Herald Column: Registry Proponents Do Not Have Moral High Ground

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the recent debate over whether to scrap the gun registry, and is particularly critical of the arguments which were advanced by the pro-registry side:

 

...It is insufficient -- and frankly, irrational -- to simply cite gun-related tragedies and let that stand as an argument for the gun registry.
Yet, through this entire debate, that's exactly what happened.
How often, not just over the past few months but over the past 15 years, have we heard the invocation of the Montreal massacre in selling and now defending the long-gun registry? There is no evidence or logic to suggest that the existence of the registry would have made an iota of difference in that horrendous tragedy.
To then claim the registry -- which would not and could not have stopped Marc Lepine -- is a "monument" to the 14 women he murdered, is to try to link support for the registry to compassion for the victims. In other words, those who would scrap the registry may as well be urinating on the graves of these women.
Once we arrive at that point, we've long surpassed any pretence of rational debate.
It's just as craven -- and even more bizarre -- for registry proponents to invoke more recent tragedies.
The Dawson College shootings, which left one student dead and nearly 20 injured, has been cited repeatedly in this debate. Survivors have been vocal in demanding MPs save the registry.
Yet, gunman Kimveer Gill had legally registered his weapons.
One survivor, though, went so far as to claim the registry "was probably one of the reasons that the killing was limited that day."
However, the killing was "limited" only because two police officers were on the scene for an unrelated reason and responded when they heard gunshots.
It should say something about the weakness of the pro-registry position that it would need to be buttressed by such obvious falsehoods.
The appeal to emotion featured prominently on the day of the fateful vote on the registry last week. Reporters were tipped off that within the Liberal caucus meeting, MP Scott Simms had emotionally discussed his father's suicide -- a tragedy that apparently convinced him to support the registry.
Mind you, Simms's support was already decided for him by his leader's decision to whip the caucus vote.
The obvious point once again is that the registry did not prevent Simms's father from using a long gun to take his own life.
The closest thing to an evidence-based argument from the pro-registry side is the study done by the National Public Health Institute of Quebec. It argues that the murder rate fell faster in the period following the 1998 implementation of Bill C-68, which mandated long-gun registration.
They then conclude that the registry saves an average of 300 lives a year.
There are some obvious flaws in such logic: their "no registry" scenario does not factor in other methods governments might have employed to fight crime.

It also overlooks the fact that between 1991 and 2004, the homicide rate in the U. S fell by 44 per cent as compared with the 36 per cent decline in Canada. Clearly there are factors not exclusive to our country.
There is also the simple fact that the registry didn't come into effect until 2001 and it didn't become mandatory until 2003.
Interestingly, after years of decline, the homicide rate increased by 12 per cent in 2004 and then by another four per cent in 2005. Also, from 2002 to 2008, the rate of firearm homicides increased by 24 per cent. Factor in the fact that 1998 and 1999 saw 30-year lows in the murder rate, and you're left with a much more complicated picture.
But why should we expect anything complicated from the "we're saving lives" crowd?
My sentiments are obviously with those seeking an end to the registry, but there is a legitimate debate to be had. Portraying one side of that debate as having blood on its hands is shameful and has no place in Canadian discourse.

 

Editorial Comment: Hennessey & Cheeseman - Scapegoats or Villains?

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:20 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)

 

Tuesday's editorial comment:

 

While the world is a better place without James Roszko in it, there is clearly a deep and lasting remorse that he was not brought to justice for murdering four RCMP officers.

 

Given that fact, did we look for scapegoats? Did we feel the need to find someone to punish for what Roszko did?

 

Well, we found two people - Shawn Hennessey and Dennis Cheeseman. Yesterday, the Alberta Court of Appeals - in a split decision - upheld the manslaughter sentences handed to the two men.

 

The two had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but had argued that the sentences were too severe.

I think any honest assessment of what we now know ought to lead to that conclusion.

 

The judges ruled that based on the agreed statement of facts, the original judge did not make an error in handing down the sentences.

 

Yet, there's all sorts of reasons to believe that the agreed statement of facts is not an accurate account of what happened.

 

It seems quite clear that Hennessey and Cheeseman - like so many others - lived in tremendous fear of James Roszko. There's also good reason to believe that Roszko had sexually assaulted Dennis Cheeseman.

 

Given that, we should also be highly suspcious of the Mr. Big sting that RCMP used on Cheeseman.

 

We also know that when Roszko had quote, asked for help from Hennessey, Roszko was packing a pistol and Hennessey's wife and two young children were in the home.

 

One can judge the decisions these two men did and didn't make that fateful night. It is wrong to say they wanted to help James Roszko or that they wanted these officers to die.

 

I'd also highly recommend reading the Edmonton Journal's excellent investigative series on the case.  

Margaret, the Moon, and Me

What do you get when you cross social media, a prominent Canadian author, and a decades-old conspiracy theory? The following:

 

This morning I came across this account of an interview Margaret Atwood gave earlier this year to a youth radio station in Sudbury, Ontario:

 

Student interviewer: I was told recently that you were one of the believers who is of the opinion that the Moon landing was actually filmed ... could possibly have been filmed here.

Atwood: The question about the Moon landing is "why haven't we been back?" and it was done in an age when computers were as big as a couple of rooms. If you even look at the Space Odyssey, 2001, HAL the computer - and I think that movie came out in the late '60s - HAL the computer is huge. So we didn't yet have microchips so I just wonder how did they do that? Why haven't they done it again if it was so easy?

Student interviewer: What do you think of the argument to that question, usually most often I hear they say we haven't had a need to return.

Atwood: Well, you think about it. President Bush said we're going back or words to that effect and then people calculated how long it would take and how much money it would cost to actually do that. It was a long time and a lot of money. Just wondering, wondering about the belt of deadly radiation that people have to go through to get to the Moon and those strange shadows and why the flag rippled and a few things like that.

Student interviewer: What would have pushed them to pull off an entire hoax like that?

Atwood: Well, if it was and the jury is open and we'll never know. But it was the space race with Russia... space and arms race that was going on at the time.

Now to me, it's pretty clear that she's casting doubt on the fact that the moon landing(s) occured. She doesn't outright say it never happened, but she doesn't deny it when the interviewer says "you are of the opinion that the moon landing was actually filmed". She then cites several reasons why she thinks people should be suspicious that it happened.

 

If someone were to say about the Holocaust, "there are many question" and "we'll never know if it really happened", it would be pretty clear that you'd be dealing with a Holocaust denier.

 

Not that I would equate even the most blatant moon-hoaxer to the odious claims of Holocaust denial. The only parallel being that, in very loose terms, both are the denial of a significant historical event.

 

In any event, if Ms. Atwood is not a believer in the moon landing conspiracy theories, the responsible thing for someone in her position to do - especially when speaking to an audience of impressionable young people - is to say that of course the moon landings occured. End of story.

 

So, given all of that, I posted the following on my Twitter page this morning:

 

Help us @BadAstronomer - Cdn. literary giant @MargaretAtwood is a moon landing truther!! http://bit.ly/9oMl10 (via @katewerk)

The "Bad Astronomer" is Phil Plait  who has written extensively about the moon hoax. I then "retweeted" a "tweet" from the National Post:

 

nationalpost Margaret Atwood’s ‘just wondering’ about that silly moon landing hoax http://natpo.st/9zGYHB

 

(Here's an updated story from the National Post).

 

This was enough to prompt Ms. Atwood to respond on her own Twitter page:

 

@RobBreakenridge: http://bit.ly/9oMl10 M: Noo, not quite. There are some interesting q's about it - no microchips then, how did they do it?

To me, saying "not quite" was hardly a rejection of the conspiracy theorist accusation, as was the notion about "interesting" questions.
The following is a lengthy back-and-forth between Ms. Atwood and me. I've tried to put it more or less in order, but that's difficult to do with Twitter. But it went pretty much like this:

@MargaretAtwood "Just asking questions..." - the true hallmark of any good conspiracy theorist
@RobBreakenridge: But I am obviously not a very good one! :) Does that mean anyone who DOES ask questions about anything IS a conspthrst?
@MargaretAtwood Usually it means they "just ask questions" - as opposed to seeking answers to those questions.
@RobBreakenridge: Oh I get it. You're a pal of Ezra's. You agree with him that George Soros funds avaaz... ?? And all that other Nazi stuff?
@MargaretAtwood I don't see what on Earth (no pun intended) this has to do with any of that.. Find a single tweet of mine dealing w/ Soros
@MargaretAtwood You say ".. the belt of deadly radiation" - Read this: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
@MargaretAtwood You say "..those strange shadows and why the flag rippled" - Start here: http://bit.ly/cmKoDk
@MargaretAtwood Also, it was called Apollo "11" for a reason - what about other Apollo missions - 12 & 14 in particular? All hoaxes?
@RobBreakenridge: What about other Apollo missions - 12 & 14 in particular? All hoaxes? M: but I haven't said I believed 11 was a hoax.
@RobBreakenridge: I realize some people are mad at the fall of Kory and sueing of Ezra & are taking it out on me, but theirs were own goals.
@MargaretAtwood What it comes down to is the embarrassment of a having a prominent Canadian propagating absurd conspiracy theories.
@RobBreakenridge: But I'm not, unless you think talking about something is propagating it. What it REALLY comes down to is leaving no stone unturned for strange items about me you can take out of context and turn into weird theories of your own.
@MargaretAtwood C'mon - you think those "just asking questions" about Holocaust, 9/11, etc are not propagating theories contrary to reality?
@RobBreakenridge: Give it a rest, Rob. Unless you mean nobody can ask questions about anything. And I'm sure you don't mean that.
@MargaretAtwood Well it's easy to clear up: yes or no, did Apollo 11, 12, 14 land on the moon?
@RobBreakenridge: But Rob. I never said they didn't. I've also said it would be very hard to do a hoax involving that many people.
@MargaretAtwood So is that a yes?
@RobBreakenridge: So is that a yes? M: Let's see you take my last answer to you and twist it into a No. C'mon! You can do it!
@MargaretAtwood Why the need to be so equivocal?
@RobBreakenridge: Grew up with scientists, know that today's "science" is often tomorrow's dismal mistake, keep open mind on all such.
@MargaretAtwood Not too open, I hope - you never know what might find its way in...
@RobBreakenridge: Not too open, I hope - you never know what might find its way in..M: As I've said, Great Pumpkin is very open-minded. ..
@RobBreakenridge: Now there's a headline for you! Wingnut veg. worshipper Atwood believes in the Great Pumpkin! Her credibility is shot!
@MargaretAtwood But of course the moon landings happened. Let's not overlook the fact that even here today you expressed doubt about that.
@RobBreakenridge: Rob, I will go on your show any time I'm in Calgary, now that I know you have one, if you want to have a real conversation
@MargaretAtwood Now THAT is one quote I will gladly dig up at a future date
@RobBreakenridge: But you haven't answered my Ezra question. (Is that evasive of you?)
@MargaretAtwood We're discussing what you said. If you can find anything I said about Soros/Avaaz, I'll happily respond to it
@RobBreakenridge: You're discussing what you said I said. But, taking my note from you: Do you believe what Ezra said about Soros?
@MargaretAtwood Which part? Do I think he's a Nazi or a sociopath? No (how's that for unequivocal - or do I need more of an "open mind"?)

For the record, I found it most unfortunate that Ms. Atwood would have signed the controversial "Stop Fox News North" petition, but I really had little to say in the ensuing controversy. I didn't bring up the moon landing controversy as a way of "further discrediting" her, although to be honest, I'm not sure why the interview has surfaced now.

In any event, whatever Ms. Atwood thinks about Sun TV News or Ezra Levant or Kory Teneycke is neither here nor there.

I still think her answer to the younger interviewer was an unfortunate one, and - given her profile and influence - I think it was an irresponsible one.

I probably agree very little with Ms. Atwood on many issues, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan of her work. I do appreciate that she took the time to respond to me and engage me in a debate. I hope to take her up at some point on her offer of an interview.

UPDATE: It's not over yet, apparently. Earlier today, Margaret Atwood responded with a few more "tweets", two of which I responded to:

 

@RobBreakenridge: Rob, you live in a world of yes & no. "Probably" is not a category for you, whereas "of course" is difficult for me.
@MargaretAtwood Would one say Margaret Atwood "probably" wrote "The Handmaid's Tale"*? Or can we conclude that some things did occur?
@RobBreakenridge: For instance, I thought there were "probably" no WMD in Iraq, but did not discount the possibility that there might be.
@RobBreakenridge: Whereas you seem bent on conducting some sort of heresy or witchcraft trial. What's it to be? Hanging? Tossed in ye pond?
@RobBreakenridge: Flattering, all this attention, but if you do a blogpost about our Twitter conversation, shouldn't you put all of them in?
@RobBreakenridge: There's a whole hash tag #AttackAtwood for your use! :) Enjoy! Sand toys! For what you missed, see Blog's Comment stream
@MargaretAtwood Surely there's a major difference between "attacking" someone and challenging someone. To say I'm "attacking" you is unfair.
@RobBreakenridge: Dear Rob, lighten up. It's a j.o.k e. I'll go on yr show, bring cookies, read yr palm. What's yr birthday? Have some fun!

(*yes, I originally referred to it as "Handmaiden's Tale".. my bad)

I was at first confused by Ms. Atwood's suggestion that I "put all of them in", referring to my account of our conversation. Although as the disclaimer above reads, it was "pretty much" the extent of the back-and-forth. It would seem, however, that I left out two of Ms. Atwood's remarks from early on in our conversation:

 

@RobBreakenridge: .. but remember the context was Speculative Fiction.
@RobBreakenridge: Moon: Go 2 www.yearoftheflood.com, Comments, last comment, mine. (I've also said I am a goalie & a turnip may run for PM.)

I'm not sure if that adds in any way to the context of the discussion, but let no one say I've left anything out.

 

What's even stranger about her responses this morning, as that we now seem back to the point where we started: namely that Ms. Atwood is expressing doubt about the moon landings (that she would say they "probably" occured but be unable to say "of course" they did).

 

The whole point I was trying to make in the first place is that is it rather unbecoming for someone of her stature to be connected to flaky conspiracy theories. After a fair amount of discourse with Ms. Atwood, I'm not sure I'm prepared to acquit her of that charge.

Soharwardy Responds

The Calgary Herald has published Syed Soharwardy's response to my column.  

 

I'm not sure what Syed's overall point is here, other than to portray himself in very flattering terms and to remind us all what a glorious book the Qur'an is.

 

I'm not sure, however, that he read my column very closely.

 

Syed writes:

 

First of all, some of the things Rob wrote made no sense to me. How can reading the Qur'an be an obstacle? 

Well, Syed, the answer is contained in my column: 

 

Therefore, what's really needed is not burning and not simplistic glorification of religious texts, but rather critical analysis and examination. Both Pastor Jones' event and Imam Soharwardy's event are obstacles to that end.

Being told beforehand that the Qur'an is a book of peace (or a book of violence) and then being expected to interpret it that way is an obstacle to critical analysis.

 

Syed then writes:

 

The debate over how to interpret the Qur'an and how a first time reader walks away with a concise understanding of its meaning is not a trivial science. Let me share with you how I understood the Bible the first time I read verses like these (in the Bible)

Syed then goes on to cite several violent and objectionable passages from the Bible. I'm not sure why - I certainly wasn't trying to defend the Bible.

 

My column did originally mention the Bible - the reference was edited out, for space presumably:

 

The danger of asking people to read the Qur’an – or the Bible for that matter – is that it might generate skepticism more than anything else. 

Although, in fairness to followers of the Bible, I'm not aware of people acting on those particular verses. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Qur'an's violent verses.

 

Syed writes:

 

I believe that the Bible is not a book of violence but when a hatemonger reads verses like these, surely he/she thinks that the Bible is motivating him/her to commit violence. The KKK, the Grand Inquisitors, witch burners and the Crusaders were inspired, in part, by wrong interpretations of the Bible. Even some slave traders (mis) used the Bible to rationalize their behaviour.

But here's my point: that doesn't mean those committing such acts are theologically wrong. It simply means that their interpretation is very much out of favour. A Christian who believes that violators of the Sabbath must be stoned to death might have scripture on their side. Fortunately, no Christians seem to follow that particular command.

 

Soharwardy wants us all to know that he has the correct interpretation of the Qur'an. He may. They again, he may not. It's not for me to say. After I'm done getting his interpretation, should I seek out the views of Omar Abdel-Rahman? After all,he mastered in Quranic studies at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Presumably he knows a thing or two about the Qur'an. Should I then visit the fundamentalist Islamonline.net? There I will learn, for example, that stoning women to death is sanctioned by Islam. Syed will surely tell me that's not the case and that a radical like Abdel-Rahman has it all wrong. I hope he's right, but it's not me he needs to convince.

 

Syed writes:

 

Why does Rob think that the followers of the Qur'an must be homogeneous, and that they should all be very peaceful? Muslims are not a small population, and 1.6 billion Muslims are just as human as Christians. Why should it be a surprise that Muslims have their own KKK and Crusaders?

I obviously do not think followers of the Qur'an should be or are homogeneous. That was part of my point. As I noted:

 

There is one additional reason Soharwardy himself should be wary of the invitation he's extended: how could a book open to such considerable differences in interpretation possibly be God's final set of instructions to humanity?

I suppose it is not a surprise that Muslims have, as Soharwardy calls it "KKK and crusaders" - I would just hope that some day those factions will be confined to obscurity and ancient history.

 

Soharwardy then goes on a bizarre tangent about his human rights complaint against Ezra Levant and the Western Standard magazine, by first defending it, and then offering this:

 

Although I now believe the HRC is not a suitable venue for resolving free speech issues, at that time I filed the complaint I felt it was the right thing to do.

So it was not a mistake but it was? OK, then.

 

My whole point was that we should keep an open mind about religion - and not burn religious texts - but at the same time be able and be free to critically analyze religious texts.

 

Syed Soharwardy - like any other devoted man of religion - is very uncomfortable with any criticism of his faith or his holy book.

 

Fair enough. But in a free country - like this one - we are free to ask questions about religion and even reject it outright.

 

 

Herald Column: On the Burning (and Reading) of Qur'ans

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly compares and contrasts the planned (but never excuted) burning of Qur'ans by Florida pastor Terry Jones, and the "Read a Qur'an" event organized by Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy:

 

...Of course, given the dark history of book burning by past authorities, it strikes me as alarming that a 21st century church -- albeit an obscure one -- would choose such a way of making a point.
And while the burning of a book is -- or ought to be -- a protected form of expression, doing so is in fact an insult to that very freedom.
It was the impulse of censorship which drove centuries of book-burning. The masses were to be prevented from reading the condemned material and sufficiently intimidated from publicly expressing such ideas in the future.
While modern-day book burners may have less sinister motivations, the sinister overtones remain. Clearly then, in the face of a planned book-burning, an event calling for that same book to be read is an effective counter.
However, the organizers of "Read a Qur'an Day" seem to be expecting the reader to reach a certain conclusion as to the book's interpretation. It is therefore a risky gambit on their part.
The debate over how to correctly interpret the Qur'an has been raging for centuries, how could a first-time reader walk away with a concise understanding of its meaning?
There is but one Qur'an and its verses have been used to justify both terrible acts of oppression and violence -- including 9/11 itself -- and acts of great charity and compassion. Soharwardy obviously has his own interpretation, as he described his event as being about "showing people the Qur'an is not a book of violence."
But there are many verses in the Qur'an which appear to be exhortations to violence. Soharwardy would surely have instructions on how to interpret such verses, but it is not "Read a Qur'an with Syed Soharwardy Day."
Moreover, it's really not about convincing non-Muslims that the Qur'an is "not a book of violence" -- it's about convincing those radical Muslims who believe it is.
It's possible the extremists are the ones with the "correct" interpretation, but that doesn't mean we can't hope and expect that a modern, moderate Islam prevails.
There is one additional reason Soharwardy himself should be wary of the invitation he's extended: how could a book open to such considerable differences in interpretation possibly be God's final set of instructions to humanity?
The danger of asking people to read the Qur'an is that it might generate skepticism more than anything else.
Skepticism, though, leads one away from automatic veneration, and there are those who believe that religious views should be granted automatic and unconditional "respect". All that should be asked of people is that they have an open mind.
Therefore, what's really needed is not burning and not simplistic glorification of religious texts, but rather critical analysis and examination. Both Pastor Jones' event and Imam Soharwardy's event are obstacles to that end.