Ly100 week 5 & 6
Context for Truth and Reconciliation Commission
• 2008 class actions settlement of survivors
• there would be a process of truth and reconciliation before a settlement
• first one was in south Africa
• oral history of the survivors
• took testimony from survivors
• key evidence looked at archival records
• the government refused to produce archival records
Cultural genocide (social science and legal term)
• Defines as Destruction of the structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group.
Means trying to kill an ethnic group
• Destroy the social and political institutions of a group
• Seizure of lands
• Forcible relocations / movement restrictions
• Banning of languages and spiritual practices
• Disruption of families to prevent transmission of cultural values and identity between
• Trade if you give up your Indian statues you can vote, but if your Indian you can’t vote
• Why not “re-establishment of a conciliatory state”?
• DEFINE: Coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a
respectful and healthy relationship among people going forward. (like domestic violence)
• What’s required?
• Atonement: religious to do penance make up for the wrong you have done
• Action to change behavior
• Mandatory criclium changes to education
• We have-not changed the Indian act
• Barrios to reconciliation
• What are the barriers?
“Knowing the truth of what happened… does not necessarily lead to reconciliation. Yet the importance of
truth telling in its own right should not be underestimated. It restores the human dignity of victims of violence
and calls the governments and citizens to account. Without truth, justice is not served, healing cannot
• What kinds of evidence were considered by the Commissioners?
• ONGOING significant struggles with disclosure and evidence preservation on the part of
government and churches
• What was the challenge of “seemingly irreconcilable truths” for the Commission?
• “Lack of historical knowledge has serious consequences for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and
for Canada as a whole.” • Poor government policy-making
• Perpetuates racism and civic distrust
• “We are all treaty people”
Context for “Law and Policy of Targeted Killings”:
• When? Where?
• What legal processes involved?
• What perspectives did the authors bring to material?
• What kinds of evidence did they consider in making their argument?
What is the moral ambiguity in case of targeted killings?
• Experts in American law Harvard
• Legal process weather it should be regarded as an act of crime or war
• Sits on the edge of theory and official law
• Decision of the high court in isrel
• National security reason behind the presidential order
• It was blunt and uncomfortable to read
Targeted killings – “dark force” or explicit policy
A series of questions:
• Can targeted killings ever be a “moral choice”? a target killing is apart of American ruling
• Can targeted killings be lawful?