Ignatieff Supports Harper's Crime Bill (C15)

[punked]

I'm afraid that according to the Association of Assisted Living that the silent repeal did nothing from stopping the practice from carrying on unabated. The lawsuits were against the provincial government for not making the health authorities aware of the change in law.

Hate to break it too you but you are wrong. Just plain wrong any amount of research on the subject will show the NDP were the only with the nads to get rid of bad LIBERAL policy. After Looking at the Association of Assisted Living website is wrong too. They say the act was not repealed until 1979 any law book will tell you that is wrong it was 1973. If you want to rewrite history I think you are in the right party. If you want to do the right thing my party always needs members .

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hate to break it too you but you are wrong. Just plain wrong any amount of research on the subject will show the NDP were the only with the nads to get rid of bad LIBERAL policy. After Looking at the Association of Assisted Living website is wrong too. They say the act was not repealed until 1979 any law book will tell you that is wrong it was 1973. If you want to rewrite history I think you are in the right party. If you want to do the right thing my party always needs members .

The NDP will always need members and never form a federal government. In provincial terms, the party always has a good shot everywhere but Alberta.

[jdobbin]

Hate to break it too you but you are wrong. Just plain wrong any amount of research on the subject will show the NDP were the only with the nads to get rid of bad LIBERAL policy. After Looking at the Association of Assisted Living website is wrong too. They say the act was not repealed until 1979 any law book will tell you that is wrong it was 1973. If you want to rewrite history I think you are in the right party. If you want to do the right thing my party always needs members .

Hate to break it to you but you are wrong since the repeal was not announced to anyone in the health field. Look it up if you don't believe it. It is why it was called a silent repeal.

[punked]

Hate to break it to you but you are wrong since the repeal was not announced to anyone in the health field. Look it up if you don't believe it. It is why it was called a silent repeal.

Accept they dismantled B.C. Eugenics Board in 1973 and you could not preform Sterilization with out their approval. Therefore making it illegal to do so. Ask yourself why these lawsuits haven't been settled it is becuase these doctors did not seek approval of the B.C. Eugenics Board because it no longer existed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Accept they dismantled B.C. Eugenics Board in 1973 and you could not preform Sterilization with out their approval. Therefore making it illegal to do so. Ask yourself why these lawsuits haven't been settled it is becuase these doctors did not seek approval of the B.C. Eugenics Board because it no longer existed.

Jesus Christ...there was actually a government entity called the B.C. Eugenics board?

[punked]

Jesus Christ...there was actually a government entity called the B.C. Eugenics board?

Yah it was started by the Liberals in 1933, it was three guys who decided if someone should be sterilized or not. The idea and carried on until the NDP came to power in the 1972. It is a messed up piece of history.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Yah it was started by the Liberals in 1933, it was three guys who decided if someone should be sterilized or not. The idea and carried on until the NDP came to power in the 1972. It is a messed up piece of history.

Lots of countries had sterilization programs...including the Americans. I guess the fact that they were called Eugenics Boards only demonstrates just how mainstream the legislation and practice was accepted.

[jdobbin]

Accept they dismantled B.C. Eugenics Board in 1973 and you could not preform Sterilization with out their approval. Therefore making it illegal to do so. Ask yourself why these lawsuits haven't been settled it is becuase these doctors did not seek approval of the B.C. Eugenics Board because it no longer existed.

Look, they didn't do bugger all to stop it and that is why the lawsuits were against the province. The province didn't sue the hospitals or doctors. It is because they screwed up with their silent repeal. The buck stops with the province and that was an NDP government.

Blaming rogue elements is laughable. The NDP government didn't do the job of ensuring the law was abided by. In short, things continued on their merry way until 1979 when it was revealed that things were still proceeding routinely.

[punked]

Look, they didn't do bugger all to stop it and that is why the lawsuits were against the province. The province didn't sue the hospitals or doctors. It is because they screwed up with their silent repeal. The buck stops with the province and that was an NDP government.

Blaming rogue elements is laughable. The NDP government didn't do the job of ensuring the law was abided by. In short, things continued on their merry way until 1979 when it was revealed that things were still proceeding routinely.

How did those lawsuits go again? I know liberals think a lawsuit proves guilt but really how did they turn out?

[jdobbin]

How did those lawsuits go again? I know liberals think a lawsuit proves guilt but really how did they turn out?

The province admitted responsibility and paid out the claims. The buck stops with the province unless deliberate malpractice was given in evidence. It wasn't. You know this. There were no hospitals and doctors charged with a crime. A silent repeal meant that both citizens and those providing healthcare were not aware of the changes on a wide scale. And who is responsible for that? The province.

The social agency responsible for people with mental disabilities does not make a statement lightly that sterilizations were carried out till 1979. They are not wrong. It is why they identify in other documents that a silent repeal was in place but not enforced or made widely known.

The province paid out claims for damages after the repeal was supposed to be in place for sterilizations that occurred. Malpractice and liability insurance was not held responsible.

Your claim that it was rogue elements that broke the law is unsupported. If they did break the law, they should have been held accountable through fines, a disciplinary hearing, loss of licence or prison. And their insurance companies rather than the government would have paid out the claims. That didn't happen.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

The province admitted responsibility and paid out the claims. The buck stops with the province unless deliberate malpractice was given in evidence. It wasn't. You know this. There were no hospitals and doctors charged with a crime. A silent repeal meant that both citizens and those providing healthcare were not aware of the changes on a wide scale. And who is responsible for that? The province.

The social agency responsible for people with mental disabilities does not make a statement lightly that sterilizations were carried out till 1979. They are not wrong. It is why they identify in other documents that a silent repeal was in place but not enforced or made widely known.

The province paid out claims for damages after the repeal was supposed to be in place for sterilizations that occurred. Malpractice and liability insurance was not held responsible.

Your claim that it was rogue elements that broke the law is unsupported. If they did break the law, they should have been held accountable through fines, a disciplinary hearing, loss of licence or prison. And their insurance companies rather than the government would have paid out the claims. That didn't happen.

I am going to need a citation here. Nine sterilized women did win 50 000 dollars each but as understand it all these sterilizations occurred before the NDP government repealed the law and got rid of the board. I also understand every act sterilization which happened after 1973 was legal becuase their was no review board to approve it.

After some research I now know I am right here. Again Citation prove it.

I would also point out here from your own articles the sterilizations in question occurred in 1976 after the NDP was out of government and Social Credit was back in. Your straw man of Tommy was a Federal NDP when the NDP got ride of Sexual Sterilizations and none ever occurred with them in power. Is really falling apart all around you. Stop being so blind to your party and your hate for the NDP who did the right thing.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

I would also point out here from your own articles the sterilizations in question occurred in 1976 after the NDP was out of government and Social Credit was back in. Your straw man of Tommy was a Federal NDP when the NDP got ride of Sexual Sterilizations and none ever occurred with them in power. Is really falling apart all around you. Stop being so blind to your party and your hate for the NDP who did the right thing.

I think you know full well that the British Columbia government settled out of court and had the dates and locations sealed as part of the settlement.

However, we already know that dates were filed after the silent repeal. Own up to the fact that is was a silent repeal and stop your blindness to the suffering at the hand's of an NDP policy that was not out in the open. However, we know the Woodland's sterilizations took place between 1973 and 1975. You have already seen the link.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

I think you know full well that the British Columbia government settled out of court and had the dates and locations sealed as part of the settlement.

However, we already know that dates were filed after the silent repeal. Own up to the fact that is was a silent repeal and stop your blindness to the suffering at the hand's of an NDP policy that was not out in the open.

Yes they were filed after the NDP got rid of the law but they were sueing for things before the NDP got rid of the law. I think you just need to look up the cases. Citation needed you keep telling me it happened after the NDP got rid of the law and have shown no evidence as such. Let's see it. I don't think you have it because the NDP got rid of the Board which approved it. Once that happened it made sterilization illegal in the province. The NDP does what is right once again to correct liberal mistakes.

[jdobbin]

Yes they were filed after the NDP got rid of the law but they were sueing for things before the NDP got rid of the law. I think you just need to look up the cases. Citation needed you keep telling me it happened after the NDP got rid of the law and have shown no evidence as such. Let's see it. I don't think you have it because the NDP got rid of the Board which approved it. Once that happened it made sterilization illegal in the province. The NDP does what is right once again to correct liberal mistakes.

1973-1975.

http://www.spectrumsociety.org/Mediafiles/vansun03042002.htm

B.C.'s Sexual Sterilization Act of 1933 and its successor legislation, targeted people likely to bear children who for "reason of inheritance would have a tendency to serious mental disease or deficiency." The act was repealed in 1973. The four sterilizations at Woodlands occurred between 1973 and 1975.

The lies continue over and over and over again.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

1973-1975.

http://www.spectrumsociety.org/Mediafiles/vansun03042002.htm

The lies continue over and over and over again.

What is your point here? From your article.

"Chalke said he is particularly interested in knowing whether the sterilizations were properly authorized, noting the Supreme Court of Canada has said sterilization can only be done for a therapeutic purpose and cannot be done arbitrarily simply on the consent of a guardian.

A note from Woodlands physician Dr. Bluma Tischler said the four sterilizations were "all arranged by their parents," but it does not indicate whether they were for therapeutic purposes. Tischler did not return repeated calls."

Yes sterilization in Canada is legal if done for therapeutic purpose. This is nothing new? Is this something new? This isn't a case of government legislated sterilization. This isn't what we have been arguing about, the government did not and could have sanctioned these becuase THERE WAS NO BOARD. See this is where you don't understand the law I think otherwise you are being purposely misleading.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Yes sterilization in Canada is legal if done for therapeutic purpose. This is nothing new? Is this something new? This isn't a case of government legislated sterilization. This isn't what we have been arguing about, the government did not and could have sanctioned these becuase THERE WAS NO BOARD. See this is where you don't understand the law I think otherwise you are being purposely misleading.

I think you were caught with your pants down. These sterilizations happened with the NDP in power and were done arbitrarily. The silent repeal allowed for this type of thing to happen for a number of years. It is why the Association for Assisted Living always insists that 1979 was the true date when it stopped.

[punked]

I think you were caught with your pants down. These sterilizations happened with the NDP in power and were done arbitrarily. The silent repeal allowed for this type of thing to happen for a number of years. It is why the Association for Assisted Living always insists that 1979 was the true date when it stopped.

Where, where did these illegal sterilization you haven't pointed one case of government legislated sterilization or when they happened? Yah according to Vancouver sun illegal sterilization may have happened becuase doctors took it on their own to do so but they were not government legislated because the NDP stopped that. Sorry you don't get to rewrite history becuase it makes your party look bad.

[jdobbin]

Where, where did these illegal sterilization you haven't pointed one case of government legislated sterilization or when they happened? Yah according to Vancouver sun illegal sterilization may have happened becuase doctors took it on their own to do so but they were not government legislated because the NDP stopped that. Sorry you don't get to rewrite history becuase it makes your party look bad.

The doctors are not the ones facing the lawsuit. It is the government of British Columbia with the case going to court in 2010.

http://www.straight.com/article-213248/woo...e-legal-opening

Calling the offer “degrading and dehumanizing”, McArthur instructed class counsel Poyner-Baxter to reject the offer. Jim Poyner then asked the court to remove McArthur as plaintiff and to divide the class into pre- and post-1974 claimants. McArthur sought new counsel and asked the court to remove Poyner-Baxter, and in 2007 the court agreed. Poyner appealed—an appeal abandoned after Poyner-Baxter and new class counsel David Klein agreed to work together.

Post 1974 case of sterilization to be tried. We know of four cases. The government has been told to hand over all evidence beyond that.

Although phase one of a class-action lawsuit against the B.C. government is slated for January 2010, legal manoeuvring continues to plague Woodlands survivors who have been fighting for justice since 2002. But a February appellate court decision brought former residents an element of hope.

[punked]

The doctors are not the ones facing the lawsuit. It is the government of British Columbia with the case going to court in 2010.

http://www.straight.com/article-213248/woo...e-legal-opening

Post 1974 case of sterilization to be tried. We know of four cases. The government has been told to hand over all evidence beyond that.

Soooooo guilty until proven innocent here? That is the Liberal way? What you are saying all these lawsuits you keep citing no one has ruled on them?

Wait read the article the Woodlands lawsuits have NOTHING TO DO WITH STERILIZATIONS! That is why it cites a 1974 date. It is about abuse which happened to those in care at the Woodlands facility. But has nothing to do with sterilizations I welcome all to read Dobbins proof. Thanks again for misleading on purposes. You are WRONG.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Soooooo guilty until proven innocent here? That is the Liberal way? What you are saying all these lawsuits you keep citing no one has ruled on them?

Wait read the article the Woodlands lawsuits have NOTHING TO DO WITH STERILIZATIONS! Thanks again for misleading on purposes. You are WRONG.

The government has already apologized. They have admitted guilt. The court case is about money now.

Class-action members sought an order for the release of an estimated 2.2 million pages of Woodlands-related documents, including records on involuntary sterilization. The court agreed, but the government appealed.

[punked]

The government has already apologized. They have admitted guilt. The court case is about money now.

As they should the abuse at the Woodlands was a horrible thing. We will have to wait for the documents to judge if those Sterilizations were government approved (They weren't BTW) and under what circumstances.

[jdobbin]

As they should the abuse at the Woodlands was a horrible thing. We will have to wait for the documents to judge if those Sterilizations were government approved (They weren't BTW) and under what circumstances.

Since the government has tried to settle already, I suspect they are trying to limit the financial damages. They have already apologized but numerous governments both NDP, Social Credit and Liberal have been slow to hear their cases, slow to release documents and slow to apologize.

The buck stops with the province unless malpractice or a crime is evident. This case isn't about that but a violation of rights and dignity in a government facility.

[punked]

Since the government has tried to settle already, I suspect they are trying to limit the financial damages. They have already apologized but numerous governments both NDP, Social Credit and Liberal have been slow to hear their cases, slow to release documents and slow to apologize.

The buck stops with the province unless malpractice or a crime is evident. This case isn't about that but a violation of rights and dignity in a government facility.

No it is about physical and sexual abuse. Also the Liberal government right now,and their point system is disgusting. How they award these settlement is based on a point system. If you were anal raped it is more points then something like forced Oral. That means you get more money this is how the Liberals are handling this right now.

See what happens here you bring up something to Bash the NDP are shown it really wasn't the NDP's fault but the Liberals then you move on to attack from another angle.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

No it is about physical and sexual abuse. Also the Liberal government right now,and their point system is disgusting. How they award these settlement is based on a point system. If you were anal raped it is more points then something like forced Oral. That means you get more money this is how the Liberals are handling this right now.

I think you forget how many governments have been holding this up. Not just the Liberals.

See what happens here you bring up something to Bash the NDP are shown it really wasn't the NDP's fault but the Liberals then you move on to attack from another angle.

My point all along was the province was responsible for sterilizations after 1973. The data is there to show that it happened and the province finally admitted guilt and now the fight is for compensation.

And remember the abuse in the Woodland's case other than sterilization happened during the NDP, Liberal and Social Credit times in office. So, don't brush off NDP culpability and act that the Woodland's stuff only happened during other party's time in office.

[punked]

My point all along was the province was responsible for sterilizations after 1973. The data is there to show that it happened and the province finally admitted guilt and now the fight is for compensation.

And remember the abuse in the Woodland's case other than sterilization happened during the NDP, Liberal and Social Credit times in office. So, don't brush off NDP culpability and act that the Woodland's stuff only happened during other party's time in office.

The question is not is the province responsible, the question all along is was this a case of Eugenics as it was under the Liberals in 1933? It wasn't with the Woodlands, they did those sterilizations as therapeutic sterilizations to stop rage. This is from your own sources. Again the NDP put a stop to Eugenics in BC.

I am not acting like the Woodlands only happened during other governments time in office, also this is another thing which stopped under the NDP government. The Woodlands was closed by an NDP government but not nearly soon enough.