He also said the incident was significantly different than the Chinese head tax that affected tens of thousands of Canadian residents over 80 years and the residential school policies that affected hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens over several decades. “This was a single incident that affected about 350 non Canadians of some 90 years ago. We're mindful that each of these are different and unique historical experiences,” he said.

If the above is correct then yes there should be different grades of sorry. The government of Canada can apologize for a policy that caused harm but if we are talking about a single instance that was an anomolous administrative decision, however unfortunate, then I think an official government of Canada apology is not appropriate.

All of that being said, the issue apologies to groups for historic wrongs is a quagmire where results are almost never satisfying.

Being an ungracious asshole is never cool, regardless of whether or not the expectations are fair. But it doesn't matter - the people who care that he was rude to a bunch of people with non-white skin are not the people who will vote for him. That's what it comes down to - the effort to be nice is only worthwhile if it pays off in donations or votes or both. Harper didn't backstab his way to leader by being a nice guy.

(My answer, btw, is that this probably should have been the GG, representing the continuity of our head of state and Her Majesty's Canadian Government. But the Prime Minister (prime! Numero Uno!) should he able to make apologies on behalf of the government. Without having a hissy fit - which, until now, sort of went without saying.)

Hans: Every unfair, evil, or stupid act is "anomalous," in that the state of affairs that gave rise to it was uniquely stupid or ignorant. Yeah, I recognize the distinction between, say, years of systemic abuse in aboriginal residential schools versus, say, the interment of 20,000 Canadians of Japanese descent during doubleyah doublyah two. One was a one-time thing, one was ongoing. But both were official government policies which were blatantly, objectively wrong, and came from the government elected by the Canadian people. Apologies in either case should come from the government, in whatever embodiment, as a representative of same.

Just MHO, but a public apology by a head of state/corporation on behalf of said state/corporation for actions that occurred beyond that current state's elected officials terms of office or that corporation's board of direction/management is about as antiquated as big cheque giveaways and ribbon cuttings. A more reasonable thing would be a public declaration that the government/corporation recognizes that errors were made by past governments/corporate leaders and that they will never happen again due to policies etc. Its like me phoneing up someone that my dad knocked up in Germany back in 1963 and apologizing for him skedaddling to Canada. Empty and a waste of breath, because the apology comes from someone not even remotely involved in the actions.

Her not him. Dad is spinning in his grave right now for my typing error ha ha!

Yeah, but the analogy isn't apt, because the gentle fiction is that while the parties in power change, while parliaments tick through, the government itself endures through time. It's more like your dad going back and apologizing in person, except he's a ghost possessing the body of Stephen Harper. Or a zombie. Zombie Harper!

Hmm.. I could see dad doing that.

Zombie Harper. He'd be easy to avoid, one of the slow lethargic pasty zombies that always get pushed aside by the adventurous hero. Most conservative zombies would be like that. Now Green party zombies, they'd be the best to have in your city. The inner conflict over hunger and vaganism would make them mopey and depressed.

I need a coffee.

"But both were official government policies which were blatantly, objectively wrong, and came from the government elected by the Canadian people." Yes but a further and more more distinct distinction would be if a harmful act occurred that was not part of a government policy.

Apologies are stupid except in cases of gross historical injustice. (In other words, apology to natives for residential schools I'll support, apologies to various diaspora communities I think are silly, unless they're made directly to the individuals who were screwed.)

If this gong show discourages the PM from doing more of them in the future, I say job well done.

Mind you, what's lamer than a government apology in the above-mentioned case is someone complaining about said apology.

And as for any thoughts about the Indo-Canadian so-called "community" -- I say leave all of that grouping terminology to the Liberals.

Hey, the Republicans invented Hispanic!

Sean,

With regard to your comment,
"Just MHO, but a public apology by a head of state/corporation on behalf of said state/corporation for actions that occurred beyond that current state's elected officials terms of office or that corporation's board of direction/management is about as antiquated as big cheque giveaways and ribbon cuttings."

Renee is right that the government is continuous. The continuity of the government and the Crown is particularly important with regard to the relationship with First Nations.

The direct ancestors of Canada's First Nations have signed various treaties with the direct ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II. She and her heirs and successors still bear responsibility for upholding those treaties. Post confederation, First Nations people signed further treaties with the Government of Canada, not Sir John A. Macdonald, or any individual minister of Indian Affairs. And it was the government of Canada that set up the residential schools, on a template established in the 1830s by the British Colonial Office. In instances such as this, an apology by the current representative of the Canadian government for past wrongs is quite right and appropriate.

As a general comment:
Yes, there are different grades of sorry, based on any number of distinctions: type of wrong done, number of people harmed, time period over which harm was committed etc. etc.

The case of the Komagata Maru, as has already been mentioned, was one incident, committed against roughly 350 people. This is very different from the Chinese head-tax, or Japanese internment, or residential schools.

However, what I am somewhat surprised has not been mentioned, is that the incident was part of a larger policy to keep Indians (from India) out of Canada. When Indian immigration first began to increase, the government changed their policy on Indian immigration such that immigrants were only allowed into the country if they made a direct trip, with no stops, from an Indian port to a Canadian port. They then pressured Canadian Pacific shipping lines to end the few direct lines they were currently running. That was a little more insidious and more analagous with the head-tax and might warrant a more significant apology.

Matthew:

Hey, it was just my opinion. You don't have to share it and if the persons affected by such actions a few generations and many governments ago are happy with any words of apoogy then good for them, glad they are so easily appeased.

Also in my opinion, actions speak louder than words. If someone punches me in the face and says sorry ten years later, I'll still be mad, though a little less likely to clock them in a pub one night. I'd be a bit happier to think that they felt remorse or guilt, if I actually believe they are being sincere, but still mad. And if their son or daughter were to apologize to me on their behalf 30 years later, I'd smile and thank them for their efforts but in truth it means nothing and I'd still be mad at their dad.

"Hey, the Republicans invented Hispanic!"

Oh, so now it's Amerikkka's fault is it, Barrister McLeod? Sure, blame the furriners to the south. See if we want your maple syrup, Molson's, hawt chycks, and the like down here, hmm? No cheap beer for you! No Syracuse-ian BBQ or sports! Fie on thee!

Though, in a more serious note, what's the relevance? US conservatives did not create identity politics. They came up with a name for a demographic. How does that change anything?

I tend to agree with Ben having watched race relations here in the US. Appologies don't typically end anything. They just stoke the aggrevied party. If official appologies actually brought resolution then I'd be fine with it, and would say Harper was a tool because he tossed this one aside without bringing about closure or resolution. But, since they don't, who cares about yet another empty gesture that means nothing in terms of race/ethnicity relations anyway?

250 years from now Hispanics in CA will be demanding that every new school be called Cesear Chavez, blacks will want it called MLK or maybe BO now, and nobody will ever let go whatever happened a century or more in the past.

So, no. No need for grades of appology. Not until any appology actually produces any tangible results in terms of race/ethnicity relations.

Hey - Nixon created the concept of Hispanic as reverse identity politics, seeking to frame the concept and then capture the vote once it had been massed. Same sort of thing as far as I can see.

I thought we were putting paid to anonymous comments?

"we" i.e. "you". heh. See the Smokey/Bart exchange here.

That handpuppet has self-identified on the side. He is a digital refugee who has gained sanctuary.

"GenX@40: Providing sanctuary for self-identified digital refugees since 2003...."

He had this odd expectation of cask ale in the basement where he is residing during this difficult period. I pointed to the bag of oats that would be his sustainance.

"GenX@40: Hard but fair."

Speaking as a representative of a generation who can't remember what it ate for dinner, let alone who was prime minister ten years ago, let alone that Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings ... wait, where are my keys? Oh, yeah, under my PlayStation next to my XBox. Wait, what was I talking about?