The Logical Escalation of Wickedness

It is a Canadian twist on a Belgian horror I pointed out here last year. That was the case of Shanti De Corte, a young woman who, at the age of 17, had been caught up in the 2016 Brussels airport attack and had seen a number of her classmates die. Last year she opted to be ‘euthanised’. Alleged members of the cell who carried out the 2016 attack are still on trial in Belgium, but whether or not they are found guilty none can be given the death penalty. Because Europe, like lovely, liberal Canada, does not believe in the death penalty for criminals. Only for victims.”

– The great Douglas Murray in the UK Spectator: Canada’s assisted dying horror story.

The equally great Gemma Tognini had an excellent column in the Weekend Australian inspired by the communist A.C.T. government’s recently flagged intention to make ‘voluntary assisted suicide’ available to children as young as 14. Tognini sees the proposal as the most disturbing example of “a new kind of evil afoot in this nation” – one whose promoters target minors under sham auspices of ‘compassion.’ There almost seems to be a contest underway to see how far the assault on innocents can be taken before the limit is reached. But there is no limit and for that the pushers are not solely to blame. That’s because good people sometimes make peace with some portion of a bad idea. My only criticism of Tognini’s essay is its concession that at least adults are competent to commission their own homicide. They’re not. Those who choose ‘VAD’ act with a ‘moral’ authority never before conceded or ratified. They set an evil example for the young and an ethical trap for the unwary. For a murder curated by a suicidal adolescent is no more an enormity than one booked by a geriatric. It follows that banning the former means banning them all.

This entry was posted in International, Left-wing extremism. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to The Logical Escalation of Wickedness

  1. C.L. says:

    On euthanasia, why do we endanger our most vulnerable children?

    There’s a new kind of evil afoot in this nation today. Evil is a strong word to use, I know, but I feel it deeply and I don’t think I’m the only one. There are people attempting to weave a thread through our social fabric under the guise of compassion, dressed up as kindness and equality, and Australian kids are in their sights.

    There’s more than one part at play and in truth it has taken me more than a few weeks to finally arm-wrestle my jumbled thoughts into some kind of order. Hold that thought for a moment while I unpack it.

    In recent months much has been said about the need to protect Australian teenagers from a range of valid threats, all of which require considered thought about how best to mitigate the risk and protect vulnerable youth while equipping them for adulthood.

    There have been calls for mobile phones to be banned in classrooms; calls to ban or severely restrict junk food advertising. Experts have warned about the need to protect teens from digital exploitation. The underlying truth here is the recognition that tender hearts and minds can’t make adult decisions or self-regulate their behaviours when it comes to constant external pressures. We recognise that they need help because they lack maturity and because it’s our role as a community safeguard them.

    If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t be having those conversations. Which brings me back to the beginning and the sense that something is very wrong here.

    The most confronting example comes courtesy of the ACT government, which has released a framework for consultation that would allow children as young as 14 (yes, they are children under the law and in every other sense) access to euthanasia.

    Moreover, this framework doesn’t include a requirement (used by most other jurisdictions) that assisted dying can be accessed only by those with an end-of-life prognosis of six to 12 months.

    Let me put it another way. We’re being asked to believe the same kids who need protection from junk food advertising are emotionally and cognitively mature enough to choose suicide. I was with my father in the specialist’s office when he was told he had 18 months to live at best. His liver was buggered. You don’t forget those moments. Dad lived another nine years after being diagnosed as terminal. Seven good years, in truth; the last two terrible.

    He was wheelchair-bound and fretted that he was a burden. We lied to him, of course we did, through our breaking hearts, and promised him that he wasn’t. Truth be told, it was a privilege to help care for him; an exhausting privilege. Under the law today he could have chosen to end his life because he was an adult, and that’s my point.

    He was an adult and these are adult conversations, not for the likes of children. Can you imagine a vulnerable, terminally ill child fretting that they’re a burden on Mum and Dad? Being presented with a “brave” option to end their own life? It makes my stomach turn and, yeah, I think it’s an evil proposition.

    Australian law and, frankly, common sense and decency recognise that children in their early teens aren’t developmentally mature enough to drive; to buy a house. The law says they can’t consent to sexual relationships and we rightly jail the predators who attempt to groom and convince them otherwise. Fourteen-year-olds can’t get married or work full time. But the ACT government wants you to believe a 14-year-old, terminally ill kid can make this decision or even should be given the choice.

    Like I said, there’s something rotten going on when it comes to the way kids are being commoditised, politicised and used for whatever purpose is on the table. The same people who want to lower the voting age say the age of criminal responsibility should be raised. So, which is it – are kids mature enough to vote or not so mature they should be held responsible for their actions?

    The contradictions are jarring and this isn’t where it stops. One of the most fraught, delicate examples is the framing of support for children in gender distress or suffering from gender dysphoria. Globally, there is a veritable stampede away from so-called gender-affirming care that is beginning to affect the Australian landscape.

    The most public of these reversals in treatment approach have happened in Sweden and Britain.

    In Britain, the now notorious Tavistock clinic was shut down by the National Health Service after an inquiry found the treatment being given was “not safe or viable as a long-term option for the care of young people with gender-related distress”. Former staff members have revealed how vulnerable children were prescribed life-altering drugs after just one assessment. Who was advocating for those kids?

    This isn’t about what anyone else believes about gender and sex, it’s about protecting vulnerable children. They are children. The same children whom climate activists are perfectly happy to terrify with ridiculous tales of a looming apocalypse, all for their own cause.

    Here’s a question. Do we collectively love our kids enough to say no? Do we love our kids enough to say there might be a better way?

    Or yes, we need cleaner energy, but there’s no need to be afraid. Let me tell you about a bloke called Al Gore; most of what he said was garbage, the world isn’t about to end.

    No 14-year-old, terminally ill or not, should be given the option to end their life. They should be loved to the end, leaving this earth knowing their life mattered and that the world will be less colourful without them. No child should be given life-altering drugs unless all the questions have been explored and answered. No teen should be terrified into believing the end is nigh, for political gain.

    I guess my question is simple. When this generation asks, who was there to protect us, what will your answer be?

  2. Ed Case says:

    No 14-year-old, terminally ill or not, should be given the option to end their life. They should be loved to the end, leaving this earth knowing their life mattered and that the world will be less colourful without them.
    The highlighed bit doesn’t make a helluva lotta sense.
    If they’re not Terminally ill, then their end isn’t nigh, or even a coupla generations away.

    Is Murray assuming they’ll commit suicide any way, but everyone’s so powerless to help, apart from loving them to the end.

  3. NFA says:

    There are no words C.L.

    To think the Aztecs, et al, were stopped from human sacrifices and here we are in their non-Christian West!

  4. C.L. says:

    If they’re not Terminally ill, then their end isn’t nigh, or even a coupla generations away.

    The proposals now are for VAD to be available for non terminally people (like Canadian Miss De Corte) who just want to die. Tognini didn’t use the word “nigh.”

    Is Murray assuming they’ll commit suicide any way, but everyone’s so powerless to help, apart from loving them to the end.

    You’re confusing Tognini and Murray.

    Tognini is simply saying all people deserve to be valued till the end.

  5. NFA says:

    Your ban at Dover’s will allow us to ‘get’ more of your wit and wisdom Ed Case?

  6. Fat Tony says:

    Your ban at Dover’s will allow us to ‘get’ more of your wit and wisdom Ed Case?

    So, NFA, you’re saying Ed Case not be posting here either??

  7. NFA says:

    Fat Tony says:
    24 July, 2023 at 7:52 pm

    Your ban at Dover’s will allow us to ‘get’ more of your wit and wisdom Ed Case?

    So, NFA, you’re saying Ed Case not be posting here either??

    No Fat Tony

    Just a reflection on the quality of Ed Case’s posts!

  8. Petros says:

    Survivor’s guilt. Very common. Terrible thing.

  9. rosie says:

    I always said those that supported euthanasia could never justify tut tutting about teen suicide.
    They’ve moved on to now it’s cool for everyone who wants to be murdered.
    No DIY though kids.
    Unacceptable behaviour.

  10. Ed Case says:

    The proposals now are for VAD to be available for non terminally people (like Canadian Miss De Corte) who just want to die.
    I get that.
    Tognini didn’t use the word “nigh.”
    His comment still doesn’t make sense.
    Who’s going to be doing the valuing till the end?
    A paid valuer?

  11. Perplexed of Brisbane says:

    The good thing is, the architects of these despicable laws will avoid euthanasia themselves. But it will be no solace for them as their agony and torment will be eternal at the hands of an angry God.

  12. and says:

    “a new kind of evil…

    It can be masqueraded in novel ways, but evil now is the same evil of long ago and the time in between. Particularly bumping off the “unfit”, the medical establishment has been down this path before, i.e., the Eugenics era of early last century. In fact, there are quite a few similarities between current and Eugenics-era medical establishments. Concerning euthanasia, the difference now is that reps of the State don’t independently determine that someone should be snuffed out. Simply providing the choice and leaving it to the “to-be-snuffed-out” to make the final decision apparently absolves the medical establishment of all culpability.

    The Logical Escalation of Wickedness

    Or, the slippery slope Public Health inspired bans and manipuation galore of the last half century typically began with “but all we want is this small request” for the “greater good” of society that quickly turned into something far beyond the “small request”. Again, concerning euthanasia, even up to a few decades ago there was considerable resistance to the very idea of medically assisted dying (MAD). It began with a “service” offered to typically old folk with terminal diseases. Before you know it, it’s “offered” to the psychologically afflicted and now transposed to the young. Even more recently, we know how the “trans” stuff has been going.

    The World Health Organization – medical HQ – is more than OK with all of this. There are folk that have pointed out decades ago that the contemporary medical establishment/Public Health, for all the good it does, now also presents a serious multi-dimensional danger to society. And this is but one manifestation of evil.

  13. Ed Case says:

    Your ban at Dover’s will allow us to ‘get’ more of your wit and wisdom Ed Case?
    Who knows?
    Your ban there hasn’t helped your commentary here, it’s still dull and flip crap.

  14. Lee says:

    Mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

    Could never happen again?

    Don’t bet on it, especially in “progressive” places like Trudeau’s Canada and in Canberra; maybe not on the same scale, but then murder is still murder.

  15. and says:

    Also from TWIP

  16. Christine says:

    The logical escalation of wickedness. That’s quite chilling.

  17. Ed Case says:

    Mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany:
    The Lutheran an d C atholic Churches raised objections, the policy was abandoned.
    Those people saved very likely starved to death during the War or were incinerated alive.

    Could never happen again?

    Oliver W. Holmes of SCOTUS had ruled that a young woman could be legally sterilised without her consent with the comment:
    3 Generations of Imbeciles are enough.
    That was the inspiration for the Eugenics Policy of the 3rd Reich.
    Holmes Ruling is still Law in the U.S., so presumably forced stetrilisations have been happening there for 96 years without comment.

    Don’t bet on it, especially in “progressive” places like Trudeau’s Canada and in Canberra; maybe not on the same scale, but then murder is still murder.
    Heard about the Liverpool Pathway?
    Patients who are deemed goners are denied food and water and Nature is allowed to take it’s course.
    That’s not so different to the [brief] German Policy of the Thirties, though some might argue it’a much crueler.

  18. Boambee John says:

    Turd Case

    Evidence, please, that Aktion T-4 was only a short lived program.

    No response will prove that you are again lying.

  19. Tel says:

    Cranky Frankie is pontificating again … as a Skeptical Atheist, I’m offended by his holier-than-thau attitude on climate change.

  20. Mantaray says:

    I’ve lately been visiting two geriatric wards at different hospitals, and a number of Nursing Homes (Residential Aged Care Facilities, the current term). What a waste of time, money, and resources a lot of ’em are. ….Old codgers out of their minds, dumped by relatives to die sometime. Many visited, and many not.

    The staffs have all been very caring and considerate. The places are clean and well-maintained, with plenty of attention paid to the health needs of the residents. Some are up and about, while others are in bed 24/7.

    90% are, quite literally, waiting to die. One old dear replied….. when I said “OK, see you later”…..”I hope it’s in heaven”. Another “I don’t want to be here too much longer”. This latter after he told me he was never going home.

    I won’t go on, but it’s been rather eye-opening. Especially when looking into the financial side of it, since basically the nursing homes are draining the inheritances of the kids and grandkids by keeping the aimlessly-waiting-for-death oldies hanging on.

    Anyhow…there’s no reason the Home operators shouldn’t be making a good quid out of it, I suppose. a quick back-of-envelope calculation is that whereas a funeral director lands $3000-$15,000 per customer, the nursing home gets about $100,000-$500,000 by dragging it out. Fantastic business model!

    Any, or all of the VAD opponents own Nursing Homes d’ya reckon?

  21. Christine says:

    An ex-editor of The Courier-Mail wrote that it was a cause for celebration that Baby Boomers had no intention of going into nursing homes/institutions, to live out their last years “on the sidelines”, as is the fate of their parents. He didn’t touch on the possibility that the sons and daughters of Baby Boomers might have different ideas.

  22. and says:

    Is that smoke coming from those pants on fire?

    Anthony Albanese gives extraordinary justification for his ‘Voice, Truth, Treaty’ concert T-shirt as he unleashes on ‘desperate’ critics who called him out in interview with Shoalhaven’s Power FM

    Anthony Albanese gives extraordinary justification for his ‘Voice, Truth, Treaty’ concert T-shirt as he unleashes on ‘desperate’ critics who called him out in interview with Shoalhaven’s Power FM (msn.com)

  23. and says:

    Read Bruce Lehrmann’s extraordinary swipe at Brittany Higgins’ leaked book – after Daily Mail revealed how she compared herself to Tibetan monks who set themselves on fire

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12333505/Read-Bruce-Lehrmanns-extraordinary-swipe-Brittany-Higgins-leaked-book-Daily-Mail-revealed-compared-Tibetan-monks-set-fire.html

  24. and says:

    Hostile ABC crowd. Quelle surprise!

    Barnaby Joyce faces boos as he speaks out on ABC’s Q+A show about why he opposes the Indigenous Voice To Parliament to a hostile ABC crowd

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12331585/Barnaby-Joyce-faces-boos-speaks-ABCs-Q-opposes-Indigenous-Voice-Parliament-hostile-ABC-crowd.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *