Our neighbors to the North get a lot of things right: hockey, Labatt Blue, ketchup chips, The Tragically Hip — but one thing they get totally wrong is personal defense.
Yes, in Canada, the government would much rather have the people it serves be victims than armed defenders. The proof is in the country’s ridiculous laws regulating guns and less-lethal implements of self-defense. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal for one to carry a product designed to injure, immobilize, and/or incapacitate another person.
In other words, not only are firearms off limits for discreet carry but so too are items like tasers and pepper spray.
Conservative politician Kellie Leitch wanted to amend this deeply misguided policy just a little in that she wanted to make it lawful for citizens to carry pepper spray. Leitch called the policy “sensible” and a way to “strengthen the rights of women.”
However, it didn’t take long for Patty Hajdu, Canada’s Minister of Status of Women, to pooh-pooh the idea.
“Violence against women is unacceptable in our society and our government is committed to making sure that women facing violence have a safe place to turn,” said Hajdu in a statement to HuffPo.
“Ms. Leitch’s proposal is unrealistic and offensive to women across this country,” she continued. “Her misguided approach places the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence.”
Don’t you love the Orwellian parallels here? So, the “Minister of Status of Women,” which is presumably a government official looking out for the welfare of women has shot down a policy that would actually benefit, empower and make women safer. Seems like something right out of “1984,” doesn’t it?
As I’ve always said, anti-gunners believe you are more safe when you are less free to defend yourself. It’s a completely asinine position. But it’s what they believe.
In lieu of having some tool of self-defense, Canada would rather have its women rely on government programs designed to “prevent gender-based violence.”
As Leitch pointed out in her own response to the Minister, “Does she think that if a woman is set upon by a violent predator she should just shout ‘federal gender-based violence strategy!’? I think that women should at least have a fighting chance with non-lethal tools to subdue and incapacitate an attacker.”
When it comes to this point in the dialogue, I always like to turn from the abstract to the personal. From the lofty idealism of the policy to the dirty reality of its consequences. In this case, it really drives home the foolishness of Hajdu’s argument.
So, Ms. Hajdu, suppose your daughter was about to be raped by a sexual predator. For whatever reason, the drug-addled miscreant who is holding your daughter by her throat did not find the government pamphlet on “preventing gender-based violence” all too convincing, and he has every intention of beating her, raping her, and violating her dignity in the most visceral way one can imagine.
Are you honestly telling us you’d prefer that your daughter not have a legitimate means to fight back? Should she just “take it” and hope that her attacker doesn’t go too far and kill her? Or, maybe like some of those other anti-gun groups, you’d prefer that she just defecate and puke on herself in the hope that that dissuades the predator from finishing the act.
Hell, I know if that was my girlfriend or mom or sister or cousin or aunt or any female acquaintance of mine, I’d much prefer them to be (a) armed with a weapon and (b) equipped with the skills and training to effectively use it. Right? Isn’t that the most sensible solution? To encourage women to take greater responsibility for their safety, to not to be wholly dependent on government for personal protection (There is a reason gun owners say, “When seconds count, the police are minutes away”)?
Ultimately, what’s “unrealistic and offensive” is the presumption that women are not capable of defending themselves and their loved ones (Ms. Hajdu, please see video above for proof that women can fight off an attacker!). It’s akin to suggesting that women shouldn’t be police officers or firefighters or soldiers. I could be wrong, but I thought that Canada moved beyond the gender-based stereotypes of earlier generations that relegated women to certain roles and professions. But maybe it hasn’t.
The reality is that today’s women are tough, independent and fully capable of defending themselves if they so choose. And latter point is key. It should be their choice — not the government’s decree. They should be allowed to choose what defense posture is best for themselves and their families. But, alas! Not in Canada. Not when the Minister of Status of Women aka “Big Sister” is in charge!
Don’t worry women of Canada, Big Sister will keep you safe!
And by “safe,” what Big Sister really means is that she is going to strip away your fundamental rights to the point where you become a slave to the state and helpless in the face of all forms of tyranny, from the petty street thug to the government jackboot.