Friday, February 15, 2008

I’ll see your Stupid Parade …


And raise you a Peter Csillag wingtard because I think we have a new winner in the neverending Blogging Tory race to the bottom of the crazy barrel.

Meet Peter, boys and girls – he’s got some very interesting notions on how to deal with Alberta’s escalating crime levels. If, you know, by interesting, I actually mean frothing-at-the-mouth, straight-out-of-the-eugenics-handbook, bugfuck crazy. You really have to read the whole thing in order to truly appreciate its spittle-flecked glory.

As I watch every provincial party try to win re-election by pledging "get tough on crime" policies, I have a better idea, both as an incentive against crime and as a long-term social investment: state-controlled sexual sterilization.

The idea is simple: what is the chance that those undesirable to society will raise caring, thoughtful, engaged citizens? Personally, I'm going to say that it's more likely that we'll have Star Trek-style "beam me up" teleportation things hit the free market by 2010.

The philosophy is basic; when one cannot govern themselves accordingly and legally, they suspend their right to reproduce and parent in society to the state. It's good to think that those who can't possibly raise good children wouldn't do so: the mentally imbalanced, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc. Rather than have unwanted children filling up orphanages and being given into cycles of despair and misery... well, we wouldn't have them at all.

Alberta had the Sexual Sterilization Act from 1928 until 1972, when the leftist-style bureaucrats disguised as the champions of the establishment, the Progressive "Conservatives" under Peter Lougheed, were elected a majority for the first time. They ordered a review of the Act and scrapped it, when in reality they should have merely reformed it.

The problem with the original act was that it was based on the biologically questionable concept of eugenics. A newer act would be based on making a long-term social investment. The system was not conducted fairly and sterilized a lot of people that shouldn't have been. IQ tests failed those who weren't proficient in the English language.

I don't know if a study has been done to prove or disprove this, but I'm going to suggest that a lot of those contributing to Alberta's escalating crime rate wouldn't have been born had the Sterility Act been kept in place.

Opponents would say that the state-enforced sterilization of the undesirable idea "isn't natural". Well, neither is being born into a disinfected environment; possibly by vitro fertilization; and be raised in societies with artificial light, artificial temperature controls, and eating artificially crafted and enhanced foods; all the while striving for a socially conscious lifestyle and appearance; and still having the time to think about humanity's impact on the Earth. And don't forget every medication and procedure related to health care.

It would be hard to regulate a new Act, and proposing it could be (figuratively) land-mine territory for politicians, but if it leads to one saved life because of an unborn criminal, I'd say it would all be worth it.

I think it’s time to start drinking. There’s an LCBO right across the street from my office and my assistant doesn’t look like she’s doing anything terribly important right now.

31 comments:

Red Tory said...

Peter: but if it leads to one saved life because of an unborn criminal, I'd say it would all be worth it.

Kate: [a famine] would push back the powerful "if it saves one child" lobby…

So one wingnut wants new regulation to sterilize certain people in order to save one life, whereas another wingnut resents any kind of safety regulation that might save a life. I sometimes have difficulty figuring out so-called "conservatives"...

Ti Christophe said...

you can almost hear the staccato rhythm of the jackboots from here....

GroovyJ said...

You know, I think sterilizing some criminals is probably a good idea. Particularly rapists, serial killers, and child abusers. There is certainly a strong genetic component in such things, as there is in virtually any behavior you care to name.

I'm somewhat torn in the idea of sterilizing people for being dumb, but it seems perfectly justified in the case of extreme criminality, and for rapists and other sexual criminals, it even seems mandated - such people almost inevitably re-offend if given the chance.

In addition, sterilization would like be a very strong disincentive to rapists - rape is about power, and such a punishment is likely to be far more terrifying to that kind of person than jail time. Its a punishment that is appropriate, reduces (if only slightly) the potential impact on future victims, and would likely serve as a deterrent.

Now sterilizing people on eugenic grounds, that's something that I would have to reluctantly oppose, not because I think it's a bad idea, but because I don't trust the state with the power to determine who should and should not breed.

Ti-Guy said...

Go to hell, Groovyj. Go straight to hell. Forced sterilisation is an unconscionable violation of the body. It is barbaric and completely out of proportion to the problems it seeks to address, which are, on a present and historical scale, here in Canada, MILD as to be almost insignificant.

I agree, Lulu. Time for boozing. And not genteel wine sipping here; I'm talking grain alcohol and maybe even Listerine.

How can Stephen Taylor even think of having this person associated with his new media project? At long last, sir, have you no decency?

jj said...

Ho. Lee. Fuck. State-enforced sterilization?? What's next, they can grab that extra kidney and plant it in someone else if they think it might cut down on dialysis expenses?

Make mine a Bushmills on ice ... I think it's 5 o'clock in Ireland.

Cräbgräšš said...

groovj: "I'm somewhat torn in the idea of sterilizing people for being dumb"

Based on your remarks, you might be well-advised to come out very strongly against this idea.

Cräbgräšš said...

Ah.

This tequila ought to do the trick.

Chet Scoville said...

But but but Jonah Goldberg said it's only Librul Fascists who are into eugenics! I'm so confused.

900 ft Jesus said...

the upside is that this nut case wouldn't pass the IQ test, English or not.

LuLu said...

I'm somewhat torn in the idea of sterilizing people for being dumb, but it seems perfectly justified in the case of extreme criminality, and for rapists and other sexual criminals, it even seems mandated - such people almost inevitably re-offend if given the chance.

Slippery slope, GroovyJ. GroovyJ, slippery slope.

You're kidding, right? This is actually a satirical response to the absolute bugfuck craziness of Csillag's proposal, yes? Cause if not – well, let’s just say that I need a martini as big as my fucking head to wrap my brain around that.

bigcitylib said...

Its like they're all fighting for Kinsella's column space at the Post.

robert mcbean said...

He should be careful what he wishes for. I think he would be found below the cut line and quickly lose his balls. The original eugenics of the Social Credit party was largely based on (questionable) measurements of intelligence, or behavioural problems. Either way, he's on the list.

GroovyJ said...

Slippery slope arguments are silly. Why not argue that having a police force is a slippery slope to having a police state? That withdrawing from Afghanistan is a slippery slope to being invaded by the Taliban? Drawing lines in the sand is something we do, a part of human nature.

At the moment, the world is overpopulated, and the consequences of that are going to kill a lot of people, and generate untold generations of misery. Reproduction should not be viewed as a right at all. But, I am willing to accept the argument that sterilizing people against their will is, in the main, too intrusive an imposition on peoples freedom to be acceptable.

When it comes down to rapists and child molesters, that's where I draw the line. Such people are perfectly happy to impose their sexual desires on others in a way which is ruinous to their long term wellbeing, and I have no problem with the idea of sterilizing them. It reduces the level of harm they are able to do to future victims, punishes their crime, and would likely serve as an effective deterrent. Yes, it's intrusive. So is rape, so is child molestation. These are extreme cases, and I think extreme punishment is called for in such cases.

Maybe I'm completely wrong - my lack of any personal desire to reproduce may be blinding me to the importance of that faculty - but I've seen only one real argument to that effect here (from ti-guy) - everyone else has gone for ad hominem attacks, people claiming "He holds this position, therefore he is stupid/evil/a jerk and I feel no need to engage with him." These are arguments on the level of Gene Ray.

Uncontrolled breeding has gotten the human race to its current state, a Malthusian peak that risks seeing our entire species destroyed. The fact that it is impossible even to have a reasoned debate on the subject of controlling this problem almost guarantees the worst possible results. But I'm not even talking about eugenics, or a one child policy, or any other such extreme measure. I'm talking about criminals whose crime DIRECTLY RELATES TO BREEDING being prevented from imposing one more horror on their victims. If I'm wrong in this, feel free to tell me why - I change my mind in the face of evidence on a regular basis. I never change it in the face of insults.

LuLu said...

Then where do you draw that line in the sand you're talking about? And who gets to decide? And how do you stop people from deciding that since we're forcefully sterilizing rapists and child molesters then why not the mentally disabled? After all, it's not like they can be fully productive members of society. This is Pandora's Box you're talking about opening.

Ti-Guy said...

When it comes down to rapists and child molesters, that's where I draw the line. Such people are perfectly happy to impose their sexual desires on others in a way which is ruinous to their long term wellbeing, and I have no problem with the idea of sterilizing them.

Most children are molested by people they know.

I'm all for declaring sexual predators dangerous offenders and locking them away for good, but there's a lot more involved in the problem of sexual aggression that won't be solved by forced sterilisation.

It's a non-starter.

GroovyJ said...

I would think that the substantial difference between someone who suffers a debilitating problem through no fault of their own and someone who violently imposes their sexuality upon another person against that person's will is pretty obvious.

The answer to slippery slopes is simple - people must remain vigilant, pay attention, and object strenuously when things go too far. Not doing something reasonable now does nothing to prevent unreasonable actions in the future.

Abortion has been legal for some time, and no one is busting down doors and forcing abortions on criminals, dissenters, or the mentally handicapped, yet I bet when it was first legalized these kinds of slippery slope arguments were made against it. Pot smoking, was criminalized right along side more harmful drugs, no slippery slope needed.

I'm not sure what the relevance of children being molested by people they know is - does that make it better? If anything, it seems to make it worse!

Locking them away for good is fine, but people get out of jail - that's a fact. Locking someone up is always at the whim of future politicians, and of the security of the system.

Raphael Alexander said...

How can a person at once oppose abortion, but support sterilization.

Pale said...

How can one oppose abortion, yet condone capital punishment?
And then, how can one not accept the actual science of global warming, and then hold up a book, written by men over the last 2000 or so years, reinterpreted, over and over again, and think its the werd of GOD.
Find any of that confuzzling, and you pretty much know how exasperated most of us on the left are with the RW on a daily basis.

Ti-Guy said...

I would think that the substantial difference between someone who suffers a debilitating problem through no fault of their own and someone who violently imposes their sexuality upon another person against that person's will is pretty obvious.

You would think. But how do you know that?

I'm not sure what the relevance of children being molested by people they know is - does that make it better? If anything, it seems to make it worse!

The point I was trying to make is that forced sterilisation does nothing to address the issue of child molestation. It's a solution that doesn't address the problem, a big part of which is rooted in absence of community and children being unsupervised by adults.

Locking them away for good is fine, but people get out of jail - that's a fact. Locking someone up is always at the whim of future politicians, and of the security of the system.

Yeesh. Read more, talk less.

pretty shaved ape said...

awright. rape is a crime of violence. sexuality is the weapon. it has nothing whatsoever to do with fertility. the loss of the potential to breed will have no deterrent effect on a rapist or a child molester. none. there is no interest or desire to procreate in a rape, the desire is to control, to humiliate and to do harm. go read some robert r. hazelwood and tug your head out of your butt groovyj. by the way, hazelwood is the founder of the fbi school on profiling violent criminals and sexual predators. i spent the better part of two semesters studying his work. it is a meticulous and deeply depressing examination of the darkest corners of the human psyche. these crimes are not about the sex act. the pleasure doesn't reside in the sex act. if anything, sexual dysfunction or impairment of sexual function would be displaced by even more violent assault.

LuLu said...

Further to PSA's point (I also studied criminology), the majority of rapists don't even ejaculate. Sex has very little to do with it - it is almost exclusively about power and control.

Raphael Alexander said...

Sex has very little to do with it - it is almost exclusively about power and control.

I don't know anything about criminology, but I recall the case of the Holly Jones murder a few years back. If you're not familiar with the case you can google it. Anyway, when the murderer confessed to the crime, he described a heavy child porn addiction in which he had fantasies of having sex with a child.

When he finally abducted Holly Jones, he described how he tried to rape her. But when it came to sex, he was unable to get aroused and could not do anything. He then strangled her and a few hours later her body parts were dumped in Lake Ontario.

So would you say this was acting out a sense of power and control? Or was it merely a horribly deviant sexual pedophile fantasy gone horribly wrong?

KEvron said...

"So would you say this was acting out a sense of power and control? Or was it merely a horribly deviant sexual pedophile fantasy gone horribly wrong?"

i'd say you're trying to diagnose a symptom as the cause, doc.

KEvron

Mike said...

"How can a person at once oppose abortion, but support sterilization."

An aborted fetus can't work for you for minimum wage...

But remember folks, controlling your own body and having an abortion is a holocaust. Forcibly removing the sex functions of another person and controlling their body is just fine.

"So would you say this was acting out a sense of power and control? Or was it merely a horribly deviant sexual pedophile fantasy gone horribly wrong?"

I do have a Crim degree. The answer is yes, it was about power and control. If it was about sex, he would have raped her. Why did he fantasize about having sex with a child? Why did he visit child porn sites? Because children are easy to control and as an adult he has a natural control over them. Sex is the ultimate control. And yeah, he may be hard wired wrong, but that wiring is in his brain, not his nuts.

Sterilizing these guys won't stop the compulsion.

And what if you get a guy who is innocent?

KEvron said...

"How can a person at once oppose abortion, but support sterilization."

by huffing....

KEvron

KEvron said...

ignore 7:35, ralph. i misinterpreted.

KEvron

Ti-Guy said...

So would you say this was acting out a sense of power and control? Or was it merely a horribly deviant sexual pedophile fantasy gone horribly wrong?

I couldn't begin to guess. There's something about sexual predation that's best left to the professionals.

What we, as citizens, have to decide, is what measures we enact to protect ourselves from all of this. And forced sterilisation seems far more like retribution and punitive justice than anything that will lead to the reduction of victims. Really..it feels barbaric...like capital punishment and torture.

KEvron said...

but, back to 7:35....

just a layman, myself, but there are no blanket diagnoses for rape. the disorders that drive a pedophile and those which drive someone who targets adults probably aren't the same, and even within both groups, there are likely varying drives.

KEvron

LuLu said...

There is some debate about whether or not Holly Jones' killer was a classic pedophile. Briere's claims of being fascinated with child pornography only came out after he was arrested and pleaded guilty. A true pedophile would've been able to complete the act since children are what gets them off.

And yes, Mike is completely right when he says it's about contol - especially when it comes to pedophiles.

GroovyJ said...

PSA - I tend to think that you're overlooking the psychology of the individual. Many men conflate the concepts of fertility and virility. Sexuality is exactly a weapon in a rapists mind, and you are literally threatening to take his gun away and load it with blanks. I believe that the idea will be far more terrifying to him than prison, which has a certain machismo around it.

That said, you have apparently studied criminal psychology in some depth, and I haven't, so it's possible my beliefs in this case are completely off base. If it would result in higher levels of violence, that's a very good reason not to do it.

cmfrecke said...

you guys need to get a life, peter is an amazing person. i bet you all have opinions that no one agrees with either. get over it.