A brazen use of wedge politics for political gain

By Gerry Warner
Cranbrook Daily Townsman
Sept. 24, 2001
I think I was 16 when I got my first gun, a double-barrel, hammer-driven, shotgun made in Belgium, – my dad’s gun – and I was one proud 16-year-old. It wasn’t long before I killed my first duck – got him on the wing over the Slocan River – and once again I was a proud, young teen.
I killed a few more ducks after that – love that dark meat and gamey, wild taste – and shot a few grouse and tried in vain to kill a deer, but there weren’t nearly as many around in those days, and then I went off to university and drifted away into new interests.
But when I would come home at Christmas, there was still wild meat in the larder, thanks to my dad, and even though he has long since departed this vale of tears for the happy hunting grounds in the sky, I’ve retained my love for wild meat and still occasionally get a chance to sample it thanks to a few hunting friends.
I’ve been thinking about my dad lately as the divisive long-gun registry debate has ground on in the halls of Parliament, coffee shops and watering holes of the land. It’s a debate that has not exactly done the country proud with its venom, over-blown hyperbole and rancour in what is normally a pretty civilized country.
I heard one well-known local politician on CBC this week describe the long-gun registry as a “canker” in the mouths of rural Canadians and Westerners. Now what purpose does a remark like that have? When he said it, I instinctively ran my tongue around my own mouth searching for that metaphorical canker. I know it’s silly, but that’s what spiteful, malicious rhetoric does to you. Mind you, this same politician continues to refer to the gun registry as “useless.” Try telling that to a police officer getting a call about a “domestic” and wondering whether he’ll soon be walking into a house with loaded firearms in a closet.
Or try telling it to Newfoundland MP Scott Simms, who earlier this year voted to abolish the gun registry but changed his vote Wednesday and voted in favour of it. Why, you ask. According to the Toronto Star, Simms, in a private caucus meeting Wednesday, told his colleagues that his 79-year-old father Reginald committed suicide with a long gun in June. He reportedly only spoke a few minutes, saying if the long-gun registry could save even one life it was worth it. When he finished, the entire caucus lined up to embrace him and there were few dry eyes.
Then there’s Suzaanne Laplante-Edward. You probably haven’t heard of her either, but you’ve heard about her daughter. Her daughter was one of the 14 female students killed at the L’Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 by a crazed gunman with a rifle. Simms said when he looked up the time he voted to abolish the long-gun registry he saw Laplante-Edward crying in the gallery. He said he mouthed the words “I’m sorry to her.”
As you’ve probably noticed, I’ve been going out of my way not to name political parties or individuals here. There’s far too much politics in this issue already and more of the same won’t solve it. But there’s one specious argument the anti-registry people constantly use I would like to deal with. You’ve heard it a thousand times; “law abiding citizens yada, yada, yada .” I don’t know if gun owners are more or less law abiding than anyone else but I do know that people who live in modern countries like Canada are required to register dozens of things including vehicles, boats, marriages, births, deaths – you name it. So why should it be any different for guns? Yes, the registration process can be a pain in the butt sometimes, but it’s just one of those minor annoyances we put up with for living in a country as civilized as Canada.
Try telling the Motor Vehicle Branch you’re a “law abiding citizen” and therefore don’t need to register your car. See how far you’d drive after that.
This past week has seen one of the most heavy-handed attempts at wedge politics in Canadian history. I don’t need to name the party because you all know who it is and they say they’re going to do it again for crass political gain in the next federal election to divide us even further.
I say shame on them. The Canadian political story is a story of compromise and they apparently don’t get it.
-- 30 --