Excellent research, as usual. I disagree with the conclusion. In the 1990 Frum interview it seems clear to me that Fontaine was referring to sexual abuse, and not showering. He was deeply ashamed by his own behaviour. He appeared to be saying that he had been sexually abused by older boys, and then became an abuser himself. He said all the boys in his class experienced this. Sexual abuse by boys from dysfunctional families was a common feature in residential schools. People should watch the interview and form their own opinion. The statement of claim 15 years later was just the only claim he could manufacture that fit the “priest as abuser” narrative that AFN wanted told. It was a laughably weak claim, and would not possibly have succeeded in court.
I agree. I wish Nina had left off the last three paragraphs of her article, where she's making conclusions for the reader. The resources she's provided are valuable for understanding the process that took place and the vagueness of the wording (as I mention in a separate comment), but they don't justify the assertion that "there was no sexual abuse."
Phil Fontaine - a liar - a cheat — is a prime example of how the fat chief get fatter, and the poor Indians stay poor — I am 60 plus years old now and I remember in 1975 Phil Fontaine clearly saying “ now is the time for us to have reverse discrimination against the white people “ as he sat with my father, having coffee, and I was only “to be seen and not heard. “ Phil is a disgusting, vile, dishonest, pathetic excuse for a chief.
Off topic from the sexual abuse issue: the statement of claim, in multiple instances, has children being "taken" from their familes and transported to a distant residential school. Along with all the other claims of horrendous abuse this would imply they were forcibly taken without parental approval. My understanding from other research was that attendance at res schools required parents to submit applications for their kids to attend.
Was something different being done in Manitoba or was Fontaine (and his lawyers) just attempting to ramp up the abuse narrative?
I miss Barbara Frums questioning style. She doesn’t believe Phil. In another interview Phil admits he was tormented by an older indigenous. Nina Greens conclusions are the closest to a believable reality.
In the 2005 statement of claim there’s a bizarre assertion (item ‘w’ page 13) that reads, “Torture, capital punishment and deprivation of liberty – The Crown ought to have protected Aboriginal children from torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”
Capital punishment? Who knew? I’m sure they meant to say “corporal punishment,” but – really? No one reading that document in 2005 noticed that? Or questioned it?
At that point (2005) there were only four living plaintiffs, three of them Fontaines – Phil and James, both filing personally and on behalf of the estate of Agnes Mary Fontaine, and James’s son Vincent. Vincent Bradley Fontaine, who had only attended Ft. Alexander as a DAY SCHOLAR for three years, nevertheless claimed that “He was, and continues to be, denied, among other things, parental and community guidance, and the opportunity to know his culture, native language or practice traditional spiritual ways.”
I agree with Nina Green that most of the claims of abuse were shockingly vague or generalized, and they seem to have relied heavily on the phrase “involved, but was not limited to …”
But I also agree with Brian Giesbrecht’s comment above, that the conclusions in the article are wrong, or at least wrongly stated.
What’s revealing here is that the catch-all, standard claim of being “sexually, physically and emotionally abused” that was crafted for the 2005 document is still being parroted today, often with “mentally and spiritually” thrown in for emphasis. The constant repetition of this stock phrasing doesn’t represent corroboration; it represents groupthink, collective scapegoating, and social contagion. It’s not helping the situation on the ground.
We have to understand and appreciate that showering was alien to their culture but for Phil, the real pain in the ass was when he had to pick up the soap.
Excellent research, as usual. I disagree with the conclusion. In the 1990 Frum interview it seems clear to me that Fontaine was referring to sexual abuse, and not showering. He was deeply ashamed by his own behaviour. He appeared to be saying that he had been sexually abused by older boys, and then became an abuser himself. He said all the boys in his class experienced this. Sexual abuse by boys from dysfunctional families was a common feature in residential schools. People should watch the interview and form their own opinion. The statement of claim 15 years later was just the only claim he could manufacture that fit the “priest as abuser” narrative that AFN wanted told. It was a laughably weak claim, and would not possibly have succeeded in court.
I agree. I wish Nina had left off the last three paragraphs of her article, where she's making conclusions for the reader. The resources she's provided are valuable for understanding the process that took place and the vagueness of the wording (as I mention in a separate comment), but they don't justify the assertion that "there was no sexual abuse."
I agree with this comment, but disagree that it should be presumed he was 'deeply' ashamed by his own behaviour.
Given his behavior today in screwing Canadians (presuming he hasn't continued with boys), I would say he is not ashamed of anything.
Phil Fontaine - a liar - a cheat — is a prime example of how the fat chief get fatter, and the poor Indians stay poor — I am 60 plus years old now and I remember in 1975 Phil Fontaine clearly saying “ now is the time for us to have reverse discrimination against the white people “ as he sat with my father, having coffee, and I was only “to be seen and not heard. “ Phil is a disgusting, vile, dishonest, pathetic excuse for a chief.
looks like his wish is starting to become a reality in Canada
I suspect those are all current prerequisites for the job.
Off topic from the sexual abuse issue: the statement of claim, in multiple instances, has children being "taken" from their familes and transported to a distant residential school. Along with all the other claims of horrendous abuse this would imply they were forcibly taken without parental approval. My understanding from other research was that attendance at res schools required parents to submit applications for their kids to attend.
Was something different being done in Manitoba or was Fontaine (and his lawyers) just attempting to ramp up the abuse narrative?
As Nina Green writes, Phil Fontaine claimed on national television that he and all his classmates had been sexually abused.
“Canada has been under a cloud for 35 years because of Fontaine's cryptic allegations to Barbara Frum.”
“There was no sexual abuse. The 'group' sexual abuse that Fontaine and his Grade 3 classmates endured was a routine weekly shower.”
Or at the hands of other kids or parents back home.
I miss Barbara Frums questioning style. She doesn’t believe Phil. In another interview Phil admits he was tormented by an older indigenous. Nina Greens conclusions are the closest to a believable reality.
These people need help and a conscience, not more money.
Here’s the 1990 Barbara Frum/Phil Fontaine interview:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.3332787
I wish there was a way to save it as an MP4 because sure as the sun rises, the CBC will remove it.
In the 2005 statement of claim there’s a bizarre assertion (item ‘w’ page 13) that reads, “Torture, capital punishment and deprivation of liberty – The Crown ought to have protected Aboriginal children from torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”
Capital punishment? Who knew? I’m sure they meant to say “corporal punishment,” but – really? No one reading that document in 2005 noticed that? Or questioned it?
At that point (2005) there were only four living plaintiffs, three of them Fontaines – Phil and James, both filing personally and on behalf of the estate of Agnes Mary Fontaine, and James’s son Vincent. Vincent Bradley Fontaine, who had only attended Ft. Alexander as a DAY SCHOLAR for three years, nevertheless claimed that “He was, and continues to be, denied, among other things, parental and community guidance, and the opportunity to know his culture, native language or practice traditional spiritual ways.”
I agree with Nina Green that most of the claims of abuse were shockingly vague or generalized, and they seem to have relied heavily on the phrase “involved, but was not limited to …”
But I also agree with Brian Giesbrecht’s comment above, that the conclusions in the article are wrong, or at least wrongly stated.
What’s revealing here is that the catch-all, standard claim of being “sexually, physically and emotionally abused” that was crafted for the 2005 document is still being parroted today, often with “mentally and spiritually” thrown in for emphasis. The constant repetition of this stock phrasing doesn’t represent corroboration; it represents groupthink, collective scapegoating, and social contagion. It’s not helping the situation on the ground.
Edited: corrected 1992 to read 2005
I made a podcast highlighting the problem of malfeasance here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/soberchristiangentlemanpodcast/p/s1-ep-3-scgp-rebroadcast?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31s3eo
We have to understand and appreciate that showering was alien to their culture but for Phil, the real pain in the ass was when he had to pick up the soap.
Few people know that the Canadian Jew Association has been supporting all the narratives, in writing ... staying in the background of course.
"...just like the jews. No details, no evidence...". Such astounding ignorance!
" just like the jews."
What?!