Canadian Cincinnatus

Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight, especially on a Toronto streetcar

The headline of the National Post article describing the incident is: “Toronto police criticized for shooting of ‘cornered’ man brandishing a knife on an empty streetcar.” An “emergency vigil march” was held. Reported in the Post:

‘Sensing the significant and growing anger of the public over the police shooting of Yatim, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair promised there would be answers for what occurred and offered his condolences to the family.

“As a father I can only imagine their terrible grief and their need for answers,” he said.’

When the cops shoot somebody, my ideology draws me in two directions simultaneously. The law-and-order Me stands by the police. The libertarian Me says, wait a minute. Isn’t this just Big Government running amok?

To find out which view should dominate in this case, let’s examine it more closely:

‘The video, shot from at least 10 metres away, shows police surrounding the front door of the streetcar while a solitary figure, wearing white pants, a dark short-sleeve shirt and a ball hat, holds a small object in his hand, near the driver’s seat.

Police can be heard yelling, “Drop the knife! Do it now!”

A muffled voice can be heard repeatedly saying, “You’re a p—-. You’re a f—– p—-,” although it is not clear who is saying it and who it is directed towards.

“If you take one step in this direction . . .,” a male police officer can be heard before his voice becomes muffled in the video. Ross McLean, a former Toronto police officer, told CBC’s Metro Morning he thought the officer said “and you’re finished.”’ 

Police can be heard saying, “Don’t move,” and the man on the streetcar moves in the direction of police, who are several metres away from the entrance, and three shots are fired. The video is slightly obscured but it does not appear the man made it to the streetcar’s front steps.”

‘After a pause of about five seconds, an additional six shots are fired in quick succession. The man is no longer visible in the video. At least 10 police officers can be seen in the video at this time.

Police can still be heard yelling, “Drop the knife,” after the shots are fired.’

One of the censored words is “pussy”. You can guess the other. Add to this the following facts:

1. In close quarters, a knife is as deadly as a gun. Those unfamiliar with firearms don’t understand this. They think: gun trumps knife. In reality, the principal advantage of a gun is that it is a distance weapon. This advantage evaporates at close quarters.

2. At a distance of 7 yards, it takes only two seconds for an assailant to close the gap to be on top of you, as Matt Gurney pointed out.

3. In this incident, the perp was moving towards the cops, and not backing away from them, much less giving up. 

4. One hit from a pistol-caliber firearm is often not enough to stop somebody. The history of gunfights is replete with incidents where numerous hits were required to end the fight.

5. Supporters of Sammy Yatim are making a big deal of his age – 18, I guess trying to equate youth with innocence. In fact, young males 14 to 25 are responsible for the vast majority of all violent crime.

From these considerations, while the number of shots fired by the police may have been excessive, I conclude that my law and order side is right this time.

In assessing police incidents, one factor to consider is the suspect’s nature. Is he a predatory criminal, or is he an otherwise good citizen having a bad day (or simply caught up in bureaucratic stupidity)? I am a firm believer in the adage that laws have to be interpreted with common sense. No matter how well the rules are written, if they are applied inflexibly, without regard to circumstance, tyranny is the result.

An example of this not being done was the fatal tasering a couple of years back of a Polish visitor at the Vancouver airport. The Mounties were called to deal with a drunk and disorderly air traveller. He was obnoxious but he wasn’t Tony Montana. The cops had more than enough muscle-power at their disposal to subdue him manually and take him to the drunk tank; there were four Mounties, including one who was huge. The Pole had no prior criminal record and was unarmed. 

In the TTC incident, the suspect’s relatives and friends want to make the case that he too was a good citizen who had merely erred. Perhaps, but considering the fact that he had commandeered a streetcar with a deadly weapon, and then failed to surrender to the police when they arrived on scene, the burden of proof is on them to make that case. 

Oh yes, one more possibly related thought: whenever the police shoot a dangerous criminal, consider how much money the cops just saved the taxpayers: court costs, legal defence costs, annual imprisonment costs, to say nothing of the property damage and mayhem the individual would have caused in the remainder of his lifetime. Even factoring in the expenses of the inevitable investigations a police shooting triggers, the taxpayer must come out far ahead.

Trayvon Martin’s hoodie and other symbols of criminality

One of the sidebar issues raised by the George Zimmerman circus trial was the issue of Trayvon Martin’s hoodie, specifically that Zimmerman’s suspicions may have been raised because hoodies are associated with criminality. This was considered to be wrong on Zimmerman’s part. Leaving aside the fact that Zimmerman’s suspicions turned out to be well founded (Martin had a well-documented history of petty burglary), what exactly is wrong with being suspicious of people who wear clothes associated with crime?

The underlying argument is that even though hoodies are popular with criminals (because it enables them to hide their faces from the increasingly common security cameras), most people who wear them are not criminals. Assuming that a specific person is a criminal just because he wears a hoodie is wrong; they are popular with many people.

In reaction, I pose the following question: why are upstanding citizens attracted to underclass symbols in the first place? Why aren’t they repelled by the trappings of the lumpenproletariat? Why do these things become popular because they are associated with crime? Another example are those ridiculously baggy pants associated with rap music and urban gang culture that, for a time, middle-class kids sported. The fashion originated from prison culture where convicts were issued ill-fitting clothing and no belts (to minimize strangulations).

The sex appeal of the barbarian lifestyle is understandable. Tacitus was enamoured with the virility and simple manliness of the German barbarians in 98 AD. What is new is that, rather than being merely tolerated, or actively suppressed (as it was during the Victorian Era), these fashions are now actively promoted by the arbiters of our taste. Consider Hollywood, which began popularizing anti-social, ‘anti-heroes’ in the 1950’s, beginning with James Dean. In the 1960’s, the stereotypical face of England – the middle-class businessman with a bowler hat, brolly and a stiff upper lip – was extensive ridiculed by clever, upper-class comics like Monty Python’s Flying Circus. As a result, the face of Britain changed to that of a drunken, soccer hooligan. Way to go, John Cleese!

We are now at the point where transgressive acts have become a mark of respectability, and law-abiding, middle-class, shop-keeper virtues have become obscene. I mean, what says respectability more than a performance artist conducting a vomit show? What the arbiters of public morality look down upon instead is rather the squeaky clean, law-abiding, devout Christian.

The good news here is that our Bohemian Bourgeoisie can’t handle their own respectability. They desperately need to be the rebels but are the victim of their own success. The more they push respectable conservatives to the fringe, the more they turn them into what they most admire: rule-breaking iconoclasts. In their self-created angst lies their ruin.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford shows Stephen Harper the way forward

Earlier this year, both Rob Ford and Prime Minister Harper were mired in petty scandals. In Ford’s case, there was a lawsuit concerning donations he solicited for his football charity. The ensuing court case threatened his removal from office because, as a Councillor, he had used official stationary to solicit those funds. Then there is the infamous crack smoking video that mesmerized the City Hall press, but which nobody has been able to locate. (It still hasn’t turned up.) How did Ford get past all that?

Did he apologize? No.

Did he provide a detailed explanation? No.

Instead, he exploited the Provincial Liberal weakness with their the recent by-elections and brought home a subway to Scarborough, inflicting a defeat on the David Miller clique in City Hall along the way, with their ineffectual LRT and streetcar scheme. Now Ford looks like a David who knocked down City Hall’s establishment Goliath, and all those scandals are just small-ball crap ginned up by the anti-Ford Big Media.

This suggests the course of action Harper must take: ignore the press’s whoop-de-doos (he is already doing a good job here), don’t apologize (that only validates the smear), and don’t explain (ditto). Instead, do something bold: enact some suitably controversial legislation that will both energize the base while make him look like a David taking on the Ottawa ‘deep state’ Goliath.

If he does this, all the petty stuff will then dry up and blow away. It won’t even rate as a footnote in tomorrow’s history books.

Kelly McParland’s maudlin article about Stephen Harper is right on the money, and thank God for that!

The self-pitying National Post columnist titled his piece, “Stephen Harper won’t read this, and doesn’t care what it says.” In it, he makes some interesting points:

“[T]he government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have taken the measure of the industry and decided it can be safely ignored as a major political player.

Mr. Harper has been doing his best to treat reporters, broadcasters and commentators as an irrelevance since he came to power.”

One of the keys to Harper’s success in Ottawa so far has been his ability to manage the Ottawa Press Gallery that chewed up and spat out his predecessors. The first indication of a new strategy in the offing was a minor story that appeared a couple of months after Harper’s first general election as party leader, the one where he held Paul Martin to a minority. To beat Martin the next time around, he did a reorg among his staff, replacing a number of advisors. The press laughed at this (for reasons nobody could understand), but among the people he replaced was his most trusted media consultant, whose principal advice had been to curry journalistic favour, with somebody who believed in a sterner approach. As a result, the press stopped treating him with contempt and started treating him with hatred – and respect. 

“Journalists, like civil servants and activist judges, were all part of the unreliable Liberal-friendly superstructure that had been carefully put in place over the decades of Liberal domination.”

An accurate description of the ‘deep state’ in Ottawa.

“The depth of Mr. Harper’s disregard might be reflected in his handling of the torrent of bad news his government has endured this year.  He’s pretty much ignored it, other than occasionally issuing terse statement, no follow-up allowed.”

That’s because he thinks the public will be able to see that it’s all small-ball crap that’s been blown way out of proportion. 

“The speculation, as so often, proved unfounded.” 

In other words, the press doesn’t know what it is talking about.

“Mr. Harper now faces a press that shows much of the open disregard and distrust that marked the closing stages of the Mulroney government, when the prime minister was dismissively referred to as “Lyin’ Brian”. Every leaked email is now instantly labelled a scandal.  Backbenchers are derided as trained seals. Cabinet members are no more than better-paid lackies. Any statement from the PMO is treated with suspicion, as if the last thing it could contain was the unabridged truth.” 

Correct. But tell me Kelly, how is it Harper’s fault that the Ottawa Press Gallery is petty and vindictive while it pretends to be objective and professional? 

“Rather than make a show of tempering the toxic atmosphere his troops bring to the House of Commons…”

“Toxic atmosphere,” as opposed to the ‘congenial, fraternal atmosphere of mutual respect’ that turn-the-other-cheek Christians Preston Manning and Stockwell Day experienced in their dealings with Ottawa journalists?

“The Prime Minister plainly thinks Ottawa’s traditional news voices can be ignored.”

He seems to be right. 

“It doesn’t matter if they denounce him on a regular basis." 

It appears it doesn’t.

“If Mr. Harper wants to be heard, he’ll film an infomercial or a YouTube video, or the party will release another attack ad, which the media will be obliged to cover.”

One of the great developments in the past 15 years, is how technology is enabling ordinary citizens – and political parties - to go around the traditional press, thereby making Big Media less relevant. Hey, somebody should write a book about that!

“Maybe he’s right.”

Good for him.

The two key ingredients in the George Zimmerman affair: racial demagoguery and white guilt

Without black race-hustlers and white elites, controversies like the one over the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman trial would be impossible. Both elements are required. Without either, the entire matter would be reduced to a local crime story.

The malicious influence of demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is obvious. Discord between blacks and whites is their bread and butter. If racial harmony suddenly broke out in the United States, they would go broke. But these guys can only take things so far by themselves. To get to a full-blown race circus they need the help of white elites, who are either guilt-addled because of America’s past sins towards African Americans, or – more likely – pretending to be guilt-addled to gain morally superiority over other white elites in their ceaseless status-struggle: sort of modern day Elmer Gantrys.

I saw the malignant effect of white guilt firsthand in the four years I lived in Canada’s High Arctic. On the one hand, the Inuit inhabited a welfare purgatory that was conducive to moral degradation. On the other hand, these same government programs were extravagantly expensive and inefficient. You could really see with your own eyes the proverbial ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ that politicians always talk about but can’t seem to ever pinpoint. A colleague up there put it best, “if the people down south know how much money was wasted up here, there’d be a bloody revolution.”

Considering the sour spot that government policy has found with regard to the treatment of natives, one would think that a call for reform would be popular. But if you thought that, you are wrong. There have been a few lonely voices of reform, it is true: Stephen Harper’s former professor, Tom Flanagan, for one; and former Liberal backbencher, Bob Nault, another. But neither effort was supported and the much-need reforms were ignored. Native leaders prosper too much from the Apartheid condition of their people, and white people are too afraid to confront them about it. 

The same is true for African Americans. The problem there is as David Goldman asks, “What do you do when the oppressed are their own worst oppressors?"

“The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men – 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks. The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future.

Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss.”

Don’t look for help from white people. Even when they aren’t paralyzed by guilt, they are stifled by potential accusations of racism. 

If non-black people were allowed to criticize minorities forthrightly when they misbehave without being branded as Thought Criminals, this intolerable state of affairs would never be tolerated, both in the American inner city and the Canadian hinterland. Both places urgently require bold intervention. Neither needs any more collective guilt (or victimhood), or misguided romantic impulses. But if our self-righteous elites have their say, that is all they are going to get any time in the near future.

George Zimmerman was persecuted by racial demagogues precisely because he was innocent

How do I know this?

Simple. By juxtaposing another incident of white-on-black killing that occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma about a month after the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin encounter, and the non-reaction that followed. On April 18 I reported:

“Over the weekend, two white men were charged in the shooting deaths of three black people and the wounding of two others in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The killers were both charged with murder and “hate crime charges”. They have both confessed to the killings but have pled not guilty to murder. The killings appear to be random in that there is no known connection between the victims and the killers. Given this and the fact that the only common denominator between the victims is that they are all black, it is reasonable to assume that racial hatred was the motive (in spite of protestations to the contrary by one of the accused).” 

If injustice done by whites on blacks were really at issue, rather than just a proxy for some other agenda, this would make for a much greater story than the Zimmerman case. But it wasn’t, and about the only commentator to note this apparent paradox was yours’ truly.

“So, if the media is so concerned about anti-black racism, where is the collective outrage over this slam-dunk case of racial hate-crime? Where is the sustained moral indignation?

Considering the fact that the circumstances of the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman case are much more ambiguous, why is that case garnering so much more media oxygen? Why didn’t the New Black Panther Party issue a bounty on the heads of the two white killers? Why hasn’t Mike Tyson called for them to be shot? And why hasn’t Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson organized demonstrations and threatened riots? 

Could it be that the problem with the Tulsa case is that it is too uncontroversial? Not uncontroversial in that people aren’t morally outraged by it, but uncontroversial in that a vast majority of the people are outraged over it in the same way. In other words, if everybody – black and white - finds these killings utterly deplorable, there is no opportunity to sow racial discord. At best, you have a Dead Man Walking – style debate about capital punishment. These days, ho hum. 

In contrast, recent polls show the opinions of whites and blacks divergent on the Martin – Zimmerman case, with whites lining up behind the neighbourhood watch volunteer and blacks lining up behind the innocent victim. Lots of potential for controversy – and getting your name in the paper. Just like the O J Simpson trial!

Something to consider when pondering the motives of those sensationalizing the events in Sanford, Florida.”

I think subsequent events have born out my analysis. The race lobby went all-in on Zimmerman but not Tulsa because they realized that blacks and whites would be on the same side in the Tulsa case and that is something that can’t be exploited for political ends.

Anybody besides me remember Tulsa?

How to rebuild traditional marriage now that gay marriage is mainstream

This article is part of a series on the marriage debate. The first part can be found here.

In devising strategy, it is crucial to look unflinchingly at the world as it really is, not just as you would like it to be. In this case, the reality that needs to be faced is that traditionalists, over the past two decades, have lost an important battle.

To avoid repeating past mistakes, they must understand why they lost. To do that they must remember something Napoleon once said, that battles are often decided before they are even fought. By this he meant that a key factor in victory is the terrain. If all things are equal, the general with the keenest eye for the battlefield landscape will prevail. At Gettysburg, Meade chose good ground and Lee chose bad ground. When the proponents of gay marriage came up with their political strategy in the late 1980’s, they chose good ground. In other words, the traditionalists lost the Battle for Gay Marriage because they were forced to fight uphill.

To turn things around they need to quit launching Pickett’s charges against entrenched positions and, instead, find good ground. In specific terms this means: forget the gay marriage debate and face the fact that gay marriage is here… at least for the time being. Learn the lessons of the gay marriage battle and reframe the terms of the marriage debate in ways that favour traditional marriage.

My first clue to what this reframe might look like came about around 5 years ago after a gay marriage proposition in Oregon (I believe it was Oregon) was defeated in a referendum. Venting their anger after their loss, some gay rights activists proclaimed that perhaps all heterosexual marriages should be annulled after five years if the couple fails to produce children. While this was clearly an attack on traditional marriage, I thought: hmmm. It is an interesting proposition, clearly meant to turn the pro-traditional marriage argument - that heterosexual marriage is important because it produces children - against itself: if a heterosexual couple doesn’t reproduce, why should the state provide legally support their marriage?

While perhaps too radical, I think they are inadvertently on to something. From now on, traditional marriage supporters should advocate that all government marriage benefits should flow towards married couples with children, and that this cornucopia should be paid for by subtracting such benefits from childless couples.

This approach has a number of advantages:

First, it is an easy position to intellectually justify in secular terms. The production and raising of children is, in the language of economics, an external good, but one that is privately undertaken and funded. It has been estimated that it costs $250K to raise one child from birth to age 18. As the future of our society will one day be in the hands of this cohort, everybody benefits when these responsible adults enter the workforce. Even the childless gay activist benefits from fecund heterosexual families, such as when he is in the retirement home being tended by the grown-up children of these families.

In parallel fashion, everybody suffers when a sociopath or a parasite has been sired. So it is in everybody’s interest that good childrearing be supported as much as possible.

This reframe has many policy implications which I will explore in future articles.

Second, it turns the anti-traditional morality argument, that “the government has no business in the bedroom” on its head. If the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation then why should it mandate that pension funds and corporations provide benefits to spouses of employees or retirees? This made sense in an era when most women didn’t work outside the home – and when most women were busy raising children. In an era where most women work, shouldn’t it be reasonable to expect each spouse to arrange his own benefits? Unless, of course, one spouse stayed at home to raise the kids. In which case, the government does have a compelling reason to make sure that the spouse - who forgoes money and career prospects to perform one of the most important social functions (raising children) - is provided for.

And what business does the government have in regulating how assets can and cannot be dispersed in a divorce? Laws that favour one party (generally the wife) and courts that sometimes override contractual arrangements, like prenuptial agreements, only end up favouring gold-diggers. For this reason, matrimonial law should be converted into contract law as much as possible, with the exception, again, of those statutes that protect the interests of stay-at-home, child-rearing parents. 

And in the latter case, shouldn’t the party in a divorce proceeding who happens to be guilty of gross irresponsibility (i.e. infidelity) be punished financially to encourage others to stay married “for the children”? 

Third, by diminishing the advantages of marriage for non-childbearing couples, it removes the significance of gay marriage as a political issue and an ideological prize. Instead of defeating gay marriage, the issue simply shrivels up as the legal significance of childless marriage as a whole disappears.

With the overall decline in the total fertility rate in the developed world, perhaps a renewed focus on the production of respectable children is long overdue.

Hugh Segal provides another reason to abolish the Senate

Last week, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal led a rebellion to scuttle Bill C-377, legislation introducing transparency on the political activities of trade unions. This was bad news, and not just because of the crying need for transparency on the worst excesses of Canadian trade unions. More importantly, from a political perspective that is, if decisive action isn’t taken to punish the Senate for its disobedience of an elected Parliament, Stephen Harper will have a Red Tory co-Prime Minister with veto power to contend with.

For this reason, I think now would be excellent time for Harper to fulfill one of his oldest campaign promises: reform or abolish the Senate. Considering the need to act quickly, I would suggest going with the simpler proscription: abolition, especially as the NDP is on record as favouring this solution. This would give Thomas Mulcair an interesting dilemma: break one of his promises or assist in punishing the Senate for siding with his union backers.

With the Senate expense scandal already tarnishing this anachronistic institution and hobbling Harper, and with Justin Trudeau on the wrong side of this issue, the stars seem to be finally aligning for action on the Senate front.

Targeting the Senate will solve two of Stephen Harper’s problems at once.

How traditional marriage lost

Last Wednesday, the US Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that Bill Clinton signed into law. This defeat is a long time in coming and follows similar defeats in Canada. This has prodded me to crystallize some ideas I have been mulling over for some time.

For starters, as somebody who believes that marriage is the bedrock institution of society, it pains me to say it that our side has been completely and thoroughly outmanoeuvred. For us to recover, this must be forthrightly acknowledged. Twenty years ago, when the idea of gay marriage was first being proposed, it sounded like something out of left-field. And it was. And yet, in the space of those two decades, the proponents of that ‘lunatic idea’ have been so politically adroit that they have shifted the terms of the debate completely around: gay marriage is the new respectable position, while defenders of traditional marriage form the new lunatic fringe.

Cleverly played. As an amateur political strategist, I am impressed. So how did they do it?

The first they did right was to frame the debate in a way that they could reach the undecided voters and even those opposed to their innovation. This is the key to winning political debates: he who frames the debate, wins it. Specifically, gay marriage proponents framed the debate in the language of civil rights: homosexuals are a minority; the basic principles of human rights demand that the minority enjoy the same legal rights and protections as the majority; the majority can marry; therefore the minority should be allowed to marry as well. This is a good argument because the civil rights movement is the left’s biggest win in the last half-century. The principles enshrined by that struggle are now thoroughly mainstream and popular, as is the memory of the struggle itself. By jumping on the civil rights bandwagon, the gay marriage crowd inherited all the goodwill of the civil rights movement for free.

For a contrast, take the hippie movement, which, at the same, time pushed their free-love commune lifestyle. They failed because they couldn’t convince the undecideds or co-opt the sceptical. This is because they threatened them with radical revolution. To avoid this pitfall, gay marriage supporters deliberately played down the transgressive, anti-establishment, breaking-the-boundaries side of gay marriage. Rather, they framed the debate, not as a challenge to the bourgeois establishment, but as widening of the bourgeois establishment to people who wish to partake in it, but who have been refused entry by narrow-minded bigots. Very smart frame shift.

Once that was done, it was merely a matter of time – and perseverance.

Like the hippies, the supporters of traditional marriage failed because they had no arguments that could reach the other side. When asked why heterosexual marriage should be favoured by the law, they had no answer. The best they could do was to sputter, “it isn’t moral” or “it goes against God”. OK, I’m not a theologian, so I can’t definitively say that they’re not right with regard to God’s favour, but how does such an argument convince somebody who doesn’t already believe gay marriage is immoral? or who thinks the difference between devout Christians and the Taliban is only a matter of degree than kind? It doesn’t. The “it isn’t moral” line works well when most people already agree that “it” is immoral, but doesn’t work at all when they don’t. Which is another way of saying that it is a bad argument.

To win the marriage wars, supporters of traditional morality need to find arguments like that.

In future articles, I will discuss what these might look like.