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.
No comments:
Post a Comment