Quote:sorry i dont agree with this apologising for what happened centuries ago...
i like justin..but really? deal with the issues of today.
the only concession I can make to that above quote is what does the sorrow come with... how does it come.. why is it given at this time...how have things changed..have they really changed.. what actually underpins the apology ::confused::
when we do that we come up with some stories like: NO! absolutely not, things have not changed at all. all that was in place back in the day are still in place now, and can produce the very same result or crime again, depending on how things flow, regardless of apology.
so that is one factor that makes nargis position wrong. life is a whole, period, from the past to the present and forward into the future..no breaks..which makes any action with the past in mind valid and continuous regardless of its quality and purpose.
from a positive angle I cant see a problem with the apology regardless of Trudeau's intent and purpose. it stands, is recorded and a precedent. it cant hurt. and as such there is a lot more that Canada has to apologize for. this will make those apologies to come harder to avoid for official Canada, for whatever they are worth
but clearly Trudeau is playing political games for Liberal party benefit. the apology he chose to deliver..among the many to be done...is consistent with growing Indo power in Canada, that he may siphon into the liberal party.
so the past is brought forward to address current liberal party needs in Canada. and so it is an issue of this day
there you go Nargis. its a whole, like a piece of cloth..the past the present and future