jdobbin Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 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'm sorry. The involuntary sterilizations are in dispute about whether they were therapeutic or a convenience. They still continued after 1973. 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. The first lawsuits started under previous governments including the NDP. It has been a disgrace through various parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry. The involuntary sterilizations are in dispute about whether they were therapeutic or a convenience. They still continued after 1973. Therapeutic sterilization is legal in Canada. So yes they continue to this day what is your point? They weren't sanctioned by the government under the sexual sterilization act becuase the NDP outlawed it and got rid of the board. The first lawsuits started under previous governments including the NDP. It has been a disgrace through various parties. I agree. Good thing the NDP shut that place down. Edited June 26, 2009 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Therapeutic sterilization is legal in Canada. So yes they continue to this day what is your point? They weren't sanctioned by the government under the sexual sterilization act becuase the NDP outlawed it and got rid of the board. This wasn't therapeutic sterilization according to the lawsuit. I have shown you that link. I agree. Good thing the NDP shut that place down. But never apologized or compensated victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 This wasn't therapeutic sterilization according to the lawsuit. I have shown you that link. But no one has proved that, that is the problem the doctors and files say it was therapeutic. We have to wait for the courts to sort it would before we pass judgement that is the way this country is run. Innocent until proven guilty. But never apologized or compensated victims. Healing takes time, look at Harper's apology to the Natives which the Liberals never gave and the NDP called for when they were in power. you would say however the NDP closing it down was a step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 But no one has proved that, that is the problem the doctors and files say it was therapeutic. We have to wait for the courts to sort it would before we pass judgement that is the way this country is run. Innocent until proven guilty. Guess we'll wait till 2010 then. I figure the apology and attempt to settle by the government is a strong indication of where things might be headed. Healing takes time, look at Harper's apology to the Natives which the Liberals never gave and the NDP called for when they were in power. you would say however the NDP closing it down was a step in the right direction. I have no problem with the closing down. There is a long way to go now for finding a way to compensate those that suffered there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Guess we'll wait till 2010 then. I figure the apology and attempt to settle by the government is a strong indication of where things might be headed.I have no problem with the closing down. There is a long way to go now for finding a way to compensate those that suffered there. Ahhhh finally we can agree. Took you long enough to come around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Ahhhh finally we can agree. Took you long enough to come around. I wait the NDP saying the case should be compensated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I wait the NDP saying the case should be compensated. You risk waiting a long time since you have hid your wish on a thread about something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Lets try to remeber that this thread is about the Liberals under Ignatief supporting mandaTORY minimums for cannabis "crimes". Every NDP member should remind people of that fact at every opportunity. Ignatief agrees with the CONservatives that growing a plant is such a severe "crime" that anyone who gardens should go directly to jail, and that judges should NOT be able to consider the circumstances of each individual case. Liberals and Tories agree that mandaTORY minimum prison sentences for cannabis are appropriate. Fortunately for Canadians we have a senate that is not beholden to voters who are easily fooled by "tough on crime" rhetoric. I think I will start making signs and posters now for the next election that read "ignatieff agrees with Harper that people who enjoy Cannabis are dangerous criminals who must be imprisoned. Vote NDP if you value freedom and an independant judiciary. or Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff think that people who use Cannabis belong in prison. Jack Layton thinks that Cannabis users are no more criminal than alcohol users. Edited June 29, 2009 by DrGreenthumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Jack Layton thinks that Cannabis users are no more criminal than alcohol users. I'd settle for a politician that thinks alcohol (and tobacco) users are every bit as criminal as anyone else who alters their minds recreationally. I'd probably conclude any effort to prohibit everything is no less futile than now but I think its more important that the country start crafting consistent substance use policies on a level playing field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 ....or Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff think that people who use Cannabis belong in prison. Jack Layton thinks that Cannabis users are no more criminal than alcohol users. Of course..Layton has used lots of cannabis no doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Lets try to remeber that this thread is about the Liberals under Ignatief supporting mandaTORY minimums for cannabis "crimes". Every NDP member should remind people of that fact at every opportunity. Ignatief agrees with the CONservatives that growing a plant is such a severe "crime" that anyone who gardens should go directly to jail, and that judges should NOT be able to consider the circumstances of each individual case. Liberals and Tories agree that mandaTORY minimum prison sentences for cannabis are appropriate. Fortunately for Canadians we have a senate that is not beholden to voters who are easily fooled by "tough on crime" rhetoric.I think I will start making signs and posters now for the next election that read "ignatieff agrees with Harper that people who enjoy Cannabis are dangerous criminals who must be imprisoned. Vote NDP if you value freedom and an independant judiciary. or Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff think that people who use Cannabis belong in prison. Jack Layton thinks that Cannabis users are no more criminal than alcohol users. The Marijuana Party of Canada is dividing the NDP votes to benefit right-wing parties in elections. A mass movement of marijuana activists ready to pack the jails would probably be a more efficient method towards decriminalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 A mass movement of marijuana activists ready to pack the jails would probably be a more efficient method towards decriminalization. Further to that, if the state is so intent on being everyone's Nanny the activists should refuse to move, eat, wash themselves, etc. What, after all, is a Nanny for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Of course..Layton has used lots of cannabis no doubt! Probably about as much as Bill Clinton, less than Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Probably about as much as Bill Clinton, less than Obama ...maybe if Layton smokes more he will finally get the brass ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Further to that, if the state is so intent on being everyone's Nanny the activists should refuse to move, eat, wash themselves, etc. What, after all, is a Nanny for? Not so much dedication and courage are necessary to operate the little change that marijuana fans wish for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Jack Layton thinks that Cannabis users are no more criminal than alcohol users. Yet Jack Layton bumped off NDP candidates who were open about their use of marijuana: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...27-4dca0569ea4a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Somehow, those who are active in politics only to advance this single pot issue seems to believe that talking about and/or smoking pot can by themselves change the world for the better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Somehow, those who are active in politics only to advance this single pot issue seems to believe that talking about and/or smoking pot can by themselves change the world for the better! What's your evidence for this statement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The Marijuana Party of Canada is dividing the NDP votes to benefit right-wing parties in elections. They ran in 1% of the ridings last election and won 0.02% of the popular vote. A mass movement of marijuana activists ready to pack the jails would probably be a more efficient method towards decriminalization. I can only imagine the mass confusion when they were just fined and sent home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 They ran in 1% of the ridings last election and won 0.02% of the popular vote. The Christian Heritage Party did far better. I'm sure Harper worries about their impact on the right wing vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 What's your evidence for this statement? Bloc Pot's supporters are publicly attacking what Canadians have right now, as political parties, to defeat the Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Jack Layton thinks that Cannabis users are no more criminal than alcohol users. Yet Jack Layton bumped off NDP candidates who were open about their use of marijuana: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...27-4dca0569ea4a At the risk of definding Layton, it IS possible for a party to be pro-marijuana, yet not allow candidates or high-ranking party officials to partake. After all, even if the laws regarding pot possession and usage are bad, were a candidate to actually disregard those laws then they may end up giving the appearance of people who believe they can pick and choose whatever laws suit them and disregard the rest. This would be the equivalent of a Libertarian party member pushing to get tax laws changed, and then claiming "I don't have to pay taxes because I'm pushing to get income taxes abolished". If and when drug use laws are changed, THEN the candidates can smoke up all they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) At the risk of definding Layton, it IS possible for a party to be pro-marijuana, yet not allow candidates or high-ranking party officials to partake. Bull's eye! Edited July 4, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Yet Jack Layton bumped off NDP candidates who were open about their use of marijuana:http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...27-4dca0569ea4a At the risk of definding Layton, it IS possible for a party to be pro-marijuana, yet not allow candidates or high-ranking party officials to partake. After all, even if the laws regarding pot possession and usage are bad, were a candidate to actually disregard those laws then they may end up giving the appearance of people who believe they can pick and choose whatever laws suit them and disregard the rest. This would be the equivalent of a Libertarian party member pushing to get tax laws changed, and then claiming "I don't have to pay taxes because I'm pushing to get income taxes abolished". If and when drug use laws are changed, THEN the candidates can smoke up all they want. In a way I see your point, but then again its also arguable that even though a party defends the right to use marijuana, none of the party membership should be smoking it, or posting videos of themselves toking at a party or whatever. They have a certain public image to maintain. Another analogy is that while its not illegal to get drunk, party members should not be drunk while in public giving speeches, or post videos of themselves getting shitfaced. It would not be "helpful" for a party member to stand at the podium blown out of their minds on pot,baggy eyes all red and saying, "yeah man, legalize... wait I forgot... oh yeah, free munchies..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.