Gun Control

As a Canadian, my motivation for seeing stricter gun control in the USA includes a large amount of selfishness. And that's because the vast majority of illegal firearms in Canada likely come from legal purchases made in the USA and then brought across a very long border.

Having said that, I have little patience with those who claim that gun controls, including a registration/licensing procedure, is an infringement on their 'rights'. Governments, even in the 'land of the free' restrict the legal operation of cars based on age and a proven competency in its operation (demonstrated through obtaining a driver's license). Governments demand that owners register their cars (and, heck, even our pets). Does the NRA oppose vehicle registration? Is that a restriction to one's right to own property?

Rights come balanced with responsibilities. So, yes, I agree with a strong control system that says if you want the right to bear a gun, you have to demonstrate a responsibility by going through a licensing and registration process. And I'd go further to have stronger mandatory sentences (both fines and jail time) for those carrying illegal/unregistered firearms or failing to report to the authorities if their gun has been lost or stolen or if they are found to be keeping firearms in an unsafe manner. And while I can agree that such restrictions can be burdensome on lawful, responsible gun owners, they should be prepared to show the rest of us that responsible gun use isn't just a convenient phrase, but is a title one has to work to earn.

Having said all that, I think there are enough justifiable uses for firearms (especially in rural areas) that I'd certainly oppose a total ban. Such a ban would, no doubt, cut down on gun-related deaths. But thousands, too, die every year in/struck by automobiles. Should we then ban cars? Not to mention I could also make the argument that in the hands of a crazy person, an SUV can do a lot of damage on a busy street). So then, the whole argument on gun ownership is part of a larger argument about freedom and order. In a world where you have total freedom, you'd have anarchy. In a world of total order, you have totalitarianism. All rational people recognize that there has to be compromise on the 2 extremes, but the staggering number of lives lost to gun violence in the USA shows that the current compromise has to be re-worked in favour of greater public safety.

My own view is if there's going to be real change on this in the USA, it's going to have to come from the ground up, not the top down. There's going to have to be a change in attitude towards guns and responsible gun ownership akin to the changes underway in attitudes of discrimination towards gays, women, people of varying ethnicities, etc. It's sad but the magnitude of the problem means progress will take time. According to the Brady Campaign there were 65 million privately owned handguns in the US in 1996 and another 127+ million privately owned long arms. That's a very steep hill to climb, but the cost of not climbing it was shown all to clearly yesterday morning in Virginia.

A Fundamental Question

Two students were shot dead in their dormitory early this morning, by a gunman, who some two hours later, killed another 30 in a classroom at Virginia Tech University. There will, no doubt, be questions about the slow response of the University to warn students after the first shooting, whether the police investigation could have been more efficient and perhaps prevented or limited the second. And there will certainly be broader questions about gun control once more information is released on the weapons used, and how they were acquired.

But I have a different question that’s probably unanswerable, but for me it cuts to the heart of the situation. How can someone get up in the morning (or night or whenever) and say to himself, ‘Today’s the day I am going to go out and kill dozens of people”? There are certain situations, where I believe I could kill. To defend myself, or others, against attack and maybe even for certain principles in an armed conflict.

But considering such situations doesn't help me make the conceptual breakthrough to understand how someone could do such a thing as this unknown man did today. Religions, ideologies, and patriotism are among the motives that have inspired men to do terrible things, and continue to do so. Maybe we’ll find one of those (or something similar) at the core of today’s tragedy. Because, to me, hatred is so personal and life so precious, that taking 'revenge' by killing 20 or 30 of your fellow human beings in an hour or two, many of whom will have no idea as to why they're dying one morning defies my understanding.

And sure, there's an 'easy' answer that passes this off as the result of some form of mental illness only conceivable by the insane. But that then begs the question how could such a person, possessing such malicious forethought as to plan this kind of deed, possibly pass himself off as a sane human being between the time he conceived such horror and when he executed it?

Goodbye Belinda...

Not long ago, there would be derision in those words responding to Belinda Stronach’s announcement, earlier this week, she would not be running for Parliament again. And yes, I am chuckling at yet another headache for Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, by this example shown by the person Dion tasked with getting more women to run as Liberal candidates in the next election (sorry, but I simply can’t resist the obvious jab…). And yet I'm finding I will miss Belinda's presence in Canadian politics.

When I heard the announcement, that feeling of regret and loss surprised the heck out of me, because I hadn’t realized that my views on Belinda have were slowly climbing, rollercoaster-like, once again. I first became aware of her by hearing of her behind-the-scenes involvement in trying to unite Canada’s Progressive Conservative Party with the Canadian Alliance (former Reform Party). Such a union was vitally necessary if Canadians were ever again to be given a real national alternative to the governing Liberals, and I honoured her efforts to play a role in making that union happen. I was also very impressed with her run for the leadership of the new Conservative Party and her subsequent election as MP, even though she had not won the race.

And, frankly, it was good to see her, as a Conservative MP, continuing to speak up for some values shared by me, and other Conservatives I know of, even if our leader didn’t always see them that way. It seemed to prove to me the Conservative Party was indeed worthy of my support and was big enough to incorporate a diversity of views that Canadians expect from a party with aspirations to govern and not just oppose.

Then, of course, came the jarring crash caused by her decision to cross the floor to prop up Paul Martin’s minority government on the eve before a crucial non-confidence vote that he was likely to lose by the slimmest of margins. Her acceptance of the Ministry of Human Resources in exchange for preserving Mr. Martin’s government was, in my view, a particularly low point in Canadian politics and I remained both angry and contemptuous of her for a long time afterwards.

I’m not sure at what point my opinion of her began to improve. Looking back, I think it was partly due to how well she withstood the abuse hurled at her at the time and afterwards (particularly her low-keyed response to Peter MacKay's 'dog' comment when some of her colleagues were almost frenzied with hysteria). Also, unlike many who switch parties, her decision was eventually sustained by her constituents in Newmarket-Aurora in the subsequent election, and also partly because she ultimately failed to follow Scott Brison’s ridiculous attempt to have run for the leadership of two separate parties in recent years.

But I think what really prompted my feeling of regret this week is my memories of how she has never been afraid to stand up and express her opinions. Sure, some of those opinions have received (and maybe even deserved) a critical and condescending response from the media and elsewhere. But I find it most praiseworthy how she didn't let negative responses intimidate her into silence or, even worse, the the petulance shown by others who have changed parties (I'm thinking of Scott Brison and Garth Turner here). Also, while Belinda's always had access to a big microphone since entering politics (a much bigger microphone than most rookie MPs or Cabinet Ministers have), to my mind she rarely abused it the way so many of her colleagues did and do to talk ‘down’ to Canadians in general. Throughout her short and often-stormy political career, she has shown an independence and strength of spirit I wish I saw in more of her colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons.

I certainly can’t blame her for leaving. After all, her political prospects would currently seem to indicate a continued period in opposition. Or, in a best-case scenario, she might hope to receive a Ministry in another shaky minority Liberal government under a leader who (again) is so far proving to be a disappointment to members of his own party. When you compare those prospects to what’s happening at Magna with their potential acquisition of Chrysler, it's no wonder she’s jumping at the chance to return to an influential decision-making role in corporate life. So, while I wish her well, I can’t help but feel that political life in this country is being lessened a bit by her departure. And I find, to my surprise, I will miss her in the next Parliament.

The Green Party of Canada
Bringing the Smell of Compost
To an Election Near You!

I am of course, referring to the deal announced today by Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion, respectively the new leaders of the Green and Liberal Parties.

Under the terms of the Nazi-Soviet (oops, I mean Dion-May) non-aggression pact. The Liberals have agreed not to put up a candidate in the riding of Central Nova, held by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, where Ms. May will run in the next election. In return, the Greens will not field a candidate in Mr. Dion’s riding.

The quotes coming from Elizabeth May at today’s announcement are hilarious!

“There is no time to waste. Because of our electoral system, I do not have a choice. I have to collaborate." Nope, no time to waste at all for democracy and freedom of choice. It’s not like May has her choice of 308 ridings to run in to put her case before the people (oh wait, she does!). Instead it's much better to collaborate with the Liberals to fight global warming, even if they let Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions increase by 30% in the last decade they were in power.

"This is an extraordinary expression of putting progress and principle ahead of politics as usual." Absolutely! This is so much better than offering the people of Central Nova a full-fledged choice about what party or candidate they should vote for!

And in response to NDP Leader Jack Layton’s refusal to enter into a similar deal, “I think it behoves Jack Layton to think about getting beyond the kind of traditional, ancestral, tribal hatreds that are part of partisan politics." Unless of course, you’re talking about the evil regressive Conservatives, you can hate them all you want! Not to mention that the NDs came in second in Central Nova, so their support would have been much more valuable.

And my personal favourite, "I see in Mr. Dion a true leader for this country." Which is why she will deny the people in Central Nova the opportunity of voting for his party.

There’s a long-standing tradition (though not always exercised) of not running a candidate against a newly-chosen party leader running in a by-election. That’s one thing. But this scheme denies tens of thousands of Canadians the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice in a general election. It’s an attack on democracy when two individuals can sit down and remove names from ballots, despite what local riding associations may want and feel. In my view, it’s morally repugnant.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s going to prove a very wise decision for either leader. Mr. Dion has, in essence, told local Liberals in a riding that it doesn’t matter who they nominate or how hard they’re prepared to work, Dion will toss them overboard to support someone running for a different party. It shows a contempt for local volunteers and workers that I think will come back and haunt him. It’s one thing for a local campaign to decide in the final week of a campaign that, with no hope for victory, they should support someone who shares some of their values (like the Liberals did, once upon a time, for Joe Clark). It’s another thing for the national leader to sacrifice a riding weeks or months before an election. And Canadians might well wonder what other principles Mr. Dion is prepared to sacrifice in order to win?

As for May, her quotes show she doesn’t even need to be elected before engaging in Orwellian truth-speak. By making this kind of backroom deal, she makes a mockery of Green promises to do things differently and destroys any kind of image of the party as an honest broker working for Canadians’ best interests. She’s also taking a big personal gamble that the voters of Central Nova are going to reward her for this kind of manipulation, when they might instead rally around the native son under attack from an outsider. Finally, with her endorsement of Dion, there are probably a whole bunch of would-be Green canvassers wondering how to respond to voters who ask, ‘why should I vote for your party, when I can vote for a real Liberal?’ (except in Central Nova, of course!)