Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘Political correctness can be deadly’ Category

Do only gun crimes merit his attention?

And is anyone in Quebec going to tell this family that we shouldn’t be getting tougher on teenage murderers?

...Paltooram was coming to the aid of his girlfriend, who was being assaulted by a group of individuals, when he was fatally wounded, police said.

A 16-year-old male has been arrested. He cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but will appear in court this morning. He is charged with Second Degree Murder and Attempted murder…

There, there Sonny. You just go home and write out 100 times, I should not be killing people.

*   *   *   *

More on Metro murders by knife from the Globe, and City News and Sun.

This is really worth checking out too - Toronto Movie Filming Exposes Canada’s Guns for Money Policy by Joseph P. Tartaro, who is the Executive Editor of GunWeek Magazine. He references this August article in the Star.

Quick update to the tragic story of Aqsa Parvez if you had been following it.

As you may recall, Aqsa had allegedly been strangled to death by her father for refusing to wear a hijab. Her brother had been originally charged with obstructing justice, but now we learn that Peel police have charged 27-year-old Waqas Parvez with first degree murder.

As Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan observed in their Dec. 12/07 Post article, The deadly face of Muslim extremism:

…Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk. This outlook is rooted in a medieval ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life. If their conduct is seen as contravening this austere religious outlook, they are invariably subjected to abuse…

It’s sad that this tolerant society of ours only intervenes after such a tragedy has occurred.

* * * *

Related: Excellent article for background information - Honor killings: When the ancient and the modern collide.

Since Toronto is usually on the leading edge of simplistic, socialist policies, it’s in everyone’s best interest to pay attention to David Miller’s proposed ban on guns and recreational gun clubs - or as the National Post calls him, "the ignorant demagogue" who became "mayor of Canada’s biggest city…"

Decreeing bans seems to be the preferred plan of action with left-leaning politicians - If you ban it, it is done.

But not quite. Because as the Post editorial points out, this experiment failed badly in Britain:

In Britain, after the tragic 1996 elementary school shootings at Dunblane, Scotland, all private handgun ownership was banned and all handguns confiscated. Even England’s Olympic shooters, for a time, were forced to shuttle across the Channel to France for practice. Since then, though, New Scotland Yard and the Home Office estimate that the inventory of illegal handguns in Britain has expanded by three million. Gun crime has nearly doubled. And many cities now have more gun crime than comparable U. S. cities. Police refer to Manchester as Gunchester.

Yes, heaven forbid that David Miller should actually try to face the problem square on with increased police patrols in problem areas, and perhaps recognize the special challenges of certain ethnic communities that seem to have accepted a lack of paternal responsibility as the norm.

But what this knee-jerk problem-solving technique really does is hurt the law-abiding private citizens that actually follow the rules. People like reader Lisa , whose family is directly affected by this nonsensical approach by His Blondness . Lisa has a great post up today about this issue and some of her family members have been interviewed by the Star .

Sadly, today there was another fatal shooting outside a Toronto school, and you can bet David Miller will be using this latest incident as further evidence that Toronto should be jumping on the gun BAN dwagon.

Because political correctness demands that you never really face the problems. - you just make sure you are seen to be making decisions - even if they’re just bandaids that can’t possibly stop all the hemorrhaging of human life.

- And worse yet if you place those bandaids over your eyes, you can’t see the real problems.

* * * *

Thursday Update : Getting on the ban wagon - Michael Den Tandt (Sun):

…Mayor David Miller wants all guns banned. Also he would outlaw gun-making, ammunition, and target-pistol ranges. It doesn’t matter to him that most gun crime in Toronto is perpetrated by criminals, wielding illegally-obtained handguns. Guns are bad. Ban them…

Friday Update : This is definitely worth a read - Toronto wonders what’s happening to the tourists by Girl on the Right.

If you are one of those complacent Ontarians who shrugs off municipal elections as not worthy of your time, please read today’s Sun editorial - Breaking the culture of silence. Those in Toronto need to pay special attention:

…The Falconer report calls for a trustee job description, training and a code of conduct specifying prohibited behaviours.

But that can’t replace the good judgment and common sense which some (not all) trustees clearly lack.

Only voters can fix that, and right now few bother to vote in school board elections, meaning trustees rarely face serious challenges and can be re-elected largely on name recognition.

What the Falconer report indicates is that too many students are paying a high price for our apathy.

And that price is often their safety.

At a provincial level, please pay attention to the myopic words of Ontario Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, and the Sun’s response:

“It’s not my experience that there is an invasive culture of fear,” she said.

With respect, if fear imposes silence, as the task force found, how would she necessarily have known?

Complacency and apathy come at a cost.

In the case of Jordan Manners, that price was too high - The life of a child.

Press conference now being televised re: Falconer report on violence in the classroom. (Link added Jan. 11)

Stories are emerging about a “Culture of fear” and silence, “Crisis of Confidence“, and Toronto schools “plagued” with violence.

No doubt this topic will be a prime focus of pundits in tomorrow’s MSM. Hopefully some of the recommendations will be considered and implemented.

In any case, let’s get away from this attitude of willful blindness.

Trying to make sense of the Aqsa Parvez murder becomes even more difficult as time goes on.

Today’s National Post describes the relationship between Aqsa and her parents through the eyes of the Tahir family, which had offered her a place to stay prior to Aqsa’s death (Aqsa’s last days):

…The Tahirs say that days after she moved in with them, Mr. and Ms. Parvez came over, and both families had a two hour meeting with Aqsa.

Her mother cried. Mr. Parvez calmly implored his daughter in Punjabi to tell him why she left and what he could do to bring her home. Aqsa barely spoke, except to say that she “just wanted change,” according to Ms. Tahir. Privately Aqsa told her that she wanted “to get more out of life”.

Mr. Parvez appeared to be relieved that his daughter was safe, said Ms. Tahir, and not alone on the street. He was content to see Aqsa living in a household that resembled his own, said Ms. Tahir, and told her to stay as long as she needed to. Aqsa asked if she could bring items from her house back, and he said they would arrange that “together.”

“That’s how he left,” said Ms. Tahir, an immigration and paralegal consultant who immigrated from Pakistan 10 years ago.

But Aqsa, it seemed, was still searching for independence.

A few days after that first meeting, over coffee in Tim Hortons, Aqsa told her father that she wanted to live on her own, she wanted to go to school in the mornings and work in the evenings. Mr. Parvez offered to let her take over the basement. Aqsa said she would think about it…

By that account, you would think that all was sunshine and roses with this family - Just a small issue of teenage rebellion.

So exactly what went so horribly wrong when Aqsa went home to collect more clothes?

Something just doesn’t add up here.

(Update at end)

Right beside the National Post’s politically-correct editorial is a candid op-ed by Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan - The deadly face of Muslim Extremism.

Fatah and Hassan are members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, and have received death threats in the past for expressing their views.

They must feel that this message is worth the risk.

…If convicted, Aqsa’s father and brother must be handed the strictest penalty available under the law. As for the imams and clergy of Canada’s mosques, who constantly berate young women for not wearing the hijab or snub them for “violating Islam,” they need to reflect on the consequences of their sermons.

Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having “illegitimate children.” Other proffered risks included “Stresses, insecurity and suspicion in the minds of husbands” and “instigating young people to deviate towards the path of lust.”

As if the threat of rape and the fear of illegitimate children were not enough, these pre-teen girls were told that if they took off their hijab, they would cease to be Muslims: “By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions.” Little wonder then, that Canadian girls walk away from sports tournaments rather than remove their hijabs…

Fatah and Hassan suggest that this may put undue pressure on Muslim men to exert control over the women in their families:

Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk. This outlook is rooted in a medieval ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life. If their conduct is seen as contravening this austere religious outlook, they are invariably subjected to abuse.

Today’s Star discloses a disturbing tidbit that was alluded to in a Global newscast last night - that the brother may have had more to do with this than simply obstructing justice:

…Friends of the slain girl said Parvez’s brother picked her up Monday morning from a bus stop, where she was waiting to go to school, and told her she’d better come home to get a change of clothes…

Yes, women from all different kinds of faith and cultural backgrounds have been the target of abuse and violence.

However, this does not excuse us from trying to consider all possible systemic causes of the tragedy, and focus on doing all we can to prevent this from happening again.

Anything less is an act of complicity.

It seems rather curious to me that a city that finds itself in a major financial crisis would continue to pander to the bleeding-heart lefties rather than face the grim reality that their misguided attitudes may very well hit them in the tourism column of their budget.

Today’s National Post discusses the fatal stabbing of 32-year-old Toronto visitor Ross Hammond who was swarmed and attacked by four panhandlers when he had the audacity to refuse to give them their entitlements:

The death of Mr. Hammond is all the more tragic because the crime may well have been prevented if the City of Toronto had laws that clearly outlawed panhandlers, and directed police to keep city streets clear of anyone who harasses passers-by for money.

Instead, many of Toronto’s city councillors seem more anxious about panhandlers’ rights and feelings than those of their victims. (Councillor Howard Moscoe, for example, has declared that “people panhandling make us uncomfortable because they remind us of our failings.”)

A City of Toronto document classifies panhandling as a “manifestation of poverty and need” instead of what it is — an ugly, intimidating and sometimes violent nuisance.

According to the editorial, Vancouver is also afflicted with this ‘myopic’ attitude, and it is hurting business:

Convention contracts for hotels, some worth as much as $500,000, have been lost — according to the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association — because visitors don’t believe Vancouver streets are safe. It’s hard to blame folks for staying away: People won’t visit a city if they are confronted by an army of deadbeats thrusting their hands out for coins.

I have no doubt that some cases of genuine need do exist in large cities, and they should be addressed.

However, tolerating panhandling is not just enabling a lifestyle of begging, but also putting citizens and tourists at risk.

Merchants in Toronto are now talking about a ‘new breed’ of panhandler:

“There was a time when panhandlers were homeless people who were asking for change. Now it’s able-bodied young people who refuse to join the status quo and would rather bully you for change,” said Marcus McLean, project co-ordinator for the West Queen West Business Improvement Area…

Toronto’s response to increasing complaints about panhandlers is to do surveys - the classic left-wing solution to any annoying problem.

Perhaps when tourists start staying away in droves, Mayor Miller and his cheering section of ostriches will finally decide to remove the rose-coloured glasses and actually deal with the problem.

A Toronto Sun reader has no problem zeroing in on the hypocrisy of the politicians:

A young man was stabbed to death last week. A policeman was dragged to his death by thieves. Now a man is killed by pan-handlers, or in reality, armed robbers. Where is the outrage from Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant? Why are there no photo ops with grieving families by David Miller? Mr. Bryant’s idiotic slogan. “No Gun, No Funeral” is sounding kind of empty right now, isn’t it?

Pat Proulx

Almonte

Meanwhile another family prepares to bury a loved one; courtesy of Toronto the Good, while the city continues to ferment and rot.

H/T to BATB at CBL for pointing out this gem by Christie Blatchford - Don’t get deafened by the noise - do something.

Christie paints a picture of the very poignant scene that caught my eye as well on the news coverage - that of the line of children holding hands and being led away from the scene of the shooting of Ephraim Brown in the wee hours of Sunday morning.

When I saw that clip, I was trying to understand why children of that age would be up at that hour in the first place, much less wandering around outdoors in the dark during a very large and rowdy party.

The police had apparently been there earlier in the evening. Yesterday’s Post carried an article in the print edition, “Police say accused has gang history”(Sorry I don’t have the link):

“…Police visited the party at about 10 a.m. (typo), three hours before the shooting to ask the party-goers to turn down their music, said Alisha Pomnainville. As the night progressed, said Detective Sergeant Gary Giroux, strangers started blending int the party crowd. A dispute led to multiple shots being fired, one of which hit the 11-year-old in the neck…”

In an accompanying article, Pomnainville relates more of the story:

On Saturday night her five year-old, Jahqwan, went to the birthday party for his friend Jayshawn, who was turning seven. Two 18-year-olds celebrated their birthdays in the same home that night, and by 9 p.m. the crowd had grown to more than 100, she said.

“You could feel there was a bad mood in the air,” she said. “All these young men were standing there looking at each other, and every boy had their hoodies on.”

She grabbed her boy and went home; a few hours later shots rang out and another boy was dead.

So this mother correctly relied on her maternal instincts and common sense and got her youngster away from potential danger.

There were many warnings signs of problems before the tragic event occurred. Yet obviously many parents chose to turn a blind eye.

Blatchford, in her op-ed, describes the need to look at the many small parts of this disturbing puzzle that contribute to the overall problem. I would suggest that the mothers and any available fathers take a long, hard look at themselves first.

Yet there is so much noise, in the wake of Ephraim’s slaying, that the temptation is to give up, do nothing, or in the more modern manner, parrot some of the noise and do nothing. The trick, rather, is to do a little and pray others do the same.

We’ll all do our part, but I pray that the parents take responsibility as well.

If you read the Star’s editorial today (Ban handguns before more die), you’ll see a small typo near the end of the piece which, if it hasn’t been corrected yet, ironically illustrates the knee-jerk way this liberal op-ed must have been thrown together:

But the most pressing need in this struggle to control violence is a nationwide bad on handguns.

You can almost hear Bryant and Miller chanting in the background, “Bad handguns; bad!!!“

Michael Bryant seems to be on a mission to ferret out those nasty guns:

“We’ve got 215,000 (registered) handguns in Ontario alone and each one of them is a target for theft,” Bryant said. “I say `no gun, no funeral,’” he added, referring to the deaths that have plagued Toronto in recent years.

And in a way, the Star’s typo pretty much sums up the sole remedy of Miller and Bryant for this ongoing problem - Guns are bad. Therefore once we ban them, our problems are over. All those young people selling drugs and growing up in fatherless homes are going to suddenly see the light. It will be an amazing day. The city of Toronto will be shining with virtue and prosperity.

To its credit, today’s Globe takes a more realistic view of the possible endemic causes (h/t Neo):

Toronto has undertaken a variety of useful responses: setting up four 18-member police squads that blitz high-crime areas on foot, creating extra social programs, and keeping schools open for summer programs. But the underlying problem of large, poor, fatherless families, alienated teens and a gangster culture transplanted in part from Jamaica is sinking its roots into Toronto, and will not soon let go.

Tough words, but they had to be said.

The question is, will Miller et al listen?