27th November, 2010, Greg Weadick, MLA for Lethbridge West, told the Lethbridge Herald that he favours more local imput from the local health advisory councils. (Apparently, the one in Lethbridge doesn't hold many public meetings.) He added that he'll also be scheduling meetings to get citizen input.
A good start, maybe.
But Weadick and the rest of the Tory caucus know, the Alberta Health Services Superboard is not bound to take the advice of local advisory committees. And Weadick stopped short of advocating a return to the our province's political tradition of electing local hospital board trustees.
Why? The tradition of electing local hospital trustees (and education trustees, too) goes back to the roots of the province.
Is the Tory Caucus opposed to any citizen input they cannot control? And why do Albertans put up with the erosion of our democratic traditions?
Surely, the province's dark past, as home to the worst eugenics sterilization scandal in the British Empire (carried out at the bidding of an non-elected, out of control, band of government appointees, who did not even bother to follow the flawed dictates of the Sexual Sterilization Act), suggests that we need more accountability to the electorate in our health system, not less.
If we aren't careful, the province's politicians will shut out the electorate when it comes to education, too. I predict that our local school boards will soon become the play thing of mandarins in Edmonton, too -- unless we stand up and say 'no'.
Let's reverse the trend.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Monday, 13 December 2010
Why the Crown of Maples is not a Colonial Relic
I've noticed that quite of few non-Canadians read this blog. I suspect my foreign readers, unless they are from a Commonwealth country, don't quite understand how Canada can be an independent nation and yet share a monarch with 15 countries (including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, Jamaica and several other Caribbean countries, and even tiny Tuvalu). Here's the full list of countries Canada shares a Head of State with: The Commowealth Realms.
The various incarnations of the British (English/Scottish) Crowns have always included more than one kingdom: France, Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany, and Norway all have histories of sharing what was later called the British Monarch.
The term British itself is an admission that the Queen rules multiple kingdoms and has several parliaments.
Bet you didn't realize that Scottish Kings once considered Norway one of their kingdoms. Henry VIII of England, considered himself to be King of France, too. And many French Kings considered England part of their territory. Several 19th Century British Monarchs were also Electors of Hanover, in what is now Germany, and many of the King`s German subjects were counted among the loyalists who fled the American Revolution to British North America. (Canada)
This illustrates another important point: Citizenship in a Commonwealth country is not based on ethnicity. It`s based on adherence to parliamentary democracy and loyality to the Crown, including Parliament. (If only we could remember that!)
For a more modern understanding of Canada's constitutional monarchy, read, The Crown of Maples published by the Government of Canada. Just click on the headings and the text will appear.
Enjoy.
The various incarnations of the British (English/Scottish) Crowns have always included more than one kingdom: France, Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany, and Norway all have histories of sharing what was later called the British Monarch.
The term British itself is an admission that the Queen rules multiple kingdoms and has several parliaments.
Bet you didn't realize that Scottish Kings once considered Norway one of their kingdoms. Henry VIII of England, considered himself to be King of France, too. And many French Kings considered England part of their territory. Several 19th Century British Monarchs were also Electors of Hanover, in what is now Germany, and many of the King`s German subjects were counted among the loyalists who fled the American Revolution to British North America. (Canada)
This illustrates another important point: Citizenship in a Commonwealth country is not based on ethnicity. It`s based on adherence to parliamentary democracy and loyality to the Crown, including Parliament. (If only we could remember that!)
For a more modern understanding of Canada's constitutional monarchy, read, The Crown of Maples published by the Government of Canada. Just click on the headings and the text will appear.
Enjoy.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
my comment on death threats & freedom of speech
Sadly, some so called 'libertarians' in Alberta, have apparently suggested that Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, be killed by the United States secret service. One of these individuals also, apparently, sent a threatening email to a Canadian woman who called him on his own words. (I am leaving the names of the individuals who made these comments out because the police are investigating these matters and these allegations must be proven in court. I believe people are innocent until proven guilty.)
What's wrong with these alleged calls for execution without trial? If they indeed occurred, they smack of fascism. And are akin to the thinking of the Aberhart era in which the rights of the vulnerable and the freedom of the press were savagely attacked as the work of the 'sons of Satan.' Such acts are unconstitutional.
Our constitutional monarchy in Canada upholds the rights of citizens to have their day in court. It is illegal to make death threats in Canada. It is illegal to counsel someone to commit a crime.
Premeditated murder is a crime in Canada and so is capital punishment. We do not send out 'hit men' on our political opponents. We do not allow our allies to violate the basic tenants of the Magna Carta, The British North America Act, The Human Rights Acts, The Canadian and Alberta Bills of Rights, or the Canada Act. Not even in the name of friendship.
To suggest that some people are not entitled to their day in court and that the right of the state, any state including the United States, is more important than the rights of an individual, any individual, to have his or her human and civil rights respected, smacks of the kind of thinking that made Alberta home to the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire. (Actually Alberta and British Columbia were the only places in the British Empire to allow eugenics boards to operate. (Such boards were common in the U.S. where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a kind of warped Calvinism, sometimes trumped Enlightenment ideals.)
If proven in court, these death threats and calls for contract killings on political opponents from so-called libertarians will reveal two things: libertarianism in Canada is code for 'Social Darwinism.' And most so-called libertarians haven't figured out that, as a Commonwealth realm, Canada is not part of the American Empire and never can be.
We paid for that right not to be part of the American Empire, with the blood of farmers, tradesmen, and other volunteer soldiers, during the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the Boer War, World War 1, World War II, Korea and we still are paying for that right in Afghanistan.
We cannot depend on other countries to stand up for us. We must stand up for what is right ourselves. That is our birthright. And our duty.
What's wrong with these alleged calls for execution without trial? If they indeed occurred, they smack of fascism. And are akin to the thinking of the Aberhart era in which the rights of the vulnerable and the freedom of the press were savagely attacked as the work of the 'sons of Satan.' Such acts are unconstitutional.
Our constitutional monarchy in Canada upholds the rights of citizens to have their day in court. It is illegal to make death threats in Canada. It is illegal to counsel someone to commit a crime.
Premeditated murder is a crime in Canada and so is capital punishment. We do not send out 'hit men' on our political opponents. We do not allow our allies to violate the basic tenants of the Magna Carta, The British North America Act, The Human Rights Acts, The Canadian and Alberta Bills of Rights, or the Canada Act. Not even in the name of friendship.
To suggest that some people are not entitled to their day in court and that the right of the state, any state including the United States, is more important than the rights of an individual, any individual, to have his or her human and civil rights respected, smacks of the kind of thinking that made Alberta home to the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire. (Actually Alberta and British Columbia were the only places in the British Empire to allow eugenics boards to operate. (Such boards were common in the U.S. where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a kind of warped Calvinism, sometimes trumped Enlightenment ideals.)
If proven in court, these death threats and calls for contract killings on political opponents from so-called libertarians will reveal two things: libertarianism in Canada is code for 'Social Darwinism.' And most so-called libertarians haven't figured out that, as a Commonwealth realm, Canada is not part of the American Empire and never can be.
We paid for that right not to be part of the American Empire, with the blood of farmers, tradesmen, and other volunteer soldiers, during the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the Boer War, World War 1, World War II, Korea and we still are paying for that right in Afghanistan.
We cannot depend on other countries to stand up for us. We must stand up for what is right ourselves. That is our birthright. And our duty.
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Are we missing the point?
This morning I was googling online coverage of the launch of Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret. I noticed that very few people commenting on blogs announcing my book want to own their eugenics past. They blame 'others' for it.( If you live in a Western Democracy and much of the rest of the world, there's a good chance one of your great-granddaddies believed in eugenics. And whether you consider yourself left-wing or right-wing, your political legacy includes pro-eugenics advocates.)
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.
Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"
Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.
The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.
The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.
British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)
It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)
But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.
Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.
Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).
Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.
Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.
The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Eugenics and the Firewall: What's the book about?
It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Eugenics and the Firewall: National launch 17 November
You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)
If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Eugenics and the Firewall heading to bookstores 12 November.
Mark 12 November 2010 on you calendar! That the day Eugenics and the Firewall will be ready for bookstores across Canada. Launch details are being pinned down as I write this.
In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the back cover text:
It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the back cover text:
It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.
In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.
Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.
The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.
But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?
It’s time to set the record straight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)