Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Metaphor]

One wonders at how you conflate Australia with Canada.

I didn't.

Actually, in Australia, at least some lands are freehold with respect to aboriginal peoples.

They are not freehold. They are 'inalieniable' Aboriginal freehold in the NT, and the title does not belong to individual Aborigines. Even under this kind of title, no Aboriginal person would be right to burn down any building on the land.

Here is a discussion of property rights held by First Nations peoples in Canada:

https://www.uoguelph.ca/fare/FARE-talk/transcripts/beyond-indian-act.html

What do you want me to take away from this discussion? They are talking about how Aboriginal title in Canada is not freehold ('fee simple').

 

[bilby]

No, they aren't, except in the sense one or more of their members are guilty.

Think about it: suppose you believe the Catholic Church is guilty, and deserves to be punished. What do you have in mind, if not some people behaving immorally, and deserve punishment? If you feel moral outrage, think about your own moral outrage: is it not directed to people? I can feel moral outrage directed at people. Or monkeys. Or angels if I believed they existed. But what is it that you would feel outraged against? What is the Catholic Church, if not the activity of some people? And how can it be guilty?

You believe the Catholic Church can be morally guilty, deserve punishment, etc., without any individual member be guilty, deserve punishment, etc.? Could you give an example of that? I mean, any historical instance that you know of? Or a hypothetical scenario, that will do.



That is not true. While the company is made by activity of some people. And the funds of the company are funds of the shareholders, alocated for the purposes of that activity. Of course, no employee pays, unless of course the employee is also a shareholder, in which case she pays indirectly from the money she alocates to the company.

You are assuming your conclusion. And you are wrong.

I'm not assuming my conclusion more than you are assuming yours. And you're wrong. But I actually, I'm now arguing for it, by asking you to think about it (see above), and try to construe it in a different manner.

The Sun insurance company was founded in 1710. Its still in business today. It has liabilities and contracts that were formed when none of the current employees or shareholders were alive. Those contracts are likewise made with other entities whose individual members no longer exist.

These contracts and liabilities are the responsibility of the company; Any breach of these contracts would be an offence of which the company (but no individual) would be guilty.

Corporate entities exist, and are moral agents. They are not just a collection of individual moral agents.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Sun insurance company was founded in 1710. Its still in business today. It has liabilities and contracts that were formed when none of the current employees or shareholders were alive. Those contracts are likewise made with other entities whose individual members no longer exist.

When you talk about the Sun insurance company, what is it that you are talking about, if not some of the activity of some people? Sure, given some causal continuity, it is proper to use the same name for the company and to say it lasts for longer than any member, but again, that is only because we are talking about some of the activity of some people and then some other people, etc.

When you talk about 'liabilities', are we talking about moral obligations, or legal obligations? There is something to be said about the latter, but it is the former that matters in this context. The moral obligation to pay - with some of their money, which was alocated to this particular endeavor - lies with the owners of the company. And perhaps some people working at the company have a moral obligation to carry out the payment, though not with their own money, at least not in the capacity of company employees.

These contracts and liabilities are the responsibility of the company; Any breach of these contracts would be an offence of which the company (but no individual) would be guilty.

Again, are we talking about moral guilt?
If not, you are changing the subject.
If so, then that's indirect for someone having done something unethical, and thus being guilty (see my questions in the previous post, or below).

Let me ask you this: do you think the Sun insurance company, has a mind? Do you think it is self-aware? Do you think it is at least capable of suffering?

Corporate entities exist, and are moral agents. They are not just a collection of individual moral agents.

Of course they are not a collection of individual moral agents. They are some of the activities of some individual moral agents, and can be said to be moral agents only in the indirect sense I explained.

Now, I address your points, could you address mine, please?

Suppose you believe the Catholic Church or the Sun insurance company is morally guilty of some behavior X, and deserves to be punished for that. What do you have in mind, if not some people behaving immorally, and deserve punishment? If you feel moral outrage, think about your own moral outrage: is it not directed at people? Whom are you angry with, if not human beings? (other monkeys are not involved in these institutions).

 

[TomC]

Oh look. Victim blaming. I knew liberals could do it if they really tried.

If the Catholic Church had behaved with similar integrity, this conversation would not be taking place.

You're absolutely correct. The true victims of all this is the Roman Catholic Church. What the fuck, pal.

No.
The true victims are the members of the community. From the parishioners to non-parishioners who valued and used cool old buildings to otherwise uninvolved community members who don't like their town becoming more dangerous.

Those are the victims. The Pope isn't much affected.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You're absolutely correct. The true victims of all this is the Roman Catholic Church. What the fuck, pal.

No.
The true victims are the members of the community. From the parishioners to non-parishioners who valued and used cool old buildings to otherwise uninvolved community members who don't like their town becoming more dangerous.

Those are the victims. The Pope isn't much affected.
Tom

How are those towns more dangerous?

The Pope may not be affected but he has agreed to meet with school survivors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/01/canada-catholic-church-indigeneous-graves/

Pope Francis, who has expressed sorrow over the graves but stopped short of apologizing for the Catholic Church’s role, has agreed to meet with residential school survivors.

 

[Rhea]

How are those towns more dangerous?

The Pope may not be affected but he has agreed to meet with school survivors:

Maybe that’s how the towns get more dangerous. They go to mee tthe head of the organization that specializes in deaath and rape and the cover-up thereof.

 

[TomC]

How are those towns more dangerous?

They have active arsonists who decide for themselves who deserves to be punished and act on it.
Tom

 

[Toni]

How are those towns more dangerous?

They have active arsonists who decide for themselves who deserves to be punished and act on it.
Tom

I don't happen to agree in this instance but I think we both agree that it is important that when grave wrongs have been done, the community and law enforcement must act to address these wrongs--and that the guilty parties should make whatever reparations are deemed necessary.

 

[Metaphor]

Two more Catholic churches burned and ten Christian churches vandalised.

 

[Patooka]

I'm curious as to what Cardinal Thomas Christopher Collins has to say about all of this.

 

[Rhea]

Meanwhile,

As Pope defies calls for apology, residential school statement not ‘enough’: minister

The Catholic Pope has for years defied calls from both the Canadian government and the public to apologize for the central role his church played in running 60 per cent of Canada’s residential schools.

“Residential school survivors and those dealing with this need to hear the Pope apologize,” said Bennett during question period on Monday in response to a question from NDP MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq.

“Our government continues to call on the Pope to apologize,” Bennett continued.”

He seems to be saying, the church I represent has nothing to apologize for (we don’t think we did anything wrong with our churches)

 

[Rhea]

The pope is going to squeeze some time in on his busy calendar in December to finally meet with indigenous people.

“Pope Francis is deeply committed to hearing directly from Indigenous Peoples, expressing his heartfelt closeness, addressing the impact of colonization and the role of the Church in the residential school system,” the bishops wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/world/canada/pope-francis-residential-schools-apology.html

Because being “deeply committed” totally means putting off the meeting for another 6 months. That sure is “heartfelt closeness,” innit? Almost like sending a condolence card six months after a funeral.


And saying it like he has to hear from those people directly before he can determine whether any trauma exists.


Which is, directly, inflicting additional trauma. And he wonders why the Canadian indigenous population will process their traum as an ongoing and current one with current perpetrators.

Catholic orders ran about 70 percent of the schools on behalf of the government. Despite a direct plea from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017, the pope has consistently refused to apologize for the church.

Three Protestant denominations that also ran residential schools apologized long ago and contributed millions of dollars to settle in 2005 a class-action suit brought by former students.

Chief Bellegarde said that the Indigenous groups had been trying for two years to schedule this meeting with the pope. But he said that it remains unclear which, if any, of their requests that the pope will agree to.

“There are no guarantees of any kind of apology or anything coming forward, there’s no guarantee that he’ll even come back to Canada,” Chief Bellegarde said. “But we have to make the attempt and we have to seize the opportunity.”

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Meanwhile,

As Pope defies calls for apology, residential school statement not ‘enough’: minister

The Catholic Pope has for years defied calls from both the Canadian government and the public to apologize for the central role his church played in running 60 per cent of Canada’s residential schools.

“Residential school survivors and those dealing with this need to hear the Pope apologize,” said Bennett during question period on Monday in response to a question from NDP MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq.

“Our government continues to call on the Pope to apologize,” Bennett continued.”

He seems to be saying, the church I represent has nothing to apologize for (we don’t think we did anything wrong with our churches)

But why should he apologize? Did he do something wrong? Well, yes, many things, but I mean related to this. At least, I do not see any evidence of that. An apologize seems to involve a recognition of wrongdoing, an expression of regret, and a promise not to do it again. While relaying someone's apology makes sense, I do not see how apologizing for others would make sense (that is, sincerely apologizing for others; insincerely apologizing can make sense, say, to prevent violence from powerful third parties bent on misdirected revenge).

 

[Gospel]

I'm curious as to what Cardinal Thomas Christopher Collins has to say about all of this.

At this point, they'd rather hear from Ja Rule.

 

[Rhea]

I think most trauma survivors would agree that a perpetrator institution that continues to think they are above such actions, even when it is proven that they absolutely perpetrated such actions is part of the ongoing trauma.

A church that continues to insist that they are righteous and possessing higher morals while knowing that they did the deepest evil of stealing and murdering children, is an institution that presents an ongoing danger.

“A lot of Indigenous communities are expressing a lot of devastation and sadness and anger, but not shock,” he said. “Absolutely not shock. We’ve known about this. There really is this challenge that we have to work through, which is that—especially in the Catholic Church—so many Catholic people want to believe that the Catholic schools had to be different, that their faith had to inform something different. And to find out that that wasn't the case, is often very difficult for people to grapple with.”

An unapologetic institution that refuses to acknowledge their role, let alone pour in the funding necessary to find and identify all of the still-hidden victims, is an institution that harbors evil in its core.

Catholic people who continue to maintain that their faith fundamentally informs different behavior are part of the trauma. Your faith does nothing to make you better than anyone else. Not better than a drug dealer, not better than a thief; you are exactly as human as everone else - and so is your church.

When victims of rape and families of murder victims look at your fancy robes and your glittering prayer scarves, your golden chalices and your ornate windows, and know that these were the accoutrements that shielded the rapists and murderers from harm, these are the robes that kept them from being caught and stopped, these are the hats that made them part of a well-funded club that would rather protect the robe and the scarf and the hat than protect the children; when victims and their families see these symbols, they see what kept the rapist raping and what kept the murderer murdering. The institution protected the criminal, and that same institution still wears the same brand. It cannot be surprised or offended when that brand becomes a source of fear - and anger.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think most trauma survivors would agree that a perpetrator institution that continues to think they are above such actions, even when it is proven that they absolutely perpetrated such actions is part of the ongoing trauma.

But who is a "perpetrator institution" that continues to think they are above such actions?
Is an institution the kind of entity that has the capability to think, independently of its members? And if not, then who are the perpetrators?

A church that continues to insist that they are righteous and possessing higher morals while knowing that they did the deepest evil of stealing and murdering children, is an institution that presents an ongoing danger.

Who is "they"?
Are the people who continue to insist that they are righteous the same people who stole and murdered children?
If not, how are the former an ongoing danger?

An unapologetic institution that refuses to acknowledge their role, let alone pour in the funding necessary to find and identify all of the still-hidden victims, is an institution that harbors evil in its core.

But the people who are not apologizing are not the wrongdoers. Why should they apologize?

 

[Rhea]

But the people who are not apologizing are not the wrongdoers. Why should they apologize?

You should sell this argument to corporate polluters who had to clean up decades after their offense. They’ll be thrilled to get refunds. Call IBM first.

 

[Metaphor]

But the people who are not apologizing are not the wrongdoers. Why should they apologize?

You should sell this argument to corporate polluters who had to clean up decades after their offense. They’ll be thrilled to get refunds. Call IBM first.

Did the government force the corporate polluters to 'apologise', or did they merely force them to pay money?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who is "they"?
Are the people who continue to insist that they are righteous the same people who stole and murdered children?

Actually those people would be the ones responsible for creating the cover for the systemic child abuse by those in the Catholic Church. They never stopped being a danger.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile,

As Pope defies calls for apology, residential school statement not ‘enough’: minister

The Catholic Pope has for years defied calls from both the Canadian government and the public to apologize for the central role his church played in running 60 per cent of Canada’s residential schools.

“Residential school survivors and those dealing with this need to hear the Pope apologize,” said Bennett during question period on Monday in response to a question from NDP MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq.

“Our government continues to call on the Pope to apologize,” Bennett continued.”

He seems to be saying, the church I represent has nothing to apologize for (we don’t think we did anything wrong with our churches)

But why should he apologize? Did he do something wrong?

Regarding coverups of molestation? Yes. Oh, you are talking the abuse and deaths of aboriginal children stolen from their families so they could be dehumanized and reborn as Christians. I'm not aware of his direct involvement there.

At least, I do not see any evidence of that. An apologize seems to involve a recognition of wrongdoing, an expression of regret, and a promise not to do it again.

Aren't we beyond this point? The Churches that ran these schools already made with some level of 'we're sorry', and then it just continues to unravel as more and more truth gets exposed. These schools were crimes against humanity. No, not quite Nazi bad, but is that really the bar? And then after that, the Catholic Church (among others) were doing their best shuffling dangerous predators around to ruin the lives of so many children. When are we allowed to say an apology is worthless? Clearly the institution isn't sorry. Sure, individuals can and are, but the organization that is the Catholic Church (among others) has committed intentional acts that have either killed or traumatically scarred countless children.

The Church should be begging for forgiveness, yet, they are up high on their pedestals, knowing that admitting to these crimes would be devastating, because you can always say bad apples molested children. You need a whole orchid to hide hundreds of children in the soil.