timeimmortal

Canadians can be very complacent, especially where the threat of force is concerned. Perhaps as a function of our government-dependent, socialism-addled attitudes which disavow most notions of personal responsibility or obligation to the well-being of others, we tend not to want to risk our necks when an imminent danger to ourselves, or to others, emerges. When the man with the gun shows up, we tend to just do as he says — indeed, we’ve been taught to just do as he says — rather than make a stand against the would-be bully.

This was certainly true in Montreal all those years ago; fourteen women died there not because of the latent misogyny of society, but because of the cowardice and complacency programmed into the men who meekly obeyed the gunman’s order to leave their female classmates behind in those classrooms. And it might have ended up being true in Regina, Saskatchewan’s Luther College High School, but for the actions of school principal Mark Anderson. Because when a former student showed up with a firearm (which turned out to be an air-driven pellet gun) and demanded, at a school rally, that a list of grievances be read, the principal did what was right: he found a way to get close and wrestled the gunman to the floor.

A lot of modern folks might click their tongues at Mr. Anderson’s attitude: as the Shaidle notes, “those of us who praise such men [as Mark Anderson] are publicly condemned by lesser “males” who tremble at the implication that they should feel obliged do likewise.” And yet, at the end of the day, that was his obligation. As the principal, he was charged with the safety of the young students attending the school; their lives were in his care. And he acted in the only way that a moral man could have acted when faced with a threat to that which he is charged with keeping safe — he stood up to fight.

Would that his story were not newsworthy! Would that Canadian men and women could always, and readily, display this sort of courage, so that the truly surprising stories in the news were not stories of normal courage, but stories of shocking cowardice rightly condemned by all good people.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Why am I reminded of the videos for school warning one not to anger the primates as they would throw feces at you if you did?

A question would be whether the radical Islam the prisoners hold dear does not give them the courage or sense of decorum not to behave in such ways (such as the courage and decorum [John McCain] displayed in his time as a POW as related at the Saddleback forum with Rick Warren), or whether it engenders such behaviour towards blasphemers, or whether the prisoners are subjugated to such conditions, psychologically, that they are reduced to such a state.

That they get menu choice and exercise equipment would seem to indicate the third option is of low probability.

And if the U.S. was committing the crimes some of the critics of Gitmo claim they are, why would giving such things enter their minds? Or maybe the torture has ended with recent court rulings and they now enjoy the good life of many criminals here in Canada, such as those who are guilty of major crimes receiving house arrest or minimum security jail like the recent escapees from Regina.

But I would like to expand on a point made in reply to another article. As prisoners, regardless of classification, they may not (and should not) receive the right, say, to demand particular diets. But demanding they eat certain foods on a standard menu is different than intentionally making all their food defiled by exposing it to, say, bacon grease. Depending on their adherence to the rules relating to diet, the latter can kill them by starvation, the former need not. And, don’t we want living prisoners, in this case, from whom we can gain intelligence?

And this consideration is more important in cases where the ‘victim’ of ‘diet defilement’ is not yet found to be guilty of a crime, although accused “guests” of the state need not have rights to demand certain diets, either. After all, if they are actually innocent, then such behaviour could rightly be considered “cruel and unusual punishment” or some other such legal concept and the focus of a lawsuit which, given the general body of rulings given by the courts these days, would likely expand the rights inmates, both accused and guilty, would enjoy.

…but I will agree, to the end of my days, that he has a right to voice his opinions. And it’s good news indeed that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with that sentiment, and will not hear an appeal to overturn a lower court’s ruling that Whatcott’s right to freedom of speech had been violated.

Whatcott’s tactics seem, to me, on the extreme side, but the fact that the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses suspended and fined him for his off-hours, anti-abortion advocacy was detestable and a violation of Whatcott’s human rights.

Nurse Bill Whatcott staged his anti-abortion protest at the clinic in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 2002, and Planned Parenthood subsequently launched a complaint against him at his professional association. Whatcott had earlier served jail time for demonstrating against an abortion clinic in Toronto.

The Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses found Whatcott guilty of professional misconduct, suspended him as a nurse and ordered him to pay C$15,000 ($15,150) in legal costs.

Whatcott argued that he had been demonstrating in his free time and that his protest was simply a case of free speech. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had also weighed in on the debate, saying that while it favored abortion rights it was concerned over attempts to squelch debate.

He tried to run for mayor here in Edmonton a while back. Got about a thousand votes, as I recall.

Count Roland writes in with a comment on this article, in which I evidently had my numbers wrong.

200k in Regina; 1 million in Sask.
Still troubling.

That was a sleepless night you were having, Roland — 2:35 AM on the email timestamp!

At any rate, mistake made and correction duly noted. It is still troubling: basically, the numbers show that the city of Regina handed out 1 needle per citizen per month last year. That’s an epidemic of drug use, and very troubling.

“Up to 15 per cent of incarcerated drug users report injecting heroin and Cocaine while behind bars.” No mention is made of that other main transmission vector for the AIDS-vausing HIV virus that prisons are reputed to be hotbeds of, of course.

Of course, it has to be asked: does this revelation come as any kind of surprise to anyone?

Not entirely related, but concerning: 200,000 people live in Saskatchewan. Last year, the city of Regina handed out 2.5 million needles to drug users. Epidemic-much?