MENNONITE CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES IN 2013 VS INDIAN CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES TO ATTEND RESIDENTIAL SCHOLS

MENNONITE CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES IN 2013 VS INDIAN CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES TO ATTEND RESIDENTIAL SCHOLS

Some 3 month after an elder on our church had accused me of going overboard when I had spontaneously in a presentation referred to the treatment of children taken from their homes to attend Indian Residential Schools as being similar to what happened in The Holocaust, he caught my attention in the post-worship service coffee time with this remark, or something like it:

“You should be concerned about what happened to those Mennonite families in Manitoba. You should write about that.”

Well, here goes.

In 2013 a report was made to or complaint lodged with the Ministry of Child and Family services [CFS] to the effect that significant numbers of children in a newly-formed conservative Mennonite community near Plumas, Manitoba, were being abused. The ministry very quickly went in and removed all of the children.

Now, some have accused the Ministry of being heavy-handed in doing this, particularly in removing all of he children. I sympathize somewhat with that viewpoint, particularly when the removal dragged on for months [at the time of writing, 2014 1 19, I think some children are still not back home]. However, particularly as a Child and Adolescent psychiatrist who has more intimate knowledge of the workings of the CFS, having worked with such ministries for years, I also understand somewhat why they operate as they do. When they hear of children at serious risk of harm, their mandate being child protection, they tend to act first and ask questions later, once they have removed the putative victims of harm of safety. One can understand ad this. Would you leave children in a situation of potential danger while you first carried out an investigation?

But let’s compare the 2 situations addressed in the topic of this essay.

The children of the Mennonite parents were removed because of concerns for their safety. That was not the case with Indian [I am going to employ the long-used term Indian even though I understand well that it is a historical misnomer and other descriptions like First Nations [FN], aboriginal or indigenous are now preferred by many, even though many FN individuals are comfortable with this term as that is what they have heard and used all their lives] children removed from their homes. They were removed from homes where they were deeply cherished, secure and protected in their own culture, at least originally, in the first generation of when this happened.

Secondly, when the Indian children were removed, it was a matter that received little if any opposition at the time. Contrast that with the controversy stirred up by the ‘Mennonite’ case. It got a lot of ‘ink’ and ‘air time.’

In the third place, Indian children were removed with the express purpose of making them non–Indian, to put it most bluntly. That was the will and policy of the government of Canada for 150 years. As such, these children were place in totally unfamiliar and in many cases even hostile environments. What happened to the ‘Mennonite’ children? The Manitoba CFS placed as many as possible in homes similar to those from which they came in terms of culture and religion, i.e. other Mennonite homes. What a difference.

Then, fourthly, there was a big difference in what happened subsequent to the removal of the children into cases. In MB their care is monitored to see to it that the children continue to be safe and well-cared for. At least the CFS is mandated to do that. In the situation with the Indian children, this did not happen. In fact, as we have seen, there was widespread abuse of every imaginable form from the now unacceptable corporal and other forms of punishment, which were common on other schools then too [even I saw classmates strapped on their hands, cuffed about the ear, have their ears twisted or have to stand long periods in the corner, when I was an elementary student in our public schools in the 1950s, experiences which I am sure many of my peers can remember as well] to verbal/emotional and sexual abuse, not to mention a variety of other destructive policies and forms of discipline, such as not being fed well enough, not  being adequately care for when  ill, or not being allowed to fraternize with siblings in the same school.

I don’t think I need to elaborate further. The two situations are entirely different and don‘t really even deserve comparison. Given what the FN families experienced, it is perhaps even disrespectful to compare these two situations. One could even say it perpetuates the negative and harmful attitude too many have towards our FN neighbours.