MCFD & The First Nation
At first glance, it appears that residential schools (used as a cultural assimilation tool on the First Nation) and the child protection activities of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) are unrelated. Based on the findings from statistical data in Appendix 1 of "2006 B.C. Budget" published by a Vancouver accounting firm in February 2006, an Aboriginal child stands a chance of removal by MCFD 10 times higher than a non-native child on a per capita basis. This exceptionally high ratio based on the government statistics between 1999 to 2001 warrants further research to examine why. The data analysis is reproduced with permission from the original author as follows:
According to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia on "Canadian Indian residential school system", it read:
The Canadian residential school system was a place in which aboriginal children were abused and neglected. [It was] founded in the 19th century, intended to force their assimilation into European-Canadian society. The purpose of the schools, which separated children from their families, has been described by many commentators as "killing the Indian in the child."
Residential school is an extreme form of child removal. It is mandatory and discriminatory based on ethnic profiling. This policy of "cultural assimilation" is clearly for the purpose of assimilating (and hence destroying) native culture and families until the Aboriginal people ceased to exist as an independent sovereign nation. Such notorious activities were needed for political reasons in the early era of the white man regime not only in Canada but also in most English-speaking nations (like the United States, Australia, New Zealand and, of course, the United Kingdom) with a colonial history. The propaganda film aired by CBC on the right was made by the Canadian government in 1955. It painted a rosy picture that authorities wanted the public and Natives to believe. Like modern "child protection", this infamous and tactful oppression was done under the pretext of "helping" Natives to acquire a "better life" by integrating them into the white man society. This strategy was very successful in suppressing Native resistance against exploitation and invasion of Native rights and land.
Like supervised visits in modern child protection, parents of removed Aboriginal children had to camp outside the gates of the residential schools to see their children. The first residential schools were established in the 1840s with the last residential school closing in 1996. During this time span, hundreds of thousand of Aboriginal families were destroyed when their children were forcibly removed and placed in government-sponsored residential schools.
Since the beginning of time, children have been used as political collaterals. Even the renowned Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huang 秦始皇 who unified ancient China n 221 B.C. and built the Great Wall was a child hostage held in the State of Zhao to guarantee an armistice between the two states until the age of 13. Some children were used as pawns by those in power to ensure submission or to oppress a civilian population for political reasons as early as in biblical time.
Since the expansion of colonialism in the 19th century, almost all English-speaking nations evolved from colonial governments have a history of removing aboriginal children from their families under the pretext of "improving" their welfare or "protecting" them from the "corrupting influence" of their "barbaric" parents. For example, Canada and another British Commonwealth country Australia both have a hideous history of using "cultural assimilation" policy to destroy the native people and get their lands. We have developed a new page titled "Australian Experience" to further elaborate on what is known as the "stolen generation", which is part of the theme in the 20th Century Fox movie "Australia" (2008). The Australian stolen generation and the Canadian residential schools are results of cultural assimilation policy imposed on the Aboriginals.
The main purpose is to weaken the targeted victims and to reduce the perceived threat of the regime. This is a very powerful weapon and will bend the will of the toughest mind. Youngsters are easy targets. Like predators in the animal world targeting the young and the weak for food, human beings are of no difference when striving for survival, money, fame and power. The future of a people is effectively destroyed by sabotaging their offspring. As open massacre and ethnic cleansing are not viable options in those so-called "democratic and free" nations, oppression to achieve a political end is done in a more subtle and discreet, but equally effective, manner sugar coated by a noble cause. Such shrewd move will accomplish the following:
Oppression on the First Nation raises the following questions surrounding "child protection":
We will not attempt to answer all the aforesaid questions but to use them as food for thought.
The First Nation & Modern "Child Protection"
Many Canadians do not know much about the residential schools. Some of us may think that they are legacy from the previous millennium and bear little relevancy to modern lives. Most of us do not see a direct link between residential schools and child protection. We will further discuss the similarities between the two regimes below. First and foremost, atrocities like the residential school and the Sherry Charlie tragedy are possible because government has the authority to remove children from their families based on the opinion of bureaucrats and supported by financially motivated service providers of the child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise specified).
A Disturbing Canadian History
In 1857, Canada passed the Gradual Civilization Act to assimilate surviving Native Indians. Residential schools became the prime tool of assimilation. By 1920, compulsory attendance for all Native Indian children was enforced. Catholic priests, Indian agents and police officers forcibly took Native children away from the families and dumped them in residential schools run by white men.
Like the discrimination against early Chinese Canadian immigrants by enacting the racist Chinese Immigration Act, 1923 (known in the Chinese Canadian community as the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923), residential schools were mandated by a Canadian federal statute called the Indian Act. Under this Act, the Canadian federal government provided funding to "educate" native peoples and integrate them into Western society with the intent of "encouraging self-sufficiency" within the First Nations. This system of "education" was a joint endeavor between the federal government and missionaries (mainly Roman Catholics and the rest by various Protestant denominations). Growth of the residential school system was ensured through an amendment to the Indian Act in 1920, making attendance mandatory for Native Indian children between the ages of 7 of 15. By 1930, the residential school program had reached its peak with roughly 80 institutions, mostly in Western provinces but stretching northward into the territories and eastward to Quebec. Today, the amended Indian Act is still in effect. Despite provisions stipulating mandatory Native child removal and placement into white man run residential schools had been repealed, Native families and children remain the largest victim of modern state-sponsored child removal activities.
The timeline below was extracted from "In Depth Aboriginal Canadians A timeline of residential schools" (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). It summarizes major events surrounding the issue of Native Indian residential schools in Canada.
Some Alleged Evidence
As locations of mass graves of Native Indian children from residential schools were revealed by eyewitness accounts, documents, survey data and physical evidence, the horror of the genocide in Canada's Native Indian residential schools became public. An unknown number of Native Indian children (one source cites roughly 150,000 during the course of mandatory attendance of residential schools) were forcibly removed from their families. Most removed Native children were traumatized. Some, perhaps many, were killed and abused in captivity at Indian residential schools in Canada.
According to a web site posted by Brenda Norrell (an American reporter based in Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.) on 18 April 2008, there are 13 locations of mass graves at former Native Indian residential schools and hospitals in British Columbia. There are many more in the rest of Canada. Mass graves nearest to the Lower Mainland are in Squamish and Fraser River Heritage Park (formerly St. Mary Mission and Residential School) in Mission, B.C.
The mass grave in St. Mary Mission and Residential School was in the Fraser River Heritage Park located off 5th Avenue east of Stave Lake Street in Mission, British Columbia. In 1965, all of the buildings of the school were demolished due to deterioration. Today, the only physical remaining traces are some cement foundations scattered throughout Fraser River Heritage Park. According to the "Hidden From History " dated 10 April 2008, there are two grave sites in this area:
Since these allegations are not supported by archaeological evidence, they must be treated as personal beliefs at this time. Despite the lack of scientific support, it is certain that helpless First Nation parents who lost the custody of their children had suffered severely. Many Aboriginal families were destroyed and their cultural heritage lost. Few manage to retain their languages and family names. Ironically, most Native children were worse off in residential schools where parental love and care are both absent. Some suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse (confirmed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2008 apology below) from their caregivers in a system where there was little or no accountability.
Similarities Between Residential Schools & Modern "Child Protection"
Residential schools provide a shred of evidence to suggest that state-sponsored child removal owes its origin and existence to an oppression of a very hideous nature against a weak and marginalized minority victim. Residential school and state-sponsored child removal bear the following similarities:
These remarkable similarities suggest that modern "child protection" regime:
MCFD's Aboriginal Child & Family Development
To deal with this special type of "client" from which federal subsidies could be obtained for social services rendered, MCFD has a special Aboriginal Child & Family Development branch to improve outcomes for vulnerable Aboriginal children and youth. Some Aboriginal leaders and organizations are empowered to work collaboratively with MCFD in exercising jurisdiction in delivering child and family services. Of course, this includes exercising child removal power.
On the surface, this approach ensures Aboriginal people a say to design and deliver culturally appropriate child welfare services. Hence, the goals of restoring, revitalizing and strengthening First Nations communities are achieved. This brilliantly designed scheme does create an illusion that Aboriginal children will be better off in the good hands of their own people. It fails to address the corruption created by absolute power and financial motivation of service providers.
The essence of the approach is to create service providers within the Aboriginal communities and turn them into beneficiaries of the industry. Despite their different ethnic background, they will eventually become puppet outfits that do the same child removal business under the control of their master. Such ruse is common in politics. For instance, the puppet state of Manchukuo (滿洲國) (1932 to 1945) and the Vichy France (July 1940 to August 1944) were used by victorious Axis powers to mitigate resistance of their invasion and exploitation.
Likewise, Aboriginal puppet outfits funded by MCFD will attract less resistance and project an impression that Aboriginal culture is respected. State sponsored child removal is a Western product created by primarily English speaking nations. We are not aware that the First Nation ever practices child removal until now. It is still cultural assimilation in a different sugar coating. It carries the added benefit of diluting or denying responsibility when removed Aboriginal children killed or abused in Aboriginal foster care.
The largest beauty of this scheme is the creation of die hard supporters within the Aboriginal communities when the industry extends its beneficiaries to this ethnic group. When Aboriginal service providers taste the influx of easy tax dollars, they will share the same value with their mainstream counterparts and become supporters of the industry. Money talks.
Keys to Success of the Child Protection Industry
The following factors are vital to the success of the child protection industry:
As open discrimination and oppression against a minority group become socially unacceptable and outlawed, special interests shrewdly modified their strategy to cope with the changing situation. They realize that as long as government retains the statutory authority to remove children from their families, they can still maintain their businesses and financial well being by sugar coating the cause. Once they occupy the moral high ground, they expand the market (the "protective" coverage as they would like people to believe) to all ethnic groups. Instead of dumping Native children in residential schools, now children forcibly seized from their families under the pretext of "child protection" are placed in foster homes or group homes where there is no parental care and love. Removed children suffer from trauma ranging from neglect to sexually abuse and murder in foster homes. Moreover, since there is no parental guidance and discipline, foster/group homes are melting pots for children to learn bad habits (including drugs addiction) from one another. As long as the number of children removed is below the threshold that will lead to social unrest, the position of special interests is secured. State-sponsored "child protection" parallels the worst oppression in Canadian history and has grown into a multi billion dollar industry nationwide and worldwide.
Ethnic Breakdown of Removed Children in British Columbia
Source: MCFD reply to Freedom of Information application
Statistics above were provided by MCFD who claimed that it only compiles statistics between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups. From a research perspective, keeping statistics on ethnic background and other demographic data of all children removed will shed light on identifying child abuse problems in each ethnic group, hence allowing policy makers to:
It appears that MCFD has a keen interest only in keeping track of the number of Aboriginal children removed. Statistics are a key performance measure of how well Aboriginal families are "helped" and to claim subsidies from the federal government on a per head basis. Federal funding also sheds light to explain a strange phenomenon that some "child protection" social workers in British Columbia insist to classify families with very little Native blood as Native Indian families.
On 13 February 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to the stolen generations of Australian Aborigines for removing them from their families and communities over a century. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper followed suit. On 11 June 2008, he made similar apology to the First Nation in the House of Common. Nevertheless, his Conservative government is still funding the removal of native children on a per head basis. This creates financial incentive for provincial governments to target Native families. About 50% of children removed in British Columbia are Natives. As long as government has the power to remove children from their families, atrocities like the residential schools and abuse of authority are inevitable. The concept of residential school has re-emerged as "child protection". Instead of placing removed children in religious group operated residential schools, they are now placed in foster or group homes where some of them are abused and killed. It is a matter of time that governments enforcing state-sponsored child removal will have to face justice and apologize for implementing such hideous policy against their people.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's statement of apology to the victims of residential schools given on June 11, 2008 is applicable to victims of modern "child protection". Natives remain the largest victim in this disguised oppression under the pretext of "child protection" after residential schools were abolished. The yellow highlights below in the excerpts from the text of Harper's statement of apology bear remarkable similarities of the sufferings families endured when their children are removed by the state. French sections, which repeat the English text, have been excluded.
On 25 February 2013, a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission was held to examine whether Ottawa is treating native children unfairly. Shawn Atleo, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, was one of the first people to testify. He alleged that studies have shown that the provinces provide welfare to other Canadian children at rates 22% higher than the amount given by the federal government to first nations children and hold Ottawa responsible for social assistance on Aboriginal reserves where the levels of poverty and the associated problems are higher than most other places in Canada. In a phone interview, Mr. Atleo said that the numbers of children from reserves in foster care – estimated at 27,000 in 2006 – has surpassed the number of children who were being forcibly removed from their families during the height of the residential school era. They are being deprived of their language, their culture and the places they call home. The federal government’s refusal to provide equitable child welfare on reserves is forcing thousands of youth into foster care and ripping families apart in ways that echo the notorious residential school system of previous decades, says the head of the organization that represents Canada’s first nations.
This hearing is all about equity of child welfare funding. Who is the true beneficiary? A good portion of government fundings goes into the pockets of service providers in the child protection industry. The services they render may be of minimal value or even counter productive. The root of the problem is not insufficient or inequitable funding. It is the general child removal authority and the financial incentives provided by federal and provincial governments to remove children from their parents under the pretext of child safety. Those who support this regime is like legally authorize and pay someone to shoot them.
Interestingly, nations (like Japan and China) with more homogeneous ethnic mix do not have oppressive "child protection" law and policy similar to those in Canada. In spite of some rare real child abuse cases (a social problem that no law could ever eliminate), countries that do not have such destructive "child protection" law ironically have better disciplined children and stronger family ties from which a nation is built. They certainly do not have the problem of wrongful child abuse conviction on parents (a "false positive" or Type I error in statistical term) as their social workers do not have the authority to remove children. Does it mean that children in these nations are not adequately protected? Absolutely not.
Child removal does not equal child protection. Absolute power to remove children is seldom called for and will corrupt absolutely. Such power is open to abuse not only by government and service providers but also by other parties such as estranged spouses, hostile in-laws and malicious informants for reasons other than child protection. After all, there is a due process of bail hearing in criminal law that allow authorities to legally separate abusive parents from vulnerable children. "Child protection" law contains provisions that allow bureaucrats to circumvent due process in law and creates an extremely powerful bureaucracy. There is little check and balance to curb corruption. Child removal authority is oppressive, redundant and counterproductive. As long as government retains child removal authority, our safety and freedom are in jeopardy.
[This page was added on 12 January 2009, last revised 26 February 2013.]