WHOSE POSITION DO YOU SUPPORT, JUSTIN’S OR PIERRE’S?

WHOSE POSITION DO YOU SUPPORT, JUSTIN’S OR PIERRE’S?

Over the past four years we have witnessed the “apologetic soul” of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He has regularly taken the parliamentary stage to apologize on behalf of Canadians for some questionable decisions by Canadian governments over the past 150 years. For example:

• Trudeau apologized to the Tsilhqot’in community for the hanging of six chiefs more than 150 years ago in an emotional ceremony last month, that one chief says brought an end to a “difficult journey.”
• In 2016 Justin Trudeau apologized in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident, in which a shipload of immigrants from India was turned away from Vancouver in 1914.
• In 2015 he apologized for the 1939 decision to turn away the MS St. Louis, a ship carrying 907 German Jews fleeing the Nazi regime. The refugees were looking for refuge in Canada, but they were turned away under the 'None is Too Many' policy of the time. For the record, he also apologized again for the same incident just recently. This time however, it was a “formal” apology!
• Canadian PM Justin Trudeau issued a formal apology to former residential school students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some 150,000 indigenous children over more than 100 years were separated from their families and forced to have a state-run education.
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered a historic apology to LGBT Canadians in the House of Commons, saying sorry for decades of "state-sponsored, systematic oppression and rejection."

I certainly have nothing against offering apologies when a wrong has been committed. If I commit a wrong, I will make an apology for MY error or misjudgement. I would never feel that it is my responsibility to make an apology for some act that might have been performed, for example, by my Father. The power and meaningfulness of an apology is the responsibility of the actual offender. 

History is full of decisions made over the centuries that seem faulty or excessive or discriminatory when we view them today. Government decisions are made in a particular political, social, cultural and economic climate that is dictated by norms and beliefs at the time. In today’s world, many past decisions would be shaped by different forces and consequently made differently. 

Perhaps, as the elected leader of our country, Trudeaus feels compelled to speak on issues that previous governments have handled poorly. If that is the case, then I am sure there are hundreds of other government decisions that have occurred over the past century and a half that still have not been brought to light. Can we anticipate that we will soon be witnessing the “Apology of the Month?” I certainly hope not. 

I also wonder if an apology issued fifty, or a hundred and fifty, years after the event can be particularly meaningful, in other than a symbolic way. Recording the apology for posterity does not alter the event nor provide any comfort since most of those involved are probably no longer alive. 

Interestingly enough, I found that I was in agreement with the opinion of Pierre Trudeau, former Canadian Prime Minister and Justin’s Father. Pierre was of the opinion that, “I do not think it is the purpose of a government to right the past. It cannot rewrite history. It is our purpose to be just in our time." I tend to agree. Do you?