• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Herb Morrison
    January 16, 2013 - 15:36

    An apology unaccompanied by anything remotely resembling repentance (a desire to turn change ones' way) is worthless. Apologies tend to flow easily from the lips especially when the person offering the apology is facec with irrefutable of their guiilt. Repentance comes from the heart, and is much more difficult to practice since it requires that a person change from within, and demonstrate that a change has taken place by the manner in which they live their lives. It is unfortunatethat more people living in our society don't seem to know the difference between the two, and don't realize that you can't offer a genuine apology unless it is accompanied by genuine repentance (desire to change) on the part of the person offering the apology. You can't have one without the other.

  • Winston Adams
    January 16, 2013 - 12:57

    As I read your piece, i thought you were going to end up making an apology for your last two pieces written about the Idle No More Movement. It seems certain once you referenced the First Nations. but then you put the apology by government in the same category of the apology to the Japanese. Now the injustices against the First Nations started 5 centuries ago. And when did they stop? Are they not continuing under the Indian Act , and other avenues? The Japanese were interned in WW2. Ann injustice indeed , but pales againt the lenght and extent of injustices against aboriginals. And the First Nations were the the original owners of all Canada. I read then now control one half of one present of land south of the 60 latitude!. And you say we have moved on despite our immediate ancestors having been wronged by the powers that be. Tell that to Dunderdale and her attitude towards Quebec . You imply there has been suitable amends for injustices against First Nation peoples? Or that apologies need to come with consequences and be timely? The confuse the real injustices against First Nations with the trivial, as to Lance Armstrong.And I was wrong to think you views about first nations have changed. No apalogy from you on that, which leaves you in suspect of being A UGLY CANADIAN. So you must be content that the apology from Harper to the First Nations was sincere, has had suitable consequences, and was timely. Timely like the Pope's apology to Galeleo! Keep it up Peter. You dig your hole deeper each time. Why don't you start by listing all the injustices and attrocities against First Nations peoples. Off the top , I beleive in the 1500s the Portugese captured indians here in Nfld and took them back as slaves. None were returned as far as I know. And then it shifts to the British. And remember when Ed Roberts planned to call in the army to quell the discontent at Davis Inlet? Not to suggest that was the last injustice. How many hundreds occured between those events? Injustice has been continuous, in my opinion, with a few exceptions. Maybe history was not your strong point? Journalism takes research, I assume. Do you consider yourself a journaist, or just a writer? You seem more knowledgeable about fiction, very specific on Lancelot.

  • Doug Smith
    January 16, 2013 - 11:29

    Mr. Jackson, you are doing the readership a great disservice by claiming that some public figures who issue apologies for transgressions they have committed may be truly sorry for their dishonourable acts. Only the naïve and those uneducated in worldly affairs would believe such fallacies. By you stating such apologies can be legitimate only perpetuates the myth for the weak minded. Instead you as a journalist should point out how these so-called apologies are self serving for the apologist. Doug Smith, GFW

  • david
    January 16, 2013 - 08:06

    There are far too many, much better journalists tackling this story to even imagine that this piece would add an single thing or new angle to the story. On the other hand, so many, more relevant issues to Telegram readers go unpursued or under-investigated.