Canadian PM apologises to the LGBTQs of Canada

[Spike]

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/justin-trudeau-offers-long-overdue-apology-canada-s-lgbtq-community-n824871

I've never liked this sort of 'apologies'. I don't particularly like the fellow but I know his heart is in the right place but these sorts of stunts just reek of condescension. What has Trudeau done against the LGBTQs of Canada? Nothing, that is what; he has no reason to apologise and it isn't his prerogative to apologise for 'sins of the father'. His apology doesn't make right injustices perpetrated by previous governments nor does his voice stand for those previous governments. I find it bizarre, it is like a person apologising to another for what their parents did before they were born.

[Spike]

I think it'd be far more sincere to him to state. 'I cannot apologise for past injustices nor can I make them right, but as PM of this country I can help make sure we as a country never repeat those same mistakes again. We must learn from the past, and only through understanding of how we were wrong can healing and change begin.'

[Fairy In Boots]

What’s the Q stand for now? 

[Dr. Gonzo]

18 minutes ago, Cannabis said:

Queers. 

 

 

Doesn't that encompass... all of them?

[Dr. Gonzo]

48 minutes ago, Spike said:

I think it'd be far more sincere to him to state. 'I cannot apologise for past injustices nor can I make them right, but as PM of this country I can help make sure we as a country never repeat those same mistakes again. We must learn from the past, and only through understanding of how we were wrong can healing and change begin.'

Agree with you - you can't apologise for something you haven't done. You can be sorry something has happened, but you can't properly apologise for it.

[Tommy]

This LGBT stuff gets more retarded every day. 

[Honey Honey]

Nothing wrong with what he said.

If a chemical plant pollutes a river should they not use the word sorry just because they elected a new chief executive at the AGM?

Trudeau's apologising on behalf of an institution to living victims, not on behalf of himself.

[Spike]

9 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Nothing wrong with what he said.

If a chemical plant pollutes a river should they not use the word sorry just because they elected a new chief executive at the AGM?

Trudeau's apologising on behalf of an institution to living victims, not on behalf of himself.

But it isn't his institution that he is apologising for. Wouldn't it be bizarre if May apologised for Thatcher closing down many industrial sectors? It doesn't mean anything if the actual perpetrator isn't apologetic at all. 

[Honey Honey]

13 minutes ago, Spike said:

But it isn't his institution that he is apologising for. Wouldn't it be bizarre if May apologised for Thatcher closing down many industrial sectors? 

By that nor would it be the newly elected Chief Executive's institution at the time of whatever there is to apologise for. Can you image in that situation a chief exec saying he won't apologise to victims on behalf of what he now represents because he wasn't in the job, madness.

When you lead an institution you represent its whole and its history.

If May apologised for the financially successful industries Thatcher closed down out of spite (not the one's that were bust anyway) it would be a symbolic moment that the government has recognised wrong doing and is seeking to make amends by changing its behaviour under the new leadership. If just apologising with no intent to make amends then it is worthless. But in Trudeau's full quote he is doing both.

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Kitchen Sales said:

By that nor would it be the newly elected Chief Executive's institution at the time of whatever there is to apologise for. Can you image in that situation a chief exec saying he won't apologise to victims on behalf of what he now represents because he wasn't in the job, madness.

If May apologised for the financially successful industries Thatcher closed down out of spite (not the one's that were bust anyway) it would be a symbolic moment that the government has recognised wrong doing and is seeking to make amends by changing its behaviour under the new leadership. If just apologising with no intent to make amends then it is worthless. But in Trudeau's full quote he is doing both.

I believe apologies are hollow unless they come from the mouth that committed the action that has to be apologised for. Acknowledging mistakes is one thing but apologising is another. Thatcher will never be sorry and never was, nobody can aplogise on her behalf. Trudea's government is a completely different entity to what it is apologising for.

[Spike]

Besides i think an entirely new elected government is different to a single new chief executive. Maybe in the latter's case it is more appropriate to issue an apology especially if it is representative of those that made the decision, especially if they still remain in the company (think a board of directors for example). But I don't think in a million years that Trudea's government represents Harper's in any way or any previous incarnation of the Canadian government. It is apples and oranges. For example I believe it'd be more appropriate if tomorrow May was ousted and new PM was installed and that new PM apologised for the party's previous stances that'd be more acceptable than an opposing party being voted in and apologising.

[Honey Honey]

It might be hollow to you personally but it won't be hollow to everybody in the LGBTQ community, including some real victims. It's up to the people being apologised to whether they each personally find any merits in the apology and if so how much they want to accept it.

I don't really see why so many people here who aren't being apologised to give a shit. This thread and its replies from a range of members really have nothing to do with the nature of apologies do they? It is just a thinly veiled disguise for a dislike of gay identity.

[Spike]

2 hours ago, Kitchen Sales said:

It might be hollow to you personally but it won't be hollow to everybody in the LGBTQ community, including some real victims. It's up to the people being apologised to whether they each personally find any merits in the apology and if so how much they want to accept it.

I don't really see why so many people here who aren't being apologised to give a shit. This thread and its replies from a range of members really have nothing to do with the nature of apologies do they? It is just a thinly veiled disguise for a dislike of gay identity.

People are annoyed by it because many don't like appreciate the audacity of political leaders to apologise or speak on other's behalf; for a lot of people it isn't about the content it is about the context. That is a bold accusation of homosexuality, how so? Please if you are going to call someone out at least name them. 

About nine years ago the Australian government apologised to past atrocities committed towards the Indigenous people of Australia. Ranging from the stolen generation back to the first colonial days; and guess what? Indigenous people are still living in poverty all over Australia, with extreme cases in many rural areas. Yeah, the government is 'sorry' but kids I know, kids I went to school with are still living in a cycle of poverty that began before their lives even began, many are dead before twenty (one killed himself with a dog chain by hanging himself from a rafter). Say sorry all you want but it means f-all when nothing ever changes and nothing is done. 'Yeah nonga, we are sorry we took you away from your parents when you were a kid. Anyway tooroo and enjoy that rag soaked in petrol, mate.' Indigenous People are still on the peripheries of society and treated like a different entity instead of a small but important part of Australia as a whole. The Aus government doesn't need to baby the Indigenous of Australia but it doesn't really help.

Maybe some people found closure and relief but I'll tell you a whole many more are still rife with troubles that were set in motion many generations ago.

[Honey Honey]

Everything a Prime Minister does is on behalf of the government. That is the nature of the role. The whole point of a democracy is that you lend your power to politicians and the government to enact on your behalf as they see fit.  Trudeau is well within his rights as leader of the government to speak on behalf of the government.

That makes the irritation of it curious. 

[Inverted]

A Prime Minister isnt just a person but an office with a history that extends all the way back to its foundation, and likewise governments bear responsibilities that extend beyond the individual culpabilities of any particular ministers or officials. That's what institutions are all about, that is their nature - they stay constant, and merely the occupants and representatives change.

I think apologising for the wrongs that an instituion has committed is something open to its representatives at any time.

One thing, that I don't approve of, is legal pardons. They are equally as consequential as apologies, but dress themselves up as holding some legal significance, which isnt the purpose of apologies. The law is what it is at any given time, and you can apologise for unjust laws there have been before, but you can't  try and erase them and pretend that their effect can be reversed in hindsight.

Its like the British government "pardoning" Alan Turing. What does it mean? Nothing. He was a war hero and a genius who was persecuted for his sexuality, chemically castrated, and driven to kill himself. You can say sorry for the laws back then being barbaric, and try to address injustice today, but you can't pretend to reverse it in some way.

[RandoEFC+]

On 29/11/2017 at 7:39 PM, Fairy In Boots said:

What’s the Q stand for now? 

Came to ask this and not surprised nobody knows. Probably a typo that will now become a permanent part of the abbreviation because everyone is too scared to ask what it means because they don't know who they might be offending. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Came to ask this and not surprised nobody knows. Probably a typo that will now become a permanent part of the abbreviation because everyone is too scared to ask what it means because they don't know who they might be offending. 

I googled it just now and it actually is Queer, but some places have it as Questioning. Queer seems redundant because I always thought it was a slur against gays lol - a bit surprised they've co-opted it.

[Inverted]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I googled it just now and it actually is Queer, but some places have it as Questioning. Queer seems redundant because I always thought it was a slur against gays lol - a bit surprised they've co-opted it.

I think it's part of the effort to try and "take" it for themselves, since it has been used as a slur historically. Kinda like the n word being used by black people. 

Not sure how effective it's been since I've never heard any gay person refer to themselves as queer in real life, but I guess some people must use it. 

Edit:  but it is odd how the tag keeps on expanding with more and more terms, since to me it defeats the purpose. Of course they're trying to be more inclusive, but oddly, the more specific labels you introduce, the more you exclude people who aren't explicitly named.

If you have a just a few terms with more general meaning, it's easier for people to implicitly identify with.

And I think "queer" in the usage of the community now means basically anything that isn't in old-fashioned sexual norms, so I don't get why it's worth adding anything afterwards. They've covered everything. 

[Panflute]

Queer is mostly used as a catch-all for people who aren't heterosexual, so in the context of the abbreviation it essentially means "etc".

That of course doesn't keep people from adding new letters to it with varying degrees of success (intersex and asexual are commonly seen) but that is one of the wacky side-effects of trying to form a collective identity around an atomized and individualistic demographic.

[RandoEFC+]

On 01/12/2017 at 10:31 AM, Inverted said:

I think it's part of the effort to try and "take" it for themselves, since it has been used as a slur historically. Kinda like the n word being used by black people. 

Not sure how effective it's been since I've never heard any gay person refer to themselves as queer in real life, but I guess some people must use it. 

Edit:  but it is odd how the tag keeps on expanding with more and more terms, since to me it defeats the purpose. Of course they're trying to be more inclusive, but oddly, the more specific labels you introduce, the more you exclude people who aren't explicitly named.

If you have a just a few terms with more general meaning, it's easier for people to implicitly identify with.

And I think "queer" in the usage of the community now means basically anything that isn't in old-fashioned sexual norms, so I don't get why it's worth adding anything afterwards. They've covered everything. 

Agreed, going over four letters you can start asking why there aren't two Ts for transsexual and transvestite etc.

Does G for Gay not account for L for lesbian by the way?