Another life not saved by the gun registry

Reginald Simms.

Newfoundland Liberal MP Scott Simms may well have the most devastatingly personal reasons for voting to preserve the long-gun registry.

[He] told fellow caucus members Wednesday how his father, Reginald, committed suicide in June with a rifle.

[...]A second MP told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Simms acknowledged the gun registry would not have saved his father.

But, he reasoned, if it could save at least one life, it would make a difference in some Canadian’s life.

It didn’t and it hasn’t because it can’t.

Update: “We have a gun registry. Your father still shot himself.”

Tories Deny NRA Involvement in Scrapping Gun Registry

Or so the CBC says.

In other news, Tories continue to deny that they beat their wives.

The Sad Tale of George and Dolores Brent

Over at my other blogging haunt, my colleague (of left-ish tendencies) Scott Payne examines the perils of government intervention into such things as health care.  He highlights the plight of Dolores and George Brent.  Though there’s no talk of death panels, there is imprisonment and theft.  Here’s a sample:

Delores Brent is 83 years old, has had a heart attack, a stroke, and is now beset with dementia. Sadly, her time left on this planet is not long. And her husband, while wishing to care for her, undoubtedly realizes this. Is it so wrong, acknowledging that death’s inescapable hand is near, that he should want to be near his wife in their home to deal with that greatest of fears?

All of which says nothing of the fact that another of the Brent’s children, Gwyn, has stuck by her father’s side, both morally and physically, throughout the whole ordeal.

But the province made the decision that George Brent was unable and/or unwilling to care for his wife without first having any evidence to support the claim. George Brent is left in the same position as the other husband in the scene from Minority Report that I relayed earlier. He is treated as if he has done something wrong without ever actually having done something wrong.

Sure, anecdotes aren’t data, but this is not the first story about overbearing authorities deciding they know better than us plebes how we should live.

If you prick them, do they not bleed?

Apparently, Canadian Blood Services are legally entitled to maintain hetero-purity* of the blood supply.  From today’s National Post:

An Ottawa judge has sided with Canadian Blood Services in a lawsuit against a gay man who counter-sued the blood-donation agency, accusing them of violating his and other gay men’s charter rights by asking the “discriminatory” question about whether they have ever had sex with a man since 1977.

In a decision released on Thursday by Ontario Superior Court Justice Catherine Aitken, Canadian Blood Services was successful in its claim against 36-year-old Kyle Freeman, a gay man who lied several times on the blood-donor questionnaire about having sex with other men, for negligent representation.

The agency relies on the questionnaire to “defer” unsuitable donors from ever giving blood.

I must say that all these lawsuits and counter suits make me dizzy sometimes (or maybe that’s just nausea), but, essentially, the court is saying that if CBS don’t like the blood of homosexuals, they don’t gots to take it, and any question they pose ain’t violatin’ no Charter rights of no one, no how.

Of course, back in May, that same paper taught us:

The policy banning gay men from donating blood in Canada is outdated and discriminatory, according to a pair of prominent AIDS researchers who argue that changing it would benefit the whole blood system.

In an article published Tuesday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, researchers Mark Wainberg and Dr. Norbert Gilmore say it’s time for the lifetime ban to be lifted.

“Here we are 27 years later, still stuck with policies that are antiquated. And in our view these are policies that are not only discriminatory in regard to gay men but they are also policies that do not serve the Canadian blood system well because they result in far fewer blood donations,” said Mr. Wainberg, director of the McGill University AIDS Centre at Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital.

…

According to Mr. Wainberg the policy is “hypocritical” because there are hardly any restrictions on heterosexual donors, who may be sexually promiscuous.

Gay men are prevented from donating blood even if they are in a long-term monogamous relationship, while heterosexual donors who have had multiple partners are not necessarily banned from giving blood for the rest of their lives. For them, there is a six-month deferral period between the last new sexual encounter and giving blood.

So, I’m inclined to think the ban should be lifted.  I’m also inclined to think gay people who want to donate blood might just lie on the questionnaire, so I’m not sure the ban will be particularly useful even if there’s statistically relevant arguments for it.  As well, I’ll feel a little less bad for Canadian Blood Services the next time they cry about not having enough donors.

But I’m willing to be persuaded on this.  What should they do?

*Yes, I’m being cheeky.  I don’t actually think that Gay is a blood-borne pathogen.

Out of the woodwork the apologists come

Pointed and timely questions from Lorne Gunter, National Post.

There was little wrong with the original 12 cartoons to Western eyes; we see cartoons of our leaders and idols on a daily basis that are as bad or worse. [...]

On top of that, Muslim extremists poured gasoline on the fire for their own ends by adding blasphemous images of the Muslim prophet–one, for example, showed Muhammad having sex with a dog — and claiming these bogus portrayals were part of the original content.

No matter what the truth is, there will be those in the Muslim world who will seek to find offence, or will manufacture it where no offence is intended. When Gen. Petraeus says of Pastor Jones’ planned desecration that “it is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems,” he is probably correct. But he is also beside the point.

Also in 2005, there were deadly riots across the Muslim world over a Newsweek report that Korans had been flushed down the toilet at the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. The report later turned out to be untrue. The Pentagon found seven instances in which “Korans had been improperly handled,” but no instances in which one had been torn or flushed. [...]

But why are these outrages always just one-way streets?

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, on Aug. 25, a cartoon on Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV in Gaza and the West Bank aired cartoons showing Jews transforming into apes (who are seen as vile and unclean), and claiming that the transformation was sanctioned by the Koran. [...]

Where are the Western apologists of radical Islam when these outrages against the West are being perpetrated? Why is it only Western slights to Islam that trouble them?

Indeed, the fact that it WAS this fringey pastor who set this international incident off is the most disturbing aspect of all. Unlike the flag burners and bible burners and crucifix defilers that number in the tens of thousands, he did nothing but state an intention. And look at the force they brought down on him to prevent it.

Which Party–Liberal or Conservative–Believes in Multiculturalism?

The Liberal Party condemns the Conservative Party for choosing “again and again to divide communities–by race, religion, language and national origin–for partisan advantage.”

But in reality there is little daylight between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to multiculturalism policy. Both parties even use the same metaphor.

Conservatives recognize the “regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada” and are committed to “embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts.”

For their part, Liberals “believe that Canada is much more than the sum of its parts, and that we are stronger not despite our differences, but because of them.”

So, which party believes in multiculturalism?

The answer is both.

Pop Quiz: How to Earn More Money

If you want to earn higher income, what should you do?

A. Work, labour and toil for longer hours.
B. Go to law, business, or medical school.
C. Get a second job.
D. Speak two languages.

Answer: here.