Canadian Murderer of Disabled Daughter Given Day Parole
Robert Latimer, perhaps because of public pressure, is being granted day parole in Canada. He murdered his daughter Tracy because she had cerebral palsy and became something of a folk hero in the process, seen as a loving father for killing his daughter.
I have heard already from one Canadian woman with cerebral palsy who is devastated by this decision because of what it tells her about the perceived value of her life. But we will leave that for now.
I have written here at SHS several times about the "loving" father, and more extensively in Forced Exit. So, rather than rattle on again, I will let my good pal Mark Pickup express my disdain from his blog Human Life Matters:
Seven years into his second-degree murder conviction, child-killer and
Canadian folk-hero, Robert Latimer won day parole today. In Canada, second
degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of
parole for at least ten years. (They recommended he only serve one year.)
Happily the sentence was mandatory, but he still gets out three years earlier
than minimum requirements. Hey, who's counting?
Mark has progressive MS and understands the kind of pain my correspondent with cerebral palsy experiences when mercy killing is applauded or praised with faint damnation. He is an adamant opponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and in fact, we became best friends after we both spoke at an anti-euthanasia conference hosted by the Compassionate Healthcare Network and Cheryl Eckstein about ten years ago. I dedicated Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World to Mark.Actually Canada's disability community, their advocates and allies were counting. You see, Canadian courts tend to be easy on killers of the disabled. Seven out of ten Canadians support Robert Latimer. Seventy percent of Canadians agree with assisted suicide for the chronically ill and disabled. Canadians citizens with disabilities and incurable illnesses needed re-assurance that we are seen as deserving equal legal protections as able-bodied Canadians. We didn't get it.
Mark's voice on these matters is clarion and he has a longer post here that describes the truth about Robert Latimer and Tracy's murder. Everyone interested in this case should read it.
It's late and this news is disheartening. So I will close with a question: Why is it that the most supposedly progressive countries seem to be moving the fastest toward reviving eugenics thinking?
Labels: Robert Latimer
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:01 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
You asked: "Why is it that the most supposedly progressive countries seem to be moving the fastest toward reviving eugenics thinking?"
But you indirectly answered your own question, Wesley. "Progressive" = democratic socialism = (ultimately) "if you can't work, you don't eat" = "let's get rid of the 'useless eaters' ". Look at the horrible treatment in the old Eastern Bloc of those who were physically handicapped and mentally ill as confirmation (though some of this was cultural too).
As much as we like to pretend not, the US has elements of democratic socialism, such as programs for the elderly. We seem almost certain to lurch further in that direction after the Presidential election this year.
Now, this man has received "day parole". When does his dead daughter receive "day living"?
K-man: But "progressives" claim to be about equality. Yet, they are denying equality with their (general) support of assisted suicide, futile care theory, the murderer of a disabled little girl, dehydration, and even infanticide. So, was equality a ruse or are they unaware that they are moving in the wrong direction?
I would venture that instead of having everyone be equally free, the progressive vision is to have everyone equally subject to state control -- but seeing as how any given individual is controlled is up to the state, true equality can't exist in such a state of affairs. Equal protection become arbitrary protection, and those deemed least important become even more vulnerable.
Latimer poll:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Vote "No" if you want to sleep at night.
Wesley, you asked, "But 'progressives' claim to be about equality. So, was equality a ruse or are they unaware that they are moving in the wrong direction?" Gregory Ford had a good answer, but I'll expound a bit too.
Based on the record of socialist regimes in the Eastern Bloc, the original utopias that "progressives" hailed as the future, equality was a goal to which much lip service was paid. The reality is that this equality was extended only to those who could produce to benefit the state, either directly through work or eventually as children who would eventually become workers. However, don't forget the saying from Orwell's Animal Farm: "Some animals are more equal than others." That was true in those regimes too.
And they also had laws compelling men to work, as does Cuba even today. (Women received great encouragement to work, but being a stay-at-home mother was acceptable, though hard to afford.) "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." It followed that someone without an "ability" to work now or in the future should not have any "needs" that that society was bound to respect.
Democratic socialism copies many of the social safety net programs that the Marxist regimes had (at least on paper), but eventually the same pressures to produce directly or indirectly for the state to fund these programs will start to hold sway. That process is underway today. Those who are viewed as unproductive or using excessive resources then become targets, as their needs far exceed a notion of equality in need. That's why we're seeing such a drive for assisted suicide, dehydrating PVS patients, infanticide, and the like. As desirable as aspects of that safety net might be, this inevitably becomes the flip side. Since we seem quite likely to get nationalized health care in some fashion, we need to keep our eyes wide open for that flip side, as you have warned us.
I shudder to think of what might be coming next, especially in a country such as the US that has a strange hybrid of me-first cowboy capitalism and socialistic programs only for selected groups.
I wonder if part of the reason the more supposedly progressive countries seem to be moving the fastest towards euthanasia is the prevalence of the late modern idea of absolute autonomy, in which we become our own creators, creating our identity through our desires and becoming someone through the expression of those desires. Personhood, then, is no longer something intrinsic to us, something no one can take away, but instead contingent on our ability to create ourselves. According to this view, the severely disabled, fetuses, those with mental illness or dementia, and even newborns lack this ability and so do not count as persons, and since our desires are paramount, those who desire to die upon developing disabilities must be free to act upon those desires, or have someone else act upon them if we are physically unable to. And this ability to act upon our desires only counts if we do not interfere with others' ability to do so, which, to some people, having a disabled family member to take care of does. When rights collide, someone has to lose and it is usually the government who gets to decide; this is perhaps one reason why some are considered more equal than others. I see these beliefs being played out in the way the media always repeats-incorrectly, as Mark pointed out-that Tracy had the mental capacity of a three month old. In doing so, they dehumanize her. It was incredibly heart-wrenching to read Mark's blog entry about her because he reminded us that she was a human being and a person, one who loved her family and found joy in things as simple as parties, sleepovers, and the circus. And even if she didn't, even if she really did only have the mental capacity of a three-month old, she still had worth and dignity that no one could take away, as much as we think we can.
I wonder if part of it too is out of a genuine sense of compassion, though a warped one. Another thing the media never fails to repeat-again, incorrectly-is how much pain she was in. Earlier tonight I was watching Rex Murphy's Point of View on the CBC national news and he really emphasized this, going on to say what an agonizing decision it was and what a compassionate parent he was. But, as Wesley has pointed out so many times, we have forgotten that the meaning of compassion is "to suffer with", and the possibility that people might kill the disabled and elderly so they don't have to care for them anymore thereby making their own lives easier is an issue that is never really brought up much, and because of that I shudder to think about what is going to happen as the Boomers age. And in our discussions about whether it is compassionate to kill these people we also ignore the issue of whether or not they are people with worth and dignity whom it would be gravely immoral to kill (though I suspect many have decided that they are not) and that the truly compassionate thing would be both to ease their suffering and treat them as people. I suppose we don't really think so much in terms of right or wrong any more; utilitarianism and situation ethics have really become mainstream. I wonder if maybe we haven't become utopian this way, in that suffering, instead of being recognized as part of the human condition, is something we believe we can eradicate, even if people have to be killed in the process. It is one of the darkest ironies in life that the attempts to try to make society perfect end up making it the most horrific place.
gwenhwyfar:Your comments are very thoughtful and appreciated. I think your comment on utopianism is especially right on. In our intense desire to do away with all hardship, we countenance getting rid of the person experiencing hardship assuming that is what we would want in that circumstance. And that is why utopianism is always dangerous, the ends are seen as so important, any means is accepted.
'I see these beliefs being played out in the way the media always repeats-incorrectly, as Mark pointed out-that Tracy had the mental capacity of a three month old.'
Y'know, you'd think that if people saw that statement - she had the mental capacity of a three month old - more folks would feel outraged at her death. I mean, after all, a three month old has no ability to defend herself and makes her the most helpess, needy of all human beings. If he had actually shot a three month old baby, wouldn't people be up in arms over her murder?
And yes, I know that was a lie outright about her cognative abilities, but it's something that bugs the hell out of me. If someone is childlike, why don't we treat them like a child? Children, no matter whose they are, need three things - 1) unconditional love, 2) absolute protection, and 3) the chance to grow in whatever way possible. Instead of killing the girl, *had* she had the mental cognition of a three month old, she should have been treated like any other baby and given the love and nurturing she needed as well as every opportunity to grow past that. Instead, she was murdered in cold blood, and she was already growing mentally. It's a disgrace that Canada has let this monster out when he refuses to acknowledge his guilt and his evil actions.
Love and kisses,
Tabs
This comment has been removed by the author.
Let's look at this another way:
What if Tracy was actually 3-months-old, but didn't have any disabilities?
I think people would be up in arms over her murder. It's all about bigotry and fear of disabilities.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home