BishopAccountability.org
	Will Lawyers Apologise? Fear of Legal Action Can Handcuff Progress By Marianne Meed Ward Toronto Sun [Canada] April 1, 2007 http://torontosun.com/Lifestyle/2007/04/01/3887931-sun.html The federal government has a lot of apologizing to do. But why stop at residential schools? I don't mean to make light of the trauma inflicted upon natives at these schools. In previous columns, I've supported their quest not only for an apology for the abuse they endured, but also financial compensation for the promising lives that were derailed into addiction and poverty. The residential schools, for all their lofty ambition to give natives a "good Christian education" (and that itself was problematic), contributed to the decimation of native culture, native pride and in far too many cases individual native lives. The government contracted with churches to run the schools. The Roman Catholic and United Churches ran most of them, with a few Anglican and Presbyterian-run schools scattered around. Their goal wasn't simply to educate natives. It was to convert them from their native spirituality to Christianity. But this was a harsh Christianity influenced by the harsh realities of life in Canada from the late 1800s, when the schools first opened, to the 1970s when the last one was closed. In that time, the country endured two world wars, a Great Depression, social upheaval in the home as women demanded equal access to politics and employment, and challenges to religious authority. LACED WITH PREJUDICE You dream it. We have it. In that time, faith was influenced more by judgment than grace; instruction was guided more by discipline than patient instruction; and social intercourse was laced with prejudice. We shipped our domestic "enemies" off to remote internment camps and stole their property, we barred Jews fleeing Hitler's madness from landing on our shores, and we prevented the ones already living here from frequenting many of our parks and businesses. It's no wonder that those characteristics of punishment and prejudice pervaded residential schools, too. This is not to excuse the schools, or their masters. Our society is different today than it was then because a number of people, even then, said this is no way to run a country, a society, a church or a Christian school. Those people were in the minority, so change took time. But the alternatives were present, even then. Faith calls us to change our culture, and too often the residential schools mirrored culture instead of influencing it for the better. Churches have apologized, and paid out huge sums, for their role in the residential school scandal. The leaders at the time, though they were not personally responsible for the schools, recognized that the estate of the church, which they represent, was responsible. The same is true for the federal government -- current leaders not only represent a current regime, but also represent the estate of democracy, which predates all parties. And I fear the estate of democracy is fraying, which brings me to the other apologies we are owed. Lawyers seem to be running our country, not elected officials. If the government formally apologizes not simply for the abuse but for the schools themselves, does it become financially liable for additional claims? SETTLEMENT PACKAGE The government's settlement package includes a "common experience" payment to everyone who attended, worth about $2 billion in total. Additional amounts are owed to students who suffered physical and sexual abuse, bringing the total compensation package to $4 or $5 billion. If the schools themselves are problematic, will the common experience payment need to be upped to the level of abuse survivor? You can bet there's a lawyer somewhere who'd be willing to make that argument. Speaking of lawyers, they stand to collectively earn about $100 million from the package, with a whopping $25-40 million going to one firm in Regina, the Merchant Law Group, which kick-started the payouts with a class action suit covering about 10,000 natives. The feds have appealed that amount. As one native said after the ruling and ensuing appeals -- it's really the lawyers who win here. The federal government wouldn't have come to the table without lawyers forcing them there, and they're reluctant to do the right thing because of legal implications. It's a lawyer's world, and our ethics as a country and our democracy are suffering. I want an apology for that.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.