Compulsory sterilization is a term used for federal or state/provincial government issued programs with the intent to sterilize specific groups and populations. Most commonly these populations are composed of racial minorities, specific religious groups, the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, people in poverty, immigrants, prostitutes, and Indigenous peoples. Compulsory sterilization is often associated with eugenics, which is a “set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the human population through controlled breeding”. Compulsory sterilization would be classified as negative eugenics, a form of eugenics that discourages the procreation of individuals classified above by the means of sexual sterilization or institutionalization. Generally, negative eugenics has the goal to breed out undesirable traits such as disease, disabilities, defects and “undesirable traits”. The practice of compulsory sterilization is seen in dozens of nations globally, with this research essay focusing on this practice being enforced in Canada.
The sexual sterilization of women can be performed via two surgical procedures, one of which being a minilaparotomy. This procedure involves a small incision in the abdomen, where the fallopian tubes are then passed through. From there, either a small sect of both tubes is removed, or both tubes are removed completely. This method of sterilization is typically performed postpartum, meaning that a woman had already given birth and this procedure is completed shortly after delivery. The other procedure is called a laparoscopy. This procedure utilizes a device known as a laparoscope, which is inserted through a small incision made in the belly button. From there, surgeons are able to view the pelvic organs where they can then insert an instrument into the scope and close off the fallopian tubes, or use another instrument inserted through a separate incision. Both of these procedures result in the prevention of eggs from moving down the fallopian tubes, keeping the sperm cells from reaching them meaning no fertilization, therefore no pregnancy.
The sexual sterilization procedure for men is called a vasectomy. In this procedure, one or more incisions are made in the scrotum, where each vas deferens (tubes that transport sperm) are looped and sections are removed, which results in scar tissue blocking sperm from releasing into semen. This is the most common method, although there is another form of the procedure that requires no incisions. Vasectomies result in the prevention of fertilizing a woman’s egg due to the fact that no sperm cells are present in their semen.
The eugenics movement in Canada began in the early 20th century, where the policies supported by eugenicists were considered progressive to Canadians, including but not limited to psychiatrists, feminists, and socialists. Eugenic policies in Canada were founded on the premise that the reproduction of groups such as WASP’s (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants= the majority of generational Canadians). They also discouraged the reproduction of immigrants, particularly those of Eastern European descent, as well as First Nations peoples. Although there was some opposition from ethnic and religious groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the eugenics movement was supported by Canadians who are now seen as historically significant figures. Some of these figures included J.S. Woodsworth, Dr. E.W McBride, as well as nationally renowned feminist and activist Nellie McClung. McClung, often seen as a national hero for her influence on the suffragette movement in Canada, was one of the most prominent advocate and supporter of eugenic sterilization. Due to her support in this commonly referred to as elitist movement, Nellie McClung is now widely regarded as a supremacist and racist as she supported the sterilization of “mentally deficient” people.
The Canadian eugenics movement resulted in the enactment of legislation supporting the involuntary sterilization of certain populations in provinces such as Alberta, where the provincial government passed the Sexual Sterilization Act in 1928. This specific act was initially used to sterilize individuals who have been institutionalized due to mental illness, where consent was obligatory, either by the patient themselves or their parent, spouse, or legal guardian. Eleven years later in 1937, the consensual aspect of this act was revoked, meaning that any patient of a psychological institution that was deemed mentally defective on grounds that sterilization will prevent the spread of mental illness to offspring. The act was then updated in 1942 to include individuals who have not been institutionalized, meaning that any person suffering from mental illness, often misdiagnosed due to lack of technology and knowledge of brain chemistry and development, could be sexually sterilized without their consent. The act was eventually repealed by 1972 by the provincial government, yet damage was already done to thousands of people. The Eugenics Board of Alberta had approved approximately 4700 procedures for sterilization, yet only 2834 were officially carried out. Since the act was disbanded, hundreds of patients who suffered compulsory sterilization at the mercy of the Alberta government have settled class action lawsuits against the province and some out of court, including Leilani Muir, who herself had been sexually sterilized at the young age of 14. She was an institutionalized patient at the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives who was given $740,000 in compensation to the atrocities committed towards her. Currently Muir is an advocate for eugenics awareness and gives speeches at events to recognize and remember the acts committed against innocent men, women and children such as at the Alberta Eugenics Awareness Week.
Alberta was not the only province to have compulsory sterilization. British Columbia had passed their own Sexual Sterilization Act in 1933, which was extremely similar to the Alberta act enactment of the same name. Difference include the fact that only out-patients, those on the path of being discharged should be sterilized. This resulted in significantly less amount of people being involuntarily sterilized, with an estimated amount of 200 to 400 patients. Unlike the Alberta act, the guidelines in this legislation were never amended, changed, or expanded to include other groups of people in compulsory sterilization. The act was eventually repealed in 1973. Similarly, patients who underwent sterilization received financial compensation, such as nine women who were all sterilized at the Riverview Hospital between the years of 1940 and 1968. The exact number of women who were sterilized in British Columbia is unknown due to the fact that official records were destroyed by hospitals and institutions that performed these procedures, as well as the fact that many went undocumented both in British Columbia as well as in Alberta.
Although Alberta and British Columbia implemented sexual sterilization policies, no other province went through with their eugenic agenda. Provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan attempted to enact eugenic legislation, but resistance from the people as well as religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church prevented them from being passed. Other provinces and territories had passed positive eugenic polices, such as Quebec which encouraged the creation of offspring with incentives such as baby bonuses and financial aid.
The population that was affected greatly by these Sexual Sterilization Acts were those with mental disabilities and illnesses. However, a large portion of involuntarily sterilized people included First Nations peoples. Approximately 25% of those sterilized in Alberta and British Columbia included First Nations and Métis, most of which were women who were institutionalized, not for mental illness but for their ethnicity. Although these acts were repealed in the 70’s, there are several cases of sexual sterilization that date into the 21st century, most recently in 2018. There have been dozens of Indigenous women to come forward and speak about their experience of forced and coerced sterilization. In these cases, women received procedures without their explicit consent, some of whom even denied consent yet were still operated on anyway. Indigenous women who delivered babies were also coerced and or forced into sterilization on the grounds that they cannot see their newborn child until the procedure is complete. Doctors had lied to these women and told them that the procedure was reversible, although it is a permanent operation. One anonymous woman had said on the CBC Radio show The Current, “the option of having my tubes tied was available and I immediately asked about side effects and they ultimately assured me that it could be reversed and that there were minimal side effects and I believed them”. Multiple other women recall not being allowed to leave until their tubes were cut, tied, or cauterized. Several of these women have filed class action lawsuits against the provincial government and medical institutions for their sterilization, including 60 First Nations and Métis women who are currently in court with the Saskatchewan provincial government.
The number of classical eugenicists decreased after World War 2, after all the information and documentation of Nazi supported sterilization and eugenic-ideal based experiments were committed against Jews, people of color, and the physically or intellectually disabled. However, these heinous acts were still committed to thousands of people nationwide. The United Nations Committee Against Torture had in fact told Canada must stop the “extensive forced or coerced sterilization” of Indigenous women. This was prompted by human-rights activists and groups as well as Canadian political parties at the federal level. These parties include the NDP party, as well as their MP Rachel Blaney who had said “Do the Liberals not understand that this a stain on our country, on every one of us in this (House of Commons)? Why are Liberals tolerating forced sterilization of Indigenous women?”. Currently, the Liberal government has said they plan on taking action to help correct these crimes committed, although cases of compulsory sterilization occurred as recent as 2018, which has been noted by several organizations and civil rights groups both in and out of Canada.
Works Cited
- “Aboriginal and Indigenous Peoples.” The Eugenics Archives, https://eugenicsarchive.ca/database/documents/535eea597095aa000000020d.
- “Eugenics in Canada.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eugenics.
- “Forced Sterilization of Indigenous Women in Canada.” International Justice Resource Center, https://ijrcenter.org/forced-sterilization-of-indigenous-women-in-canada/.
- Kirkup, Kristy. “’Deeply Disturbed’: Health Committee Calls on Feds to Investigate Forced Sterilization.” Global News, Global News, 7 Aug. 2019, https://globalnews.ca/news/5733717/forced-sterilization-indigenous-women-canada/.
- “Nellie McClung.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/nellie-letitia-mcclung.
- “UN Urges Canada to Take Action against Forced Sterilization of Indigenous Women.” The Globe and Mail, 7 Dec. 2018, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-un-urges-canada-to-take-action-against-forced-sterilization-of/.
- “Unwanted Sterilization and Eugenics Programs in the United States.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/.
- Virdi, Jaipreet, et al. “Canada’s Shame: the Coerced Sterilization of Indigenous Women.” New Internationalist, 30 Nov. 2018, https://newint.org/features/2018/11/29/canadas-shame-coerced-sterilization-indigenous-women.
- “Women’s Health Care Physicians.” ACOG, https://www.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/Sterilization-for-Women-and-Men?IsMobileSet=false#tubal.
2019-12-19-1576722578