Recently, we’ve covered eugenics, including an interview with Jane Harris Zsovan, and she now writes to say,
Chair of Sociology emailed me to invite me to attend this a public lecture with Gary Bauslaugh at the University of Lethbridge yesterday. (The U of L has applied for a huge lot of money to study eugenics.)
(One wonder’s if that’s due to Harris Zsovan’s much-noticed book on the subject …. ).
He was discussing his pro-euthanasia book: `Robert Latimer: A Story of Justice and Mercy.`
Robert Latimer was a Saskatchewan (Canada) farmer who rigged up a death chamber in his truck for his badly palsied teen daughter, who was then living in a group home. He was no longer responsible for her care, but felt convicted that she should die. His conviction in this matter was not shared by the Supreme Court of Canada, and he served his sentence.
I could not believe my ears when Bauslaugh insisted that religious and disabled groups should not be able to influence government policy (although he back tracked when challenged by at least four people who reminded him that Canada was a democracy.) (Much of what he said about how the poor and the unsophisticated fare in the justice system is true. But Latimer did get his case before the Supreme Court. The poor and unsophisticated usually do not.)
And, as far as I can tell, he gives none of the Crown’s case against Mr. Latimer in his book and treats the Crown Prosecutors and Parole Board with disdain. (Apparently, only criminologists should be alllowed on the parole board.) Apparently, he’s part of the Centre for Inquiry and has written anti-ID articles and book chapters.
We don’t know, but welcome to the world of new atheism, and the kind of government Canada will have if they prevail.
Mr. Bauslaugh really hates hard questions. He got angry when I reminded him that ‘eugenics’ laws were created out of ‘compassion’ and was equally nasty to the Director of the Lethbridge Association of Community Living and the Chair of the Sociology Department (Of course, he didn’t know she was the Chair or he wouldn’t have been so rude.)
One day he may feel free to be that rude, and even more so.
Latimer’s main problem was that few Canadians – of whatever religious or philosophical viewpoint – agreed with his judge-jury-hangman approach to his daughter’s life.
UD News staff once interviewed the Canadian cabinet minister to whom Latimer appealed (for a print publication). About that case, he said, thoughtfully, “The man seemed to have no sense that he had done anything wrong. If he had only asked for mercy, I could have helped him. But what he wanted was agreement that he had the right to kill his daughter. That I could not and would not do. So I couldn’t help him.”
It seems the national atheist community has chosen to kick in, and it will be part of their legacy.
Follow UD News at Twitter!