Introduction
Family separation practices are the most terrible form of governmental suppression to enforce supremacy over a community. This is confirmed not only by the modern juvenile system, for which the removal of children from the family is common but even by the facts of history. For example, similar things happened during the Hijra, the mass relocation of Muslim families from Mecca to Medina. In the meantime, the infants of many Muslims were violently segregated from their families.
This practice is common not only in Muslim countries but all over the world. An article by CNV News online, “From the ’60s Scoop to Now: Canada Still Separating Indigenous Children from Families,” debates depriving aboriginal children from their families in Canada. The article provides evidence that this practice is not a thing of the past but is still thriving today. In my analysis, I would like to discuss this problem and provide recommendations on addressing it. In this paper, I will give various reasons for the separation of indigenous children and their parents and how the government justifies this. Since the problem is complex and needs to be addressed in various areas, I will give objective and universal suggestions for solving it.
Description of the Media Story
The article I am reviewing describes the current practice of separating Native children from their families. Even though the last boarding school was closed in the 1990s, tens of thousands of indigenous children still face this terrifying phenomenon (Miljure & Jones, 2021). The separation of children and their families, now called the Millennium Scoop, continues unabated. The article cites statistics that, as of 2016, indigenous children make up only 7.7% of the child population. Nevertheless, 52.2% of children in foster care are Indigenous (Miljure & Jones, 2021). Indigenous children are detained by social services 14 times more often than non-indigenous children (Miljure & Jones, 2021). The Canadian authorities point out that 40% of Indigenous children face a high level of poverty, in contrast to the 7% of non-Indigenous children. Thus, they justify removing children from their families because they want to provide them with a decent childhood.
However, the article argues that the government itself is the cause of indigenous poverty. For example, Canada profits from Indigenous lands and chronically underfunds Indigenous communities. Thus, Indigenous peoples are blamed for poverty while receiving no financial support from the government to remedy the situation. In conclusion, the article suggests that for every dollar the government spends right now to support indigenous families, it will save $18 in the future (Miljure & Jones, 2021). This will occur because individuals who were socially protected as children and not separated from their homes will outgrow into healthy, happy adults who will not require public support later on. Therefore, it is far more beneficial for the state to end the illiberal practice of separating families in favor of providing financial and social support.
Relevant Research Overview
The problem of the separation of children and their families has long been of genuine interest to researchers. This is due to the incompatibility of such practices with the neoliberal values of the modern world and its yet widespread occurrence. Researchers pay particular attention to the sophistication of family separation methods. For example, Nicole Watson and Heather Douglas describe how, in the modern West, even a light educational slap a child receives from his or her parent can be seen as a threat (2021). For example, if a parent forces their child to do their homework. In that case, he is a lousy parent. Therefore, the “unhappy” has to be withdrawn and admitted to a foster family. The methodology, however, is well-known, with a rich history, and this is precisely what has been and continues to be done to Native American children in the United States. Nicole Watson and Heather Douglas compare this practice to what was done to indigenous children in the Soviet Union (2021). Thus, it is not only financially disadvantaged families that the state can use as a pretext for separating a child.
The worst thing is that, as it turns out, this practice is being used successfully today. It got to the point that in November 2017, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was forced to apologize for the crimes that the state had committed against the indigenous population under the guise of education policy (Doel-Mackaway, 2021). In fact, during the period from 1949 to 1979, thousands of aboriginal children were violently separated from their homes and sent to residential institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Occasionally the students were taken at gunpoint, shackled, and transported to schools intentionally situated far away from their native communities. Robert Gurr’s study cites that more than 6,000 children died in the process (2017). Specifics of death were usually not registered, and no parents were notified of the death of their child. All of these studies suggest troubling thoughts. The modern Western state, represented originally by illegal migrants, removes children from the families of peoples who have lived on these lands since time immemorial.
Moreover, all this is presented as a school to re-educate and “civilize” the Indian children to become better Canadian citizens. These schoolhouses were operated by churches and financed by the corporate Canadian government. The original stated purpose of the network of such boarding schools was to slay the Indian in a human. Furthermore, this took place in one of the democracies that traditionally position themselves as guardians of human rights. In his apology, Justin Trudeau acknowledged that the children had suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse and that they had all been denied the love of their families, wrote columnists Moazzam Begg and Karen Jayes (2018).
Canada has a particular organization set up to find the truth about abuse in schools. It is called the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. In 2015, the Centre concluded that everything that happened to Indigenous Canadian children amounts to cultural genocide (Doel-Mackaway, 2021). The only good thing about this horrible story, orchestrated by the fascist members of the civilized race, is that such educational institutions no longer exist. The last boarding school, which worked by the special order of the Canadian government, was closed in 1996 (Doel-Mackaway, 2021). However, this does not mean that the practice of segregating children is over. Indigenous peoples still have to fear that their children could be declared the object of re-education and “civilization” at any time.
Proposed Solutions
In order to identify actions to end the practice of separating indigenous children from their parents, we must first look to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 9 of the Convention states that States must ensure that a child is not separated from his or her parents against their will (UNICEF, n.d.). The government should also honor the child’s right to remain in direct touch with both parents, except when it is against the child’s best interest. Thus, it is this provision of the convention that states must follow in the first instance. Children not only in Canada but all over the world should have an unqualified say in the matter of separation from the family. Indeed, there are times when it is not safe for a child to be in the family, such as when parents are associated with the criminal world. However, the right to remain in or leave the family should remain solely with the child.
There is nothing wrong with the state’s desire to help children from dysfunctional families get a decent upbringing. At the same time, this should by no means be done by violent means. Thus, the first measure to forestall the separation of a child from his or her family should be to tighten the law governing the rules of this procedure. For example, it should be legally established that no state guardianship agency has the right to remove a child from his or her parents forcibly. Such a procedure can only take place on the basis of the child’s voluntary agreement in writing. Such a fixation will help ensure that the child himself or herself is not opposed to leaving the family (Begg & Jayes, 2018). In addition, before this decision is made, the child must be provided with a psychologist who will assess his or her mental state and record his or her consent to the separation.
The second method of preventing forced separation can be financial and social assistance to the family from the state. As discussed in my article, the state often cites the family’s financial disadvantage as a prerequisite for separation. This can be resolved through the establishment of special local indigenous support centers. People from low-income families would be able to go to such centers and apply for various types of assistance. For example, it can be helpful in finding a job for one of the family members and providing him with a decent permanent income. In addition, it can be assistance in obtaining financial support from the state if the family has no non-disabled members. Such assistance is not limited to the financial dimension. Indigenous families with low income also often need social protection as well as assistance from the health care system (Begg & Jayes, 2018). Indigenous support centers can provide appointments with a psychologist or psychiatrist to check or maintain mental health. In addition, they can also provide preventive or emergency medical care when needed.
In this way, such centers can become local “houses of trust” where indigenous families can go for any kind of help and are guaranteed to receive it. A third possible solution to this problem could be the creation of various educational programs aimed at the general public that would educate the population about indigenous issues. This would be an excellent complement to the first two points since raising responsibility is an integral part of acceptance. The fact is that the intention to “re-educate” or “civilize” indigenous people comes from the ignorance of the rest of the population about their culture and origins (Doel-Mackaway, 2021). The people of Canada must raise the awareness that Indigenous peoples have centuries-old traditions and values that are an integral part of the world’s cultural heritage. That is why these traditions and values must be valued and preserved.
The beauty of Indigenous people is that they are different, and these differences should be valued, not leveled. When the people of Canada begin to treat the indigenous cultural heritage as their own, the question of re-education and separation of indigenous children will disappear. It is important to remember that all three statements I have made in this paper can only work together. For example, raising awareness of indigenous cultural heritage will not work without a firm legal basis prohibiting violent separation. At the same time, separation cannot be eradicated without the existence of local family support centers. All of these must work together as an inseparable chain to ensure the desired outcome. Only by coming together and putting a great deal of effort into the steps I have described can Canadian society become fully democratic and abandon illiberal practices.
Conclusion
To conclude, the issue of the segregation of aboriginal children in Canada is a very acute one today. Although the violent practice of boarding schools to re-educate indigenous students ended years ago, kids are still being separated from their homes. Now, instead of being placed in boarding schools, children are put up for adoption by other families. The state’s most popular justification is that in this way, it tries to ensure a decent childhood for children from low-income families. The truth is that the government itself contributes significantly to the collapse of the financial situation of indigenous families. Instead of providing social and financial assistance to such families, it blames them for their lack of capital and takes their children away from them. At the same time, it would be far more beneficial for the government to provide assistance to families and to protect children from the trauma of being forcibly separated from their parents. This is due to the fact that children who have grown up in full and happy families are unlikely to need help from the state in the future.
In this paper, I also suggested three ways to combat the modern problem of separation. Among them are tightening the law against the forced separation of children, providing financial and social assistance to families, and establishing local indigenous support centers. Using all three components in combination, the state will be able to eradicate the problem of the separation of indigenous children. An important factor is also the education of the remaining Canadian population about indigenous communities and their historical legacy. Now is the time for Canadians to transform their approach to Native Canadian children by accepting their traditions and heritage assets as a very significant part of the global cultural patrimony. With a change of attitude toward Indigenous peoples, the issue of separation will disappear. This will happen because people will realize how pointless it is to “re-educate” and “remake” indigenous children. After all, the beauty of them is precisely that they are different. For Canadians, accepting aboriginal people means learning to appreciate the cultural heritage of their land as well as respecting its aboriginal inhabitants.
References
Begg, M., & Jayes, K. (2018). Separating children from parents: A sordid modern practice. Middle East Eye.
Doel-Mackaway, H. (2021). Indigenous children’s right to participate in law and policy development. Routledge.
Gurr, T. R. (2017). Violence in Canada: Sociopolitical perspectives(2nd Ed.). Routledge.
Miljure, B., & Jones, A. M. (2021). From the ’60s Scoop to now: Canada still separating Indigenous children from families. CTV News.
UNICEF. Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF.
Watson, N., & Douglas, H. (2021). Indigenous legal judgments: Bringing Indigenous voices into judicial decision making. Routledge.