That is a tough question if the doctors were simply carrying out government policy. I hope the investigation shows how much of this was policy as intended or over zealous doctors behaving illegally.
If legal, where does the buck stop? With doctors? With politicians? With the general public?
I probably agree in the moral sense. I was thinking more in the legal sense were you to actually try to hold someone accountable for genocide.
It would be interesting to find the moral limitations by being a steelmanning the position.
Is there some limit where the state should step in if people are having too many children? What if they dont care for their pregnancies, leading to severe biological disorders.
In the latter case, people have been tried and imprisoned in the US. I guess if people have too many children to care for, they can be imprisoned for child abuse and neglect as well.
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic, but in case you are not, I think it is a good question.
It seems like having as many children as you want should be a negative human right, up until the point where you can no longer support them and neglect them.
It is a really weird situation though because there are so many social supports in place for children and parents. unwanted children can be put up for adoption. Should there be a limit on the number of times this can be be done by a single individual?
These stories about happy Nordics may have started in the 2000's. I first came across such a piece circa 2005 after the publication of some 'happiness' survey.
Is there really a big problem with cashlessness? It was something everyone used to look forward to. Then social media came along and with it a parade of zerohedge weirdos, paranoid neo-confederates, well-funded anti-taxation think tanks.
I see banning cash as dismal, because state and corporate power over the individual is high as is, and blocking your bank accounts would grant them absolute power.
No cash, no paying for food, fuel, utilities, and so on. Sure, it would limit crime, but it would also limit dissent, due to chilling effects, and then there is no obstacle to tyranny.
In the US, cashless society would make the death penalty obsolete. All you would need to do is place a temporary indefinite hold on someone's bank account. The rest of the problem would sort itself out rather quickly.
...I hate to break it to you, but those crazies you're trying to paint are in reality a bunch of people who just want to be left alone to spend their money.
It is now the case that every financial institution is:
>Echoing every transaction over $600 to tax authorities
>Filing an SAR anytime activity exceeds a particular threshold
>Filing an explicit notice for law enforcement when a good chunk of money goes to cash, because it can't be tracked anymore.
I.e. We have decided that a swathe of financial transactions that were previously legal, aren't, or are likely to coincide, despite them being reasonable sums for the economic conditions.
Financial surveillance is still surveillance, and I'm getting just a bit tired of people looking at people who have some aerious concerns over things like this and brushing us off as crazies. With inflation in the mix, CBDC's on the horizon, and a lazy/LE leadable legislature, we're about putting a bow on any sort of financial privacy in the United States.
Like it or not, not everybody is okay with that continuing to getting parceled off.
...I hate to break it to you, but those crazies you're trying to paint are in reality a bunch of people who just want to be left alone to spend their money.
It is now the case that every financial institution is:
>Echoing every transaction over $600 to tax authorities
>Filing an SAR anytime activity exceeds a particular threshold
>Filing an explicit notice for law enforcement when a good chunk of money goes to cash, because it can't be tracked anymore.
I.e. We have decided that a swathe of financial transactions that were previously legal, aren't, or are likely to coincide, despite them being reasonable sums for the economic conditions.
Financial surveillance is still surveillance, and I'm getting just a bit tired of people looking at people who have some aerious concerns over things like this and brushing us off as crazies. With inflation in the mix, CBDC's on the horizon, and a lazy/LE leadable legislature, we're about putting a bow on any sort of financial privacy in the United States.
Like it or not, not everybody is okay with that continuing to getting parceled off.
That you've apparently got Governments nodding at sterilizing folks is... Well... It's a bit further down the path, but certainly a trend I have been expecting as we've slid down the 1984/Brave New World-as-a-Manual existence.
There certainly exist sane people who 'just want to be left alone to spend their money' but they don't arrive at that view for the same – subconscious or unspoken – reasons as the groups I singled out.
One relatively common example: When your partner dies, the governement locks your account to make sure taxes are being paid. Then they take a few months of waiting time before handling your account. Hope you have enough cash to bridge these months. The law changed a few years ago because too much stupidity happened, but thing are still far from optimal.
The grandmother of someone I know got actually stuck in limbo. The postal bank would not release her account until the gov OK'd it, and the gov wanted taxes paid before giving an OK. But the taxes could not be paid because the account was locked at the postal bank. The gov nor thecpostal office didn't care. After a year, her family paid the taxes, everything unlocked, and she paid back her family.
Variants of this story afd not that uncommon. Live trough it once, and you don't want governemental bureaucrats having full access to your money.
If people support liberty for the wrong reasons, does it matter? Sounds like you would rather punish pariahs rather than strike back against mass government surveillance.
> Is there really a big problem with cashlessness? It was something everyone used to look forward to.
In the US, it wasn't something everyone looked forward to. There was very strong opposition to the idea from the beginning, well before social media was a thing. There still is plenty of opposition, although less now. That's what decades of PR efforts can get you, I guess.
I live in Denmark and after moving here, the casual racism towards Greenlandic people here really shocked me. There is a real economic and social problem for them here, many of them ending up homeless. Of the homeless, they regularly meet up in large groups outside train stations etc and drink a lot of alcohol, which people both hate (complaining about the police not doing anything while constantly conflating antisocial behavior and simply being from Greenland) and also claim doesn't exist (there is a pervasive belief among Danes including young and left-leaning ones that Denmark isn't racist unlike "those countries" or that there are simply no homeless people because of benefits etc - they aren't visible because they are typically hassled by the police and begging is harshly prosecuted).
Meanwhile having a slightly non-danish name/face (photographs are near mandatory on resumes and Danes are shocked when told its a terrible idea) makes it significantly harder to get a job, at least in my anecdotal experience from my fellow students. Not to mention several of my friends being confronted in public and subject to verbal abuse based on their skin color. It's a society very much in denial about having problems, which makes it appear much better from the outside. I can't speak as much for other wealthy western european nations but from my understanding from others its also very much the case there.
There have also been several successive significant political scandals around treatment of immigrants. Such as systematically forcibly separating couples at the border, theft of valuables from immigrants in exchange for asylum, deporting folks back to syria during the civil war there etc. Several successive immigration ministers have been literally prosecuted yet the laws they made remain in place. Turns out when your news articles aren't in English, things like this are much easier to hide.
The country has been good to me personally, and I try to do what I can to help (volunteered with Frelsens Hær, especially over covid etc. Incidentally, heard lots of horror stories while volunteering there about the dysfunction of society in Greenland proper, largely due to government/colonial interference in families in many ways such as this & moving children thousands of km to take school far from their parents, refusing to teach in native languages etc, all happening far more recently than anyone wants to admit). It (Denmark) is a nice place in many ways, and I don't want my negative comments to dissuade anyone from a visit, I just sometimes feel I have to balance the often unquestioning and glowingly positive view that exists out there.
>In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.
Without exaggeration this is genocide of the indigenous population of Greenland. This is insane and Denmark itself should be held responsible for this.
I'm floored by this story. The personal anecdotes are harrowing, but what truly surprised me was the scale: half of all women of reproductive age, reducing the birthrate to 1/3 of its value in just 10 years is far worse than I expected.
This is horrific. I immediately thought of Puerto Rico, where women were forcibly sterilized for decades (until the 1970s), often after giving birth.
(This is part of the importance of talking about reproductive rights, not just abortion rights—the right to control one’s body to have or not to have a baby should be a fundamental human right.)
Many of the same US states that are currently eagerly restricting abortion rights, and are even casting covetous eyes towards birth control, had loads of forced sterilizations in previous decades.
As one of our marching calls goes, “Not the church, and not the state, will tell us how to procreate!”
There's currently two memetic beliefs going around over here (especially in middle to upper middle class + younger generations) that A) America is more racist than the rest of the world, and that B) America has gotten it wrong by not having a European-style social democracy + associated benefits.
There are many reasons. There is an element of grass always being greener somewhere else. It’s sort of a mythical place with everything being better, and offered as an answer to whatever issues are present locally in US. A promised land of some sort.
A few years ago my parents were helping a family of Yazidi refugees in my hometown in germany. This included taking them to doctor appointments and at one such appointment a doctor fitted a contraceptive coil without consent or knowledge to the mother of the familiy... the reason beeing: they already had enough kids.
I felt disgusted by this behaviour and the casual way my parents told me of this, but have never shared this with anybody - although I have thought about it often over the years.
This paternalistic, "we know better than you" kind of behaviour sickens me and remains a thorn in my side, because I'm complicit.
54 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadBut I also couldn't help but wonder how BBC recruited their interview subjects:
"Annita, now 31, says the doctor explained that the implant had been inserted because this was her fourth abortion."
What an understatement!
But in reality you will find this kind of behaviour by many government in the post war period.
If legal, where does the buck stop? With doctors? With politicians? With the general public?
It would be interesting to find the moral limitations by being a steelmanning the position.
Is there some limit where the state should step in if people are having too many children? What if they dont care for their pregnancies, leading to severe biological disorders.
In the latter case, people have been tried and imprisoned in the US. I guess if people have too many children to care for, they can be imprisoned for child abuse and neglect as well.
It seems like having as many children as you want should be a negative human right, up until the point where you can no longer support them and neglect them.
It is a really weird situation though because there are so many social supports in place for children and parents. unwanted children can be put up for adoption. Should there be a limit on the number of times this can be be done by a single individual?
But it going cashless and now this, it looks to me more like a scene of Brave New World.
Greenland literally has the highest suicide rate in the world.
In fact more then twice as much as number two S.-Korea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
The US is one of the most prosperous countries on earth. Just don't look at Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
Tada! Your current circumstances are suddenly (by comparison) so much better! And they didn't even change!
Is there really a big problem with cashlessness? It was something everyone used to look forward to. Then social media came along and with it a parade of zerohedge weirdos, paranoid neo-confederates, well-funded anti-taxation think tanks.
I see banning cash as dismal, because state and corporate power over the individual is high as is, and blocking your bank accounts would grant them absolute power.
No cash, no paying for food, fuel, utilities, and so on. Sure, it would limit crime, but it would also limit dissent, due to chilling effects, and then there is no obstacle to tyranny.
It is now the case that every financial institution is:
>Echoing every transaction over $600 to tax authorities >Filing an SAR anytime activity exceeds a particular threshold >Filing an explicit notice for law enforcement when a good chunk of money goes to cash, because it can't be tracked anymore.
I.e. We have decided that a swathe of financial transactions that were previously legal, aren't, or are likely to coincide, despite them being reasonable sums for the economic conditions.
Financial surveillance is still surveillance, and I'm getting just a bit tired of people looking at people who have some aerious concerns over things like this and brushing us off as crazies. With inflation in the mix, CBDC's on the horizon, and a lazy/LE leadable legislature, we're about putting a bow on any sort of financial privacy in the United States.
Like it or not, not everybody is okay with that continuing to getting parceled off.
It is now the case that every financial institution is:
>Echoing every transaction over $600 to tax authorities >Filing an SAR anytime activity exceeds a particular threshold >Filing an explicit notice for law enforcement when a good chunk of money goes to cash, because it can't be tracked anymore.
I.e. We have decided that a swathe of financial transactions that were previously legal, aren't, or are likely to coincide, despite them being reasonable sums for the economic conditions.
Financial surveillance is still surveillance, and I'm getting just a bit tired of people looking at people who have some aerious concerns over things like this and brushing us off as crazies. With inflation in the mix, CBDC's on the horizon, and a lazy/LE leadable legislature, we're about putting a bow on any sort of financial privacy in the United States.
Like it or not, not everybody is okay with that continuing to getting parceled off.
That you've apparently got Governments nodding at sterilizing folks is... Well... It's a bit further down the path, but certainly a trend I have been expecting as we've slid down the 1984/Brave New World-as-a-Manual existence.
The grandmother of someone I know got actually stuck in limbo. The postal bank would not release her account until the gov OK'd it, and the gov wanted taxes paid before giving an OK. But the taxes could not be paid because the account was locked at the postal bank. The gov nor thecpostal office didn't care. After a year, her family paid the taxes, everything unlocked, and she paid back her family.
Variants of this story afd not that uncommon. Live trough it once, and you don't want governemental bureaucrats having full access to your money.
In the US, it wasn't something everyone looked forward to. There was very strong opposition to the idea from the beginning, well before social media was a thing. There still is plenty of opposition, although less now. That's what decades of PR efforts can get you, I guess.
*: only between 6 and 22, and if there is personel at the shop
Marketing.
Meanwhile having a slightly non-danish name/face (photographs are near mandatory on resumes and Danes are shocked when told its a terrible idea) makes it significantly harder to get a job, at least in my anecdotal experience from my fellow students. Not to mention several of my friends being confronted in public and subject to verbal abuse based on their skin color. It's a society very much in denial about having problems, which makes it appear much better from the outside. I can't speak as much for other wealthy western european nations but from my understanding from others its also very much the case there.
There have also been several successive significant political scandals around treatment of immigrants. Such as systematically forcibly separating couples at the border, theft of valuables from immigrants in exchange for asylum, deporting folks back to syria during the civil war there etc. Several successive immigration ministers have been literally prosecuted yet the laws they made remain in place. Turns out when your news articles aren't in English, things like this are much easier to hide.
The country has been good to me personally, and I try to do what I can to help (volunteered with Frelsens Hær, especially over covid etc. Incidentally, heard lots of horror stories while volunteering there about the dysfunction of society in Greenland proper, largely due to government/colonial interference in families in many ways such as this & moving children thousands of km to take school far from their parents, refusing to teach in native languages etc, all happening far more recently than anyone wants to admit). It (Denmark) is a nice place in many ways, and I don't want my negative comments to dissuade anyone from a visit, I just sometimes feel I have to balance the often unquestioning and glowingly positive view that exists out there.
(This is part of the importance of talking about reproductive rights, not just abortion rights—the right to control one’s body to have or not to have a baby should be a fundamental human right.)
https://uwm.edu/clacs/eugenics-and-reproductive-coercion-in-...
As one of our marching calls goes, “Not the church, and not the state, will tell us how to procreate!”