who came to Canada to ask for an apology in 2000, and they didn't get one from the government. So they are still around.

It wasn't a matter of foreseeing genocide. People were being killed in Germany as early as 1935. The PM was on record in response to the SS St. Louis as being an anti-Semite and saying that "None is too many" when it comes to Jews. He publicly admired Hitler for his stance on Jews. Of course he's the same man and Party that brought the Exclusion Act, which although repealed in 1947, still had a legal effect until 1967! Have to hate the Chinese, too, not just the Jews. And we have to make it stick, too.

Wow. Last I read, the Canadian government still doesn't want to pay back the Chinese who had to pay a "head tax" just to get into Canada. The UN is recommending that Canada do so - but the government is refusing. I guess that Canada would love for the US to follow UN advice - but UN advice isn't good enough for Canada.

I'd just like to say that, while I do not condone IN ANY WAY the anti-semitic or anti-japanease actions undertaken in the past by Canada, nor do I agree with them failing to appologize, the VAST majority of westerers were anti-semitic leading up to and durring WW2. So, while I see the merit of this thread and agree that these actions were reprehensable and the failure to appologize for these acts disturbs me, please don't think of Canada as the only people doing these kinds of things. We were wrong, I admit that and feel ashamed, but we were not the only ones.

Incidentally Legs, since you seem in your first post to be specifically attacking Canadian Liberal PM's, could you care to explain one little detail?

The Somalia affair was centered around the events of a murder which took place on March 13, 1993.

The tenure of Conservative PM (Lyin') Brian Mulroney was Sept 18th '84 - June 25th, '93.

Guess who deployed the troops to Somalia and was in power at the time of the murder?


As always, it fell to the Liberals to have to clean up a Conservative mess....

:p

There were survivors of the SS St. Louis who came to Canada to ask for an apology in 2000, and they didn't get one from the government. So they are still around.

It wasn't a matter of foreseeing genocide. People were being killed in Germany as early as 1935. The PM was on record in response to the SS St. Louis as being an anti-Semite and saying that "None is too many" when it comes to Jews. He publicly admired Hitler for his stance on Jews. Of course he's the same man and Party that brought the Exclusion Act, which although repealed in 1947, still had a legal effect until 1967! Have to hate the Chinese, too, not just the Jews. And we have to make it stick, too.

Wow. Last I read, the Canadian government still doesn't want to pay back the Chinese who had to pay a "head tax" just to get into Canada. The UN is recommending that Canada do so - but the government is refusing. I guess that Canada would love for the US to follow UN advice - but UN advice isn't good enough for Canada.

So, you expect an apology for returning illegal imigrants to face death camps that no-one had any idea about? My, but you seem awfully big on slamming Canada for this single item when the St Louis was also rejected by Cuba, the US, Panama, Argentina, etc. etc.

Was it a high point in our histry? No - of course not.

But how do you apologize for that in retrospect?

Incidentally though, you seem not to note that King's Liberals were in power until '48, ergo they were also the ones who REPEALED the exclusion act.


Anyway, if you want to dredge up ancient history as your argument, well hell Legs - we could be at that all day.

Has the US apologised to everyone for everything they ever did wrong? And do you hold the current Government accountable for all that? No?

Me either.


Hell - at least when I complain it's about CURRENT policies......

So, you expect an apology for returning illegal imigrants to face death camps that no-one had any idea about? My, but you seem awfully big on slamming Canada for this single item when the St Louis was also rejected by Cuba, the US, Panama, Argentina, etc. etc.

Was it a high point in our histry? No - of course not.

But how do you apologize for that in retrospect?

Incidentally though, you seem not to note that King's Liberals were in power until '48, ergo they were also the ones who REPEALED the exclusion act.


Anyway, if you want to dredge up ancient history as your argument, well hell Legs - we could be at that all day.

Has the US apologised to everyone for everything they ever did wrong? And do you hold the current Government accountable for all that? No?

Me either.


Hell - at least when I complain it's about CURRENT policies......


I'm just wondering - I hear people complain about US policies every day - even the ones going way, way back. And the Canadians in Somalia is hardly ancient history.

Note taken about the "repeal", with the conditions that kept a lot of its provisions on the books until 1967, when someone actually noticed.

I'm just wondering - I hear people complain about US policies every day - even the ones going way, way back. And the Canadians in Somalia is hardly ancient history.

Note taken about the "repeal", with the conditions that kept a lot of its provisions on the books until 1967, when someone actually noticed.
Why is it that every thread you start centered around the US basically becomes a "Everyone complains about the US, but what about..." argument?

Why is it that every thread you start centered around the US basically becomes a "Everyone complains about the US, but what about..." argument?

Not all are like that - I started the Select your Weapon for the Undead Apocalypse.

But, I've noticed a lot of:
Anti-USA
and fifteen different ways to say,
"I hate the USA"
or
"Why does the US suck so much?"

So, in the interest of being fair and balanced, I'm posting accordingly.

Incidentally Legs, since you seem in your first post to be specifically attacking Canadian Liberal PM's, could you care to explain one little detail?

The Somalia affair was centered around the events of a murder which took place on March 13, 1993.

The tenure of Conservative PM (Lyin') Brian Mulroney was Sept 18th '84 - June 25th, '93.

Guess who deployed the troops to Somalia and was in power at the time of the murder?


As always, it fell to the Liberals to have to clean up a Conservative mess....

:p


yieks i hope you are joking