Women Defending Themselves is ‘Unrealistic and Offensive,’ Says Canadian Minister

Patty Hajdu, Canada’s Minister of Status of Women

Patty Hajdu, Canada’s Minister of Status of Women.

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.”

Yes. Let's observe this

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt observing 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence is going to stop violent offenders from harming women.  Whether she wants to admit it or not, sometimes it takes good people to respond with force to stop criminal acts of violence against women.

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.

 

{ 35 comments… add one }
  • mtman2 July 22, 2017, 9:16 pm

    Women defending themselves or family is one thing;
    combat is entirely different- better left to the masculine gender.
    There’s an obvious difference in the sexes for good reason.
    Warfare is bad enough for men to endure; as is chidbirth for women without foisting them into a masuline role too.
    There should be no basis for “attraction’s” in combat situations.

  • Vern Criswell July 21, 2017, 12:14 pm

    I choose to live where I am a citizen, not a Subject of the Empire. Canadiens should stand up for their God g8ven rights.

  • Jim January 6, 2017, 8:18 am

    That is just stupid! Allow the ladies in Canada the right to defend themselves from violence. Let them be armed with a firearm if they so choose.

  • Gerard Stack December 18, 2016, 1:22 am

    You’ll be shocked to hear that this Federal Minister chose to spend $1.1 million on renovating and enlarging her office shortly after her appointment despite being warned by staffers that a significantly cheaper option was moving into an office already available in a building right across the street. That would have cost only $400,000 but she felt she needed to be closer to her department and pushed through the renovation despite her department not having money in their budget to cover it.
    In the big scheme of things 400k vs 1.1 million maybe peanuts but it shows where her head is at – hint, a very dark place!

    • Jeff Arthur January 6, 2017, 10:30 am

      Entitlement I’ve seen this type of behavior before. We need to point it out when it happens. Funny thing though people will elect them again .

  • Mike Watkins December 17, 2016, 9:22 pm

    The total lameness and inanity of leftie gun-haters reaches new heights every frickin’ day!

  • Glen December 17, 2016, 8:54 pm

    Just so you know, most of us Canadians don’t agree with this…as violence increases, and the mass importation of violent cultures continues, the government have to accept the fact that “no means no” doesn’t mean anything to someone that doesn’t speak english, and sees women as possessions. The law states that you can only do as much to the attacker as they do to you, so the best a woman can do is rape the man back. That’ll teach him.

  • KurtW December 17, 2016, 12:47 pm

    This HAS to be taken from the pages of The Onion, right?

    RIGHT?!?!?

  • Patsy GC December 17, 2016, 10:53 am

    From Lord of the Rings: “The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them”

  • davidc December 16, 2016, 9:30 pm

    Patty Whatsherface is the offensive one !

  • Mark From Bristol December 16, 2016, 9:10 pm

    My mother is 82 and has .38 Specials equipped with Crimson Trace lasers planted all over her home. I know, I purchased and set them up. Her longest room is about 20′, so all she has to do is paint a dot and pull the triggers as many times as necessary to empty them. I have three sisters that conceal carry a wide variety of .38 Specials and one .41 Magnum, and they know how to use and handle them. Our mother and my sisters come over onto my property four times a year to re familiarize themselves with their sidearms. All of them have a wide variety of .410 shotguns and Henry .22 repeaters. Admittedly, Mom does have a problem with her long barrel heavy Mossberg .410 pump, but her single shot H&R .410 Junior works just fine for her.

    Perhaps if the women of Europe began to conceal carry, far less of them would find themselves beaten and raped by muslim men being imported into places like Germany from Syria and other places. For the women of Canada, keep in mind what is happening to women right now all over Europe, and don’t become like them. Same for the women of these United States Of America. Oh, and God bless Canada for the one and ONLY sport in the whole world, cold steel on ice (hockey).

    • Jennings W Bunn Jr July 21, 2017, 8:46 am

      This is excellent. More women should be carrying concealed, and have adequate protection in their homes. With Canada awarding an Isis killer $8 mil., I would not trust that government to protect you.

  • Glenn December 16, 2016, 6:48 pm

    Perfect example of something I read years ago: “Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley,
    raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker
    got that fatal bullet wound.”

  • Not Surprised December 16, 2016, 5:18 pm

    Why should anyone be surprised by this? The country’s national defense depends on their neighbors to the south.

  • Tim December 16, 2016, 3:50 pm

    Someone needs to beat her senseless. Oh wait, she is already senseless, but a good beating may bring her back to her senses.

  • Jim bennett December 16, 2016, 1:14 pm

    You folks south of the border must understand our last federal election brought in a group of pacifists who have done nothing. They wear rose coloured glasses and fear for the polar bear.
    This will change in the next three and a half years and our next federal election. We will go back to the rules of law including the right of women to use whatever means they have at their disposal to defend themselves.
    In the interim be advised canada has lots of firearms and the will to use them whatever the case or circumstance.
    Jim Bennett
    B.C.

  • Bob December 16, 2016, 12:35 pm

    She can “lay back and enjoy” a sexual attack if she wishes, but if my wife or daughters are ever attacked, I hope they rip the guys balls off. I have gone out of my way to stress personal responsibility for their own safety, and hope they never have to experience an attack, but I know I tried to help them be ready.

  • Bob December 16, 2016, 12:27 pm

    A senior citizen lesbian in Milwaukee just fought off 3 teenage carjacking THUGS last week with her bare hands. Of course she was ex-military, …but still. It proves that waiting for the cops to show up is ALWAYS a BAD idea. Imagine what would have happened if she was CARRYING ??? OMG !!!!

    • Manshooter December 17, 2016, 6:55 pm

      What is the worst..or perhaps best case? Well, depending on your view, is there may have been three worthless pieces of S**t that expired on the spot never to attempt this kind of crap EVER again!!

  • Robert December 16, 2016, 12:04 pm

    No offense lady…..But your photo tells me you would want women to be armed and you wave a sign “I don’t”…..That way a man might attack you and you can feel good for not defending yourself……….

  • ONTHE WALL December 16, 2016, 11:11 am

    For a woman who holds high political office she is out of her mind. If the bimbo really believes it she will get rid of ALL OF HER GUARDS AND PROTECTION AND TAKE A CHANCE. Wait till she gets raped or mugged she will change her tune. For a woman to say ‘Just lay down and ENJOY IT’, sound familiar ladies. While she’s laying there getting raped or whatever here is a song can sing to herself to keep her mind busy, ‘Hay baby will ya take a chance, I left my rubber in my other pants’.

    • deanbob December 16, 2016, 12:41 pm

      The government will be as effective protecting women (and all people) as it is stopping drug use and poverty.

  • Larry December 16, 2016, 11:01 am

    What a bunch of nutjobs up there in the great white north! It must be all the cold temps & snow that has frozen their collective brains in Liberal group think.

    • Manshooter December 17, 2016, 6:57 pm

      Then how do you explain California?

      • ron January 6, 2017, 11:09 am

        Silly,California IS the land of fruits and nuts. People are more free to kill each other than protect themselves and loved ones from the killers.Gee,what if all the killers took their guns and knifes to canada?There would be nobody to stop them? Gee,if Canada leans any more to the left,it will fall into the ocean.

        • Jennings W Bunn Jr July 21, 2017, 8:51 am

          And some of us wish Calif-afornia would drop into the Pacific. Where is the San Andreas fault when it is needed?

  • Ed C. December 16, 2016, 9:23 am

    I don’t know where all the skepticism comes from !
    Just look at what a wonderful job Michelle Obama did getting the kidnapped girls back from Boko Haram with her #BringBackOurGirls publicity campaign.
    (It was like watching a modern day Joan of Arc, the way she saved those girls).
    p.s. my apologies to Joan ( Joan doesn’t do snide).

  • Mongo December 16, 2016, 8:50 am

    And where are all the feminazie’s on this one? You would think that the women’s rights groups would be up in arms (pun intended) about someone denying their right to live as they please, which includes carrying a firearm and kicking the hell out of criminals who want to hurt them.

  • Ed December 16, 2016, 8:31 am

    I think there can be an effective government program against gender based violence. But only if it looks something like this:

    “Attention Criminals: We train our women to be tough minded, armed, and able to kick your a** if you attempt to assault them. Our men are also armed and will help defend them. Don’t be stupid. Leave our women alone. You have been warned.”

  • Al Soto December 16, 2016, 8:07 am

    I am from and live in Puerto Rico. A few years ago, a lady that owns a beauty salon was leaving at night, when an armed assailant approached her and demanded all her money. Without any warning, he shot her in the chest. While she was falling down, she retrieved her firearm and fired a couple well place shots to the assailant’s genital area. Needless to say, right then and there he got a free gender re-assignment surgery for free! The lady survived and the assailant is pleasing his jailmates with sexual favors he never imagined could give.
    Ladies, get a gun and train properly on how to use it. When seconds matter, the Police is only minutes away…

    • DRAINO December 16, 2016, 10:45 am

      Too bad she didn’t get one round a little higher and hit him in the head, maybe the taxpayers wouldn’t have had to pay for the sex change operation…..lol! He deserved worse. He got off lucky.

      AMERICANISM!!! NOT Globalism!!!!!

  • JGinNJ December 16, 2016, 3:15 am

    Government campaigns to reduce violence directed at women are harmless and might do some good. But I don’t know what that has to do with allowing women to carry tools to defend themselves if they are threatened. What is it about pepper spray? Is it legal anywhere in Canada to carry and use it for protection against bears? Does it have a permanent effect? Do criminals use pepper spray to threaten people?

  • DRAINO December 15, 2016, 8:54 am

    ROFL!!! They have a “Minister of Status of Women”…..LOL!!!!!! That is Absolutely Hilarious!!!!! My Sides are killing me!!! LOL!!!
    Ok, ok….I’ll try to stop laughing now……..wiping away the tears and breathe through the seized abs.
    Wow! They have quite the Kool-Aid drinker in that laughable position. I bet the Obama Whitehouse tried to recruit her at some point. So she believes that violence is gender based….???? and that women can’t/shouldn’t be able to defend themselves…??? and that the government will eliminate violence against women with words written on paper??? Geesh! Talk about unrealistic and offensive??!!! Go back to painting your hair funny colors and eating crayons, crazy cow!!! And take back all your stinking liberal actors and singers too!! We don’t want them here. #securethenorthbordertoo

  • Will Drider December 14, 2016, 5:56 pm

    “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.

    Were exactly are these safe places to turn WHILE being attacked? How are people suppose to break free to get there?

    Nothing screams anti woman more then a draconian heffer type casting women as frail, hapless and being volunteered by their Gov to be perpetual victims. Of Note is that Hajdu has also remained silent on husband’s beating wives and female faimly members!

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend