Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Dastardly Right-wing Liberal Bloggers

Like Jeff Jedras, who dared to be quoted by a third party - the blog Small Dead Animals - for having a sensible opinion.

Or Dan Arnold (aka CalgaryGrit) who dared to put forward the idea that the Liberals can and should play on divisions in other parties, as was so often done to them.

Curse these evil, right-wing people who are right-wing because they dare talk against the real party of Canadians, the inheritors of Tommy "Eugenics Thesis" Douglas, Canada's New Democrats - the real progressives of Canada.

Just, how dare they.


  1. What I find particularly amusing about them is how they refer to them as the Liberals as if they were the Liberal party. Wasn't aware that Calgary Grit or Jeff Jedras or other Liberal Bloggers were official spokes people for Bob Rae.

    I wonder if any of those NDP bloggers have actually read the referendum question of 1995? I voted in that referendum. That question was indeed convoluted. It was confusing for many. In fact, in the aftermath, I do remember polls coming out (I"m still trying to find links, it was at a time internet wasn't available to all) in the 20%-30% range, approx that folks who voted 'yes' didn't know what they voted 'yes' to!

    If that makes me a Liberal hack to these folks, so be it. I don't care anymore.

  2. Well said CK, very well said.

  3. In 1928, the Province of Alberta, Canada, passed legislation that enabled the government to perform involuntary sterilizations on individuals classified as mentally deficient. In order to implement the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta in 1928, a four-person Alberta Eugenics Board was created. These four individuals were responsible for approving sterilization procedures. During the 43 years of the Eugenics Board, it approved nearly 5,000 individual sterilizations, and 2,832 procedures were actually performed. The province of Alberta was the first part of the British Empire to adopt a sterilization act, and were the only ones who vigorously implemented it. [...]

    The Alberta Eugenics Board was constructed in order to administer the sexual sterilization program. In section 3, the Act called for a four person Eugenics Board to determine, on a case by case basis, whether sterilization was appropriate for a particular individual. The Act gave the Board power to examine people discharged from mental health institutions, and to direct sterilization if deemed necessary. Not only was unanimous decision required, but consent, either from the patient, parent, or guardian, was essential for the surgical procedures to proceed. The Act put in place specific requirements for the board members: Two of the Board members were required to be medical practitioners, nominated by the Senate of the University of Alberta and the Council of the College of Physicians. The other two non-medical practitioner members were appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and had to be well-known and of prominent reputation. [...]

    Over all decades, aboriginals were the foremost targets of the Eugenics Board’s attention. [...]. In the last few years that the Alberta act was in place, Indians and Métis comprised about 27% of the sterilizations, although they were only accountable for 2.5% of the population. Furthermore, 74% of all aboriginal cases presented resulted in sterilization, which was alarmingly high – 14% above the average for all cases.

    In 1972, the Progressive Conservative Government repealed The Sexual Sterilization Act thereby ending Alberta’s shameful era of forced sterilization.

    The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia were the only Canadian provinces that practiced Eugenics. Currently, right wing revisionists, trying to discredit former Premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, are quick to point out that his 1930 Master’s thesis was on the topic of eugenics. During a trip to Europe in 1938, where eugenics was medically practiced, he changed his views. Douglas was elected Premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. Eugenics was never practiced in Saskatchewan. Eugenics was practiced in Alberta under the premiership of William Aberhart and Ernest Manning (father of Preston Manning).

  4. It was in jest, Buckdog, a sarcastic tone that permeates the entire post (but was a fun reference anyways) - get a grip on yourself, it's not like I think Douglas went around sterilizing the disabled.

    And if I'm considered a right-wing revisionist, just wait until I get on the Ed Broadbent era.

  5. Call me sensitive but the forced sterilization of over 5000 mentally disabled Canadians, mostly aboriginal persons, is not something I jest about.

  6. You are a tad sensitive - and just more than a little politically correct. Sterilization is wrong and tragic, but potshots at Tommy Douglas are quite funny.

  7. ... problem is that I am an old guy who knew Tommy Douglas and spoke to him many times when he was alive. Please forgive me for not finding potshots at him all that funny.

  8. They say humour is a virtue, you know.

    Well, I say that.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. In fact, in the aftermath, I do remember polls coming out (I"m still trying to find links, it was at a time internet wasn't available to all) in the 20%-30% range, approx that folks who voted 'yes' didn't know what they voted 'yes' to!

    Saw a reference too. Trying to find a link for it. Closest on-line is this article, which talks about the confusion over "sovereignist," and how a significant percentage who planned on voting yes wanted to stay in federation.

    Secondly, it will be noted that so far most references have been made to the `sovereignist' rather than to, say, the `separatist' option, which is exactly the way Mr. Parizeau would have it. Actually the word itself has become an important factor in the referendum campaign and the information battle. (see Note 1)Sovereignty is a `soft' word used to confuse people. For instance, the usual definition of federalism specifies that each order of government, the federal and provincial, is `sovereign' within its own jurisdiction. Thus, `sovereignty' can mean varying degrees of political autonomy and that is exactly why the nationalists use it rather than `independence' or `separation' (and that is why the terms will be used indifferently in this text to try to indicate a certain neutrality).

    Opinion polls indicate that some 53 per cent of those who say they support sovereignty think it does not mean separating from Canada. Approximately 5 per cent more people will accept `sovereignty' rather than `independence' if both options are offered in the same poll. If the question is reversed and respondents are asked if they want to stay in Canada 59 per cent say `yes'. Even more astoundingly, a June 1994 poll by Léger and Léger found 71 per cent of sovereignists wanted to stay in the federation. This sort of confusion was confirmed again by an Actualité study (15 March `95) which discovered that while 49 per cent intended to vote for sovereignty, 78 per cent hoped to "remain Canadians in a sovereign Quebec" and that 17 per cent of those who intended to vote Oui did not believe this gave Quebec a mandate to separate.

    As for polls on the Clarity Act.... Some interesting polls here. Check out the footnotes on page 3 on various polls. In 1999, Quebecers disapprove of the Clarity Act, but they approve of the idea of a clear question and a clear majority -- In one poll, 60% said they did not believe 50% plus one is a clear majority.

  11. Volkov ... okay I will try to remember that. I do like your blog and your perspective on things. I'm sorry to be combative here - I didn't sense the tongue in cheek approach you were taking with this post.

  12. Buckdog,

    Appreciated, and it happens - it was somewhat combative, though tongue-in-cheek it was as well. I don't mind debate or even out and out argument, but generally I'll be sarcastic. Hard to tell through type, to be sure.