Gun Control

This morning, as I was reading the news while eating breakfast, I came across a startling fact - or at least it was startling to me. According to the article, firearms are used in 80% of all suicides in Canada. I knew the percentage was high, but I did not realize that a firearm was used in eight out of every ten successful suicides. That seemed to me to be an absurdly high percentage. So I checked. I was reasonably sure that either I had read the number wrong or that the author had misquoted/misused a statistic. I checked - and all of the articles that I read including those from government sources, professional journals and the public press all say the same thing. What is even more alarming is that this is old news from three years ago. Why is it even being debated?

Every time someone, whether it be a politician or someone at the local Tim Horton's argues that laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and therefore Canada does not need gun control misses the point. Because guns are available - ordinary citizens - our relatives, our neighbours, our fellow workers who cannot see a way out of their situation may, if they have access to a firearm, use it to kill themselves. There is clear proof that when access to firearms is restricted, people are less likely to do so (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332684).

Restricting access to firearms will not prevent criminals from bringing guns across a border, it will not stop people from shooting at each other to prove their manliness nor will it reduce the amount of other gun-related criminal acts - but it may make it more difficult for desperate people to commit suicide -especially on impulse.  Should we not take some preventative action to make it harder for someone to hurt themselves?

We "make" people wear seatbelts because it may save their lives. Most of us comply with this law in spite of the fact that we have never been in an accident where seat belts have been needed. Can we not do the same for gun control?

To those who argue that it is their right to have a gun (which is not true in Canada) and that the government needs to stop interfering in their lives, need to stop being so self-centred and think about how to make the world a little bit safer for everyone.

Consequences for Speaking "a Truth"

Senator Lynn Beyak has made the news again. She is the senator from Ontario who allowed statements to be posted on her social media pages about Indigenous Canadians that were hurtful and racist. She has defended those statements. The Senate last year suspended her without pay until she apologized, took the statements off of her pages and participated in a course to help her better understand the consequences of the Residential School System. It appears as if that while she has taken down the offensive statement from her social media pages, her apology was insufficient and she was kicked out of the course due to her unwillingness to listen or learn. She may be suspended again.

There is no doubt that Ms. Beyak holds opinions that are historically inaccurate, offensive and racist. But on the assumption that she actually believes the absurdities that come out of her mouth, part of me almost wants to admire someone who is prepared to risk public shaming for stating her beliefs. I would agree that people should not be paid out of the public purse when they clearly hold views that are just plain wrong. However, if that was the standard to which all elected and non-elected members of Parliament were held - I suspect that there are a number of folks in Ottawa who should be suspended until they apologized for their comments and took a course or two to understand how hurtful their comments have been.

For example - all of those politicians who think that abortion is wrong but that we don't need to adequately support single-parent families need to be suspended. Similarly, politicians who suggest that sexual orientation is a choice and that it can be "corrected" need to have their pay stopped until they agree to and demonstrate the capacity to be more accepting of other people. And all of those members of the Quebec Legislature who voted in favour of the ban on any civil servant wearing a head covering need to have their pay stopped immediately.  In fact, the list of people who disagree with me (and numerous other people) may be almost endless. If I am not the right person to decide who gets to speak their version of the truth - who is?

Ms. Beyak is wrong. She needs to be held accountable for her opinions and her willingness to state them in public. But should she be censured and deprived of her income because she holds different views that what is acceptable? We do not fire other people who say harmful things - perhaps we should but we don't. I accept that making racist comments about Indigenous peoples is particularly inappropriate, but there needs to be a consistent approach. To only consequence some people for their public opinions and not others is wrong and dangerous.

There is a risk that it will appear as if Ms. Beyak is being consequenced not because of her opinions but because she refused to back down. That could make her a hero - which she is most certainly not.