What shall I say about events in Ottawa this week?
I have little to say of the moral midgets who brought their violent ideas here with them: both the shooting in my city, and the vehicular homicide earlier this week that killed a soldier, and seriously wounded another. Now dead, these reprobates shall face a Holy God, who will reward their craven deeds with a more fitting response than anything I could dream up. But enough about them…
A day has passed, and as I write this, Canadians are only beginning to come to terms with everything. It might take awhile.
It may surprise readers to learn how rarely we have to face violence. In a city of 900,000 people, this was Ottawa’s 5th murder of the year. And it’s nearly November.
Other countries in the G7 are already familiar with violence. But until now, Canada had faced no successful terrorist acts. We had no 9/11 or London Tube; no Fort Hood or Oklahoma beheadings. Our illusion of safety is now shattered. This is new territory for us, as a nation.
The responses have been varied.
Some are afraid. Some are enraged. Some lay blame, while others wring their hands, and everything in between. The big question remains: what now?
What shall we do in response to this reality check?
Life has carried on, as it should. Parliament was in session today. That’s a good start. But another reaction concerns me: military personnel shall now wear civilian clothes when in public. The intent, we are told, is to protect them from harm.
I would suggest different changes in response to this reality check.
Rather than concealing the identities of our men and women in uniform, I would suggest that we permit open-carry of sidearms whenever they are in uniform. (Canada has no equivalent of the 2nd Amendment.) If we can trust them to lay down their lives abroad, can they not also be trusted with a sidearm at home?
Since we know ideology is a key motivator to this violence, and some local Imams are promoting that ideology, we might consider modifying our “proceeds of crime” laws. Laws currently exist which allow property and vehicles used or owned by criminal operations, organizers etc. to be legally seized. If the homes and mosques of leaders inciting the public to violence were seized, (with offending mosques being bulldozed) wouldn’t that make at least some think twice about it?
Let’s take treason seriously. When was the last time someone was charged with treason? But what else would you call a citizen acting on an ideology seeking to violently overthrow the existing system and replace it with Islamofascism? If the offenders were Nazis, this option wouldn’t even be controversial.
If we decide to take treason seriously, we must decide what to do with anyone found guilty. Is this a crime heinous enough to overcome our objections to Capital Punishment? Possibly. It’s worth at least having a national discussion about it.
But we must realize that what will deter the devotees of this death cult is not death itself. The supposed reward awaiting “martyrs” negates such fear.
For that we might want to examine their superstitions and fears. Is there a form of death or burial that disqualifies them from heaven? I’d gladly dump the offender’s corpse in an unmarked hole filled with pig manure if that did the trick.
Maybe they fear an execution done at the hand of a woman? I don’t know their superstitions well enough to say. Whatever our response, it should deliberately leverage any psychological deterrents that will motivate more keenly than any fear of death.