On your Servile Kowtowing to the Ableist and Fascistic Free Robert Latimer Movement

I was wondering have you and/or the party finished reading the emails I sent to you/them on the Tracy Latimer. I really hope you have had the basic courtesy to read them and are not just deleting them.

I noticed none of my emails were taken up and refuted in Spartacist Canada. I have come to interpret this as a sign of your party's bankrupty. You had always taught me that when political groups can't defend their politics. This is assuming the party shares your truly revolting stance on the Tracy Latimer (a view shared by outright fascists). If the party shares your stance than I think it is quite fair to say that "despite the party's residual capacity for cynical orthodox literary posture the party has show a consistent impulse to flinch under pressure and are in NO way superior to the dozens of fake Trotskyists groups who lay claim to the mantle of the Fourth International."

And to your comment last time we were talking on the phone that I was "grasping at straws". Who wouldn't after going through the verbal abuse dealt by yourself. Frankly, I found your attitude hysterical and subjective not to mention arrogant, condescending and ill-informed. Your lucky that the party has a discriminatory policy against recruiting the disabled, a policy which I think has no merit. If I were a cadre in your party I would me motioning for you expulsion. If this stance is shared by the party than I fear that the party is a lost cause since it can't condemn an act of terror against an oppressed person.

Robert Latimer actions, I think it is fair to say, DO count as an act of terror. It is violence against an oppressed person. It has served to terrorize people in the disabled community (if it was not Latimer intention it is sure as hell the effect). His actions and the mass ablest Pro-Latimer hysteria whipped up by the bourgeois press has inspired other caretakers of the disabled to kill their children. I think your insistence that the killing, or should I say, the LYNCHING of Tracy Latimer is "not an act of terror" has far more to do with your ableist bigotry and political cowardice than the concrete circumstances. I must say, I think your insistence that Robert Latimer is a "victim" and should be defended is a pretty hard pill for anyone with a disability to swallow.

Also, I think the claim that Latimer is "oppressed" is beyond ludicrious. Robert Latimer is white, filthy rich (the average Canadian farmer has a million dollars worth in asset, Latimer apparently is quite wealthy by farmers standards), has a lot of land (around 2,850 acres of land, my parents don't have that much land), he is heterosexual, he is not youth, he is not a senior citizen, he has not disabilities, he is not of a religious minority, he is a HE (and he's not transgenderd), he is not a francophone, he is not an immigrant.....I hope you get my point. This not to say landless peasants, rural proletarians, and minorities from rural areas are oppressed but Robert Latimer is a Kulak.

Do you want to know who else would consider Robert Latimer "oppressed". Well Any Rand would described big business to be a "persecuted minority". Racists ranging from Horowitz to outright fascists would consider white people to be "oppressed". Male chauvinists of today would consider men to be "oppressed". So your stance that Robert Latimer, a white man with property, is "oppressed" is congruent to white racism, Any Randianism and male chauvanism rolled into one.

Another point back in the day when voting was a privilege white men with property, like Robert Latimer, were the first to be able to vote. People in psychiatric wards in Canada didn't get the vote until 1988.

Tracy Latimer was NOT in "continual agony". Laura Latimer, had a diary describing Tracy Latimer's life and made virtually no mention of Tracy being in pain. In fact, the "continual agony" argument is nothing but a stereotypical depiction of the disabled. There would be no sympathy for Latimer or even debate on this issue if Latimer had killed one of his non-disabled children.

Let me give you an example on the above point. Susan Smith from North Carolina murderd her two children. She like Latimer initially lied to the police. In both cases when it was obvious that they committed murder they both claimed they killed their children out of "compassion. Susan Smith was dealing with a divorce and her children were taken from her custody. One can just logically argue that Susan Smith was murdered here children out of "compassion" and/or "desperation" as one could with Robert Latimer. Society, both in the US and Canada, cried for Susan Smith's blood and their was massive sympathy for her two children. Latimer on the other had recieved a great deal of sympathy from society, Tracy Latimer was othered and their was anger towards cops and prosecuters. I guess you may be wondering what made the two murders different well Tracy Latimer had a disability, Susan Smith's children didn't have any disabilities.

In fact most Latimer supporters object to making the analogy I made above. Many will instead liken the killing of Tracy Latimer to Sue Rodriguez. Sue Rodriguez begged to be killed and was not killed by her parents. Neither Tracy Latimer nore Susan Smith's children had any say in their being killed. The only think Tracy Latimer and Sue Rodriguez had in common was that they both had disabilities.

In reponse to your argument that lack of healthcare services justifies what Latimer did. Although it can't be denied that public healthcare is in trouble (as someone with a disability, I'm more on the receiving end than the average person) this DOES NOT justify killing those on the recieving end. I think THIS, is grasping at straws. Let me be blunt, affirmative action is under seige in the US, does that mean we should defend lynching? Childcare in Canada has been gutted, does that mean would should legalize spousal abuse? Homeless people are....well...homeless, does that mean that cop terror in Downtown Eastside should be defended? And another point about the healthcare crisis, I doubt outright fascists support Latimer because they care about public services.

There is a big long history of the disabled being murdered under the PRETEXT of "euthanasia". "Mercy killings" (euthanasia WITHOUT consent) has in the past been advocated by the eugenics movement and the nazis.

I'm not saying for a minute that euthanasia should be opposed on principle. But people like Tracy Latimer, along with other people with disabilities murdered by their caretakers (it is suprizingly common, most case don't get covered by the bourgeois press), not fetus, not sperm, not embryos, not zygotes, are not brain-dead, they are not terminally ill, NOT in continual agony, their is no evidence of them wanting to die, no evidence of them consenting to die, they have not expressed their wishes to die in wills etc.

Another point is your remark that Tracy Latimer and Robert Latimer "suffered together". I think that it is obvious that you are quite ill-informed about the issues concerning the rights of the disabled making you, in my opinion, unqualified to take such a self-righeous stance on this issue (since disability rights is such a fundamental part of this issue). There are countless cases of the disabled being victimized by their caretakers. There are parents of disabled children who "consent" to having their children being sent to the notorious Judge Rotenburg "Educational Centre" where disabled people are electrically shock for everything from nagging, to hair pulling, to nose picking, to burping in public. The first victims of the "final solution" in Nazi Germany were people with disabilities and mental illnesses and the first of these killings involved "parental consent". "Parental consent" was also involved in the bizarre and barbaric "lovaas treatment" which involves spanking, hair pulling, hitting and electric shocks.

In terms of your remark about armed vigilantes. The fascistic movement to free Robert Latimer does not have a disciplined party. Its structure would be similar to Earth First or Greenpeace (I must stress that this is the similarity is organizational, Greenpeace and Earth First are not fascistic or bigoted nor do they attract the support of fascists). With Greenpeace for example (again Greenpeace is not fascistic or fascist), there are people who spike trees. This is either indirectly encouraged or passively condoned by the leaders. If you complain to the leader they would say they didn't tell their members to spike trees. If you complain to one tree spiker, they would likely retort by saying they spiked a different tree then the one that killed a logger.

With the Free Robert Latimer Movement (which unlike Greenpeace and Earth First, is ablest, fascistic and has attracted fascist participation) I think it is safe to assume that other caretakers murdering the disabled in their care are among the supporters of Robert Latimer. Latimer (or Bob the Lyncher as I call him in private) may not directly say "caretakers of the disabled, kill the disabled in your care", however, his actions and public sympathy for him has inspired others to do as he has, lynch the disabled in their care.

And for the remark that Latimer never said "I'm for killing everyone with a disability". There are countless outright fascists and white supremacists who don't say they are white supremacists but say things like "white nationalism", "civil rights for white people", "self-determination for white people".

Over the years I have considered you a friend. However, my conscience and principles as a Marxist are dearer to me. I appreciate the fact that it is difficult to confront the mass, ableist, pro-Robert Latimer hysteria around this issue as well as the fact that one can become easily enthralled by such hysteria. However, I ask that you and anyone in the party who shares your views to drop this truly revolting support for Robert Latimer.

Comradely,
Michael G.

The Sparts Witchunt against Logan is a Hypocritical Farce

There is one thing I should probably point out. On page 80 of Volume 2 of The Logan Dossier Jim Robertson says, "You know what a Sociopath is, comrades? A sociopath? It means somebody who is insane and projects it in social configurations. Its possible to be quiet and crazy. It's also acted out. Jack the Ripper was a sociopath."

However, according to the book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us by Dr. Robert Hare, a leading world authority on psychopaths, psychopathy is defined as the following:

1) Glib and Superficial
2) Egocentric and Grandiose
3) Lack of Empathy
4) Deceitful and Manipulative
5) Shallow Emotions
6) Impulsive
7) Poor Behaviour Controls
8) Need for Excitement
9) Lack of Responsibility
10) Early Behaviour Problems
11) Adult Anti-Social Behaviour
12) Lack of Remorse or Guilt

The book also says, "In fact, psychopaths have none of the hallmarks of mental illness". Hare also points out that psychopathy (psychopathy and sociopathy are synonymous) does not fit the legal or medical definition of crazy.

I think that if the Sparts are going to go around accusing people (i.e. Bill Logan) of being a psychopath they should have some idea of what a psychopath actually is.

Another thing, as I said in a previous email to you. The Sparts (or at least some of there cadre) are defending an individual named Robert Latimer who murdered his disabled daughter. Robert Latimer has yet to show remorse for his actions but you don't see the Sparts accusing him of being psychopath in fact he is described by them as a "victim". (see. thebigotedmurderoftracylatimer.blogspot.com).

One thing that should be pointed out that whenever a parent murders a disabled child in their care society cries for their blood but when a parent kills a disabled child there is massive sympathy towards the killer (see. http://www.normemma.com/artaleof.htm).

Well it seems the Sparts have hopped on that bandwagon. I think you people have it dead on when you say that the Sparts, "despite a residual capacity for cynical "orthodox" literary posturing, has shown a consistent impulse to flinch under pressure." And you are right "The "international Spartacist tendency" today is in NO important sense politically superior to any of the dozen or more fake-Trotskyist "internationals" which lay claim to the mantle of the Fourth International." (emphasis added).

I noticed that on the Sparts website on their declaration of principles section they say they "defend ALL Oppressed People". Perhaps a more HONEST declaration would say that they "defend SOME oppressed people and others they are adamantly opposed to defending"! As Trotsky said "the role of the vanguard party is not to go with the backward flow but to swim against the current". Well as the Sparts AREN'T "the vanguard party" because they sure as hell don't swim against the current!

And in case you were wondering where the Sparts stand on the Tracy Latimer issue, I'll tell you. Somewhere to the right of the Christian Heritage Party! It isn't easy being right of the Christian Heritage Party but the Sparts manage to do it. There stance on this issue puts them at par with the Stormfront White Nationalist Community!

There are several accusations you made against the Sparts which can confirm, from my own experience are true:

1) The Sparts DO use thought reform!: If you have a disagreement with the party they will first try to convince you you are wrong (often, but not always, in a group). If this fails, they resort to hysterical denunciations. If they are still not able to convince you you're wrong they will keep bringing up the issue any time they meet with you (resorting to hysterical denunciation if necessary). They will do this until they break you and mold you into mindless hacks.

2) The Sparts DO drive off dedicated cadre and supporters: The party wouldn't recruit me because I am mentally ill. After a year of being a sympathizer, they barred me from postering for them, handing out leaflets for them, handing out newspapers for them or helping them intervene at political events.

3) The Sparts DO flinch under pressure: I have illustrated that above.

Comradely,
M.G.

My Falling Out with The Trotskyist League: The Sparts Bullying, Ableist Bigotry and Defence of Lynchings and Child Murder

Dear BT,

Hi my name is Michael. For nearly three years I had been a sympathizer for the Trotskyist League of Canada, the Vancouver section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist). I just wanted to say that in my experiences with them I found them demeaning and bigoted. I am a high-functioning autistic, have mild psychosis, anxiety and depression. My family has a history mental illness.

I met a member of the Trotskyist League by the name of Tynan in June 2005. My initial experience was not negative but as I quickly had a number of unpleasant run-in in particular with a cadre by the name of Andrew, an electrician from Ontario (I don’t know his last name). I was expected to seize being friends with anyone affiliated with any other political organization. He would often get verbally aggressive with me. He would often shout at me without explaining what I had done.

Around late fall 2005, I found out that I would not be recruited into the party due to my psychological condition. This made no sense to me since. I responded quite well to medication and was functioning well in society.

As time went on I noticed many of the party’s cadre were highly intolerant of the people with mental illnesses. Remarks like “that person is nuts”, “don’t talk to that person their psychotic”. They even had an article where they denounce a group as being “senile and demented”. Having a grandmother who suffered and died from Alzheimer’s (a form of dementia, she refused to be treated for it) I found these remarks extremely offensive.

The party likes to laud itself as defending “all oppressed people” yet I have not found a single article devoted to the mentally ill, mentally disabled or mentally challenged.

I was continually excluded from party activity. After working with the party for over a year, I was barred from helping the party intervene in events, from postering from selling their newspaper. One cadre Andrew from above blew me off on several occasions. He for a while had seemed to have an axe to grind with me. If I made any mistakes he would lash out at me and wouldn’t explain what I did wrong. He has always struck me as having a short fuse.

I recently had been looking into an incident of a man Robert Latimer who murdered his mentally challenged daughter with cerebral palsy. His daughter Tracy was not terminally ill, not brain-dead, nor was their any evidence of her ever wanting to die or consenting to being killed. Robert Latimer claimed he did what he did to “relieve Tracy of her pain”. However, Robert Latimer’s wife Laura, who supports her husbands action, kept a diary of Tracy’s life and made very little mention of her being in pain.

Tracy Latimer’s life was not “nothing but pain” she smiled and laughed a lot, enjoyed going camping, she liked going to the circus, and smiled when horses went by. When people came to the house she would smile and be happy to see them. There were points where she was in agony but her life had meaning and value. Many people with her condition choose to go on living.

Robert Latimer describes his action as being a “mercy killing”. I did some research, “mercy killing” what Hitler called what he did in “The Final Solution”. The first people killed in the gas chambers were the disabled. This was soon extended to the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Blacks, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Communists, Social Democrats etc. Involuntary Euthanasia, or “mercy killings”, was also advocated by eugenicists who target the disabled, the mentally ill, the mentally challenged as well as various racial and ethnic minorities, gays etc.

I sent a great deal of information on the Tracy Latimer case to the Trotskyist League. I compared what Robert Latimer did as being “lynching”. I should probably point out that there is no indication, at least that I’ve come across, that Robert Latimer is an outright fascist which the KKK, who lynch blacks are. Fascism is the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) mobilizing the petty-bourgeoisie (middle-class) and the lumpenproletariat (unemployed) to decimate the proletariat (working class). Acts of violent bigotry towards the oppressed from what I understand are acts of terror but not fascist.

Anyways, I receive a call from who I thought was a close friend from the party, Tynan, who lashed out at me accusing me of “trivializing lynching”. He claimed that Robert Latimer was a “victim” and this act had nothing to do with bigotry. Trying telling that to anyone with a disability. He argued that Tracy Latimer was in “continual agony” (I assume that means non stop agony, which was not the case with Tracy Latimer). He also argued that what Robert Latimer did was acceptable because Tracy was mentally challenged.

I should probably point out that this view on the Tracy Latimer case is shared by outright fascists. The rhetoric and language of outright fascists on the Tracy Latimer case is very similar to the rhetoric of mainstream Robert Latimer supporters as well as some people I have spoken to in the Trotskyist League.

His argument I felt was basically “explaining the issue away”. He continually chanted a handful of phrases “Tracy Latimer was in continual agony”, “this was not an act of terror”, “they (Robert and Tracy) are both oppressed”, “they suffered together”. I brought up points refuting many of these claims but they made no difference.

He then went to argue that Robert Latimer never called himself a bigot. So what! There are plenty of groups that terrorize the oppressed that aren’t that don’t own up to it! There are white supremacist groups that claim they are fighting for “civil rights for white people”! The cops who terrorize homeless people, natives, minorities and immigrants, they don’t openly say we are for terrorizing the oppressed! They say things like “fighting crime”, “law and order” etc.

I have sent dozens of email to the party of the Tracy Latimer case and I feel I am falling on death ears. They have not at this point tried to refute my arguments in public (in their paper or otherwise). They have always told me that when political groups can’t refute people’s arguments they resort to censorship. This seems to me what they are doing.

Considering their bigoted attitude toward the disabled they are in no position to claim to be fighting for “ALL oppressed people”.

Comradely,

M.G.

P.S. To learn more about the Tracy Latimer case check out my blog http://thebigotedmurderoftracylatimer.blogspot.com/ I have plenty of links to both viewpoints.