Posted by: dave1949 | 2012/02/14

Warning Shots?

I have to say I’ m confused again. Rob Nicholson, my minister of Justice said the other day that it would be ok for a citizen, if he felt an intruder was going to burgle his residence or harm the family to take out a gun and fire a warning shot or two.

Now I have to tell why this confuses me. I know Rob personally though we have had no contact for decades now. He graduated from law school about the same time as my ex wife in the late 70’s and as I’m sure happens in a lot of cities several of the young lawyers, going through articling years and bar exams etc hung around together in their off duty times. ROb didn’t seem to be peculiarly dense at the time. Learning that as a young boy he had decided John Diefenbaker was one of his heros, of course caused a raised eyebrow but we have all had silly childhood crushes and I never suspected that he had any serious mental impairment.

What confuses me now is that he seems to be saying that a return to the old west and the use of firearms for personal and property protection is ok. Now I realize that Stevie and the boys are all gung ho on fast and harsh justice with an emphasis on the fast and hard and a little leeway allowed when it gets to the justice part.

Let’s face it during all his time as a minority leader Stevie dumped Rob’s main get tough legislation several times while at the same time stamping around and yelling about how tough on crime he was. WHy just the other day another of the boys, Vic Toes went to far as to say that anyone who opposed the new internet spying law was on the side of the child pornographers. THat might be stretching the concept of loyal opposition a bit, a representative isn’t necessarily a pervert, criminal or traitor.

ANy way back to Rob it is strange that after decades of trying to get Canadians to rely on the police for their protection, After charging and trying virtually anyone who defends themselves or their property to the fullest extent of the law possible, after running up thousands of dollars in legal bills for anyone who dares to use force for their own protection here we have the chief cop of the entire country saying a few warning shots shouldn’t be out of the question.

Last year, through the courts at least Rob took a Toronto shopkeeper to trial for daring to tackle and detain a shoplifter. The guy was finally exonerated but once again not before running up huge legal bills in his own defense. Now apparently it would be ok for him to do so.

THere is only one thing I can figure that has caused this change in thinking. For decades now it has been made clear that any Canadian who used any force in defending himself had better have and absolutely cut and dried case of being forced to do so or he was going to face a mountain of opposition. It was the police and their strong unions who had the right to do this sort of thing and anyone who infringed on this was obviously a scab worker and had to be dealt with swiftly and forcefully to discourage anyone else form taking away the job opportunities. I guess the Cons hate unions so much and dislike government workers so much they are finally realizing one way to cut both is to allow Canadians to protect themselves and then cops can be let go.
I’m still a bit confused though about the opposition to legalizing drugs and looking for harm reduction programmes as this would also cut police forces and budgets so dramatically.

It’s almost as though the men in charge aren’t really thinking logically about any of this stuff but just running around giddy with their own power now and seeing what they can get away with.

Any way I hope Rob finds his way through all this and comes up with a bit more coherent thinking about how best to protect Canadians. I’m not sure that shooting warning shots by citizens, incarcerating addicts, calling any opposition to them traitors and perverts and generally running rough shod over all our traditions of personal freedom and security is really the right way to go forward.

Then again no one elected me to office so maybe once again it’s me that doesn’t understand.



  1. It’s almost as though the men in charge aren’t really thinking logically about any of this stuff

    Ya think??? That would be a first, wouldn’t it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: