Gun registry makes no difference

The case for the long gun registry is weak.

First, some criminals register their guns believing that doing so reduces suspicion. But registering has no affect on intent. No criminal will say, “Oh, my gun is registered; I can't use it to commit a crime.” Others don't register. That also doesn’t affect intent. Criminals know non-registration would not affect the punishment for a crime.

Second, it’s argued that when police officers search for unregistered long guns, they find some. Fines can be collected and guns confiscated.

That’s true, but police don’t have time to tour communities looking for unregistered guns. Also, confiscated guns can easily be replaced, and, most importantly, after owners pay the fine, they are no less likely to commit a crime.

Third, do police use the long gun registry? Yes, extensively. Much time, money and effort is spent in maintaining records. But why?

The only important action happens when a crime is committed, and then it doesn’t matter whether the gun was registered.

What about the 14 women murdered at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989?

Here’s the reality. Apparently, Marc Lepine’s gun was registered. The registration prevented nothing!

Is there any explanation for Lepine’s massacre? We can speculate.

Until he was 14, Marc was Gamil Gharbi, thus named by his father who emigrated from Algeria.

Unfortunately, the father brought with him contempt of women. His abusive behaviour drove his wife to divorce. The son shared his father's attitude. As he shot, Marc denounced feminism.

Was Gamil Gharbi/Marc Lepine psychotic? His three-page suicide note and his general behaviour hardly support such a view.

Were there religious or cultural factors at play? Nothing can be proven.

One thing is sure: gun registration was irrelevant.

John H. Redekop, Abbotsford

Pro-life voice constantly silenced

Why is the pro-life side of the abortion debate constantly silenced and readily dismissed?

Is there a reason that the majority-backed pro-life position is forced to stay silent and held back, especially since it reveals certain truths?

Pro-life groups on university campuses are one by one being silenced.

Pro-life groups at the University of Victoria, McGill University and the University of Calgary have been limited in their freedom of speech or had their club status challenged – all in an effort to censor views different from those of a liberal minority.

What is the point of calling it ‘a choice’ if public opinion overwhelmingly shows only one side of the argument? Do pro-abortionists have more rights than me?

This isn’t about the numerous studies that prove how abortion negatively affects a woman’s body, and the life within her.

This is about a mainstream media doing their job: representing the majority of Canadians and other opinions fairly, not just what they think sells papers.

I encourage the media and university faculties to put on a new set of glasses and truly represent choice. The tragedy of abortion is no longer just the act itself, but that it’s dismissed as a ‘medical procedure’ and treated by the media like a head cold.

Canadian women deserve to be informed from both sides. Otherwise, how can they properly choose?

Rachel Barrett, North Bay, ON

Continue article >>

Need more wisdom on Islam

I have taught ‘The Islamic Tradition’ at upper levels for many years at University of the Fraser Valley, and I was somewhat disturbed by the uncritical journalistic stance taken in the ‘Botros challenges Muslims’ article in the September issue.

It seems that Trinity Western University co-hosted an event with Watchmen for the Nations that brought the controversial Coptic priest, Father Zakaria Botros, to be the guest speaker.

Botros seems to have made a reputation for himself by highlighting all the negative, inconsistent and violent aspects of Islam. This plays nicely into the right of centre ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis that breeds confrontation between Islam and Christianity.

Needless to say, it does not take much thought to pinpoint all sorts of violence and wanton brutality in the Bible, the Christian tradition and contemporary Christianity.

A minimally informed and thoughtful Muslim cleric could do the same thing to Christianity that Botros is doing to Islam.

I assume Botros’s position is not that of TWU, although such a paper thin read of Islam might be the position of Watchmen for the Nations, David Demian and Father Zakaria Botros.

Surely, as Christians, we are expected to have a much more subtle read, wiser interpretation and greater integrity in our responses to Islam and other religions.

Ron Dart, Abbotsford

Abortion funding loophole exposed

It’s interesting that after so much was made about the Canadian government’s decision and the subsequent all party Parliamentary vote not to include abortion funding in the G8 Maternal Health Plan, there appears to be a loophole in the outcome.

The vote wasn’t a Conservative-only decision, as it couldn’t have happened without members of other parties voting against including abortion funding.

Yet after the democratic process decided Canada shouldn’t be funding abortions in third world nations, it would appear that people are finding ways around this vote.

Canadian International Development Agency minister Bev Oda has softened her stance on government funded abortions.

In a recent story in the Ottawa Citizen, she was quoted as stating, “Canada would support abortion infrastructure if asked. As long as it is legal within the country and it’s a legal procedure . . . if we were asked to help in that way, we would do that."

It’s also interesting that a member of a federal department would go against the democratic process and find loopholes in the majority decision of the government.

To top it off, the New Democrat critic for international cooperation, John Rafferty, welcomed these comments, signifying that the NDP are on side with this end run way to get their agenda met.

The House voted. They decided no funding. It’s strange that Oda and the NDP see it as proper to disregard the democratic process.

Aren’t the NDP the same ones who continually accuse the ruling government of doing the same?

Jim Sutherland, Halifax, NS

October 2010