Tommy Douglas gets a shoutout in piece about coercive sterilization
(www.theblaze.com)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Not surprising considering the time that Tommy was part of:
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/85/winnipegkkk.shtml
Tommy used his hatred of the Catholic Church to nationalise the medical system and ousted the nuns from benevolence society work thus removing the Catholic hospital system.
I always felt that socialism was just a pretty face to racism and used reverse rhetoric or lies to get the general population to believe that socialists were doing work on their behalf when in fact they were manned by racists.
From the article's links: "When Douglas received two reports that recommended legalizing sexual sterilization in the province, he rejected the idea." https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/tommy-douglas-and-eugenics
Interesting that he could change his mind when presented with new information.
John A was cancelled despite giving Indians the vote and single-handedly uniting the nation.
Douglas has not been cancelled despite thinking natives, blacks, Irish and others less than human; for penning The Problems of the Subnormal Family in which he advocated for putting undesirables on state farms / precluding them from procreating.
If it werent for the fact that the government and woke activists would surely abuse this, you have to agree that some people should not be allowed to procreate. There was a case a few years ago where a women addicted to sniffing gasoline was pregnant with her 7th child. Everyone of her other children had been born mentally defective because of her gas sniffing. The children's aid society attempted to place her in a sort of protective custody until she gave birth so they could prevent her from saddling society with yet another brain damaged child who will be a drain on the system forever. Her legal aid lawyer successfully challenged the detention and the court ruled that the government could not protect this child because it was not born yet. So the mother was entitled to damage the fetus as much as she wanted and let the rest of us deal with the mess she made. Who knows how many more kids she had after she left the limelight.
Cases like this make you want to prevent monster parents from having more kids.
But of course this would devolve into an abusive mandate where parents who don't embrace the government's agenda are not allowed to have children. Or some races will not be allowed to procreate in order to promote some diversity race quota.
So in other words, in extreme cases I think this would be morally justifiable but impossible to put in practice without creating more harm than good.
??
John A Macdonald died in 1891 https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Alexander-Macdonald
First Nations People got the vote in 1960 https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/voting-rights-through-time-0/first-nations-and-right-vote-case-study
From OP's article's links: "When Douglas received two reports that recommended legalizing sexual sterilization in the province, he rejected the idea." https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/tommy-douglas-and-eugenics
Interesting that he could change his mind when presented with new information.
In the spring of 1885, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald introduced the Electoral Franchise Act, enabling land-holding / enfranchised men, including Indian men, to vote. The act was in force from 1885, when it was passed by John A. Macdonald's Conservative majority; to 1898, when Wilfrid Laurier's Liberals repealed it.
Four years earlier, in 1881, Parliament had enacted the Naturalization and Aliens Act, 1881, which, among other provisions, explicitly provided that Indigenous people did not count as full British subjects unless they were able to vote.
That glosses over enfranchisement. Indians weren't actually "given" the vote until 1960. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1540403281222/1568898803889
You're playing word games. There was no such thing as an "enfranchised Indian" because they had to give up their status to become enfranchised.
They had to be Canadian citizens to vote in Canadian elections?
WOW, blowing my mind here, tuchodi.
You're ignoring the fact that they had to be enfranchised to vote.
Instead of dodging you should tell the folks what that means.
Own property, which they could. Which they did. Ergo landowning Indians could vote. Meaning John A. gave them the vote ~ a century before others made to buttress the right.