Share |


Archived posts

Most Recent Posts

  • It’s Spring. Sharpen Your Pitchforks.
  • Ron Liepert, Conservative Nom For Calgary-Signal Hill, Tells Jason Kenney Where to Go
  • Jim Flaherty’s Death Does Not Warrant the Hero Worship he Has Been Receiving
  • Is Anyone Capable of Critical Thinking? Does Anyone Even Care?
  • The Middle Class, an open letter to Tom Mulcair (and whomever else may be listening)
  • Why This Anglo Supports Quebec Solidaire and So Should Other Progressive Anglos
  • Jason Kenney Gets His Job Data From Kijiji — Myths Regarding Labour & Skills Shortages Debunked
  • Come Join the Dark Side! We Got Poutine, Pepsi and Jos Louis! (Mise a Jour) — Part D’Uh??
  • Thursday Night’s Quebec Election Leader’s Debate and The Power of Misinformation
  • Happy St-Paddy’s Day From Sister Sage’s Musings

Who Knew That Concerns About Conjugal Violence Could Be Reduced To a Simple Wedge Issue?

That’s exactly what Lorne Gunter did in his column this morning .

When Heather Mallick writes in the Toronto Star that women worry about the end of the registry because it protects them against having “their own personal bodies torn apart by bullets,” that’s somehow not a wedge? When she adds “there are women walking around intact today who will die at the hands of their violent husbands if the registry vanishes,” she isn’t trying to drive a wedge between men and women? Or between Canadians undecided about the registry and those who oppose it?

As a survivor of conjugal violence, Gunter’s entire column makes me want to go to which ever cave he lives in and go vomit all over his face!  He is not the first to make light of conjugal violence when discussing the long gun registry or any other issue making current events, but his miserable column is indeed the last straw that broke the camel’s back for me.  His column was so offensive, I have to wonder if he, or other of these Harpercons, like Brute Breitkreuz and James Bezan and their cheerleaders smack their wives or girlfriends around? Even threaten them at gun point in some cases,   I would bet my next years’ pay checques on it.

When Heather Mallick brought up the stark realities of victims of conjugal violence being in even more danger without the registry, she was presenting facts. But, in this day and age, facts, figures, truth when inconvenient to the Harpercon agenda, and in this case, the gun nut faction,  truth, facts and figures are considered wedge issues and we must, as Senator Nancy Ruth shrieked a long time ago, “Shut the Fuck up!”   Oh, here’s a fact & a figure regarding long guns and conjugal violence . Eat this one, boys!

The Ad Hoc Coalition for Women’s Equality released statistics showing that a woman is 12 times more likely to be murdered by her partner if there’s a gun in the house — and that gun is most often a rifle.

But, I guess that doesn’t matter neither, now does it? Why? Because, women’s issues, like conjugal violence are  now reduced to wedge issues. No wonder so many get seriously injured or killed.

I was one of the fortunate ones whose ex did not have a long gun or a gun of any kind in the house.  However, while staying at  women’s shelters, I’ve  met others whose spouses did have guns and weren’t shy about using them to keep mama, and even in some cases, the kids,  in line. In cases where police where police were called,  those guns were, indeed, confiscated; licensed or not.  Many of these incidents not ending well. This was in the days before the gun registry. What if there had been a registry?  More to the point, calling  conjugal violence a simple wedge issue is not only insulting, it is dangerous.

What I find even more disturbing about this long gun registry debate is how the freedom to have concealed guns, or even more outrageous, the freedom to carry machine guns while strolling through a park where kids play or to your office,  is far more important than public safety .  After reading that unsurprising story about how the National Rifle Association is in cahoots with Canadian gun nuts lobbying to scrap not only the long gun registry, but more than likely, gun control , (c’mon Antonia talked about this in her previous column as have many others; this is no secret) altogether, my blood ran cold particularly after this passage:

It cautioned gun owners the registry was a government plot to find out how many guns there were in order to seize them and leave citizens helpless to defend themselves.

I guess those women who are victims of conjugal violence who are helpless to defend themselves don’t count for these yahoos, do they?  Very proof that the NRA and the other gun nuts, when talking about “citizens”  who are “helpless to defend themselves” are referring to  yahoos like Brute Breitkreuz and that James Bezan and other gun nuts, like that Tony Bernardo (I betcha he’s related to Paul) who are so hateful and offensive they make enemies without trying; violent sociopaths who hurt women, children and the elderly who need to run from public outrage. Gee, us against the fringe element. Is that a wedge issue, too? Or perhaps they’re the norm and we’re the fringe.

The defense of these yahoos who insist on concealing their guns brings me to another point. If they’re so law abiding; then they shouldn’t have any problem registering their weapons. It’s that simple, unless of course, they’re too illiterate to fill out a form, in which case, always find somebody who can fill it out.   They may be “law abiding” citizens, but, with their  all-out defense for no gun control, and let’s be honest, with the NRA involved, that’s where this is headed, they’re far more frightening than a lot of criminals.

Another thing to remember, abusive spouses, those with substance abuse and mental issues often fall into the “functional” category; they hold jobs; own homes; have families and pass through life undetected much of the time. They’re supposedly law abiding citizens–they don’t have a record.   These gun lovin’ folks say “Don’t penalize law abiding citizens!” Well, Kimveer Gill and Valery Fabrikant were law abiding citizens until they went on their shooting rampages.  It’s a dumb argument.

What is just as disturbing as  Harpercon cheerleading misogynists like Gunter is how the NDP, basically, said that the that the lives of vulnerable women and children are not a question of fundamental rights .  The exact quote from Joe Comartin:

“That issue was one of fundamental human rights. We don’t downplay the importance of the gun registry question – Jack and I believe if it gets done in, more people will die. But having said that, it’s a question of public policy, not of fundamental rights.”

I expect this from the Harpercons and their cheerleaders, never the NDP. Further glaring evidence that the NDP really isn’t the compassionate party Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent anymore.

Minimizing concerns for the safety of women, children and the rest of society’s most vulnerable as a wedge issue or to berate any columnist, blogger, group or individual for even bringing up the issue; basically, telling them to shut the fuck up about it is being in complete denial.

Yes, the only think I’m seeing in this highly partisan debate of gun control is that the rights of wingnuts to carry guns and not register them takes precedence over public safety; to either muzzle concerns of conjugal violence or other acts of violence toward society’s most vulnerable or to flat out minimize them as wedge issues is a slap in the face to say the least and honestly, those who advocate that lunacy probably wish they could put many bullets in people like me to make sure we were silenced forever.  Same goes for fools who say that the survivors and victims of the Polytechnique, as well as the parents of Anastasia De Souza are being exploite for pro-gun control folks to further their agenda and therefore, those victims should stay out of the equation, despite the fact they’re leading the charge for not only the gun registry, but for tougher gun control laws. Fools basically telling these survivors and victims to “shut the fuck up” Ghoulish.  And if we’re to declare a wedge issue in this debate; it’s not women against men or even rural vs urban; it’s the wingnuts, misogynists, gun nuts vs the rest of the world.

And if those wingnuts like Brute Breitkreuz, Tony Bernardo and the rest of the insane assylum escapees who want zero gun control really feel their lives are in danger, then perhaps it’s due to their character flaws and the company they keep and they should rethink that instead of having wet dreams of having an unregistered gun to be able to shoot anybody who looks at them funny.

2 comments to Who Knew That Concerns About Conjugal Violence Could Be Reduced To a Simple Wedge Issue?

  • CanNurse

    Great piece, Ck! Key points!

  • JJ

    Wedge: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    This is indeed a huge wedge issue. I’ve never seen an issue that turned people into such blithering idiots, even abortion isn’t this bad.