(2) NDP godfather Tommy Douglas was advocating mass sterilization and special colonies for "defective" and "sub-normal" families -- including those whose ancestors were "French-Irish" and "low type of woman" -- right around the time Adolf Hitler was rising to power in Germany.
But the fact a politician today can't even raise the issue without being smeared by the liberal political/media establishment speaks volumes.
Yes, the first quote is not a reference to the second. Yet, they are in the exact same article. Should a politician be allowed to raise eugenics as an issue today without reprimand? What about segregation, which is what "firewall" could very easily amount to? What about indentured servitude? Where do we draw that line? What are the risks if we don't?
It's not enough to say "there's no appetite for a debate on (insert contentious issue here)." There was no appetite for genocide in 1930s Germany, either - only a bitterness against others and a need to come across as dominant. Feelings can be manipulated and, when the manipulators continually get away with ignoring societal standards, they open the door to all kinds of abuses. Somewhere, someone has to say "enough;" the successful perpetrators aren't going to regulate themselves.
Along the same theme; a very common post-war response from these perpetrators is denial.
Another quote, again from the same article:
In the real world, the death penalty isn't coming back because no political party supports it and because, even if they did, our courts view it as cruel and unusual punishment and thus unconstitutional.
How many selection-of-the-fittest, Far Right (not Conservative, because Conservative is a much broader category) folk feel the courts have too much power? How many of them are sceptical about immigration, think tough-on-crime is the way to go and don't believe in "social handouts?"
One last Goldstein quote:
On abortion, polls show most Canadians support a woman's right to choose, but are conflicted on issues such as whether the state should pay for non-emergency abortions in the latter stages of pregnancy. But again, among liberal elites, there is only one "correct" view for a politician to hold -- abortion on demand, regardless of the circumstances.
Individual responsibility and personal feeling trumps all, I get it. What about when that doesn't work? Less public education means less educated people. Less information gathering means less informed decisions. Less central coordination? That's proven to lead to unnecessary duplication, waste and missed opportunities.
Let's stick with education for a second, though. Less educated people reproduce more - that's not speculation, but a lesson from history. When you don't have facts, you rely on feelings, which rarely take into account such things as long-term costs. That's one of the main reasons we bother to learn at all; so that we can avoid repeating mistakes. Uneducated people tend to be more likely to experience poverty.
What do you think a lack of knowledge, a tendency to reproduce more and less easy access to birth control methods (and yes, abortion) leads to?
The more poor, uneducated people you have, the more poor, uneducated people you're going to end up with (keeping in mind that wealthy, educated people reproduce less). Now, correlate poverty and crime rates. Then, crime costs on the economy and the price of punishment and incarceration - both fiscally and, over time, socially. Then look at natural resource dependence in places like Easter Island or Central America. In fact, look at any failed civilization and you'll see short-term, resource-intensive and elite-centric policies at the root of the collapse - including the Soviet Union. Where you see successes - like here in Canada - the reverse is true; more shared services, more planning, better education and a broader economic basket with a decent focus on production lead to better, lasting results for all.
The Far-Right, Two-Row Wampum conceptualizers seem to feel they can do it on their own and everyone should be left to their own devices, despite shared geography. They appear to believe that helping others through centrally coordinated social services is too much like rewarding failure.
It's reactive, not proactive thinking - and it's doomed, time and again, to fail.
You can't consider the individual's right to choose without considering society's responsibility to think ahead. Consider it a quality over quantity thing.
Maybe the proactive, liberal approach doesn't feel right to the Far Right - but that's the point, isn't it? The best decisions aren't made based on gut-instinct alone, but are informed.
Those who fail to understand history, etc.
Post a Comment