It's the 21st Century and forced sterilization is still a thing

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,456
7,478
113
Regina, Saskatchewan

And some people wonder why Native people are still pissed off at White folk.
Ok, just had a boo at the link. So the grievance is with three doctors (one of them being dead), without their race (the doctors I mean) being identified, and are also putting some of the blame on an unnamed integrated health and social services centre in Quebec.

Sounds like a justifiable reason to have…
…Native people are still pissed off at White folk.
…these three doctors could’ve been white or at least some of them might’ve been white, though that’s not mentioned, & I’m assuming at least some, if not most of the people (?) at the unnamed integrated health and social services centre in Quebec where probably white though that’s not mentioned either.

Quebec's Superior Court has authorized a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Atikamekw women who say they were sterilized against their will.

Justice Lukasz Granosik green-lit the lawsuit on behalf of "all women of Atikamekw origin who have undergone surgery that has impaired their fertility without having given their free and informed consent … since 1980."

The lead plaintiffs, who are identified by the initials U.T. and M.X., gave birth five times in hospital and that they were allegedly given tubal ligations after their fifth births.

U.T. denies having consented to the surgery, or even having been informed of it, while M.X. denies having consented in a “free and informed” manner, alleging undue pressure from the doctor.

The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for women who allegedly underwent the procedures, as well as their partners, children and grandchildren, and heirs.

Judge Granosik wrote that the alleged actions of the doctors, if proven, "constitute a serious attack on fundamental rights and freedoms."

For some reason, I am reminded of the great poet Andrew Dice Clay with his recitation of the “old lady who lived in a shoe,” and I think it went something like this:

“There was an old lady who lived in a shoe, who had so many children that her uterus fell out.”

Anyway, sterilization without consent is a bad thing. Giving consent without understanding what you’re doing is a sad thing. How this is broadcast as justification for natives versus whites is a “ to each their own” thing.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,373
10,867
113
Low Earth Orbit
The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for women who allegedly underwent the procedures, as well as their partners, children and grandchildren, and heirs.
What? No rez dogs?
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,903
2,035
113
New Brunswick
Ok, just had a boo at the link. So the grievance is with three doctors (one of them being dead), without their race (the doctors I mean) being identified, and are also putting some of the blame on an unnamed integrated health and social services centre in Quebec.

Sounds like a justifiable reason to have…

…these three doctors could’ve been white or at least some of them might’ve been white, though that’s not mentioned, & I’m assuming at least some, if not most of the people (?) at the unnamed integrated health and social services centre in Quebec where probably white though that’s not mentioned either.

Quebec's Superior Court has authorized a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Atikamekw women who say they were sterilized against their will.

Justice Lukasz Granosik green-lit the lawsuit on behalf of "all women of Atikamekw origin who have undergone surgery that has impaired their fertility without having given their free and informed consent … since 1980."

The lead plaintiffs, who are identified by the initials U.T. and M.X., gave birth five times in hospital and that they were allegedly given tubal ligations after their fifth births.

U.T. denies having consented to the surgery, or even having been informed of it, while M.X. denies having consented in a “free and informed” manner, alleging undue pressure from the doctor.

The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for women who allegedly underwent the procedures, as well as their partners, children and grandchildren, and heirs.

Judge Granosik wrote that the alleged actions of the doctors, if proven, "constitute a serious attack on fundamental rights and freedoms."

For some reason, I am reminded of the great poet Andrew Dice Clay with his recitation of the “old lady who lived in a shoe,” and I think it with something like this:

“There was an old lady who lived in a shoe, who had so many children that her uterus fell out.”

Anyway, sterilization without consent is a bad thing. Giving consent without understanding what you’re doing is a sad thing. How this is broadcast as justification for natives versus whites is a “ to each their own” thing.

True, I'm assuming that the doctors involved were all white.

I saw this image and story and assumed.


So, it may not be all white doctors.

But white doctors are doing it, which doesn't invalidate the point that it's no wonder Native's still get pissed at white people.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,373
10,867
113
Low Earth Orbit
True, I'm assuming that the doctors involved were all white.

I saw this image and story and assumed.


So, it may not be all white doctors.

But white doctors are doing it, which doesn't invalidate the point that it's no wonder Native's still get pissed at white people.
Fuck off.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,456
7,478
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
True, I'm assuming that the doctors involved were all white.
Ass/u/me. I get it. I honestly didn’t see that anywhere in the story that was linked, but I get it. 100% of doctors are white except for the ones that aren’t, & 25% of those are surnamed Patel except for the 25% and Patel things. 😉
I saw this image and story and assumed.
1692921392329.jpeg
I looked at the same picture and read the same story. I don’t see where it justifies natives being angry at whites, or any mention of white people, but the story doesn’t say that the doctors aren’t white so, sure, why not? Justification of anger at somebody because of their skin colour doesn’t need a real reason, at least not a provable one.

So, it may not be all white doctors.
It may all be white doctors, or no white doctors, or 66% white doctors, or 33%?white doctors (I’m rounding down for even numbers). It doesn’t say. Not in this link anyway.
But white doctors are doing it, which doesn't invalidate the point that it's no wonder Native's still get pissed at white people.
Sure. Because it happened, surely it must be a whites against others thing because Race, even though it’s not mentioned whatsoever except that the claimed victims are all women of Atikamekw origin as well as the other plaintiffs in the suit being their their partners, children and grandchildren, and heirs (& they may or may not be Atikamekw…as that’s not specified either). That’s the only place that race is mentioned.

It could be a (this is gonna sound like to set up a joke where people are walking into a bar) a black doctor, & a brown doctor, & a (pick your favourite pigmentation shade) doctor…& it would still be justification for natives to be angry at white people in general for some.

Here’s a weird question. What if….& I know this is a stretch…. But what if some of the doctors or some of the employees at the unnamed integrated health and social services centre in Quebec…what if they happen to not be white? Does it matter? Is it even relevant to the justification?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,373
10,867
113
Low Earth Orbit
Odd...Native I know arent pissed at whites. I keep hearing how Regina is getting too many brown people and Filipinos and another round of adjustments and impacts of "non-colonials" who dont have skin in the blame game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,456
7,478
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
For a significant portion of my adult life early on, I had some weird experiences.

“The Rent-To-Own Guy giveth…& the Rent-To-Own Guy taketh away (from those that aren’t paying their bills), but he’s only a racist when he taketh away the sacred VCR or Big Screen TV.”
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,373
10,867
113
Low Earth Orbit
For a significant portion of my adult life early on, I had some weird experiences.

“The Rent-To-Own Guy giveth…& the Rent-To-Own Guy taketh away (from those that aren’t paying their bills), but he’s only a racist when he taketh away the sacred VCR or Big Screen TV.”
Privileged.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,903
2,035
113
New Brunswick
Ass/u/me. I get it. I honestly didn’t see that anywhere in the story that was linked, but I get it. 100% of doctors are white except for the ones that aren’t, & 25% of those are surnamed Patel except for the 25% and Patel things. 😉

View attachment 19082
I looked at the same picture and read the same story. I don’t see where it justifies natives being angry at whites, or any mention of white people, but the story doesn’t say that the doctors aren’t white so, sure, why not? Justification of anger at somebody because of their skin colour doesn’t need a real reason, at least not a provable one.

It may all be white doctors, or no white doctors, or 66% white doctors, or 33%?white doctors (I’m rounding down for even numbers). It doesn’t say. Not in this link anyway.

Sure. Because it happened, surely it must be a whites against others thing because Race, even though it’s not mentioned whatsoever except that the claimed victims are all women of Atikamekw origin as well as the other plaintiffs in the suit being their their partners, children and grandchildren, and heirs (& they may or may not be Atikamekw…as that’s not specified either). That’s the only place that race is mentioned.

It could be a (this is gonna sound like to set up a joke where people are walking into a bar) a black doctor, & a brown doctor, & a (pick your favourite pigmentation shade) doctor…& it would still be justification for natives to be angry at white people in general for some.

Here’s a weird question. What if….& I know this is a stretch…. But what if some of the doctors or some of the employees at the unnamed integrated health and social services centre in Quebec…what if they happen to not be white? Does it matter? Is it even relevant to the justification?

What if the doctors were non-white? No, it doesn't matter; forced sterilization is still forced sterilization. (To be transparent, I DO think there should be instances of such but that involves crimes, not just because).

But as you said, it could still be other races, and it would still be justification for natives to be angry at white people in general.

Maybe the phrase shouldn't be "White"; rather it should be "Colonizers", since that seems to be the term now to describe anyone not native. At least it's broader and encompasses more people.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
I like how people think "It's the 21st century" is an argument all in of itself. Yep, it's the 21st century and countries still militarily invade their neighbours. It's the 21st century and people still take religion wayyyy too seriously. It's the 21st century and slavery is still a part of the human condition for many. It's the 21st century and violent crime is skyrocketing.
As if the 21st century is supposed to be some automatic human race coming of age for pure enlightenment and total civility. This isn't Star Trek.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,456
7,478
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
What if the doctors were non-white? No, it doesn't matter; forced sterilization is still forced sterilization. (To be transparent, I DO think there should be instances of such but that involves crimes, not just because).
I picked up on that earlier. It doesn’t matter. Got it.
But as you said, it could still be other races, and it would still be justification for natives to be angry at white people in general.
Yep, I hear you. Doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t involved…this time, ‘cuz historically they’re all a pack of bastards anyway. Guilty by pigmentation, or a lack there of. Oh well.
Maybe the phrase shouldn't be "White"; rather it should be "Colonizers", since that seems to be the term now to describe anyone not native.
Oh yeah, ‘cuz that’s much better, like black instead of spear-chucker, or halfbreed instead of mulatto or chink instead of rice-burner, or Infidel instead of non-Muslim ‘cuz that’s more inclusive, because we all know that Natives can’t be doctors or can’t possibly be qualified to work in the healthcare field….so it’s just gotta be the “Colonizers” and if not directly then somehow it’s their fault anyway. It’s total justification!
At least it's broader and encompasses more people.
Yes, I suppose it does. Here’s a list of similar terms for future reference.
Serryah, I’m NOT pulling a Trudeau & calling you a Racist, but pointing out that it looks like, from the outside, that’s where you’re coming from. Debate your logic and explain your position.

“Historically People in power where White in Canada (& the US), and even though this lawsuit is centred upon a claim that’s in place for specific women from a specific Canadian aboriginal tribe from 1980 going forward”….for an example to get started…

I’d almost prefer that you & I switch positions in this debate, & I argued your side of the debate and you argued mine ‘cuz I think it would be interesting and fun and educational all at the same time, but I have faith in you that you can clarify your position to show why some native people could be justified in their anger towards traditionally white institutions based upon historical context.

I had a really interesting discussion with somebody about 20 years ago that’s similar to this. This guy had obviously thought his position through, and refined it, and it might be similar to yours. This guy was a tour guide in Cuba, and he happened to be very pale skinned with naturally red-orange hair. Not that that had anything to do with his position, but it was interesting, and being who I am, of course, I had to ask him about it.

(His family had been in Cuba for many many generations, and his complexion and hair colour and eye colour were a genetic throwback to a different time. He was very envious of dark skinned people, because a tropical climate and melanoma were very large concerns for him.)

He and I were discussing Americans, and the Cuban embargo from America. He said that he doesn’t hate Americans, and that he loves tourist dollars regardless of the direction they come from, and he likes American people….BUT he doesn’t like American governmental institutions and decisions with respect to Cuba. He saw those as two VERY different things. At the time I thought that was a VERY cool distinction.

(Cuba has free education, well, sort of. It’s not Free-Free, but it’s acceptable without financial resources, and it’s repaid through time donated to the state. That time might be military service, or work in the tourist industry, or spent mowing ditches with a machete, but you don’t go into financial debt for education. This guy was repaying his university degree by being a tour guide, while also practising and learning his language skills at the same time.)

As another aside, in comedy, I love when a Comedian sets things up in order to use the term…”BUT”… to head off in another direction of an opposing viewpoint, that’s controversial and the punchline, all at the same time.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,903
2,035
113
New Brunswick
I picked up on that earlier. It doesn’t matter. Got it.

Yep, I hear you. Doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t involved…this time, ‘cuz historically they’re all a pack of bastards anyway. Guilty by pigmentation, or a lack there of. Oh well.

Oh yeah, ‘cuz that’s much better, like black instead of spear-chucker, or halfbreed instead of mulatto or chink instead of rice-burner, or Infidel instead of non-Muslim ‘cuz that’s more inclusive, because we all know that Natives can’t be doctors or can’t possibly be qualified to work in the healthcare field….so it’s just gotta be the “Colonizers” and if not directly then somehow it’s their fault anyway. It’s total justification!

Yes, I suppose it does. Here’s a list of similar terms for future reference.
Serryah, I’m NOT pulling a Trudeau & calling you a Racist, but pointing out that it looks like, from the outside, that’s where you’re coming from. Debate your logic and explain your position.

“Historically People in power where White in Canada (& the US), and even though this lawsuit is centred upon a claim that’s in place for specific women from a specific Canadian aboriginal tribe from 1980 going forward”….for an example to get started…

I’d almost prefer that you & I switch positions in this debate, & I argued your side of the debate and you argued mine ‘cuz I think it would be interesting and fun and educational all at the same time, but I have faith in you that you can clarify your position to show why some native people could be justified in their anger towards traditionally white institutions based upon historical context.

Racist... I suppose I could be racist against white people. It's possible to be racist against anyone/everyone.

Moreso I'm just rather disgusted that people who could be white would force sterilize Natives, considering the history that's already out there over this kind'a thing.

As you pointed out, we don't know for sure if it's all white doctors, but at least ONE has done it. If we throw in other races, as you asked, does it matter? In the end, no, it's still forced sterilization which is wrong, period. Full stop. It doesn't matter WHO does it. I was just pointing out that if it is multiple doctors of different races, it won't be solely "White" people, but the broader term of "Colonizers" I've heard used by natives lately to indicate anyone non-native (though I personally fucking hate that term but whatever).

"but I have faith in you that you can clarify your position to show why some native people could be justified in their anger towards traditionally white institutions based upon historical context."

Are you talking just this topic or all "White institutions"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,456
7,478
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Are you talking just this topic or all "White institutions"?
Totally your call.
Racist... I suppose I could be racist against white people. It's possible to be racist against anyone/everyone.
I don’t I think there’s a rulebook with guidelines for racism. There are American people wearing MAGA Hats that aren’t “White” that are confusing American news commentators for example. 😉
Moreso I'm just rather disgusted that people who could be white would force sterilize Natives, considering the history that's already out there over this kind'a thing.
Out here, the history is more about sterilizing people with mental illness. It doesn’t make it more or less right, but it’s definitely a different tangent for debate.

Speaking of tangents, maybe these woman were not sterilized because they were native, but because they’d each already had five children already and they were looked at as being mentally ill? It might be a bigger payout if that could be proven, ‘cuz it affected their income by limiting the number of children they where supporting to only five each with respect to gov’t spiffs like Family Allowance payouts, etc…?

Above you state, “people who ‘could’ be white would…” and though in the link that you provided, it doesn’t say that the guilty parties were white (or that they weren’t white), but it’s a leap of faith, I’m assuming based on historical context without explanation?
As you pointed out, we don't know for sure if it's all white doctors, but at least ONE has done it.
Which ONE? Tommy Douglas? Some other specific ONE? If it happened, then at least one HAD to be white, so all are guilty by association? Can you name ONE? Probably not relating to the specific situation, but in general? We all have Google. The sins of the Father, etc…
If we throw in other races, as you asked, does it matter? In the end, no, it's still forced sterilization which is wrong, period. Full stop. It doesn't matter WHO does it.
If it doesn’t matter who does it, then justify this specifically justifying natives to be angry with white people?
I was just pointing out that if it is multiple doctors of different races, it won't be solely "White" people, but the broader term of "Colonizers" I've heard used by natives lately to indicate anyone non-native (though I personally fucking hate that term but whatever).
I’m not a big fan of that term either, or Chink, or Wop, or Wagon-Burner, etc…but it definitely is a broader term I guess.
It ditches any nationality prejudice and goes straight to pigmentation prejudice. It’s a much more ‘efficient’ slur in that manner.

Lately I hear Colonizer and Cracker used interchangeably. Good times.
"but I have faith in you that you can clarify your position to show why some native people could be justified in their anger towards traditionally white institutions based upon historical context."
Have at it. My family (on my Fathers side) made it to Canada via Australia from England, and to South Africa from Australia, and to Canada from South Africa, but do I hate the English and want historical reparations (?) for myself, and all of my descendants into perpetuity??? It’s not gonna happen, and it’s just part of our family make up and lore, and life goes on.

I’m responsible for myself and it’s not the fault of Blackleaf’s ancestors if I’m a screwup or not, so I’m not suing him for 1/8 of his garden plot or 1/4 of his seat on his forklift at his place of employment, or 1/32 of his paycheque, etc…
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,903
2,035
113
New Brunswick
Totally your call.

I don’t I think there’s a rulebook with guidelines for racism. There are American people wearing MAGA Hats that aren’t “White” that are confusing American news commentators for example. 😉

Out here, the history is more about sterilizing people with mental illness. It doesn’t make it more or less right, but it’s definitely a different tangent for debate.

Above you state, “people who ‘could’ be white would…” and though in the link that you provided, it doesn’t say that the guilty parties were white (or that they weren’t white), but it’s a leap of faith, I’m assuming based on historical context without explanation?

Which ONE? Tommy Douglas? Some other specific ONE? If it happened, then at least one HAD to be white, so all are guilty by association? Can you name ONE? Probably not relating to the specific situation, but in general? We all have Google. The sins of the Father, etc…

If it doesn’t matter who does it, then justify this specifically justifying natives to be angry with white people?

I’m not a big fan of that term either, or Chink, or Wop, or Wagon-Burner, etc…but it definitely is a broader term I guess.
It ditches any nationality prejudice and goes straight to pigmentation prejudice. It’s a much more ‘efficient’ slur in that manner.

Lately I hear Colonizer and Cracker used interchangeably. Good times.

Have at it. My family (on my Fathers side) made it to Canada via Australia from England, and to South Africa from Australia, and to Canada from South Africa, but do I hate the English and want historical reparations (?) for myself, and all of my descendants into perpetuity??? It’s not gonna happen, and it’s just part of our family make up and lore, and life goes on.

I’m responsible for myself and it’s not the fault of Blackleaf’s ancestors if I’m a screwup or not, so I’m not suing him for 1/8 of his garden plot or 1/4 of his seat on his forklift at his place of employment, or 1/32 of his paycheque, etc…


I'll reply to the rest of this later, gotta sleep for work tonight, but...



1692963004087.jpeg
Dr. Andrew Kotaska was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct after removing both fallopian tubes from an Inuk patient. Photo courtesy of Andrew Kotaska

The case involves Dr. Andrew Kotaska, who performed an operation to relieve an Indigenous woman’s abdominal pain in November 2019. He had her written consent to remove her right fallopian tube, but the patient, an Inuk woman, had not agreed to the removal of her left tube losing both would leave her sterile.


Despite objections from other medical staff during the surgery, Kotaska took out both fallopian tubes.


The investigation concluded there was no medical justification for the sterilization, and Kotaska was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct. Kotaska’s “severe error in surgical judgment” was unethical, cost the patient the chance to have more children and could undermine trust in the medical system, investigators said.


That's from the second story I posted in post #5.

That's where I based the "White doctors" bit from.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,456
7,478
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I'll reply to the rest of this later, gotta sleep for work tonight, but...
I get it. I am three times the ones behind you, but the old dog had to go Pee at 3:30 AM (so 6:30AM your time) and here we are.
View attachment 19088
Dr. Andrew Kotaska was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct after removing both fallopian tubes from an Inuk patient. Photo courtesy of Andrew Kotaska

The case involves Dr. Andrew Kotaska, who performed an operation to relieve an Indigenous woman’s abdominal pain in November 2019. He had her written consent to remove her right fallopian tube, but the patient, an Inuk woman, had not agreed to the removal of her left tube losing both would leave her sterile.


Despite objections from other medical staff during the surgery, Kotaska took out both fallopian tubes.


The investigation concluded there was no medical justification for the sterilization, and Kotaska was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct. Kotaska’s “severe error in surgical judgment” was unethical, cost the patient the chance to have more children and could undermine trust in the medical system, investigators said.



That's from the second story I posted in post #5.

That's where I based the "White doctors" bit from.
Doctor Andrew Kotaska removed two fallopian tubes Instead of one, from an an Indigenous (Inuit) woman in 2019 in the North West Territories. OK.

Does it state anywhere as to why this doctor (Kotaska) removed both fallopian tubes instead of one? Was it a racism thing (?) or a medical thing (?) or some other thing? Just curious. I don’t know the answer.

Kotaska isn’t one of the three doctors being sued in Quebec along with the unnamed health care region facility, whatever, but that’s not relevant. He is an example of something. I’m not sure what, but something.

Tommy Douglas might be a better example.
Biographies and other accounts of Mr. Douglas’s life have either ignored or down-played his striking embrace in the mid-1930s of forced sterilization and segregation for people of “sub-normal” intelligence and morality, says Dr. Michael Shevell in a newly published academic paper.
Nova Scotia, in 1908, was home of the first "eugenics movement" in the country when the League for the Care and Protection of Feebleminded Persons was established in the province.

In 2017, sixty indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies.