Our ill-advised "tolerance" abetted Dawson shootings
by Brigitte Pellerin online
It's been almost a week since the Dawson shooting, and you probably think everything that could be said about it has been said. Several times. But it's not true. What hasn't been said about it says a lot about us. The professional chatterers, I mean. And what it says about us isn't very flattering.
For starters, it appears we are unduly focused on material things. Primarily firearms, increased security in schools and ghoulish websites. In the general rush to denounce the very existence of firearms and to indulge in illogical babblings about gun control and the national long gun registry ("If it turns out this gun was registered or not, it will show that the gun registry is ineffective in controlling crime. On the other hand, the debate will be that if the Conservative government had not proceeded with the amnesty and the demonization of the gun registry and in effect, condoning the ownership of guns in our society, it encourages this kind of conduct that you can use weapons for resolving whatever the issue is." NDP justice critic Joe Comartin), we wandered so far away from the essential we might as well be in a different time zone.
Why are people allowed to say the dumbest things about guns and not lose credibility? Wendy Cukier, of the Coalition for Gun Control and a Ryerson professor of information technology, was quoted in Le Devoir that "French language protects Quebec from American influences," particularly the "romantic character" of many Americans' relationship to guns. When the reporter asked whether it was a bit odd to make such a claim on the day a Columbine-like massacre took place in Montreal, she replied: "Oh you know, in the United States, Columbine-like events happen almost every year!" No they don't, and this kind of stereotyping doesn't advance the discussion.
Or consider Quebec City Conservative MP Luc Harvey, who unburdened himself of the opinion that "Currently, you can order a pistol from the United States via eBay and it will be sent to you via Purolator. Most of the weapons arrive like that." Hum. I wonder if Purolator is as surprised to hear that as I am.
Anyway, firearms were not responsible for the attack. The attacker was. If anything, firearms kept the number of victims down, unlike what happened in 1989 when Marc Lepine (aka Gamil Gharbi) was given enough time to kill 14 women, then himself, while police secured a perimeter outside the Polytechnique. Since that massacre, the police modus operandi has changed; officers are now meant to rush in and neutralize the gunman, as they did with admirable dispatch and bravery last Wednesday. That Kimveer Gill took his own life before police bullets could finish him off matters not one iota.
What does matter, and bizarrely enough what most people failed to mention or even acknowledge, is the evil nature of Kimveer Gill's actions and the responsibility he bears for them, in this world and the next if indeed there is one. I've heard a lot of folks ask why such events happen, especially in a tolerant city like Montreal. Some blame it on guns, others blame it on violence in the media, the Internet, school bullies, a failed love affair, or an inadequate social safety net. Yes, the social safety net. As Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair explained, "True peace is not something you can buy with more equipment. It's something that comes with quality social services."
Kimveer Gill's problem wasn't that he was dissatisfied with welfare in Quebec. It was a hatred for life so deep he was determined to kill others and himself. He didn't hide this hatred but gave plenty of warnings. Unfortunately most of us are so determined not to be judgmental that nobody tried to do anything to help him climb out of his dark hole and start enjoying the sunshine at least as much as the rain.
Worse, we're so used to treating life as something that's only valuable as long as it fulfils our earthly desires (witness the high suicide and abortion rates - not just in Quebec, by the way - growing support for euthanasia and the recent survey showing 42 per cent of Quebecers believe suicide is "acceptable") that we rationalize anything, however ghastly, that seems to bring a person temporary pleasure. Ultimately we shrug off the "Angel of death" stuff as just another, equally valid lifestyle.
Until it's too late. Then we rush to blame inanimate objects or a lack of adequate anti-poverty programs as though we couldn't bear to face the obvious wickedness of a tortured soul.
That says a lot about us. And it's not flattering.
This column first appeared in The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday September 19, 2006 (A-16)
© The Ottawa Citizen
It's been almost a week since the Dawson shooting, and you probably think everything that could be said about it has been said. Several times. But it's not true. What hasn't been said about it says a lot about us. The professional chatterers, I mean. And what it says about us isn't very flattering.
For starters, it appears we are unduly focused on material things. Primarily firearms, increased security in schools and ghoulish websites. In the general rush to denounce the very existence of firearms and to indulge in illogical babblings about gun control and the national long gun registry ("If it turns out this gun was registered or not, it will show that the gun registry is ineffective in controlling crime. On the other hand, the debate will be that if the Conservative government had not proceeded with the amnesty and the demonization of the gun registry and in effect, condoning the ownership of guns in our society, it encourages this kind of conduct that you can use weapons for resolving whatever the issue is." NDP justice critic Joe Comartin), we wandered so far away from the essential we might as well be in a different time zone.
Why are people allowed to say the dumbest things about guns and not lose credibility? Wendy Cukier, of the Coalition for Gun Control and a Ryerson professor of information technology, was quoted in Le Devoir that "French language protects Quebec from American influences," particularly the "romantic character" of many Americans' relationship to guns. When the reporter asked whether it was a bit odd to make such a claim on the day a Columbine-like massacre took place in Montreal, she replied: "Oh you know, in the United States, Columbine-like events happen almost every year!" No they don't, and this kind of stereotyping doesn't advance the discussion.
Or consider Quebec City Conservative MP Luc Harvey, who unburdened himself of the opinion that "Currently, you can order a pistol from the United States via eBay and it will be sent to you via Purolator. Most of the weapons arrive like that." Hum. I wonder if Purolator is as surprised to hear that as I am.
Anyway, firearms were not responsible for the attack. The attacker was. If anything, firearms kept the number of victims down, unlike what happened in 1989 when Marc Lepine (aka Gamil Gharbi) was given enough time to kill 14 women, then himself, while police secured a perimeter outside the Polytechnique. Since that massacre, the police modus operandi has changed; officers are now meant to rush in and neutralize the gunman, as they did with admirable dispatch and bravery last Wednesday. That Kimveer Gill took his own life before police bullets could finish him off matters not one iota.
What does matter, and bizarrely enough what most people failed to mention or even acknowledge, is the evil nature of Kimveer Gill's actions and the responsibility he bears for them, in this world and the next if indeed there is one. I've heard a lot of folks ask why such events happen, especially in a tolerant city like Montreal. Some blame it on guns, others blame it on violence in the media, the Internet, school bullies, a failed love affair, or an inadequate social safety net. Yes, the social safety net. As Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair explained, "True peace is not something you can buy with more equipment. It's something that comes with quality social services."
Kimveer Gill's problem wasn't that he was dissatisfied with welfare in Quebec. It was a hatred for life so deep he was determined to kill others and himself. He didn't hide this hatred but gave plenty of warnings. Unfortunately most of us are so determined not to be judgmental that nobody tried to do anything to help him climb out of his dark hole and start enjoying the sunshine at least as much as the rain.
Worse, we're so used to treating life as something that's only valuable as long as it fulfils our earthly desires (witness the high suicide and abortion rates - not just in Quebec, by the way - growing support for euthanasia and the recent survey showing 42 per cent of Quebecers believe suicide is "acceptable") that we rationalize anything, however ghastly, that seems to bring a person temporary pleasure. Ultimately we shrug off the "Angel of death" stuff as just another, equally valid lifestyle.
Until it's too late. Then we rush to blame inanimate objects or a lack of adequate anti-poverty programs as though we couldn't bear to face the obvious wickedness of a tortured soul.
That says a lot about us. And it's not flattering.
This column first appeared in The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday September 19, 2006 (A-16)
© The Ottawa Citizen
posted by Stephen at 4:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home - Resource Library and Main Page