I will be writing letters, meeting with my elected representatives and organizing people within my community to work towards deterring violent atrocities. I will be petitioning feverishly despite the many other demands family life and a career present because I confess an absolute solidarity on the notion of ending such violence.

And not just violence against women. Really, a healthy person will stand opposed to violence against any Gender. Most mass murderers are not specifically misogynists anyway. Even infamous killers like Cho Seung-Hui at Vermont Tech or Kimveer Gill at Dawson College are stereotypical ‘equal opportunity’ killers and their heinous actions lack coherent victim selection.

No, I think that when remembering a day dedicated to the victims of mass violence, inserting the notion that we will specifically target an end to violence against women seems deliberately sexist and unnecessarily dismissive of the victims of other mass killings.
But let’s get beyond platitudes to the ugly heart of this thing.

As for a more effective means of deterrence, I enthusiastically support individual rights to self defense. It is my goal to see Libertarian gun rights pass into 2010 with stronger public and government recognition.

This process begins encouraging Canadian Parliament to successfully deliver bill C-391. You don’t need to write opinion columns for a government funded media outlet to discover why so many Canadians vocally despise the Long Gun Registry that C-391 focuses on abolishing.

Our collective goodwill was extended to support gun control because the supporting story was a very moving one. It was literally marketed to us on the grave stones of our daughters, and we did not want to intrude on their memory by digging too hard at this legislative mechanisms or that elected representative who was supposed to protect our families’ interests. We trusted the Government of the day to diligently examine and then fix the problems. And how did they honor our trust?

They funded Wendy Cukier (amongst others) with her political ties to foreign extremists to directly Lobby the Government with a one dimensional plan to severely limit if not eradicate private gun ownership in Canada. Allan Rock then put a false veneer on the entire process by first talking to the firearms community and then glossing over or ignoring virtually every single cautionary measure suggested by the gun owners. Wow. Just wow. These are the very same people who today express shock at our anger of betrayal.

We expected greater safety for our families. Instead, we fostered a violent offense rate that places us as the 6th worst nation in the world with 935 violent offenses per 100,000 people, and a useless piece of consolation legislation to track the guns of duck hunters while murder after murder continues unabated. According to the UK’s ‘Daily Mail’ the US has a violent offense rate of only 466 violent offenses per 100,000 people. And this is the pattern Cukier cautions us not to follow?

It has been nearly 20 years since that the registry has tracked, harassed and generally inconvenienced law abiding gun owners on a daily basis. And these are things that we would likely live with if the useless Registry actually addressed any criminal issues. But it does no such thing. Instead, it embarrassingly trundles on at the cost of millions of dollars per year, oblivious to its utter failure to prevent neither a single crime. It could not work, because it targeted the wrong people. The ones that always have been more than willing to comply with law and order.

Once every year on December 6 a colossal media circus is held featuring Wendy Cukier in its starring role. In this bizarre theatre of conceit, Cukier recites her lines extolling the many great virtues of her registry. It’s a role she has played with passion. And it’s a role she has financially and politically done well at. As Cukier rolls out her hand-selected and screened statistics as the supporting apparatus of the monster, I am reminded of the horror-thriller movie scene where Dr Frankenstein rants madly of the benefits his research will bring to society.

But this year in particular, she has decided to address a shift in public opinion. She is ad-libbing her lines a bit more than usual. This stage play is a bit off-message because it is now less about her or her monster and more about you.

She damns any would-be opponents of her one-sided view for second guessing her abomination. She adds to the clamor of the statistical apparatus by bringing the old bones of Ecole Polytechnique out for public display as ‘evidence’ to shame us for ever questioning her Long Gun Registry’s relevance despite the many fresh bones created in spite of the less than worthless two billion dollar registry.

Her associates join in this bizarre crescendo to scold us for our hand in somehow impugning the memories of these women as if an insult or ill wish was ever leveled in even their general direction. And they never let an opportunity go amiss to remind us of how small a minority we are. After all, the vast majority of Canadians (or so they tell us) support their ghastly parade.

The effect is shock and awe.

And yet, Wendy Cukier’s publicly recorded comments on the results of the second reading of the C-391 free vote expressed less confidence than she roars with on stage. Her ’shocked’ surprise suggests to me that Gun Control Canada had been caught with its pants down. This sort of thing can only happen to a political Lobbyist when they have drank their own cool-aid for too long. And it reveals a particular brand of arrogance to believe that Canadians have bough a polemic line of thought hook-line-and-sinker. An astonishing lack of grasp on the Canadian public pulse right there.

Cukier failed Canadian victims in her first approach at this, and she is very nearly the antithesis of the tempered personality necessary to determine a balanced, effective new approach to gun legislation in any second round either. A desperately needed change that will protect victims, cease victimizing citizens and imprison victimizers.

US Effect:
Our neighbors to the south provide a more effective lesson in Legislative effects on crime rates on an arguably similar societal makeup. 24 US States repealed their ‘duty to retreat’ laws and another 4 States are well on their way to doing so because of demonstrable crime rate reduction in the original 24. Fully 48 states allow citizens concealed carry with a proper permit (CCW). This measure is so pervasively effective in deterring crime that 39 of these 48 States choose to direct their local officials to treat CCW licensing as ‘shall issue.’ The State must provide factual evidence that an owner is unfit for such licensing to justify a refusal. A ‘Shall Issue’ gun on even one woman in that classroom might have saved many lives. But even if it would have saved only one life, it would have been worth it.

A particular type of person who has already made up their mind on this issue in spite of factual evidence will take exception to my observations on the effectiveness of these American measures, as if Legislative momentum across 48 States was not sufficient. Some people would call them brainwashed. I think they just need to take an honest look at the numbers. Indeed, we should benefit from examining foreign study sources and correlate their findings with what we already believe.

The Daily Mail in Britain has produced ‘The League of Shame’ list. The list ranks the top 10 worst countries in the world for violent crime rates. The UK tops this list by a wide margin with a shocking 2034 violent offenses per 100,000 people. This is a particularly embarrassing figure when you considering their globally leading role in gun control experimentation. It is nothing less than home plate for Rebecca Peters.

Yet, this stark warning of ‘do not tread here’ has been largely unheeded here in Canada. Our previous Government chose to almost unilaterally follow the UK’s model, and we now rank rather unsurprisingly as #6 amongst the top 10 worst countries in the world with 935 violent offenses per 100,000 people.

Let that figure sink in for a minute before you read even one more line.

There are 935 violent offenses per 100,000 people in Canada. We really need to put a number this big into some context. We have double the violent crime rate of France despite their broadly reported troubles with a vast immigrant Muslim population and controversial Legislative initiatives such as a ban on The Hijab.

935 violent offenses per 100,000 people? We are approaching the epidemic violent crime rate of South Africa. Not even a South African will stick up for their atrocious record, and they are actually preferable to Britain. Yet, how loudly our left wing activists declare that we desperately need more of the same medicine. The US system is chronically maligned by the far left activists in Canada. Recent jabs made by Mohammed Elmasry declared ‘Canada must not adopt US style gun control laws. But these pandering appeals to anti-US sentiment do not even withstand the scrutiny of a foreign newspaper, let alone a national inquiry.

Let’s make sure we absorb clearly and without prejudice that the US does not even rank on ‘The League of Shame’ list. They have worked very consistently against International pressures and resisted joining in this perilous trend. In return for their forbearance and their resistance to liberal media influence, they have reversed their crime trends. The US now ranks off the scale at the admirably low rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

If you have read this and still feel a deep seated reservation against following an American mindset on crime control, you may want to reevaluate your motivations.

But I came across this excellent article in my lunch hour and wanted to share it with you as well.

It bears note that the Canadian long gun registry is dying (if not dead already) despite the best efforts of organizations with a financial interest in preserving the enterprise of regulating social behavior. And it is encouraging to see our Global neighbors making the same recognition that this ill conceived social experiment is a complete sham.

Enjoy.

Registration, the big lie.

Peter Moss – Wednesday, September 30, 2009
[ Reads: 177 / Comments:3 ]

The Firearms Control Act has not only alienated the police from the public – in particular firearm owners – but also brought the South African Police and Safety and Security into disrepute.

The police in acting as custodians, promoters and enforcers of this Act as their duty and responsibility to the citizens of South Africa have become the object of public doubt and mistrust in their ability and willingness to uphold public safety and security. The Firearms Control Act undermines the very foundations upon which public trust is built in seeking to disarm citizens who daily have to face violent criminals intent on inflicting trauma and depriving them of life, assets and dignity.

“Social philosophers and statesmen over the centuries have agreed that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. Unless this is done, all else is futile. If the state does not guarantee the safety of its citizens, anarchy ensues.” — Stephen Mulholland, Another Voice, Sunday Times, Aug 6, 2000.

Every South African has a Constitutional right to expect to live in a safe and secure environment. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that this is indeed possible by protecting the right to life, liberty and property of its citizens. However the State cannot guarantee personal safety, as it has no means to directly protect each and every individual. Therefore it is the duty of the State to ensure that each individuals right and ability to defend themselves is unhindered with laws that would impede or obstruct their ability to do so.

The state must provide the infrastructure to control crime and ensure that crime is punished. The state must not interfere with citizens rights to defend themselves with limitation unless for very good reason. Thus, a “partnership” is reached between the people and State that can last only as long as each understands the role they have to play and each carries out the duties they accept.

One of the most costly interventions currently undertaken by the SAPS is the registration of firearms. Yet the SAPS produce no report as to costs, value to crime prevention or prosecution of this administrative function. The hard-pressed taxpayer is being deliberately left in the dark and citizens simply have no hope of knowing if this costly intervention serves some useful purpose or if it is cost efficient.

How well does registration stack up against the available evidence?

In 1997 Sydney Mufamadi in answers to questions stated in Parliament that the amount of violent crime committed by licensed firearm owners was “insignificant”. This is estimated to be 0.05%. Registering the 99.95% of firearms in the hope of finding the 0.05% is like registering each straw in a haystack to find the needle.

Universal firearms registration is ineffective because it cannot reduce firearms deaths, cannot help police to solve crimes, nor can it let police know who has what firearms. There is no factual support for the claim that firearms registration can help the police solve crimes. The police in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland have worked with firearms registration for a number of years, but in none of these countries have the police found firearms registration to be cost-effective.

• A secret report from the United Kingdom police admits that their extensive firearms database has not been useful in solving crimes in that country.

• The police in two Australian states recommended the termination of universal firearms registration. – Report of the Victoria Police on the Firearms Registration System, February 26, 1987; – Report of the South Australian Deregulation Task Force, Adelaide, October, 1985.

• The New Zealand government decided to discontinue firearms registration in 1983 after the New Zealand National Police recommended its termination since they had not found it useful. Despite drastic increases in funding in the 1970s, the New Zealand National Police were actually falling further and further behind. They discovered that after several decades, their firearm registry hadn’t proved useful in solving crimes and it was diverting scarce resources away from more important duties.

• Canada’s recently elected Government has decided to abandon the firearms registry. It had been demonstrated that the Canadian licensing and registration system was not cost-effective and had not reduced crime. Research had shown that 71 per cent of firearm licenses were found to have errors, and over 250,000 guns were registered with the same serial numbers as stolen guns. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police had said that they had no faith in the registry’s information, which listed barely more than half the country’s guns or gun owners. Moreover, the firearms register had not saved any lives: while gun homicide numbers were indeed down, the proportion of domestic homicides involving guns had not declined. Nor had the overall homicide rate declined, stressing that the actual increase in homicides suggested that crime rates were driven by sociological factors, such as the percentage of youth in a total population, and social conditions, rather than the availability of one method of murder. No evidence had been found that blanket gun regulations, even firearms prohibitions, contributed to the reduction of criminal violence.

• Switzerland has joined Canada, New Zealand and Brazil in rejecting measures such as the mandatory registration of long arms, based on the growing awareness that such approaches were not cost-effective and do not reduce crime.

World consensus on firearm registration.

Two studies in Australia by the police were ignored for political reasons. A similar study in England by the police was also ignored. New Zealand dropped the registration of long guns for exactly the same reason. The Canadian handgun register has in more than 64 years of operation not solved a single case and continues to maintain a handgun register for political reasons only.

The report on the South African Firearm Register showed an absolute plethora of errors and incorrect information, at least 70% of the registry data is incorrect; this is consistent with other countries findings. No value or use has ever been established for this register.

Every country that has studied registration of firearms has come to the same conclusion; it is an utter waste of time, resources and money with no benefit to the police or society. There is absolutely no doubt that the SA central firearms register is no different and is a politically motivated waste of valuable police resources and scarce manpower.

The costs of firearm registration.

The value return of the Canadian register upon which our even more complex and bureaucratic system is based is calculated to be $150.00 for every $1 million spent.
Costing billions of Rands and more importantly the lives of citizens, thousands of police members are tied up daily in chasing guns and recording useless data that never has and never will solve one single crime. Nor will this data ever offer any useful police intelligence that could not be obtained in a far more efficient and less costly manner. Criminals do not license their firearms and thus far have not been as stupid as government will have the public believe to leave licensed firearms that are traceable back to themselves at crime scenes.

Evaluating the results of firearm registration, the SA experience.

The Firearms Control Act has effectively removed more than 1.5 million firearms from the public between 2004 and 2009 in denied sales and handed in firearms. Despite false promises of a safer South Africa, government denials and ‘spin-doctors’ glib words of praise the violent crime rate continues to increase and at the same time unwarranted gratuitous violence in crime is also increasing. Clearly government policy is at fault. While the SAPS cannot remedy that they most certainly can point out the failings and decline to enforce this Act. Unfortunately the political stranglehold on the police is such that any police officer brave enough to do that would find himself or herself either without a job or in a dead end career path.

At the other end of the spectrum we have in the period 1994 to 2000 a 21% decrease in murder. At the same time legal firearm ownership increased by 64% mainly due to sales to black owners who were previously denied ownership. No police intervention can adequately explain this crime decrease no matter how it is attempted. No amount of conjecture on political stability can explain this decrease.

That the South African police have not reached the same conclusion is evidence of a willingness to serve political agendas rather than the desperate needs of society. This amounts to nothing less than the SAPS and government being willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens to achieve political objectives.

Nor have the South African Police reported this failing which is ample evidence to the public the police are not doing their duty which is in breech of the contract the police have with the public and trust placed in the SAPS.

While the tide of violent confrontational crime increases, politicians grasp at straws to appease and placate the public instead of realising that current policy decisions need to be re-evaluated in terms of suitability-to-purpose and cost efficiency.
What needs to be done?

The justification for the Firearms Control Act needs to be evaluated as a first priority. The suitability and purpose of this Act must be determined in terms of world experience and criminological research. The example of the American success with reduced restrictions on firearm ownership and carry needs to be strongly considered in comparison to that of England or Jamaica. The claimed but as yet unproven return value in deterrence, prevention or punishment of violent crime needs to be urgently established as either valid or not.

There is little doubt in the public mind in the light of world experience that the Firearms Control Act has no hope of achieving its stated purpose. Government must prove beyond any doubt to the public that this Act has no potential to harm or endanger citizens, that it is suitable to the claimed purpose or remove this inefficient costly waste as soon as possible.

Ignoring public concerns of safety and security is not a sign of good governance.

BGOASA Research

Elizabeth took the time to post in her reply below.

I take this time to correct my initial post, because when you are in the wrong, it should be admitted, addressed and made restitution for. Full stop.

I even made snide comments about Elizabeth not posting my article out of band from either site.  Let me be clear. Elizabeth is not the bad guy in this. I am. Anger does not justify these things. It clouds them.

Elizabeth appears to be a nice girl with strong opinions. Her exception to my retort as kept below is devoid of malice. We could all learn something from that.

On the other hand, as an ex-paratrooper I can often tend to follow the modified OODA loop of Observe, Overreact, Destroy, Apologize.

And every now and then I get reminders from my other peers that a first amendment is just as important as a second amendment.

In short, making my comments about her instead of the central issue has created a grand mess of things. I hope she and my other readers accept my full apology.

Right thinking dictates that I’ve got to track down those people and set them square about this post too.

This does not change the original questions.  Elizabeth has been moderating replies to the page. We will be watching for replies to commentary there as well as taking them here.

—————————————————–

Apparently working for Project Plowshares here in Canada, Elizabeth has been writing articles on the viability of gun control and its effectiveness here in Canada.

I found that an interesting theory for an American to posit.

I wrote the response included below in this post to confront her on her own ground. She chose to use her power of censorship there rather than openly meet me in public forum to debate my opinion on her position on gun control.

Far from typical, I have found this is the default expected behavior from people in her camp when faced with tough questions. Not to be deterred or deny the internet public from a proper debate, I have saved the post and replicated it here.

Perhaps she’ll be good enough to show up here to debate it?  Then again, perhaps not.

Good luck to you Elizabeth to censor responses to this article.

Just remember, you cannot suppress truth.

Original Advocacy article and discussion here

I encourage everyone to leave comments here, as well as to take it to her over there.

Point One: Partisan results are not objective

The various entities conducting such sociological studies produce reports that are invariably uninteresting to the general public, because they are invariably the product of political bureaucratically

A layman can usually tell which ideology’s report it is by glimpsing at the same old, tired out conclusions drawn in it. If generated by conservative dominated segment, they will produce conservative conclusions. If generated by a Liberal dominated segment, they will produce Liberal conclusions. Lets be honest here. If this principal were not true, Liberals would be lauding the outstanding Auditor General’s report the waste generated by the long gun registry, and there would be nothing to rally against.

And they must thank God each day for having that, as they have had little else as a party to run on as a wedge issue these four years gone by.

This is the simple reality of the bureaucracy.

To survive, the bureaucrats in management must surround themselves with underlings most likely to take all measures to achieve the political objectives they have been commanded to produce.

The very continuation of their career is at stake. It has the effect of producing individuals most often notable only for their singular ability to act out of an instinct for self preservation.

This practice is so common that it might as well be filed under “business continuity”.

Your claim to validation of your point of view through sociological reports is about as comical as the court royals in the film Braveheart loudly proclaiming the rightful claim to land titles. About as probable too.

As stated by others, for every report you raise we can counter with five. And we’d all look more the fool for it.

I’m sure someone will be along shortly to pooh-pooh this notion. And that will be a lot of casual Sunday fun to address too. But in the meantime I’ll reflect on gun control outside of the realm of statistical interference; which is so obviously poisoned as to border on ludicrous.

Point Two: Gun control in the world is failing

The stress cracks in the facade of what once appeared to be absolute ‘impenetrable wall ‘ of common sense for gun-control and community safety as presented by various globally orchestrated gun-control groups are beginning to show

Badly.

And you are a long way out of touch with the common citizen if you don’t understand how clearly they see this.

Just read today’s news from countries like England. Countries that foolishly abolished gun ownership a decade before sinking into a proverbial toilet of crime and civil unrest. Again, I’ll reference no statistics about how many gun crimes are committed daily on this relatively easy to secure Island nation. Its a fools errand to chase these.

But please explain just how is it that that violent crime occurs in such unprecedented numbers there? After examining the effects of gun control in post ban Britain, it is baffling to understand how anyone could believe gun control works. The only guns there now are in criminal hands.

Bravo Ms. Peters.

We don’t need to dwell on England though because, quite frankly, English crime reporters are doing enough of that for us already, and they’re growing sick to death of the official party line. Their bosses don’t mind, and are letting more and more of these contrary articles through, because they can smell the epic fail. And nothing sells newspapers like scandal.

Point Three: Gun control in the US is failing

Never mind that over 20 States in the Union to our South officially confirmed in State Legislature the legal right of the individual to one form of carry or another. Those same States have also repealed duty to retreat legislation as well.

These two actions spawned numerous Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaigns against those States. And those FUD statements sold a lot of news print, as scary tales always do. But I need to stop and take a minute to thank those behind that FUD plan, because it actually did more to help our case than any amount of full page news print.

Think about it. People paid attention to those articles because they WERE worried. But a great amount of time passed by and yet there was no emergency. Where was the blood in the streets we were warned about?

In the end, there was no case to be made against gun ownership. Even better, nothing needed to be sold to the public to prove it because it was already bought, paid for and well advertised in the media.

Their was no crisis. In State after State, the crime rates nose dived.

It has now become apparent after more than a decade of operation of these laws in places like Florida that these States have a far better track record of reducing crime than any state mandating gun-control.

Once again, I’m not going to play the stats game. But are you aware that the higher a State scores on the Brady scale, the more likely it is to have the worst violent crime rates in the nation? As someone advocating the protection of women against victimization, doesn’t that give you any pause for thought regarding your current hypothesis?

Maybe not.

But here’s a small strategy tip for you guys. FUD campaigns have a very nasty tendency to backfire, because the worst case never happens without forcing it. And like all things forced, you don’t want to get caught in that kind of lying or you’ll never make good with your word again.

Don’t get offended, because some in my camp screaming about Obama taking our guns need to learn this lesson quite desperately too.

For the time being, it is sufficient to state as fact that the second amendment was re-confirmed in the SCOTUS in DC vs Heller much to the dismay of radical groups such as the Brady campaign.

For the future, gun ownership rights remains in the hands of the patriots who have not and will never rest on this all-important issue.

Point Four: Gun control in Canada is failing

Lets talk a bit closer to home now.

If you familiarize yourself with the growing number of cases such as Pogson v. Alberta, you’d be far more aware that judicial decisions are now being made here in Canada in recognition of the alarming institutional tendency to overly-ambitious political bias against gun ownership.

Thanks to the uncensored nature of the Internet, Canadians are learning more about their individual rights and entitlements than at any other time in history.

Here’ s the source article:
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abpc/2004/2004abpc41.html

According to Honourable Judge D.E. Demetrick:
“one prominent if not fundamental characteristic of a free and democratic society …is that the citizens of such society generally are “at liberty”or “free” to possess and acquire property without first having to obtain permission from a governmental bureaucrat or the judiciary.

In a free and democratic society any exception or deviation from the general rule deserves close scrutiny even though mandated by law.

Casual or ambitious administration of the law’s exceptions to the general rule could endanger substantially that prominent, socially important, and historically ingrained characteristic of Canadian society.”

This contemporary ruling is directly on net with the majority views of Canadians.

I could spend the better part of my day here responding with similar if not identical precedents. But that would be non-productive. The more salient point to be made regarding official statistics and political bias is that the majority of common Canadians KNOW that violent crime is worse now than it ever has been despite the well-funded presence of the long gun registry.

We are incensed that such a great sum of money was wasted chasing the ideas of a failed ideology. Instead of fighting real crime, this ideology targeted duck hunters. Instead of helping women, this ideology stole the funding to underwrite a socialist agenda.

I’m here along with two million other Canadian gun owners to stand up and tell this agenda “no more”. Not on my dime.

As gun-control advocates, you have had your say for over a decade.

Now you have the opportunity to hear our voices. You will be hearing them in vastly growing numbers over the coming decade. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, we are a movement. And movements NEVER disappear. They only ever grow stringer and stronger.

In my personal, regular observations of online media ‘polls’ discussing abolition of the long-gun registry, I have noted a disturbing trend with certain vendors. These polls tend to always split the yay vote, and yet they tend to lose so catastrophically as to magically disappear every time the results come up over the last year?

I can help you tackle that one. It is because they rarely display any less than 80% popular support for dismantling that particular white elephant. Wouldn’t it be sort of fun to track a few here. You and me? Just as an experiment?

Maybe while you’re explaining why THOSE statistics tend to disappear you could take a run at explaining why the opposition in Canada need to force a whipped vote to beat the minority conservative government on the issue of abolishing the long gun registry? It is fairly clear to me that many opposition MPs represent ridings where the idea of a long gun registry is not very appealing.

Or perhaps you could explain why the opposition feverishly tried to kill C-301’s successor while moving the hearing committee in camera?

I guess I’d just be satisfied if you could answer the main question for me Elizabeth. If gun control is such a great idea, why does it require such sweeping lies?

Comments are most welcome here.

No. Strike that. More defenseless people were at Mumbai than the sum total tally of North America’s Columbines or Polytechs. And this while the armed police apparently sat helplessly outside.

Not to belittle the other massacres. Their human cost is unacceptable. But the anti gun lobby thrives off well-seeming emotional but illogical reactions to such a tragedies.

It never stops to identify the simple fact that these events are ONLY ever spawned in “gun-free” zones. These ill-considered relics of a failed social agenda result in the abattoir of choice for deranged lunatics to target (yes – with guns) where the unarmed are generally slaughtered with no quarter.

Great thinking.

But the good news is that even in gun-paranoid England the tide of thinking is beginning to turn.

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

. . . we could help to combat terrorism

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece

Richard Munday

The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

Related Links

• Gunmen had elite training ‘from Pakistan’

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

Richard Munday is the co-author and editor of Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen

Nonetheless, the people have spoken and America has a new president. President Elect Obama has been quoted as cavalierly stating he will be cleaning up the way that Washington operates.

But Greg, as a gun owner I have to ask:  “so what, who cares, and what does this information do for me?”

Good question dear reader:  We need to be clear that we CANNOT sway the views of radicalized leftists. But by exposing the severity and persistance of the very corruption Obama has vowed to eliminate inside his presidency, we CAN educate those do not worship as the altar of the Obama demagogy.  It is crucial that we  expose how deeply in the pockets of left-wing lobbyists like George Soros the Obama administration consciously chooses to place itself;  even from the very outset of its tenure.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what USA Today had to say about it:

Obama pledges to clean up Washington

By Mike Glover And Ron Fournier, Associated Press Writers
DES MOINES, Iowa — Democrat Barack Obama, who says he swims in “the same muddy water” of lobbyists and fundraising that corrupts Washington, is pledging to reform the system if elected president.

Presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton “doesn’t recognize the problem,” Obama told The Associated Press in an interview late Thursday.

“I have a bunch of friends who were state lobbyists. The fact of the matter is … I played poker with them, so I don’t think that lobbyists are evil,” said the first-term Illinois senator. “I just think they’ve got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don’t.”

“Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they’re actually getting something done?”

The renewed criticism of Clinton and Obama’s blunt assessment of his own role in the “original sin” of politics is the latest twist in a Democratic primary fight over lobbyist donations. Fellow Democratic candidate John Edwards has challenged both Clinton and Obama to join him in refusing campaign donations from lobbyists.

In a joint appearance recently, Clinton refused to accept Edwards’ challenge and issued a rare defense of lobbyists, saying many “represent real people.” Obama joined Edwards in criticizing the New York senator, despite a record of accepting donations from state lobbyists — including some who regularly played poker with Obama during his days as a state senator.

Obama said Thursday he was not being hypocritical.

“I haven’t gone around blasting Hillary” for accepting lobbyist money, Obama said in a 20-minute interview after touring the popular Iowa state fair with his wife and two young children. “What I said is she doesn’t recognize the problem.”

“My argument is not that we’re perfect. I suffer from the same original sin of all politicians, which is we’ve got to raise money,” Obama said. “But my argument has been and will continue to be that the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and special interest is a problem in Washington (and) in state capitals.”

Obama pointed to his record of helping push ethics reform legislation through the Illinois Senate and Congress, and pledged to do more as president.

“I’ve fought for these issues,” he said.

“The argument is not that I’m pristine, because I’m swimming in the same muddy water,” Obama said. “The argument is that I know it’s muddy and I want to clean it up.”

A formidable fundraiser in a year of record-shattering political giving, Obama does not accept donations from lobbyists who press their cases in Washington, and he does not accept money from political action committees. He called that a good first step, if not a perfect one, that sends a signal that he would clean up Washington if elected.

“I do think that makes a difference,” Obama said.

Not to Dan Leistikow, a spokesman for Edwards.

“John Edwards is the only candidate who has never taken a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists, and he’s leading the fight to get the entire Democratic Party to follow this example,” Leistikow said.

While Edwards does not accept money directly from lobbyists, he eagerly solicits donations from people with ties to special interests and lobbyists — particularly the trial lawyer profession, which has a stake in actions taken by the White House and Congress.

On Friday, the Edwards campaign sent a letter touting his challenge to Obama on lobbying — and used it to appeal for donations.

Mark Daley, a spokesman for Clinton, said: “Senator Clinton has proposed real government reforms, including ending cronyism and stopping the revolving door from government to lobbyist, and she has the strength and experience to enact them.”

Clinton is billing herself to voters as the only candidate experienced enough to be president. Obama is selling himself as an agent of change in Washington.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

Odd that Obama made so much ado about Clinton’s blindness to the evils of lobbyists. For a man who bills himself as a renaissance against corruption, he can’t pick his partners worth a shit.

Obama appears to have let the proverbial fox into the hen house and joined himself at the hip with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Oh. I get it. I guess the point was to take her under his wing and reform her wayward ways? He doesn’t accept political donations PERSONALLY.  But he certainly seems to surround himself with the usual suspects who will.

Presumably, I am patently wrong and there is great PR value to be had from having Hillary at his side. I’ve certainly been wrong before. But you owe it to yourself to watch the following videos and make your own decisions about Hillary’s credibility.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

After watching the two videos above, I am starting to smell that old familiar stink of corruption.

THE AR-15 COMPLICATIONS
by David A. Tomlinson, National President (1984-2007)

Question: “I hear that the government is planning to convert the Colt AR-15 rifle and all its variants to “prohibited firearm” status. Is that rumor true?”
Answer: Probably not. Converting the AR-15 to “prohibited firearm” status appears, at first glance, to be easy, under CC s. 117.15, which says:

• 117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council (GIC) may make regulations prescribing [by Order in Council (OIC)] anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed. (The GIC is really the Minister, but they like to pretend that the Governor General and the Cabinet, who are members of the GIC, have something to do with it.)
• (2) In making regulations, the [GIC] may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the [GIC], the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

Read that “limitation” in CC s. 117.15(2) very carefully. It is designed to work in reverse to what it seems to be saying. The Minister can outlaw anything if, in his own opinion, it is not “reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.” If he outlaws all .30-30 Winchester rifles, for example, no one can stop him – and no court of law can overrule him.

Why can’t a court overrule him? Because the law specifies “in the opinion of the GIC” – and so no court of law can substitute its own opinion for the opinion specified in the law.

Similarly, he can convert, by OIC, all reloading presses to “prohibited devices” and all cartridges that use expanding bullets to “prohibited ammunition” at the drop of a hat, without warning, and without having to go through Parliament. CC s. 117.15 makes the Minister very powerful.

That said, the AR-15 looks vulnerable. However, there is no provision in existing law that would work to “grandfather” any AR-15 or AR-15 owner, and “grandfathering” would be needed.

If the AR-15 is simply declared to be a “prohibited firearm” by OIC, that would mean that none of them, and none of their owners, are “grandfathered.” Every one in Canada would have to be seized and confiscated, and compensation would have to be paid to its owner.

“Hey, wait a minute. Couldn’t they just add the AR-15 to ‘Prohibited Weapons Order No. 12 or 13’ list, so that people with Firearms Act section 12(4) or 12(5) licences could own them?

No, they cannot do that. If you read FA s. 12(4) and 12(5), you will see that are solid granite. The OIC lists are what they were on “July 23, 1992″ for 12(4) and “November 29, 1994″ for 12(5). Neither list can be changed in any way without an Act of Parliament, and that would have to go thorough three readings in the House of Commons, plus three readings in the Senate, plus Committee hearings in both. The government does not want to open that barrel of snakes.

Now look at FA s. 12(2) and (3). The AR-15 does not fit in either of those. FA s. 12(6) or 12(7)? Nope. The AR-15 cannot be shoehorned into either of those, either.
Therefore, if the government converts the AR-15 to “prohibited firearm” status by OIC, it must either run a new Act of Parliament through to create a new “grandfathered” subclass in FA s. 12, or seize and confiscate every AR-15 in Canada – paying compensation to each owner. Either way, it would be a big job to “grandfather” AR-15s and their owners, or, alternatively, hunt the rifles all down and confiscate them.

“But why do you say it would be a big job to find them? They’re all registered, aren’t they?”

The fact that the Registry thinks you have a particular firearm does not mean that you actually have it. The Registry frequently issues new Registration Certificates to new owners without deleting the old Registration Certificate. It makes that error with monotonous regularity. That leaves the old owner shown in Registry files as still having the firearm – but it is a “ghost gun.”

How often that happens is proved by comparing the records of the Registry with the records of an active firearms dealer. It is not at all unusual for a dealer to have more “ghost guns” shown as being “in” his stock than there are real guns in his store. The record for number of identified “ghost guns” is held by an Alberta auctioneer, who discovered, when he retired, that the Registry contained over 3000 “ghost guns” registered in the name of his business.

“That’s interesting, but what does it mean if the government starts confiscating AR-15s?”

It means that the owner can simply tell the confiscating officers that he legally sold and properly transferred his AR-15s some time ago, and the government has no way to prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that he did not. The Registry’s records are riddled with errors, omissions, duplications, “ghost guns” and “gone guns.” They are very untrustworthy – and that can be proved.

“Er – what’s a ‘gone gun’?”

You have fifty registered firearms. The Registry has fifty duplicates of your Registration Certificates, each one showing that this firearm is in your possession, and you live at this address. Let’s say that on the day after tomorrow, you move to Moose Jaw, emigrate to Peru, or get run over by a bus and they bury you.
Unless somebody tells the Registrar what has happened, his files will continue to show those fifty firearms at the old address – where you no longer live. They become “gone guns.”

On 09 Jan 2001, the Registry admitted how rotten its records are. They estimated that, of the 1,250,000 green-paper Registration Certificates they had on file – all of which expire on 31 Dec 2002 – only 600,000 would be re-registered as real firearms as required by law. The other 650,000 were “ghost guns” or “gone guns” or the result of some other error. Their estimate was found in an Access to Information file several months ago. The NFA had been estimating, for years, that 20 to 40 per cent of the Registry’s records were meaningless trash. Their own estimate is that over 50 per cent of the Registry’s records are meaningless trash.

With the AR-15s, there is another problem with some of them. Some canny owners bought an AR-15 “frame or receiver” when the AR-15 became a “restricted firearm.” Then they transferred all of the parts from their unregistered AR-15 to the registered “receiver,” creating a registered whole firearm.

If the government decides to confiscate all AR-15s, those owners probably plan to remove all parts and give up only the “frame or receiver” – which is all that the law requires. Whether or not their parts will be assembled to the old unregistered “receiver” is a question I cannot answer.

When the government decided to rely on firearms bureaucrats to write firearms law, it opted for confrontation instead of communication and cooperation. It also placed all its reliance on bureaucrats who were not the “world-class experts” that they claimed to be. As a result, the firearms control system is overly complex, hyper-expensive, and vulnerable to old Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Those decisions make it likely that certain key portions of the Criminal Code will be struck down as being unconstitutional. The NFA has a file of such defences, and is waiting impatiently to test them, once all the amnesties are over.

All in all, changing the class of the AR-15 is opening a barrel of snakes. It will open both the Firearms Act (by modification of FA s. 12) and the firearms sections of the Criminal Code to proposed amendments by the Opposition, and even by irritated Liberal back-benchers.
With the level of expertise demonstrated so far, it seems likely that any attempt to do it will cause more problems than it will solve. The litigation costs will be astronomical.

I was reflecting back on various discussions I overheard regarding observance of the holiday Tuesday. I can only say that I feel immense sorrow at how too many Canadians have nearly lost comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘valiant’.  We don’t need to look far to find it again; it lays concealed behind the fixed gazes of Canadian soldiers standing a post in our place around the Globe and standing in remembrance of our fallen for one sole day.

More so is the shame to realize that these sacrifices are only as far away as our neighbors’ houses; brothers and sisters pulled from their normal lives to fight the highest intensity conflict Canadians have participated in inside the past  50 years.  And perhaps because the freedoms and lives being struggled for are not our own, we too easily forget.

But not today. For every one of us who lost a brother or a friend, let’s spend time remembering the best of times we shared together and the cost of the sacrifices made. Stand up and let those around you know that this November 11, you will NOT forget.

To those of you continuing to sacrifice today, thank-you from the bottoms of our hearts.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

This term, immediately offensive, is profoundly accurate in its modern sense and well placed in its current assignment as written above; “shameless impostors possessed of a grossly limited subject matter depth, masquerading as a subject matter experts — usually for political or egocentric gains”

Now, if you are like me and don’t quite understand how this term shifted meanings you may have some googling ahead of you. But for simplicity sake, consider the following example: a hoplophobe (google it) who publicly attacks responsible gun owners using fabricated and spurious information is the direct, amoral equivalent of a homophobe who publicly attacks homosexual members of society using fabricated and spurious information. Such is the case with the ever-popular “HIV comes from Africans having sex with monkies” The homosexual is “gay”, but the homophobe is the faggot.

Thus, in the same way the meaning of the term “gay” has evolved to a new colloquial meaning, so has the term faggot. You might ask, “but WHY the long explanation?” Because the terms to describe this bullying and misleading activity had not been adequately condensed into a single phrase to date.

For your viewing please, enjoy this YouTube video recommended to me by a like minded blogger, as the author debunks several such ignorant media claims. Pay particular attention to the testimony of LAPD Detective James Trahin before the California State assembly, as he not only debunks media claims, but takes a jab at them for repeatedly misreporting based on false information. This segment could easily have been featured on an episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

To no one’s surprise, gun crime United Kingdom is actually 60% higher than officially reported by the Home Office.

Regardless if they doctored the counting formula to make themselves appear more successful managing the gun crime “risk” that your Grandpa Higgins presents to the United Kingdom with his goose gun, or fervently but delusionally held by its supporters to be an accurate portrayal of success;  their exposure is personally funny to me.

One might THINK that the distinct and utter failures of this relatively isolated Island nation to control illegal firearms — even after many years of some of the most offensive, scapegoating legislation on the planet — would serve as a clue to the gun grabbers on this side of the pond.

But my dad was right when he told me that “common sense is not so common.”

Gun crime 60pc higher than official figures
The true level of gun crime is far higher than the Government admits in official statistics, it can be revealed.

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:22AM BST 19 Oct 2008

Gun crime is up to 60 per cent higher than government statistics suggest Photo: AP
Figures to be published by the Home Office this week will massively understate the scale of the problem.

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to “pistol whip” victims, or brandished as a threat.

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm – which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence – are omitted from the Home Office’s headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “These alarming new figures not only highlight the appalling state of gun crime in this country, but also remind us just how poor the Government’s statistics actually are.

“Crime statistics must also be compiled and published independent of the Home Office, and crime mapping rolled out so that people can have confidence in what they are being told about the state of crime in this country.”

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the figures revealed the extent to which gun crime is a “scar on society”.

“It is shocking that the Home Office is in denial about the extent of gun crime by refusing to include offences where a gun is present but not brandished,” he said.

“This is another strong reason why the Home Office should not be in charge of collecting its own statistics, which should be put directly under the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics.

“Gun crime must be treated with the same seriousness and concern as knife crime. Both are a scar on our society.”

In all, there were at least 5,612 offences excluded from the Home Office’s official gun crime total last year, according to figures supplied by police forces.

The true total number of excluded offences will have been even higher, because two of the 43 forces in England and Wales, Thames Valley and Leicestershire, failed to hand over their data when asked to do so under the Freedom of Information Act, and a large urban force, Greater Manchester, provided incomplete statistics. Scotland records gun crime differently.

When the Home Office publishes its latest quarterly crime figures on Thursday, they will include a section on gun crime injuries and deaths, but the figures will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

The Sunday Telegraph’s figures suggest that the Metropolitan Police’s official tally of 3,300 gun crimes in 2006/7, the most recent available, would have risen to around 5,000 if excluded categories had been counted. In 2007, Met officers dealt with 1,678 firearms incidents which were not included in the official tally. The Met’s figures show that offences of firearms possession in the capital rose from 850 five years ago to 1,400 last year.

After the Met, the second-highest number of offences excluded from the official statistics was recorded by West Midlands Police with 404, taking the force’s true annual total of gun crimes to around 1,400.

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London, said: “We welcome this research. Effective policy-making needs to be informed by the best information available.

“Firearms offences are comparatively rare in Britain, and the vast majority thankfully do not result in a serious or fatal injury. But if the police already collect this information it is difficult to understand why it should not be put routinely into the public domain.”

The Home Office crime figures document states: “Firearms are taken to be involved in a crime if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “Gun crime figures have only ever included offences involving the use of a firearm. These counting rules for these figures were drawn up by the Home Office in conjunction with police.”

She added: “There are five offences which are not included in the firearm statistics, and which can be tried for in the courts.”

The Sunday Telegraph also recently revealed that knife crime figures were at least two-thirds higher than official figures.

Police statistics showed forces in England and Wales are on course to record 38,000 serious knife crimes this year, or more than 100 a day, compared with last year’s official total of 22,151 offences, a figure announced by the Home Office in July in its first annual count of knife crimes.

To learn more about her, I turned to Google. Now, according to Wikipedia:

Heather Mallick (born 1959) is a Toronto-based columnist, author and lecturer. She writes a weekly column for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s website. She is a Pakistani Muslim. Her First name is a muslim name and last name Mallick is a hindu title because they are converted muslims/ suni muslims. She teaches courses on politics and writing at the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies and lectures on Human Rights and Canadian nationalism. Until recently she also wrote a monthly column for Chatelaine magazine.

Raised in the northern Ontario town of Kapuskasing where her father was a medical doctor, Mallick attended the University of Toronto where she received a Master of Arts degree in English Literature. She also has undergraduate degrees in English Literature from U of T and in journalism from Ryerson University.

As a Canadian by birth and a patriot by choice, I find Mallick’s offensive attempts at journalism a crass effort to test the limits of our tolerance regarding press freedom at best. At worst, her writing is little better than common hate literature.

I cannot help but notice the citing of her “journalism” degree from Ryerson.  Based solely off her habitually embarrassing tirades, I can only wonder at what tennets of journalistic integrity her professors espoused.  I also can’t help but also wonder at how long I will wait before she joins the ranks of the likes of Wendy Cukier, another radical minded cronie from Ryerson. Wendy recently took the 54th place spotlight by storm on the popular list of Top 101 people screwing up Canada. Many consider her as one of the “great minds” behind the Billion dollar plus gun registry boondoggle. The mind boggles…

But I digress.  I watched this morning with great embarrassment as a pretty Fox news reporter (quite correctly) rips Heather Mallick a new one over her crass, ignorant editorial attacking Governor Sarah Palin.  I was pleased to watch how deftly the interviewer thrashed the largely unapologetic David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen in his fumbling retorts. Maybe even vindicated? Mr Warren comes off much like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar after his weak, apologetic bleating regarding his “colleague’s” unacceptable behavior.

watch the video here

She literally hands Mr Warren his own ass. To quote my wife after watching the video; “how embarrassing for Canada”. I could not agree more.

According to Mallick

(Sarah) Palin appeals to the “white trash vote” with her “toned-down version of the porn actress look.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck… What normal father would want Levi “I’m [bleeping] redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?”

Her embittered ramblings tempt me wonder at exactly HOW she came to be so agitated with “incestuous white trash rednecks” in the first place. Perhaps she has a personal tale of abuse to tell. Or perhaps there is much less mystery, and she is merely the product of unchecked Liberal extremism that seems to be emerging with a disturbing regularity from several prominent Eastern Universities. If that’s the case, you can’t completely blame the school. After all, as the old adage states; “you can pay for an education, but you can’t buy class.”

Regardless of what bridge she sharpened her daggers underneath, Mallick’s anti-white rants conclusively reveal her for her core motivations. She is bigot. Plain and simple.

No mystery there at all.

Mallick serves as a stern warning of where the road ends in the Grand Liberal social experiment of multiculturalism; the production of bitter people useless to enlightened society.  This sad, little person represents the antithesis of the ideals of the very society that produced her.  On the outside, she appears to be the poster girl for a vibrant and successful multiculturalism program. She is female Muslim converted from Hinduism and a graduate of our finest universities now writing about her experiences. But appearances are often deceptive.

The truth always emerges, and it is in her writing that we see the mind of the monster.  For a person who claims to be pasionate about human rights, she desperately needs to get control over that brain-mouth issue she seems to have. Perhaps it is the recognition her lack of control over her anger that drives her to such repugnant proclamations.

So how did this damaged person with trucker’s mouth syndrome wind up writing articles for the taxpayer funded CBC in the first place? Perhaps one of the CBC employed liberal cronies who lurk here regularly would like to sign up for an account and issue a retort? That would not only be enlightening; it would feel somehow appropriate considering that intout2.cbc.ca occupied the #16 slot in our Top 25 visitors web reports for 2008.

Else, I encourage ALL who visit here to write the CBC to complain regarding this character and her repugnant public utterances. I should think release from employment with the CBC would form a suitable response.

Personally, I’d like to thank her for her rambling. People like her remind me why I vote CPC, and why you should too.

*Edit: As I live and breathe, not 10 minutes after finishing this article did someone point out the Mallick occupies the #13 spot for being a condescending asshat. Congratulations Ms. Mallick.  You’ve done our work for us by proving are also a bigot at heart.