Saturday, April 5, 2008

Tommy Douglas Says The Darndest Things

Well, if the NDP can't let go of what a Saskatchewan MP Tom Lukiwski said some 16 or 17 years ago, why can't we go further back (some 30, 40 or 50 years) and see what Tommy Douglas, the founder of the NDP and the role model for Canada's left used to say back then:
Back in 1988, when the Sun's Paul Jackson was at the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, he broke a startling story that showed Tommy Douglas, now revered by the CBC as "the greatest Canadian of all time," eagerly recommending the castration of homosexuals and chronic criminals.

Douglas had expressed these views in his master's thesis at McMaster University.

He had other alarming recommendations on the various measures to be taken against Natives, French Catholics, and other (as he saw them) dubious members of society.

Were these the outpourings of Douglas' fervent youthful hysteria?

Not at all. He wrote the thesis when he was 30 years old and repeated some of the same ideas a few years later.
And if you don't believe the Calgary Sun, the No Libs blog has this video for you:


So when Tommy Douglas says that, the CBC names him "the greatest Canadian of all time". I wonder if we should nominate Tom Lukiwski and Larry Spencer as the greatest Canadians of all time...

What actually bothers me with this whole story is the way Tom Lukiwski gave in to the pressure of a bunch of militant perverts. Instead of making it clear that one public retraction is enough and that it's time for them to let go of a silly joke uttered nearly two decades ago, it almost seemed like he was begging for forgiveness. As if those bullies would ever leave alone someone who begs.

20 comments:

Derrida said...

This is so feeble. Leave the smears to those competently equipped to handle them. Maybe contact Kate McMillan and grovel for some pointers. In the meantime, if you want to see what a reasonable discussion on Tommy Douglas's comments might look like:
Link here

leftdog said...

WOW! What a complete revision of history you have done here. I am going to call you on this! This post is a complete work of fabrication. What do you say about the fact that Alberta practiced sterilization on the mentally ill and mentally handicapped as official government policy for 43 years! This was done under Premier E.C. Manning, the father of Preston Manning.

Your post is false and does not reflect actual history!

Leonard said...

So far that's the only reasonable review I've seen. Everyone else just wants this guy's head to roll. So if it's ok for the NDP to bully Tom Lukiwski for a silly joke he said nearly 2 decades ago, the least we can do is to say "look who's talking".

leftdog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leonard said...

<<Your post is false and does not reflect actual history!>>
Did I say anything about Tommy Douglas legislating sterilization (or trying to pass sterilization bill) at any time during his tenure as Saskatchewan premier or as an MP in the House of Commons?

I only said that he supported sterilization at certain point. And, that his views on homosexuality were also different than those of a typical NDP politician nowadays. Something they better remember before they start bashing another Conservative for a silly 17 year-old joke.

And I mentioned certain double standards towards the left and the right-wing politicians. If Tommy Douglas was still alive, I doubt he'd be bullied like that for what he said decades ago.

leftdog said...

And in your fervor to attack Douglas, you completely ignore the fact that a Canadian province ACTUALLY DID practice eugenics for 43 years!

Douglas is INSIGNIFICANT in view of the thousands and thousands of individuals who were violated by both Social Credit and Progressive Conservative governments in Alberta!

You only mention Douglas to be mean spirited and totally partisan.

Leonard said...

Same as the NDP only attacking Tom Lukiwski without remembering that the party's founder too used to say something the modern day NDP wouldn't be proud of.

leftdog said...

It seems to me that there are a few more individuals and groups critical of Luwkiski than just the 'NDP'. Again, I believe that your logic and rationale for attacking Tommy Douglas is thinly disguised - barely hiding behind social conservative values which are repulsive to most Canadians.

Leonard said...

And what was the logic behind attacking Tom Lukiwski? What values inspired that campaign of bullying and smear?

I believe the intent was to make an example of anyone daring to badmouth homosexuals. Well if so - I gave them one more "hate-monger" and "biggot" to bad-mouth, let's see if they dare to spit at their own idol.

Derrida said...

Evidently, you couldn't even be bothered to check the link I posted. Either that or you're just not terribly bright and fail to realize that there is absolutely no basis for comparison. Tommy Douglas's comments were progressive relative to his time. They were made in the spirit of generosity and social justice. Tom Lukiwski's comments were "regressive", stupid, hateful, malicious, and scurrilous, and Lukiski has admits as much when he
says:
"The comments I made . . . should not be tolerated in any society," ...They should not be tolerated today, they should not have been tolerated in 1991, they should not have been tolerated in years previous to that."

Leonard said...

Eugenics too was considered progressive at the time when Tommy Douglas made it his master's thesis. But Douglas was lucky nobody dug this out in his lifetime, so he didn't have to grovel for forgiveness saying that "this shouldn't have been tolerated back then".

Sure, with the political climate as it is now, Tom Lukiwski has no choice but saying that his words shouldn't have been tolerated. But back in 1991 whatever he said was nothing but a silly joke to anyone except for hardcore fighters for "normalization" of homosexuality.

leftdog said...

Huh? "... for "normalization" of homosexuality"

Leonard, it is normal for some humans to be homosexual. That is how they were created by your God.

Let me help you with this bit of theology ... you are a christian I assume? I am going to take a moment to post here EVERYTHING THAT JESUS EVER SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!

Check your Bible if you don't believe me - Here is EVERY word that Jesus EVER said about homosexuality:
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________.

That's it! Jesus said nothing. Now a lot of other people did, but if the Son of God was SO very concerned about it, you would think that he might have said 'something'.

I don't want to hear what Paul said or any other human ... What Jesus DID NOT SAY is what you should focus on!

Leonard said...

No, it's not normal for people to be homosexual. Human body isn't designed for that type of things. So far there's no evidence that homosexuality is innate. And I believe that John Westcott and other former homosexuals that could quit the destructive lifestyle and start normal families deserve far more credibility than a bunch of radicals that successfully drove Canada to a biological dead-end.

As for Jesus not mentioning homosexuality - guess what - as far as I know, Jesus didn't say anything about drunk driving. But that doesn't make it moral or virtuous. At the same time he spoke out against promiscuity, promoting sacramental marriage, not "civil marriage" as it was later (some 1970 years later to be precise) defined by the courts and the Liberal government.

leftdog said...

If homosexuality was such a big deal, you'd think that Jesus would have said 'something' about it! (Your drunk driving point is pretty lame).

Even the Catholic Church is now recognizing that some people ARE born gay - (however the Church is so inflexible that it teaches they should be celibate even though the Vatican now accepts the medical fact that many are born gay).

I feel sorry for social conservatives who adhere to such a narrow, pain inducing world view.

It has been interesting chatting with you. I will leave your blogsite alone now.

Leonard said...

Feel sorry all you want. I might as well feel sorry for those unable to understand such basic things that men are men, women are women and that they are not interchangeable, therefore a union of two men (or a union of two women for that matter) can't establish a relationship that would have the unitive and procreative functions of a traditional marriage...

I might as well feel sorry for those brainwashed into believing that their sexual dysfunction is unchangeable, who'll never be able to establish a normal family, to have a loving wife or husband (instead of ever changing partners), have children that would be raised by a mother and a father...

So if you feel sorry for those sharing a worldview you don't agree with... Well I guess, so do I...

Ikonoklast said...

I just want to drop you a line to say I admire your pluck in not bowing to the forces of malignant social revision. Ephesians 6 is a good passage, but so are the words to the Colossians warning them to not be taken in by vain and deceitful lying philosophies or theologies.
Paul of Hamllton
http://thedifferentdrummerofcanada.blogspot.com/

Andy Doerksen said...

"leftdog" assumes he can get some moral mileage out of the fact that Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality. S/he is so far off base it's really unbelievable.

True, Jesus never specified anything about homosexuality - but that's irrelevant. By leftdog's logic, other things would follow that most of us would reject. That logic indicates leftdog believes that if Jesus never condemned a particular thing, that thing must be "okay" in Jesus' eyes. Well, Jesus never mentioned such things as abortion, slavery or child labour, pedophilia, spousal abuse, pollution, etc. Does that make such things "okay"? Hardly.

So the argument from silence means absolutely nothing.

Secondly, what might be the ramifications of what Jesus DID say? He said, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt. 19:4-6)

In other words, Jesus affirmed the original conception of marriage as a divinely ordained union between one man and one woman. The logical implication is that, since that was God's original design, to deviate from that is sin.

Thirdly, Jesus affirmed the divine origination and authority of the entire Old Testament (e.g., Matt. 5:17-19; 22:29; Luke 24:27; John 5:39), which impugns homosexuality.

So, yes, Jesus opposed homosexuality. Any other conclusion is just an evasive tactic used by someone who refuses to be an honest, objective reader of Scripture and refuses to honour what Jesus himself stood for.

"leftdog" also made this interesting comment: "If homosexuality was such a big deal, you'd think that Jesus would have said 'something' about it!"

Well, the truth is that homosexuality is NOT a big deal, in the larger scheme of things - but that doesn't make it right. Again, all my previous arguments apply here as well. What's more, Jesus was speaking primarily to a Jewish audience that had *already* rejected homosexuality and various other sins, so those things weren't their problem and Jesus really didn't *need* to bring it up with that audience.

This is what happens when a biased thinker like "leftdog" reads Scripture OUT OF CONTEXT.

Budd Campbell said...

Leonard:

Can you explain your use of the phrase "a bunch of militant perverts"? Just thought I'd ask.

Leonard said...

Well, if it's that hard for you to understand, I'll explain. A bunch of militant perverts means - a group of perverts that aggressively promote their abnormal lifestyles and that use militant tactics (intimidation, vandalism, blackmail, human rights complaints etc) to silence anyone who disagrees with them. The mainstream media often refers to them as "gay lobby". But I don't like those politically correct expressions, so I call a pervert what he is - a pervert.

Rob in NL said...

Thankfully TD was an intelligent man who overcame this garbage he had learned and became the polar opposite in terms of his ideas and most definitely his actions. I for one would have loved to hear his response to the question of eugenics, and what changed his mind.

Rob in NL