Sadly it doesn’t seem like IANSA’s Elizabeth Mandelman – a Masters student at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs  - got the memo.

In her latest blog post Elizabeth comes to the conclusion:

These statistics illustrate the need for gun control not only to reduce and prevent domestic violence, but violence in general.  Many weapons are used to domestically abuse and assault people, but none are more lethal than firearms.

Well, ok.

I guess that Ms. Mandelman must have clear evidence that firearms are used frequently, and with lethal effects, in cases of domestic violence.

I mean, she certainly couldn’t come to the conclusion that gun control is essential based on evidence that shows firearms are responsible for less deaths than, say, stabbing or bludgeoning on beating could she?

In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides.  In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).

Oh. That’s certainly not what I expected.

In fact, it’s much worse.

In her blog Ms. Mandelman is suggesting that firearms are responsible for a good number of homicides related to domestic violence. Clearly, however, the statistics just don’t show that.

While it’s true that twelve of thirty-six homicides resulted from domestic violence, and twelve of thirty-six homicides were committed with firearms, there is nothing in those statistics that indicates how many homicides linked to domestic violence resulted from firearms. In fact, as I posted previously, in 2006 only 0.01% of incidents of domestic violence reported to police nation-wide involved firearms.

What I really want to know is if guns somehow make people deader? Why doesn’t Elizabeth Mandelman seem to care much about the causes of the other 24 homicides in 2006? Shouldn’t we dedicate our effort to reducing all types of domestic violence? All violence in general? Hell, shouldn’t we at least tackle the causes of homicide from most to least?

Obviously Ms. Mandelman isn’t really concerned with reducing domestic violence or curbing homicide in Canada. Like many lobbyists she’s only concerned with spinning and confusing statistics in order to further her organization’s agenda.

I try to stay out of firearms politics – but it’s hard when I see people climbing up on the corpses of victims of violence in order to pitch their product.

In 2006, over 36,000 men, women, and children were the victims of domestic violence so severe that it was reported to police. We need to work to resolve the root causes of domestic violence and concern ourselves with all 36,000 victims, not just a fraction of them.

This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda. An example of this is the question “Are you still beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

Certainly, the blogosphere is plagued by a predisposition to fallacy. I didn’t find it particularly surprising, then, when I was forwarded a link to a blog by Elizabeth Mandelman. According to her blog, Elizabeth is working towards her Master’s in Public Policy at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Elizabeth is in Canada, working for Project Ploughshares as part of the IANSA global campaign to stop the “proliferation of small arms”.

In her most recent blog posting, Elizabeth – in reference to women leaving abusive relationships –  ends with:

When they do take the step to begin a new life, they must often do so with someone else’s used sheets and outgrown clothes.   How is this fair?  How is it, I wonder, that there are individuals that consider their privilege of owning a firearm more worthy than the right to safety and protection, afforded to all Canadian citizens by their government?

Elizabeth does a good job asking a loaded question. Indeed, how can firearms owners think their priviledge to own a gun is more important than the safety of abused women?

Of course, the desire to own firearms and the desire for women to not be brutalized by their spouses isn’t mutually exclusive. Indeed, I would be surprised if you could find a single firearms owner that doesn’t condemn spousal abuse. That’s to be expected. Most people find abuse, in any of its varied forms, repugnant. Why then would Ms. Mandelman suggest otherwise?

Clearly, Ms. Mandelman is doing her best to demonize firearms owners. Otherwise she wouldn’t be going out of her way, in post after post, to suggest Canadian firearms owners are either complicit, or supportive, of things they clearly aren’t. Then again, when statistics show you’re wrong I guess the next best thing is to appeal to emotion. On her blog Ms. Mandelman suggests:

Violence against women is a very serious gender-based human rights violation, and obstructs equality between men and women.  Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue.

This time, as before, Elizabeth attempts to link gun ownership with spousal abuse. After all, the firearms act can only be vitally important in the aiding of victims of abuse, and combatting a serious women’s rights issue, if firearms owners are responsible for a significant number of cases of domestic violence. Clearly that’s what Ms. Mandelman is hinting at.

But is she right?

The RCMP, now responsible for the Canadian Firearms Center, has both the 2006 and 2007 Commissioner of Firearms Reports online.

The 2007 Report lists exactly 1,758 Firearms License revocations. Of those only 4 percent, or 70 license revocations, were due to domestic violence. At the end of 2007 there were 1,877,880 individuals licenses to own firearms in Canada. So, 0.0037% of firearms license owners had their licenses revoked as the result of domestic violence.

In 2006, there were 1,908,011 licensed firearms owners. Also in 2006, a total of 2,084 licenses were revoked. While the 2007 report breaks down revocations into “violence” and “domestic violence” percentages the 2006 report lists only “violence”.

In 2007, violence was listed as the reason for 6% of revocations – domestic violence in 4% of cases. Assuming the same proportion for 2006 some 90-100 licenses were revoked for domestic violence. Or some 0.0049% of firearms owners lost their licenses due to cases of domestic violence.

That hardly seems like justification for millions of dollars in ongoing expenditures. And it hardly seems like justification for the billion dollars that has already been spent.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2006 there were over 38,000 incidents of spousal abuse – 80% of which involved violence against women. Interestingly, where males were victims of spousal violence 23% of them were victims of major assault, compared with only 13% of female victims. According to Stats Canada:

Data came from a survey administered to 149 police services across Canada, covering about 90% of Canada’s population in 2006. Disclosing spousal violence can be difficult for many victims. As such, not all incidents are reported to the police. This analysis is therefore limited to those incidents of spousal violence that are reported to the police.

Clearly, statistics related to domestic violence are going to be plague by under-reporting as many women (and some men) will keep silent in order to avoid angering their abuser further. Still, the Statistics Canada report is the best resource available.

In it’s report titled “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile” Statistics Canada includes a breakdown of the weapons used during incidents of domestic violence in table 1.10 on page 24 of the report. In 2006 weapons were used in 2,534 of 38,573 reported cases. Firearms were used in 34 assaults on women, and 6 assaults on men. Statistics Canada also includes a percentage breakdown in the table – firearms are listed as 0%.

More accurately, firearms were used in 0.1% of cases.

One tenth of one percent.

It seems clear to me that people like Elizabeth Mandelman and other lobbyists for groups like IANSA aren’t really interested in helping victims of domestic violence. If they were, they would focus on the causes behind 99.9% of cases of domestic violence, not the 0.1% related to firearms. Instead, they subtly suggest that firearms owners are responsible for a disproportionate amount of spousal abuse in order to justify their continued lobbying for increased controls on firearms ownership.

Clearly, any amount of domestic violence, against spouses, children, or elderly family members, is unacceptable. But we should place the blame on those responsible, and not distract ourselves from dealing with hard questions such as how we can prevent domestic violence, and how we can help victims escape violent situations and return to a normal life, by focussing on red herrings.

Ms. Mandelman says:

In closing, I need to address the claim made by pro gun advocates that I, and advocates like me, have been trying to win battles through emotional appeal.  I disagree with this statement as making the assertion, for example, that women are statistically more likely to be the victims of domestic violence is not emotionally, but rather factually, fueled.  I must say, however, that after spending nearly two hours with Cindy, it is hard not to bring emotion into the debate of why gun control is needed to help thwart abuse.

So, in closing, I need to address the claim made by anti-gun advocates that their arguments are made on logic and statistics and not on fallacious appeals to emotion. You’re wrong Ms. Mandelman, and you do a disservice to  99.9% of women in this country that live in fear of being brutalized by their spouses by suggesting you’re not.

Since the coup first hit the MSM prominent Liberals have been lining up to extoll the virtues of Stephane Dion. A striking contrast to six weeks ago when they began plunging knives into his back even before final election results were tallied. While Stephane was in hiding, presumably nursing his bruised ego, a string of Liberals declared that he must step down, that he must be replaced, that he was a failure, and that he was responsible for dragging the Liberals to their worst election finish in the party’s history.

There were also a number of Liberals that came out to pronounce that Mr. Dion had failed to listen to advice, and that he had the delusional belief that he was going to win the election up until the point the polls started returning results.

Now the Liberals would have us believe that the very same man they declared a failure, the same Leader they pressured into quitting and who will be replaced in less than five months, should be handed the keys to 24 Sussex.

It’s disingenuous, it’s an insult to the intelligence of Canadians, and it borders on criminal. 

It might be amusing were the country not facing the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. But now isn’t the time to hand the reins of the country to someone who couldn’t even manage to get a video taped response to the PM’s public address yesterday to the news media on time.

And, if the insistence that Stephane Dion is to be our saviour wasn’t already proof of their willingness to say anything in their attempt to wrest government away from the Conservatives we need only look at the terms of their agreement with the other parties.

While both the Liberals and NDP insist that the Bloc isn’t part of their triumvirate I’m doubtful a single Canadian has fallen for that one. First, you would have to overlook the fact that Gilles Duceppe was standing alongside Jack Layton and Stephane Dion, signing the papers that launched the putsch in the first place. Second, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of arithmetic realizes the Liberals/NDP need the Bloc’s seat count if they have any hope of staging a coup.

Third, and certainly the smoking gun, is the signed agreement itself that states, “Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois.”

A permanent consultation mechanism.

In other words, the Bloc will be a permanent part of the Liberal-NDP coalition. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone on the hill, then, when people refer to the ‘seperatist coalition’, the “Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition”, or the wholly appropriate “three stooges coalition”.

And again, we’re told by prominent Liberals that working with the Bloc is good for Canada and good for confederation. Of course, during the election they were keen to tell us that the Bloc wanted to destroy Canada and that we should vote Liberal as the federalist option.

How quickly things change.

To review. The Liberals believe that Stephane Dion, the party leader who led the Liberals to their worst election result ever and who was forced to resign, is actually the best choice for Prime Minister. That a coalition with the NDP they said would never happen is actually completely natural. And that being beholden to the Bloc, the only party in parliament specifically dedicated to breaking up the country, is good for confederation.

Canadians are tired of being lied to by politicians. They see this naked power grab for what it is, regardless of the triumvirate’s lies.

That’s something the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are going to learn the hard way at the ballot box…

I will say that I hope this election goes off without a hitch.

With the record numbers of people expected to vote and the strained and poorly organized US electoral system there’s a significant chance that something bad will happen. There’s already hints that breakdowns in machines and disorganization is preventing people from voting.

I can see things turning ugly considering the level of rhetoric we’ve been hearing for months.

I really hope I’m wrong and things go smoothly.

Here’s a little something to lighten the mood:

You can read all about it on Ezra’s blog.

In the past Ezra was taken before the Human Rights tribunal by Canadian Islamic Congress, now he’s being sued by disgraced Liberal lobbyist Warren Kinsella. It looks like Warren is not only suing Ezra, but also trying to have him disbarred:

Here’s what I think. Every time someone like Kinsella or his friends hit me with a human rights complaint, defamation action or law society complaint, I think: “this proves my point. These are fundamentally illiberal people. They can’t convince me I’m wrong, so they’re trying to bully me into silence.”

On his blog Ezra points out some interesting links between Warren and the CIC that makes me wonder if the latest attempts to silence him are just part of an overall strategy by the CIC and its supporters.

Certainly, I disagree with a lot of things a lot of people say, but I can’t fathom the idea of attempting to silence someone simply because they believe, think, or act differently than I do. Its far to Orwellian to point at someone and yell “thoughtcrime!”

I defer to wiser men than me. Frederick Douglass once wrote:

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. 

Hopefully this latest assault won’t be able to silence Ezra. And hopefully Canadians will wake up to the abuses of our legal and human rights apparatus by people who are more interested in stifling debate than they are in righting imaginary wrongs.

Prohibition – premature transmission of results

329. No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district.

In order to not run afoul of Elections Canada rules on results blackouts commenting will be fully moderated between now and the close of all polls.

In an electronic age of instant information the Elections Act prohibition on publishing election results is silly and archaic. Far better to not start counting votes until all polls are closed.

In any case, I’m sure there will be plenty of websites that will give you the results if you’re inclined to look for them.

Canadians, unlike many countries in Europe and elsewhere, have never found themselves under a military or otherwise totalitarian regime. They have never been subject to intimidation, torture, or murder based on which Political party they chose to join. They have never been the victims of mass voter fraud, or of elections invalidated by current leadership – like Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

I think this is why we’ve come to taken one of the most precious rights we have as citizens – the right to select our elected members of parliament – for granted.

Based on past election numbers, I would hardly be surprised if we again see 60-65% voter turn out. That means one-third of the population will let the rest decide who gets to run the country until the next election.

I’m quite glad I live in a country where I can disagree with people over who should run the country. I think one thing we should all agree on, however, if the fact that its our responsibility to build the government we want.

Regardless of your political affiliation, get out and vote.

First, there was the debacle where Garth’s staff told CPAC to meet him for some ‘face time’ with constituents. What Garth’s people forgot to tell CPAC was the “constituent” was Garth’s campaign manager’s son.

Then, this week Steve Janke has been blogging about how Garth Turner had his pollster Jack Baril ask him a question specifically designed to allow him to attack his opponent Lisa Raitt on CTV’s Canada AM.

Garth, being Garth, doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with having your own campaign staff ask you a leading and partisan question:

Meanwhile, in a steamy basement somewhere to the west, Conservative blogger Steve Janke was working on an expose of the Canada AM show that went to air this morning, featuring a segment on the battle of Halton. He had discovered a question asked of me had been posed by a Liberal supporter – a question whose answer, he said, “delivered a sucker punch to Lisa Raitt right there on the stage.” So, had I arranged it?

(Actually Canada AM’s producer had asked each candidate’s campaign to provide one questioner, whose topic and identity were gathered in advance. My Conservative opponent agreed, and participated. Some expose.)

Of course, Garth fails to mention the fact CTV specifically asked candidate’s to not select members of their campaign staff as the questioner.

Obviously Mr. Turner doesn’t seem to care much when it comes to bending the rules as long as it makes Garth look good. In fact, I’m sure right now Garth is speaking about how great Garth is in the third person, probably while standing in front of a mirror.

In any case, today I found myself driving through Oakville and I couldn’t help but notice that absolutely every Lisa Raitt sign that was posted on a boulevard had a Garth Turner sign planted a few feet away so as to obstruct the view of Ms. Raitt’s signs to oncoming traffic. Obviously someone on Garth’s team has childishly been planting election signs in front of Ms. Raitt’s signs on purpose.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen sign related shenanigans in this election.

I’m going to try and get back with my camera this weekend to snap some pics of just how childishly Garth’s team is behaving.

As comments on this blog are moderated (mainly to cut down on ever-present spam comments) I found myself alone in wading through the disjointed vitriol that passes as logic among the tinfoil hat crowd. I must admit, I did chuckle once or twice as I contemplated how painfully stupid some responses were.

Rather than approve the comments in the original post I decided to address them in their own post. I think its important for people to realize both how out of left field people like Lesley Hughes are, and also how unsettling their beliefs really are.

I’ve excerpted the following, some of which I will reply to.

Zionists are FALSE JEWS the Bible speaks about in Apocalypse 2:9 and 3:9 where it says they are with the Synagogue of Satan. Zionist confirm when they spell they are with the Snake in The Protocols of Zion.

“The Tirtheth Tribe” by Koestler, 1976, confirms that zionists ashkenazi descend from Khazars satanic barbarians who disguised as Jews in 740 AD in Khazaria now called Georgia.

The owner of this blog won’t publish me !

I invite the owner of this blog to face me in a rational cool face to face discussion without emotions on youtube where I post many videos about 9/11 and Zionism.

Let’s talk about FACTS, history and cash!

You will stay invisible, I bet my car against a US $1 bill (the one with the all-seeing pyramid we also see on Israel’s Supreme Court building in Jerusalem !

Good luck with Armageddon dear Zionist

Because we all know that YouTube is a 100% accurate source for information regarding 9/11 attacks, videos of dogs that can walk on their back legs, and funny Obama ad parodies.

In reality, this comment – and the rest of the vitriol about the apocalypse, Jews, and ‘Zionists’ – is a good example of why people like Lesley Hughes should not be allowed to run for ANY political party. Thinly veiled anti-semitism is not something that we need in our elected officials.

Believing and repeating stories that ‘the Jews’ didn’t show up for work on 9/11 feeds people like this commenter that seem to feel the need to blame someone for being ‘behind’ all the bad things that happen.

To the writer of this article …. most intelligent people in Canada/USA know that 9/11 was not executed by 19 arabs and if look at some of the facts (not gluing your head to CNN ) it is evident 9/11 was planned and most people cant handle the truth but one you will wake up and see what we see …and i fully support Leslie as she is the only MP who is not scared to say the truth

This commenter displays the attention to detail I’ve come to expect from conspiracy theorists. Lesley Hughes is not an MP, nor hopefully will she ever be one. Then again, why let your rant about facts be confused by the, umm, facts. The facts are that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. Not George Bush.

Speaking of George Bush, I’m often amazed that the same people who think George Bush couldn’t organize himself out of a wet paper bag are the same people who figure he pulled off the murder of 3,000+ of his own citizens.

Now, I trimmed the nearly page and a half mutters about Zionists, Afghanistan, Oil and Drugs from the next comment since they didn’t really make any sense. I did find the following an excellent summary of the type of people Lesley Hughes hangs out with,

MY MOTHER AND I SUFFER I BLOG FROM BEHIND A BARRICADED DOOR MY FAMILY IS TERRORIZED-
MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT-AND DION-CONTINUE TO CENSOR OUR ORDEAL. Lesley tried to give public notice to our account- National Post Globe and Mail and others HAVE CENSORED- WE SP0KE TO DION IN WINNIPEG AT THEIR LIBERAL CONVENTION-he and his senior executive advisor Jean Luca Cairo promised us assistance-THEY LIED

There you have it folks. Stephane Dion in cahoots with Stephen Harper no less, have the media on their side in censoring Aaron’s story. In the interest of Aaron’s terrible plight I give you the following link to Aaron’s site. Please don’t click the link if you suffer from epilepsy, I’m not kidding.

There really are days when my hope for humanity falters.

But Tucker isn’t backing down, saying this week’s school shooting in Finland and a gun scare in Regina prove his point that guns and schools don’t mix.

“I’ve had no second thoughts or doubts,” he said.

“I knew this was a decision that wasn’t going to make everyone happy, but I made it and still believe it is in the best interest of the school and the students.”

It would appear that Mr. Tucker is incapable of drawing the distinction between the illegal use of firearms by individuals such as the 22-year-old Finnish gunman who killed 10 people before turning the gun on himself and internationally recognized competitive shooters from as far away as France competing in a sanctioned event on an approved shooting range.

By Mr. Tuckers logic it would be appropriate to reject a donation raised by members of the Canadian Automobile Sports Club of Ontario at a race track because drinking and driving is one of the leading cause of death for teens.
Mr. Tucker’s logic is an obvious non sequitur. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that high schools across the province had shooting ranges in their basements – safely being enjoyed by students, cadets, and teachers alike.

Getting back the the students, the London Free Press goes on to report:

“I’ve talked to the school, and the students will not go without,” said Tucker.

“(My decision) isn’t a reflection of the sports club, or the gun club — it’s just that guns don’t go with schools.”

Students will have to raise the money another way, he said.

Its a great sound bite to suggest the students “won’t go without”. Of course, the truth is they will. Mr. Tucker goes on to say that students will have to raise the money “another way”. Now, it falls within the realm of possibility that my comprehension of the concept of ‘going without’ is somehow radically different than everyone else’s – but having to get $5000 from somewhere else, or not having it if alternative fundraising arrangements can’t be made in time, certainly strikes me as ‘going without’.

Not going without would require Mr. Tucker to find the money, either in a the board’s budget or in his own pocket, and give it to the school to replace the donation he has chosen to refuse. Finding that kind of money won’t be easy. The Thames Valley School Board administers some 184 schools. While its budget of $630 million is significant it works out to roughly $7875 per student.

In other words in one weekend the East Elgin Sportsmen’s Association raised over 60% of what the school board spends on one student for an entire year.

Maybe that’s why Michael Knight, the chair of the East Elgin School’s council, appears to want Mr. Tucker to rethink his decision:

“Our society does recognize a place for guns in hunting and sports like the Olympics, and they’re government- backed,” said Michael Knight, chair of East Elgin’s school council.

“I hope the director will review the matter to make sure he made an informed decision and didn’t base it on a knee-jerk reaction,” he said.

Sadly, I think Mr. Knight and the East Elgin Secondary School will be forced to find much needed donations elsewhere. It’s becoming clear that Mr. Tucker is blinded by ideology. The real tragedy is not that a bunch of high school students are being denied a $5,000 donation – its that someone so obviously insulated from reality is in charge of shaping that many minds.