Genocide for Dummies

The following piece first published with more than a touch of irony, intentional or not, on Halloween 2022 by prolific and perceptive blogger Michael Melanson successfully disembowels the scariest tale in Canadian history: our peaceable kingdom is a genocidal monster of a nation.

A House of Commons resolution passed by the unanimous voice-vote consent of all members from all political parties on October 27 — based on what was an unsavory prior agreement to do so — with no debate or supporting evidence by New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Leah Gazan read:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government must recognize what happened in Canada's Indian residential schools as genocide, as acknowledged by Pope Francis and in accordance with article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of the United Nations.

This extraordinarily specious assertion was unanimously agreed to by what many would consider to be the most frightening collection of walking dead in the country: the elected blood-sucking zombies called the Canadian House of Commons.

According to Melanson:

“Disturbingly, the House of Commons passed Gazan's motion unanimously. There has been no trial for any Canadian anywhere on the crime of genocide so there's a basic problem of justice here. Can parliamentarians pronounce a guilty verdict when no court has? Of course readers will recall the Pope saying the schools were a genocide but the point remains: does the Pope's judgment replace that of a court of law?

If the Internation Criminal Court [in The Hague] won't prosecute any Canadian for this alleged crime of genocide, how can justice be done? I think we are left with trying the case in the court of public opinion as an approximation of due process. A note first about daring to defend Canada against the charge of genocide. There are some scholars who consider such contention to be 'denialism'. If scholars like Sean Carleton were intellectually secure about the strength of their arguments, why would they be so fearful of any debate as to summarily dismiss skeptics as 'denialists'? However zealously they might regard their moral authority in condemning Canada, Canada, like any person accused of a crime, is entitled to a presumption of innocence. In seeking justice, they cannot deny justice.”

---

Please note, as explained below, this newsletter has now been modestly monetized. This means that only paid subscribers have access to past, present, and future content. This also means that those choosing not to take out a paid subscription will only have access to an introductory comment like the one above from this point on.

I need to monetize to continue with my efforts ...

---