Wednesday, December 28, 2022


Assisted suicide in Canada

I have mixed feelings about this. As a libertarian, I think any individual is entitled to commit suicide if they want that and anything done to help people get what they want is benign. And depression can be very painful so I understand people wanting to end their suffering.

I have had depressed times -- mostly connected with relationship breakdowns and illness -- so I know how it feels. I have of course thought about suicide at such times but have been deterred from it by a certainty that there will be better times ahead. I know that life delivers ups and downs and I have mostly had long "ups". I am still enjoying my life as much as ever even though I am now in my 80th year.

But some people can be in situations from which no betterment can reasonably be expected and I think it is simple mercy to help them to get what they want.

When governments get involved, however, precautions should be taken to ensure that no coercion is involved. Putting some delay in front of assisted suicide is also common sense. Depressive feelings do often pass with time

But Canada does seem to be ENCOURAGING suicide and that is oboxious -- but not unexpected from the Leftist culture of death. Communism has shown that Leftists can destroy millions without a second thought


Remember when the idea that government-run health care could lead to “death panels” was scoffed at as absurd?

Well, the absurd is coming closer to reality as Canada—which has a universal, publicly funded health care system—extends medical assistance in dying (MAiD) laws to include a wider variety of conditions.

Since Canada passed its law in 2016, more than 30,000 people have died as a result, and those numbers are accelerating.

MAiD is set to expand in March and will then allow people with mental illness to seek medically assisted death, too. It’s not just going to be the sick and the poor being eliminated, but those who are depressed. How progressive.

In Nazi Germany, they might have called these people “undesirables” or some other mean, nasty epithet before exterminating them. But in liberal, tolerant, modern Canada, they are above such sordid terminology.

Under the current law, only Canadians over 18 years of age are eligible. However, the Canadian government has put together a commission to study whether it should be extended to “mature minors,” who could be allowed to seek euthanasia without parental consent.

There is no set definition of what exactly a “mature minor” is, but presumably it would be for Canadians under the current age threshold.

Given the speed at which the law is expanding, it’s hard to see that option for minors not being on the table in the near future. What we are talking about isn’t really a slippery slope at this point, it’s a free fall to perdition. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time a medically assisted death program in an “advanced” country rapidly expanded to a point many would consider unimaginable when it began.

What makes the societal sanction of assisted-suicide laws particularly disturbing is how they are wound up with the government and its collective incentives.

While assisted-suicide laws have generally been sold as a means to empower individual choice, in reality it’s almost impossible to separate that choice from the interests of society. That’s especially the case when there is massive government involvement in medical care and cost.

A few stories from Canada in the past few years highlight the problem.

In 2017, the Canadian Medical Association Journal estimated that medically assisted death could save the government between $34.7 million and $136.8 million per year. One assumes that expanding the law could provide even more “savings” of this nature.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported the story in a way that made it sound like it was discussing the cost of a new highway or infrastructure project, not something with immense ethical implications.

Somehow, it gets even worse.

In 2020, the Ottawa Citizen reported that medically assisted death provided a “boon” to organ donation.

“In the first 11 months of 2019, MAiD patients in the province accounted for 18 organ [donors] and 95 tissue donors, a [14%] increase over 2018 and a [109%] increase over 2017,” the Ottawa Citizen reported.

It seems there are many in the managerial health-expert class who desperately want to normalize the idea that perhaps society should find ways to simply get rid of the sick and old (and harvest their organs for the healthy and useful). They look at the financial numbers and see that a stretched health care system—where aging societies and plunging birthrates are accelerating the problem—would really benefit if some people were taken off the books.

Right now, the Canadian system is in the aggressive promotion phase, where “offing” the old, the sick, the poor, and the mentally ill is advertised as humane and compassionate. But it’s already moving toward the next phase in the process, where suicide is the initial option given to patients by doctors and medical institutions looking to save money.

It’s like going from “do no harm” to “take this pill, and begone.”

For instance, a 52-year-old retired corporal who had competed in the 2016 Paralympics for Canada was provided a medically assisted suicide kit when she requested a wheelchair lift for her home. The incident prompted the Canadian government to review and change its protocols, but is there any doubt that this will become a more frequent occurrence?

And given the trend, it doesn’t seem at all unthinkable that in the future—especially when governments that bear most of the cost of health care and medically assisted death is normalized—government agencies will offer suicide as the only option for patients with various ailments.

This exposes one of the biggest problems with “socialized” medicine and why many Americans fear it, especially in a time of radicalized government agencies. Not only could government agencies work ruthlessly to cut costs, promoting policies that even Nazi Germany tried to hide from its people, but they could make financial decisions based on ideology.

Who is worthy of care, and who is deserving of life or death? These decisions will increasingly be made by woke institutions.

This is all to say that the increasing government approval of medically assisted death is leading Western societies into dangerous, morally repugnant territory. Massive government involvement makes it an even thornier issue.

Canada’s fast track to universal euthanasia is a warning to America, where medically assisted suicide is still limited to 10 states and the District of Columbia. For that, we should be thankful for federalism.

In the meantime, however, we must do what we can to promote a culture of life.

*****************************************************

Law firm Calls Out Washington State County for Banning Employees From Having Religious Decorations

On Tuesday, Becket Law released their 2022 Ebenezer Award for the worst offender to the holidays during this year's Christmas and Hanukkah season. The winner, King County in Washington state, holds the distinction for meddling into the religious affairs of county employees in their own homes, by telling them not to display religious holiday decorations, such as a Nativity scene or a menorah, in their remote video backgrounds.

A press release from Becket highlights a piece from Jason Rantz for 770 KTTH, a local conservative talk radio station. In addition to Rantz's own commentary about such an absurd war on Christmas and religion overall, more information about the directive is included:

King County Human Resources warned employees not to decorate their workspaces with overtly Christmas or Hanukkah decorations. They fear decorations may offend employees.

Gloria Ngezaho, Workforce Equity Manager for the Department of Human Resources, authored a memo titled “Guidelines for Holiday Decorations for King County Employees” to outline expectations. It says the county “remains committed to honoring the diversity in its workforce and is fortunate to have employees from many diverse backgrounds.”

The fact that the county has an "Equity Manager for the Department of Human Resources" is enough on its own to raise eyebrows. Ngezaho's claims also highlights the poison that is so often spewed from these so-called "equity" managers. Adding insult to injury, though, is the claim that the county supposedly "remains committed to honoring the diversity in its workforce" and that they are supposedly "fortunate to have employees from many diverse backgrounds."

It's all nonsense, though, given that the county won't allow employees to express their religious beliefs during the holiday season.

As Rantz goes on to write:

“Before adding any decorations to your workspace (including your virtual workspace), consider the likely effect of such decorations on all of the employees in and outside your work group,” reads the memo obtained by the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH by a county staffer who found it posted internally last week.

...

“Some employees may not share your religion, practice any religion, or share your enthusiasm for holiday decorations. Displays of religious symbols may only be displayed in an employee’s personal workspace. Religious symbols should not be displayed in or as a background to an employee’s virtual workspace,” the memo explains.

The memo says you cannot include Nativity sets or menorahs. But the list of symbols banned from virtual display extends well beyond what you would display for the holidays: stars of David, a cross or a crucifix, and images of Jesus or Mary.

To ensure that HR isn’t accused of focusing exclusively on Christians and Jews, even though that appears to be the intent, the memo warns against the dharma wheel, crescent and star, aum, khanda, and a nine-pointed star. None of these symbols are displayed for the holiday season.

...

“For those who are not teleworking, common areas within work units are considered a public area. These spaces are shared by multiple employees in the performance of their jobs. Such areas would include breakrooms, conference rooms, and reception areas. Religious symbols are not appropriate in these areas, because it may cause disruption to co-workers or members of the public that do not share that particular religion,” the memo claims.

The memo states that, as a public institution, it “cannot appear to support any particular religion.” And the guidelines apply to holiday gatherings.

The county appears to have long been engaged in a war on Christmas and religious holidays

*****************************************************

The workers are fleeing the Democratic Party

Democrats know they have a working-class voter issue but can’t address it since their base views these people as anathema. It’s partially due to the snobbish attitude liberal Americans have towards those who don’t act or think like them. They view this voter bloc, which numbers in the tens of millions, as uneducated country bumpkins. The lack of education disqualifies these people in their eyes. There’s also a racial component. Democrats won elections big when they got a healthy share of the white working-class vote—it was the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Now, these folks are viewed as quasi-Nazis and eschewed aggressively by the white progressive professional elite that dominates the coasts and cities. Affluent, liberal, and overwhelmingly white Democratic voters would instead double down on nonwhite voters in the cities. For two election cycles, the hordes of white college-educated voters have provided something of a buffer, but that won’t hold: nonwhite working-class voters are now veering into the GOP camp—big league.

When both sets of the working class vote support Republicans, Democrats should take notice, but all evidence from past cycles shows that they won’t. So, the GOP can run the table here, but it cannot be apathetic or carry a ‘run-through the motions’ aura regarding voter outreach with these folks. They must understand daily that the GOP will be the party for them, protecting their jobs and creating new opportunities—things the Democrats are no longer good at accomplishing.

Ruy Teixeira at American Enterprise Institute crunched the numbers. Ruy isn’t a conservative either—he was a former long-time fixture at the left-wing Center for American Progress before being cast out by the woke and unhinged youngsters at the think tank. His work on demographics has been well-cited on both sides, though he concedes the conclusions have been misconstrued, especially by liberals who have taken his “permanent political majority” thesis as gospel. Teixeira always says they didn’t read the fine print, which is that Democrats need significant white working voter class support to maintain this winning Democratic coalition. Based on the numbers he crunched from the midterms, not only do Democrats have the aforementioned white working-class deficit, but the dip in nonwhite working-class voter support also represents a second front in an electoral war the Left will be ill-equipped to counter if they focus on woke lefty initiatives. These include pronoun policing and enforcing an authoritarian ethos on political correctness that does little to help Americans find work:

With all the Democratic back-patting going on, I’m not sure they’re really facing up to an emerging problem that severely undermines their electoral theory of the case. I speak of their declining margins with the nonwhite working class. That’s not to say they don’t still carry the nonwhite working class vote, it’s just they carry it by a lot less. That wasn’t in the “rising American electorate” battle plan.

As I have previously noted, AP/NORC VoteCast estimates the decline in Democrats’ advantage among the nonwhite working class as 14 points between 2020 and 2022, 23 points between 2018 and 2022 and (splicing in some Catalist data, which are consistent with VoteCast data where they overlap) an astonishing 33 point drop between 2012 and 2022.

[…]

Arizona. The 2020 Presidential election and 2022 gubernatorial election were both extremely close. Interestingly, while Democrat Katie Hobbs ran quite a bit ahead of Biden among white college voters, she actually ran 3 points behind among nonwhite working class voters.

California. Gavin Newson in 2022 ran considerably behind Biden in 2020. One place where he kept almost all of Biden’s support from 2020 was among white college voters. In contrast, he lost a lot of support among nonwhite working class voters: 14 points.

Florida. Ron DeSantis of course ran way ahead of Trump in his 2022 gubernatorial race—about 16 points. But he ran 27 points ahead among nonwhite working class voters. And he did 38 points (!) better among nonwhite working class voters this year than he did in his initial 2018 gubernatorial race.

Georgia. Brian Kemp ran ahead of Trump in his 2022 re-election, albeit not on DeSantis’ level. But he did 16 margin points better among nonwhite working class voters and, compared to his initial election bid in 2018, also against Stacey Abrams, did 27 points better among those voters.

Republicans still have a chance to seize these voters to win a landslide victory, but they can’t take anything for granted, even if things seem inevitable.

***********************************************

'Women are right to fear their spaces will be invaded': JK Rowling condemns Scotland's new gender law

JK Rowling has condemned the Scottish National Party's new self-identification law that makes it easier for people as young as 16 to change gender without seeing a doctor.

The author and women's rights campaigner, 57, retweeted an article which argued that the Labour Party would pay for supporting Nicola Sturgeon's 'trans crusade'.

In The Telegraph piece, former member of Scottish Labour Tom Harris wrote: 'Let us be clear. Women are right to fear that their spaces will be invaded; that their privacy and safety will be tragically compromised.'

The Bill could lead to gender tourism to Scotland and transgender people in England demanding the same rights, it emerged today.

The vote in Edinburgh yesterday sparked huge protests and puts MSPs on a constitutional collision course with Westminster, where there are deep concerns about the 'divergence' in gender laws across the UK.

UK ministers are plotting how to prevent trans people from across the UK heading to Scotland for as little as three months so they can self-identify as male or female without a diagnosis from a doctor.

Government sources told The Times that they feared the new law could be used to allow biologically male Scottish prisoners in English jails to demand to be placed in women's prisons.

Scottish transgender women could also demand their new rights are mirrored in England, such as access to female-only spaces.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned that there could now be an impact on sex discrimination laws across the UK, including equal pay.

Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton said the Bill would 'let criminal men exploit the system' and put women in jeopardy in single-sex spaces.

What does the Bill do?

The Bill makes it easier for trans people to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) by removing the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It also lowers the minimum age for applicants to 16 and drops the time required for an applicant to live in their acquired gender to three months, or six months for people aged 16 and 17 - although with a subsequent three-month reflection period.

How does this compare to UK-wide rules?

Current laws mean a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate only if they are aged 18 or over, have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK and have been living in their affirmed gender for at least two years. A person can apply even if they have not had any gender affirming surgery or treatments or do not plan to have any.

What do opponents say?

Opponents fear the Bill will impact the safety of women and single-sex spaces. Campaigners say there are insufficient safeguards to protect women and girls from predatory men, raising concerns about environments such as women's prisons. There are also constitutional concerns, and fears of 'gender tourism' across the border.

How about supporters?

Those in favour of the Bill say a move to make trans people's lives easier is long overdue. A group of LGBTQ+ groups recently issued a joint letter saying the Bill was a 'historic opportunity to continue Scotland's journey towards full social and legal equality'. They disagree that an expansion of trans people's rights comes at the expense of women's rights, saying the Bill will have little impact outside the trans community.

What issues need to be ironed out?

If the legislation becomes law, it is unclear whether any GRCs issued under the new Scottish rules would be recognised in England. Westminster has signalled it will not recognise them. GRCs allow someone to change their gender on legal documents such as their passport, which is issued by the UK rather than individual nations, or birth certificate, but it can also affect their entitlements to benefits and pensions. Practical difficulties are likely to arise in cross-border situations.

Could Westminster stop the legislation?

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack issued a statement yesterday after the Bill cleared Holyrood saying he was considering blocking it from becoming law. He said the Government would look at the ramifications for the Equality Act and could use a so-called Section 35 order to stop the Bill going for Royal Assent.

After Ms Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, slashed the minimum period for adults to obtain a gender recognition certificate from two years, in theory someone could now rent a property north of the border for just three months and legally change their gender without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

However, the UK Government is preparing to step in after Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch wrote to Ms Sturgeon to warn her it was 'not possible' for the legislation to be 'fully contained' within Scotland.

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack issued a statement yesterday after the Bill cleared the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood saying he was considering blocking it from becoming law.

Ahead of yesterday's vote, Mrs Badenoch said: 'I am concerned about the impact [of] having divergent regimes in the different parts of the UK.

Rishi Sunak has said it is 'completely reasonable' to consider blocking new gender legislation in Scotland.

Visiting a homeless shelter in London, the Prime Minister said: 'Lots of people have got concerns about this new Bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women's and children's safety.

'So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK Government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children's safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is.'

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed yesterday to both applause and jeers of 'shame on you' in Holyrood.

Westminster has signalled it will not accept Scottish gender recognition certificates south of the border.

The SNP's Bill lets a person self-identify as transgender without medical checks, lowers the age limit to legally change gender from 18 to 16 and cuts the time a trans person must live in their acquired gender before they can switch.

The UK Government is so concerned about divergence in gender laws across the UK that it is set to overhaul how transgender people from other countries can legally change gender in England and Wales so Scotland does not claim to be discriminated against.

Whitehall sources said that to stop people travelling to Scotland to obtain a gender recognition certificate more easily before travelling back to England, they intend to update the entire list of approved countries to exclude some of those that allow self-identification.

After Mr Jack warned that he was considering blocking the Bill completely, Ms Sturgeon's SNP administration said it would 'vigorously contest' any such move.

Mr Jack said: 'We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this Bill, and in particular the safety issues for women and children.

'We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the 2010 Equality Act and other UK-wide legislation, in the coming weeks – up to and including a Section 35 order stopping the Bill going for royal assent if necessary.'

Ms Badenoch has raised concerns about the impact of the legislation.

A source close to her said she 'didn't believe the Scottish Government had considered the full impacts of this Bill – particularly on women and girls'.

The insider added: 'She shares the strong concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, and other civic groups and ministers regarding the impact this Bill will have on the functioning of the Equality Act, which is designed to protect all UK citizens.'

Under the Scotland Act, the UK Government can challenge devolved legislation if it feels it affects national security or 'reserved matters' - decisions taken by the UK Parliament even though they affect Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England.

Gender recognition is a devolved matter, but the Government is concerned about the impact of the Bill on equalities laws, which are the preserve of Westminster.

The Bill has also provoked fears that abusive men could take advantage of the new system to change gender, with critics, including JK Rowling, claiming that 'all a man needs to "become a woman" is to say he's one'.

Any action to block the legislation, which is expected to come into force next year, would be unprecedented – and would likely be subject to judicial review. Ministers have four weeks to decide whether to intervene.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************

No comments: