|
Liberal Hypocrisy
and Consistency on Forced-Sterilization Victims
Dear Editor,
Re: Ralph Klein's Reversal on Notwithstanding Clause (March 1998)
The recent threat by the Klein government to invoke the constitution's "notwithstanding"
clause generated a loud public protest, predominately by liberals, which caused the
government to back down. Klein's Justice Minister, Jon Havelock, wanted to invoke
the clause to place a ceiling of $ 150,000 on compensation for victims of an Alberta
government policy of forced sterilization, which took place between 1928 and 1972
on almost 3000 people.
The outrage by liberals wreaks with hypocrisy -- but only on the surface.
Are liberals really champions of individual rights? According to modern liberals,
the "good of society" (or "collective rights") supersedes individual
rights. The Alberta government's immoral practice of forcing roughly 3,000 individuals
judged "mentally inferior by the government" to be sterilized in order
to presumably create a "mentally superior" society is totally consistent
with this basic tenet of modern liberalism. This eugenics-motivated policy was endorsed
by leading liberals and feminists such as Emily Murphy of Alberta and Margaret Sanger
of the U.S.
Furthermore, the "notwithstanding" clause was a liberal invention to undercut
their own Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- a clause that allowed the Quebec government
to violate the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers by outlawing English on signs.
Furthermore, the Charter itself subordinates individual rights to collective rights.
(See Section 15.)
But this is where the hypocrisy ends.
Why did the Klein government attempt to invoke the "notwithstanding" clause?
In an age where unscrupulous lawyers are notorious for landing outrageous and unjust
damage settlements, and pocketing most of the proceeds, it wanted to set a $150,000
ceiling on the amount of taxpayers' money the victims could claim as compensation.
In other words, the Klein government wanted to protect individuals from being unduly
punished and sacrificed for a crime they were not personally responsible for.
In this respect the liberals' attack on the Klein government is perfectly consistent
with their fundamental philosophy. If someone is in need, then we must not ask which
individuals are responsible -- "society" is responsible and everyone must
be forced to satisfy that need. If someone is a victim of injustice, we must not
ask which individual(s) committed the injustice -- "society" did it. Liberals
regard individuals not as volitional, sovereign entities with the right to pursue
their own life and happiness -- but as cells of society, to be sacrificed whenever
society demands it.
If the liberals' outrage at the Klein government was truly motivated by a desire
to justly compensate victims of injustice, then one would expect them to be consistent
on this principle. Yet, they do not protest when businessmen (including farmers)
are victims of lies perpetrated by environmentalists (or other "special-interest"
groups), or when corporations and taxpayers are victims of dishonest Liberal election
ploys (such as the Pearson Airport fiasco), or when people become victims of criminals
who are released prematurely from prison because liberals invented a bold new theory
of justice.
If a group claims to uphold a principle, then they should at least be judged by how
consistent that principle is with their other principles, and by the extent to which
they consistently defend that principle. Since modern liberals are against individual
rights, it's hard to take them seriously when they claim to defend the rights of
some minority such as the victims of forced sterilization.
One can only conclude that liberals became enraged by the Klein government's attempt
to invoke the "notwithstanding" clause because the government's motive
was to protect citizens from being unduly punished for crimes they were not responsible
for. That would be consistent with liberal philosophy.
Sincerely,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1998 Glenn Woiceshyn.
All rights reserved. This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
