Post 38—:
Overtaken by Surprise
I cannot resist devoting a couple of more posts to Vancouver’s hockey riot I wrote about it two posts ago. The riots took place several weeks ago by now, but the scars are still very noticeable on Granville Ave. while the local media are still busy discussing and analyzing them. Especially in the press, there is an agonizing search for the motives of the riot. How could a city that only a year ago hosted a successful Winter Olympics with its huge international crowd, fall apart upon the loss of the Stanley Cup hockey trophy? Some say it was because at the Olympics every conceivable security measure was taken, including a considerable military presence appropriately kept invisible in the nearby mountains. Nothing was taken for granted; no expense spared. The hockey championship game was approached with assumptions based on the Olympic experience and the lessons allegedly learned from similar riots for a similar hockey defeat 17 years ago. The city invited its entire population by blocking off downtown streets to traffic and installing huge TV screens. This was going to be a clean event. After all, Vancouverites are a decent and cultured people. This was going to be one big party that was going to reset the benchmark by which such events are measured. Alas….
Faulty Assumptions Led to Faulty Security
Upon hindsight, security measures were pitifully inadequate precisely because the assumptions were wrong. Andrew Cohen of the Vancouver Sun (VS), the main paper in which these discussions are taking place, reported a discussion with a police officer prior to seventh and deciding game. Cohen asked the officer whether he expected any trouble that night, win or lose? The officer answered that in either case “It will be a party.” Cohen commented, “With naivete like this, who needs police?” This man was not just airing personal opinion; he was mouthing the opinions of his superiors, the Mayor and Police Chief. Practically all writers disagree with the Mayor and the Chief of Police who tried to place the blame on outsider agitators and hooligans who had come equipped with rioting as their aim. It does seem to be true that a number of people overheard conversations about planning a riot during the days before.
Boastful Pride
The perpetrators were obviously very proud of their achievements, a pride that was further fed by the support of the cheering and clapping ordinary Vancouver citizens. So proud that they photographed themselves on their cellphones. “They just could not help themselves,” wrote Cohen. “They had to boast. It felt so good to smash things up.”
Identity of the Rioters
While some authorities insisted that the perpetrators were either outsiders or fringe insiders, most columnists know better. Among them were “normal, middle-class kids wearing expensive hockey sweaters…. Real rioters don’t wear…hockey sweaters,” Cohen insists. Mark Braude, a Vancouverite himself, stopped just short of blaming himself but insisted that those who participated in the riot “are our neighbours…our classmates and co-workers” (“There are no simple answers to explain riots,” VS, June 22). Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg took it one step further by attributing the chaos to ourselves, not just to others near me. “The enemy is us,” they wrote in the VS (“Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?” June 24, 2011). I will return to this article shortly. One “happy hooligan,” Cohen writes, every time he threw more fodder into a burning fire, “raised his arms in triumph and acknowledged the cheers of the mob”—and that mob was us, Vancouverites, not some marginalized nobodies. “And cheer they did,” he continues, “or dancing like Druids at Equinox.” That sheep-like, mindless and cheering crowd was us, Vancouverites.
Inflation of the Inconsequential
We Canadians think of ourselves as decent, civilized people, but Pete McMartin referred to the perpetrators as “self-entitled little pukes,” our children, siblings and friends and, for many, ourselves “who had invested an obscene amount of emotion and money on what was only a game.” “We let something as inconsequential as sport do so,” he lamented. That was our shame (“The View from Another Counter…Ontario,” VS July 5, 2011). He is right, absolutely right—in so far as he went. Sports have their legitimate place in recreation, building of team spirit and healthy life style, in economics even. In my younger days I enjoyed a vigorous tennis game, while today I enjoy watching certain sports, whether on the field or on the screen. I am grateful for sports. But in the end, after affirming much of sports, we must remember that, after all is said and done, played and watched, it is only a game. No more. That’s it.
Why the Inflation?
Part of the answer to this “why” question lies within the sports world and its powerful organizations themselves as well as by various levels of government who encourage this inflation by massive spending on arenas and other facilities. That the sports establishment should encourage such developments stands to reason—vested interest. It is the source of their wealth, power and status. Governments often support this addiction to sports to divert the attention of their citizens from more serious matters arising out of their own misgovernment.
But the question still is: How can these developments be so successfully encouraged that it often totally consumes people so that they live for little else and it becomes the very centre and meaning of their lives? They develop a deep passion and strong exclusive loyalties that lead to t-shirt declarations such as “This is what we live for.” During the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics the slogan was “We believe!” As my pastor, a self-confessed hockey addict, commented in one of his sermons, “Oh, really?”
I am still asking the question: How can these feelings run so deep, arouse so much passion and, given the right circumstances, cause such an explosion? Even though I have not yet answered the question or presented my particular theory on it, I hope I’ve given you a few things to think about it. In the next post I will present my theory. If you have been a regular reader of my two blogs, you can perhaps guess which direction I’m going to take this. Mull over it and, when you read the next post, see if you have caught on to my basic vision.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Kuyper Common Grace Translation Project
Post 37
My intention for this post was to do another one on the Vancouver hockey riots. However, unexpected intrusions into my week over which I had little control, made it impossible for me find the time. So, hopefully next week I will fulfill that promise.
What's in this Post
In the meantime, today I introduce you to some new kindred spirits along with a translation project of one of Abraham Kuyper's major works. Kuyper, you may remember, is the father of the Kuyperian movement of which this blog is a member. Apart from this introduction, the rest of this post is simply copied from the website of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. The information below will inform you of an important translation project not only, but also acquaint you with the Acton Institute, and will enable you to become part of their network. Some of it is info you generally do not get in a blog.
Qualified Kindred Spirits
Though I refer to the Roman Catholic Acton as a kindred spirit, that must be taken with some qualifications. I feel a kindred spirit with them in that they are very aggressive in promoting a full-orbed Christian approach to society, but they often do so within a framework for which I have considerable respect but sometimes is too dogmatic for my Kuyperian soul and too one-sidedly capitalist. Anyone acquainted Kuyper's angry Christianity and the Class Struggle or its various English translations, will know that Kuyper was very aware of the negatives associated with capitalism.
Then there is mention of Kuyper College as a partner in the translation project. I confess to not being "up to snuff" when it comes to this Calvinist institution, also in Grand Rapids. It started out as a Bible college, a notion more Evangelical than Reformed, let alone Kuyperian. They have since adopted the name of Kuyper, but to what extent they now espouse Kuyperianism, I do not know. If interested, check out their website. Perhaps some time in the future I can devote a post to them and introduce them better.
Acton's Summary re the Kuyper Translation Project
There is a trend among evangelicals to engage in social reform without first developing a coherent social philosophy to guide the agenda. To bridge this gap, Acton Institute and Kuyper College are partnering together to translate Abraham Kuyper's seminal three-volume work on common grace (De gemeene gratie). Common Grace was chosen because it holds great potential to build intellectual capacity within evangelicalism and because a sound grasp of this doctrine is what is missing in evangelical cultural engagement. Common Grace is the capstone of Kuyper's constructive public theology and the best available platform to draw evangelicals back to first principles and to orient their social thought.
Acton Press Release: Fuller Explanation
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (April 19, 2011)—The Acton Institute and Kuyper College are collaborating to bring for the first time to English-language readers a foundational text from the pen of the Dutch theologian and statesman, Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper’s three-volume work, Common Grace (De gemeene gratie) appeared from 1901-05, during his tenure as prime minister in the Netherlands. These works are based on a series of newspaper editorials intended to equip common citizens and laypersons with the tools they needed to effectively enter public life. The doctrine of common grace is, as Kuyper puts it, “the root conviction for all Reformed people.” “If the believer’s God is at work in this world,” says Kuyper, “then in this world the believer’s hand must take hold of the plow, and the name of the Lord must be glorified in that activity as well.”
Dr. Stephen Grabill, director of programs at the Acton Institute, serves as general editor of the project. He points to the contemporary need to understand Kuyper’s comprehensive and cohesive vision for Christian social engagement. “There are a host of current attempts to try to describe how evangelicals should be at work in the world,” Grabill said. “Kuyper’s articulation of the project of common grace shows how these efforts must be grounded in and flow naturally from sound doctrine.”
Placing social engagement, particularly within the context of business activity, in the broader context of sound theology is a large part of what led Kuyper College to partner in this translation project. “Abraham Kuyper’s project in Common Grace helps provide a reliable and engaging theological basis for our new business leadership program,” said Kuyper College president Nicholas Kroeze.
John Bolt, professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary and author of A Free Church, a Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, will serve as a theological advisor to the project. He describes Kuyper’s work as intended “to challenge the pious, orthodox, Reformed people of the Netherlands to take seriously their calling in Dutch culture and society. His basic argument was: God is not absent from the non-church areas of our common life but bestows his gifts and favor indiscriminately to all people.”
The translation and publication project will cover a two year period, and the three volumes total over 1,700 pages in the original. Dr. Nelson Kloosterman of Worldview Resources International and translator of numerous Dutch works will oversee the translation of the texts. The completed translation will be published by Christian’s Library Press, the recently acquired imprint of the Acton Institute. Volume one of Common Grace is scheduled to appear in the fall of 2012.
________________________________________
Additional Miscellaneous Info from the Acton WebsiteResources
• Kuyper Common Grace Brochure (PDF)
• Kuyper Common Grace Table of Contents (PDF)
• Kuyper Common Grace Volume 1 Foreword (PDF)
Stay Connected
Follow the Kuyper Common Grace Project on Facebook.
Acton Institute: Facebook | Twitter
Kuyper College: Facebook
Christian's Library Press: Facebook | Twitter
Abraham Kuyper: 1899
Kuyper & Leo XIII
Journal of Markets & Morality 5.1
A Century of Christian Social Teaching: The Legacy of Leo XIII and Abraham Kuyper
(print / electronic)
CFP: Modern Christian Social Thought (PDF)
Partners
Receive Project Updates
Name: *
Email Address: *
•
•
ACTON RESEARCH
• Research Home
• Research Staff
• A History of Liberty
• About Acton Research
• Books from Acton Research
o Christian Social Thought Series
o Occasional Papers
o Published by Acton Institute
o Studies in Ethics & Economics
• Lord Acton
o Chronology
o Lord Acton Quote Archive
o Photo Gallery
o 100 Best Books
• The Social Agenda
• Kuyper Translation Project
• Related Websites
• Suggested Reading
o Christian Social Thought
o Free-market Economics
o Human Dignity
o Marriage and the Family
o Natural Law
o Private Property
o Value Theory (Axiology)
Journal of Markets & Morality
Purchase a subscription to the Journal of Markets & Morality to get access to the most recent issues.
Subscribe | View your Cart
________________________________________
Liberation Theology: The Church's Future Shock
$10.00 [ purchase ]
Liberation Theology proclaims liberty to the exploited masses of Latin America. Its spirit is gradually spreading across the Western world, and creating intense discussion along with Vatican concern. This book explains that theology.
Acton Institute
161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 301
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
phone: 616.454.3080
fax: 616.454.9454
Follow Acton Institute on:
Facebook Twitter Flickr YouTube blip.tv
Subscribe to Acton
Subscibe to Print/Email
Refer a Friend
What is RSS?
Acton PowerBlog
Latest Site Updates
Acton Events
Radio Free Acton Podcast
Acton Commentary
My intention for this post was to do another one on the Vancouver hockey riots. However, unexpected intrusions into my week over which I had little control, made it impossible for me find the time. So, hopefully next week I will fulfill that promise.
What's in this Post
In the meantime, today I introduce you to some new kindred spirits along with a translation project of one of Abraham Kuyper's major works. Kuyper, you may remember, is the father of the Kuyperian movement of which this blog is a member. Apart from this introduction, the rest of this post is simply copied from the website of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. The information below will inform you of an important translation project not only, but also acquaint you with the Acton Institute, and will enable you to become part of their network. Some of it is info you generally do not get in a blog.
Qualified Kindred Spirits
Though I refer to the Roman Catholic Acton as a kindred spirit, that must be taken with some qualifications. I feel a kindred spirit with them in that they are very aggressive in promoting a full-orbed Christian approach to society, but they often do so within a framework for which I have considerable respect but sometimes is too dogmatic for my Kuyperian soul and too one-sidedly capitalist. Anyone acquainted Kuyper's angry Christianity and the Class Struggle or its various English translations, will know that Kuyper was very aware of the negatives associated with capitalism.
Then there is mention of Kuyper College as a partner in the translation project. I confess to not being "up to snuff" when it comes to this Calvinist institution, also in Grand Rapids. It started out as a Bible college, a notion more Evangelical than Reformed, let alone Kuyperian. They have since adopted the name of Kuyper, but to what extent they now espouse Kuyperianism, I do not know. If interested, check out their website. Perhaps some time in the future I can devote a post to them and introduce them better.
Acton's Summary re the Kuyper Translation Project
There is a trend among evangelicals to engage in social reform without first developing a coherent social philosophy to guide the agenda. To bridge this gap, Acton Institute and Kuyper College are partnering together to translate Abraham Kuyper's seminal three-volume work on common grace (De gemeene gratie). Common Grace was chosen because it holds great potential to build intellectual capacity within evangelicalism and because a sound grasp of this doctrine is what is missing in evangelical cultural engagement. Common Grace is the capstone of Kuyper's constructive public theology and the best available platform to draw evangelicals back to first principles and to orient their social thought.
Acton Press Release: Fuller Explanation
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (April 19, 2011)—The Acton Institute and Kuyper College are collaborating to bring for the first time to English-language readers a foundational text from the pen of the Dutch theologian and statesman, Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper’s three-volume work, Common Grace (De gemeene gratie) appeared from 1901-05, during his tenure as prime minister in the Netherlands. These works are based on a series of newspaper editorials intended to equip common citizens and laypersons with the tools they needed to effectively enter public life. The doctrine of common grace is, as Kuyper puts it, “the root conviction for all Reformed people.” “If the believer’s God is at work in this world,” says Kuyper, “then in this world the believer’s hand must take hold of the plow, and the name of the Lord must be glorified in that activity as well.”
Dr. Stephen Grabill, director of programs at the Acton Institute, serves as general editor of the project. He points to the contemporary need to understand Kuyper’s comprehensive and cohesive vision for Christian social engagement. “There are a host of current attempts to try to describe how evangelicals should be at work in the world,” Grabill said. “Kuyper’s articulation of the project of common grace shows how these efforts must be grounded in and flow naturally from sound doctrine.”
Placing social engagement, particularly within the context of business activity, in the broader context of sound theology is a large part of what led Kuyper College to partner in this translation project. “Abraham Kuyper’s project in Common Grace helps provide a reliable and engaging theological basis for our new business leadership program,” said Kuyper College president Nicholas Kroeze.
John Bolt, professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary and author of A Free Church, a Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, will serve as a theological advisor to the project. He describes Kuyper’s work as intended “to challenge the pious, orthodox, Reformed people of the Netherlands to take seriously their calling in Dutch culture and society. His basic argument was: God is not absent from the non-church areas of our common life but bestows his gifts and favor indiscriminately to all people.”
The translation and publication project will cover a two year period, and the three volumes total over 1,700 pages in the original. Dr. Nelson Kloosterman of Worldview Resources International and translator of numerous Dutch works will oversee the translation of the texts. The completed translation will be published by Christian’s Library Press, the recently acquired imprint of the Acton Institute. Volume one of Common Grace is scheduled to appear in the fall of 2012.
________________________________________
Additional Miscellaneous Info from the Acton WebsiteResources
• Kuyper Common Grace Brochure (PDF)
• Kuyper Common Grace Table of Contents (PDF)
• Kuyper Common Grace Volume 1 Foreword (PDF)
Stay Connected
Follow the Kuyper Common Grace Project on Facebook.
Acton Institute: Facebook | Twitter
Kuyper College: Facebook
Christian's Library Press: Facebook | Twitter
Abraham Kuyper: 1899
Kuyper & Leo XIII
Journal of Markets & Morality 5.1
A Century of Christian Social Teaching: The Legacy of Leo XIII and Abraham Kuyper
(print / electronic)
CFP: Modern Christian Social Thought (PDF)
Partners
Receive Project Updates
Name: *
Email Address: *
•
•
ACTON RESEARCH
• Research Home
• Research Staff
• A History of Liberty
• About Acton Research
• Books from Acton Research
o Christian Social Thought Series
o Occasional Papers
o Published by Acton Institute
o Studies in Ethics & Economics
• Lord Acton
o Chronology
o Lord Acton Quote Archive
o Photo Gallery
o 100 Best Books
• The Social Agenda
• Kuyper Translation Project
• Related Websites
• Suggested Reading
o Christian Social Thought
o Free-market Economics
o Human Dignity
o Marriage and the Family
o Natural Law
o Private Property
o Value Theory (Axiology)
Journal of Markets & Morality
Purchase a subscription to the Journal of Markets & Morality to get access to the most recent issues.
Subscribe | View your Cart
________________________________________
Liberation Theology: The Church's Future Shock
$10.00 [ purchase ]
Liberation Theology proclaims liberty to the exploited masses of Latin America. Its spirit is gradually spreading across the Western world, and creating intense discussion along with Vatican concern. This book explains that theology.
Acton Institute
161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 301
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
phone: 616.454.3080
fax: 616.454.9454
Follow Acton Institute on:
Facebook Twitter Flickr YouTube blip.tv
Subscribe to Acton
Subscibe to Print/Email
Refer a Friend
What is RSS?
Acton PowerBlog
Latest Site Updates
Acton Events
Radio Free Acton Podcast
Acton Commentary
Monday, June 20, 2011
Reactions to Vancouver’s Hockey Vandals
Post 36—
Vancouver, the scene of the final game in the recent NHL Stanley Cup runoff, shocked its own socks off when the post-game mourning celebration deteriorated into a mindless, idiotic and violent riot. It has received enough coverage in the media, both public and social, that I do not need to describe the details of the event. I am interested here in the public reactions and in the process will reveal my own.
Why This Violence?
The last half dozen posts of this blog have been heavy on responsibility and accountability. This one will follow that line as well. But first of all, why the vigilante reaction demanding instantaneous justice? I suppose that is the natural product of the public’s impatient indignation. But it is also due to the very low confidence the public has in and its contempt for the BC and Canadian “justice system,” such as it is, a lack and contempt I totally share.
Proposal: Citizen's Committee
But to prevent further vigilantism and the unconscionable delays that marks the system, I want to propose a middle way outside of the existing system. I want either the Mayor or the Premier to appoint a committee of “ordinary” citizens who are not afflicted, blinded or handicapped by the contorted thinking characteristic of our legal system and who are capable of using common sense in promptly meting out judgement to the perpetrators.
Two-tier Tether
Please refresh your mind of Post 34, where I propose an alternative to prison, namely a serious tethering system. In this situation, I propose that those found guilty by the above committee be sentenced to a two-tier tether system. Two years for those who stupidly followed the leaders and a minimum of five years for the leaders. Now I am restraining myself here. If I simply respond to my anger and indignation, I would demand ten years for the entire bunch, every one of them.
My restraint comes out of Christian compassion and mercy, but that does not exclude justice or taking responsibility for the damage done. I was going to add the element of repayment by having these losers participate in the repairs, but which company or crew would want them around?
Diana Purkis' Public Stocks
I am intrigued by Diana Purkis’ proposal in her letter to the Sun. The culprits should be put in public stocks for a week, during which they could be humiliated by the public pelting rotten eggs and tomatoes, after which they would forced to clean homeless shelters and toilets. I would not insist on the pelting. A week in public stocks, with or without the pelting. Just the sheer humiliation and embarrassment of it would be excruciating. Perhaps we can combine our two proposals.
Offer of Volunteer Service
Mayor, Premier, I volunteer for that committee and so would, I suspect, Diana Purkis. I would not even need to be paid! I make my offer not to ensure vengeance. My heart is big enough to separate the sheep from the goats and I believe I can distinguish between guilt, various degrees of it, and innocence. My offer comes out of mistrust of our “justice system.” They will waste an inordinate amount of time and an even more inordinate amount of money, but come out of the process with little more than a hand slap.
These Poor Boys!
After all, we must understand the pressure and grief these poor dear boys were suffering. They lost a hockey game! In other countries people riot merely because of political oppression, injustice and hunger. Thanks, boys, for showing us what’s real!
Vancouver, the scene of the final game in the recent NHL Stanley Cup runoff, shocked its own socks off when the post-game mourning celebration deteriorated into a mindless, idiotic and violent riot. It has received enough coverage in the media, both public and social, that I do not need to describe the details of the event. I am interested here in the public reactions and in the process will reveal my own.
Why This Violence?
The last half dozen posts of this blog have been heavy on responsibility and accountability. This one will follow that line as well. But first of all, why the vigilante reaction demanding instantaneous justice? I suppose that is the natural product of the public’s impatient indignation. But it is also due to the very low confidence the public has in and its contempt for the BC and Canadian “justice system,” such as it is, a lack and contempt I totally share.
Proposal: Citizen's Committee
But to prevent further vigilantism and the unconscionable delays that marks the system, I want to propose a middle way outside of the existing system. I want either the Mayor or the Premier to appoint a committee of “ordinary” citizens who are not afflicted, blinded or handicapped by the contorted thinking characteristic of our legal system and who are capable of using common sense in promptly meting out judgement to the perpetrators.
Two-tier Tether
Please refresh your mind of Post 34, where I propose an alternative to prison, namely a serious tethering system. In this situation, I propose that those found guilty by the above committee be sentenced to a two-tier tether system. Two years for those who stupidly followed the leaders and a minimum of five years for the leaders. Now I am restraining myself here. If I simply respond to my anger and indignation, I would demand ten years for the entire bunch, every one of them.
My restraint comes out of Christian compassion and mercy, but that does not exclude justice or taking responsibility for the damage done. I was going to add the element of repayment by having these losers participate in the repairs, but which company or crew would want them around?
Diana Purkis' Public Stocks
I am intrigued by Diana Purkis’ proposal in her letter to the Sun. The culprits should be put in public stocks for a week, during which they could be humiliated by the public pelting rotten eggs and tomatoes, after which they would forced to clean homeless shelters and toilets. I would not insist on the pelting. A week in public stocks, with or without the pelting. Just the sheer humiliation and embarrassment of it would be excruciating. Perhaps we can combine our two proposals.
Offer of Volunteer Service
Mayor, Premier, I volunteer for that committee and so would, I suspect, Diana Purkis. I would not even need to be paid! I make my offer not to ensure vengeance. My heart is big enough to separate the sheep from the goats and I believe I can distinguish between guilt, various degrees of it, and innocence. My offer comes out of mistrust of our “justice system.” They will waste an inordinate amount of time and an even more inordinate amount of money, but come out of the process with little more than a hand slap.
These Poor Boys!
After all, we must understand the pressure and grief these poor dear boys were suffering. They lost a hockey game! In other countries people riot merely because of political oppression, injustice and hunger. Thanks, boys, for showing us what’s real!
Friday, June 10, 2011
Obesity: The State Has No Place in….
35--
Excuses, excuses, excuses
Once again, I apologize for an almost two months-long interruption. Life sometimes becomes too hectic for me to cope. I take on too many responsibilities or obligations and then find I need to temporarily change course. This time around it was a trip to Ibadan, Nigeria, where I was invited to deliver an annual lecture about Muslim law or sharia in Nigeria. My title was “Re-tooling Our Approach to Sharia: A Wholistic and Pluralistic Perspective.” Readers interested in that issue may contact me at < boerjf@hotmail.com > for an electronic copy. If you do forward this request to me, please be sure to mention this blog post and tell me what province or state and what country you are from. Of course, if you are interested in such issues, you would do well to also turn to my other blog: < Christian-Muslim World.blogspot.com >.
Trudeau: The State Has No Business....
If there is one statement by Canada’s “philosopher-king,” former Federal Minister of Justice later to become Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, that lingers in the collective memory of the Canadian people, it is probably that “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” According to a CBC transcript, the context was his response to a reporter’s question. It seems that it was not a carefully thought out statement but, rather, an off-the-cuff remark without official backing. He bumbled his way through as follows:
“I think the, the view we take here is that, uh, there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, and I think that, uh, you know, what's done in private between adults, uh, doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public, this is a different matter."
Mclean's: The State Has No Business....
Whatever the statement’s official status, it has been quoted left and right—and been used as a takeoff for parallel statements about other concerns. Recently the editors of Canada’s Maclean’s captioned an article about obesity among kids with this: “The state has no place in the lunch bags of a nation” (May 2, 2011). They explained, “In the name of fighting obesity, schools everywhere are taking away the freedom of students and parents to make their own lunchtime decisions.” After giving a number of examples just how far this can go, the editors insist that “Eating remains a personal responsibility, not a government mandate.” Proper diet, they affirm, “is a matter for the family, not the authorities.”
Mutual Responsibility
Well, yes, in an individualistic world this may be true, but Canada is not a nation of rugged individualists. The nation has decided that the people are responsible for each others’ health and enforces this responsibility by means of a mandatory socialized medical regime to which everyone, except the very poorest, contributes through taxation.
Christian Responsibility
Of course, Christian tradition has always upheld mutual responsibility and concern for each other. Some Christians, usually more liberal ones, would extend this expression of mutual care by involving government, while others, often more conservative, may insist that this responsibility must be handled by both individuals and by the community, including the church, but not by government. Kuyperians like me cannot be placed in such boxes. Our criteria are different. Sometimes we sound like the one and sometimes like the other, sometimes we sound totally different. This is not due to a wavering posture of uncertainty—Kuyperians are hardly known for that!—but to our different criteria.
Mutual Accountability
Put bluntly, if I have to pay for your health problems, then I also demand a degree of accountability towards me on your part. And if we communally pay for each other’s health problems through government, then we, through government, also have a right to responsible living, including eating. Trudeau’s statement also includes the rider, “When it becomes public, this is a different matter." Through the national health care system to which we all contribute, we have become our brother’s and sister’s keepers via the government. It does not make sense to insist that it is purely your own business to eat as you like and then, when obesity or other problems set in, the public has to pay for your folly? Then it suddenly becomes a public concern—while you probably continue to consume mountains of junk food?
Radical Solutions vs Bandaids
The Maclean’s editors are right that it is hard to control dietary restrictions of students. Attempts to do so, they clearly show in their article, have not worked. However, one way of getting at it that the editors have not mentioned is control at the manufacturing and distribution level. A soft attempt at control would be heavy taxation on all problem foods. A hard approach would be to simply outlaw the production, importation and marketing of such foods. In the end, this latter approach may be the only one that could work.
When our health care system is overworked and underfunded and when the citizenry refuses responsibility, why do governments hesitate to apply the radical solutions needed? Is it the old democratic saw of powerful lobbyists and corporate finance? If democracy cannot fix things at their root or radix level, does it then doom us to patchwork solutions and limping along while our problems intensify?
Responsible Parenting
Of course, the other radical solution that is also desperately needed is responsible parenting. But who can imprint that on a secular population that rejects the teachings of stewardship, responsibility and accountability, the sacredness of the human body, etc.—all the classic teachings of Christianity? With the church sidelined in the lives of many and the government prevented by ideologies from enforcing responsible parenting, what do we have left? Things look kind of hopeless, I am afraid. Do an irresponsible citizenry and irresponsible parents call for some form of dictatorship? Perhaps our secular irresponsibility has driven us beyond the limits of democracy towards a new governing model? Perhaps--and now hold on to your seat!--we need to take another look at God and His guidelines as found in His revelation. Now that would be radical--going to the root of things, our spiritual roots.
Responsibility of Christians
I am not suggesting that Christians do not share in the responsibility for our derailed dietary habits and addiction to junk foods. Christians are often more influenced by their society and culture than by their religion. Too bad. Seeing that they are familiar with Christian thought and values, they should be among those providing formulae for solutions, not simply adhere to the dictates of pop culture or to middle class values and ambitions. It is time for churches to prepare their members to make hard-nosed decisions with respect to family diets and eating habits. Yes, it is first all of all a parental and family responsibility. Secondly, the church has an important task here. Thirdly, if both of these fail to function properly, the government may have to wade in and either insert strong nudges towards solutions like taxation or force the issue by legislation.
Excuses, excuses, excuses
Once again, I apologize for an almost two months-long interruption. Life sometimes becomes too hectic for me to cope. I take on too many responsibilities or obligations and then find I need to temporarily change course. This time around it was a trip to Ibadan, Nigeria, where I was invited to deliver an annual lecture about Muslim law or sharia in Nigeria. My title was “Re-tooling Our Approach to Sharia: A Wholistic and Pluralistic Perspective.” Readers interested in that issue may contact me at < boerjf@hotmail.com > for an electronic copy. If you do forward this request to me, please be sure to mention this blog post and tell me what province or state and what country you are from. Of course, if you are interested in such issues, you would do well to also turn to my other blog: < Christian-Muslim World.blogspot.com >.
Trudeau: The State Has No Business....
If there is one statement by Canada’s “philosopher-king,” former Federal Minister of Justice later to become Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, that lingers in the collective memory of the Canadian people, it is probably that “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” According to a CBC transcript, the context was his response to a reporter’s question. It seems that it was not a carefully thought out statement but, rather, an off-the-cuff remark without official backing. He bumbled his way through as follows:
“I think the, the view we take here is that, uh, there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, and I think that, uh, you know, what's done in private between adults, uh, doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public, this is a different matter."
Mclean's: The State Has No Business....
Whatever the statement’s official status, it has been quoted left and right—and been used as a takeoff for parallel statements about other concerns. Recently the editors of Canada’s Maclean’s captioned an article about obesity among kids with this: “The state has no place in the lunch bags of a nation” (May 2, 2011). They explained, “In the name of fighting obesity, schools everywhere are taking away the freedom of students and parents to make their own lunchtime decisions.” After giving a number of examples just how far this can go, the editors insist that “Eating remains a personal responsibility, not a government mandate.” Proper diet, they affirm, “is a matter for the family, not the authorities.”
Mutual Responsibility
Well, yes, in an individualistic world this may be true, but Canada is not a nation of rugged individualists. The nation has decided that the people are responsible for each others’ health and enforces this responsibility by means of a mandatory socialized medical regime to which everyone, except the very poorest, contributes through taxation.
Christian Responsibility
Of course, Christian tradition has always upheld mutual responsibility and concern for each other. Some Christians, usually more liberal ones, would extend this expression of mutual care by involving government, while others, often more conservative, may insist that this responsibility must be handled by both individuals and by the community, including the church, but not by government. Kuyperians like me cannot be placed in such boxes. Our criteria are different. Sometimes we sound like the one and sometimes like the other, sometimes we sound totally different. This is not due to a wavering posture of uncertainty—Kuyperians are hardly known for that!—but to our different criteria.
Mutual Accountability
Put bluntly, if I have to pay for your health problems, then I also demand a degree of accountability towards me on your part. And if we communally pay for each other’s health problems through government, then we, through government, also have a right to responsible living, including eating. Trudeau’s statement also includes the rider, “When it becomes public, this is a different matter." Through the national health care system to which we all contribute, we have become our brother’s and sister’s keepers via the government. It does not make sense to insist that it is purely your own business to eat as you like and then, when obesity or other problems set in, the public has to pay for your folly? Then it suddenly becomes a public concern—while you probably continue to consume mountains of junk food?
Radical Solutions vs Bandaids
The Maclean’s editors are right that it is hard to control dietary restrictions of students. Attempts to do so, they clearly show in their article, have not worked. However, one way of getting at it that the editors have not mentioned is control at the manufacturing and distribution level. A soft attempt at control would be heavy taxation on all problem foods. A hard approach would be to simply outlaw the production, importation and marketing of such foods. In the end, this latter approach may be the only one that could work.
When our health care system is overworked and underfunded and when the citizenry refuses responsibility, why do governments hesitate to apply the radical solutions needed? Is it the old democratic saw of powerful lobbyists and corporate finance? If democracy cannot fix things at their root or radix level, does it then doom us to patchwork solutions and limping along while our problems intensify?
Responsible Parenting
Of course, the other radical solution that is also desperately needed is responsible parenting. But who can imprint that on a secular population that rejects the teachings of stewardship, responsibility and accountability, the sacredness of the human body, etc.—all the classic teachings of Christianity? With the church sidelined in the lives of many and the government prevented by ideologies from enforcing responsible parenting, what do we have left? Things look kind of hopeless, I am afraid. Do an irresponsible citizenry and irresponsible parents call for some form of dictatorship? Perhaps our secular irresponsibility has driven us beyond the limits of democracy towards a new governing model? Perhaps--and now hold on to your seat!--we need to take another look at God and His guidelines as found in His revelation. Now that would be radical--going to the root of things, our spiritual roots.
Responsibility of Christians
I am not suggesting that Christians do not share in the responsibility for our derailed dietary habits and addiction to junk foods. Christians are often more influenced by their society and culture than by their religion. Too bad. Seeing that they are familiar with Christian thought and values, they should be among those providing formulae for solutions, not simply adhere to the dictates of pop culture or to middle class values and ambitions. It is time for churches to prepare their members to make hard-nosed decisions with respect to family diets and eating habits. Yes, it is first all of all a parental and family responsibility. Secondly, the church has an important task here. Thirdly, if both of these fail to function properly, the government may have to wade in and either insert strong nudges towards solutions like taxation or force the issue by legislation.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Gangsters--What Would Jesus Do?
Post 34--
The basic message of the Bible is about love, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is possible that you do not detect much of that spirit in the past few posts. I seem rather harsh and unforgiving. Though the above concerns are indeed dominant in the Bible, there are also subconcerns that betray a different spirit. These subconcerns are directed at people who represent the opposite of the dominant spirit and work against it; against oppressors of the people.
John the Baptist
When Jewish religious leaders came to John the Baptist, he berated them with all the harshness he could muster. Of course, neither he nor Jesus were invested with official power and thus had to restrict themselves to the power they had, which was one of warning and castigating. “You brood of vipers,” John yelled at them and threatened that “the ax is already at the root of the trees…” (Matthew 3:7, 10; Luke 3:7-9).
Jesus
Jesus blasted those leaders time and again for putting an impossible load on the shoulders of the people that they themselves were “not willing to lift a finger to move them.” Jesus’ preferred name for them was “hypocrites”—“you shut the kingdom of heaven in man’s faces. You yourselves do not enter…” (Matthew 23:4, 13-14; Luke 11:46). Like Canadian gangsters, Jesus accused these leaders of traveling “over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Upon them “will come all the righteous blood” they have caused to flow (Matthew 23:15, 35). He cursed those who did not take pity on the poor and helpless and assigned them to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, 46). He accused religious leaders of devouring “widows’ houses” and warned that “such men will be punished most severely” (Mark 14:40; Luke 20:47). He pronounced “Woe” on the well-fed (Luke 6:24-25), and that allegedly includes gangsters. His “Woes” are scary and not to be ignored. Jesus did not leave it with mere words. One time he violently overturned the tables of merchants in the temple and drove them out, probably with a whip (Mark 11:15-17). And all of that from a Jesus who describes Himself as “gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29)—“meek,” according to the old King James.
Compared to Jesus
Yes, meek under most circumstances, gentle and humble. Love and compassion personified. But when it came to the high and mighty who oppressed the people, he reserved nothing but scorn and threats of the worst future imaginable. Hell, even. Rejection by and separation from God Himself. Compared to that, you must admit that I am pretty mild comparatively when it comes to gangsters. I do not threaten them with hell. I do not demand capital punishment, but if they insist on divvying that out amongst themselves, I suggest we give them the space for it. Instead of imprisonment, I prefer having them tethered in homes. Out of the box? Yes. Cruel? Compared to Jesus, I am a wimp with my proposals!
The basic message of the Bible is about love, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is possible that you do not detect much of that spirit in the past few posts. I seem rather harsh and unforgiving. Though the above concerns are indeed dominant in the Bible, there are also subconcerns that betray a different spirit. These subconcerns are directed at people who represent the opposite of the dominant spirit and work against it; against oppressors of the people.
John the Baptist
When Jewish religious leaders came to John the Baptist, he berated them with all the harshness he could muster. Of course, neither he nor Jesus were invested with official power and thus had to restrict themselves to the power they had, which was one of warning and castigating. “You brood of vipers,” John yelled at them and threatened that “the ax is already at the root of the trees…” (Matthew 3:7, 10; Luke 3:7-9).
Jesus
Jesus blasted those leaders time and again for putting an impossible load on the shoulders of the people that they themselves were “not willing to lift a finger to move them.” Jesus’ preferred name for them was “hypocrites”—“you shut the kingdom of heaven in man’s faces. You yourselves do not enter…” (Matthew 23:4, 13-14; Luke 11:46). Like Canadian gangsters, Jesus accused these leaders of traveling “over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Upon them “will come all the righteous blood” they have caused to flow (Matthew 23:15, 35). He cursed those who did not take pity on the poor and helpless and assigned them to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, 46). He accused religious leaders of devouring “widows’ houses” and warned that “such men will be punished most severely” (Mark 14:40; Luke 20:47). He pronounced “Woe” on the well-fed (Luke 6:24-25), and that allegedly includes gangsters. His “Woes” are scary and not to be ignored. Jesus did not leave it with mere words. One time he violently overturned the tables of merchants in the temple and drove them out, probably with a whip (Mark 11:15-17). And all of that from a Jesus who describes Himself as “gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29)—“meek,” according to the old King James.
Compared to Jesus
Yes, meek under most circumstances, gentle and humble. Love and compassion personified. But when it came to the high and mighty who oppressed the people, he reserved nothing but scorn and threats of the worst future imaginable. Hell, even. Rejection by and separation from God Himself. Compared to that, you must admit that I am pretty mild comparatively when it comes to gangsters. I do not threaten them with hell. I do not demand capital punishment, but if they insist on divvying that out amongst themselves, I suggest we give them the space for it. Instead of imprisonment, I prefer having them tethered in homes. Out of the box? Yes. Cruel? Compared to Jesus, I am a wimp with my proposals!
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Treatment of Gangsters (and other criminals)—Preposterous Proposals (4)
Post 33--
Apology and Subject
I once again apologize for the time lapse between this and the last post. I was under such intense work pressure that I just had to let go for a while. I may as well tell you now that I expect to be in Nigeria the full month of May and am not sure I will have the facilities or the files I need to write new posts while there. So, perhaps one or two posts over the next week and then off to Nigeria. When the next one after that? We’ll see. Possibly early June.
Please refresh your memory regarding my first preposterous proposal in the previous post with respect to the self-cleansing of the gangster world. Though I continue with the subject of gangsters to provide continuation with Post 32, my basic concern today is more with prisoners in general, including gangsters.
Second Proposal
The second proposal has to do with the fact that the prison population of this country and this province is increasing by leaps and bounds. The institutions are overcrowded something fierce. The Federal Government is planning to build more penal institutions. The latest statistic I read is that it costs approximately $120,000 annually to house one prisoner in Canada. $120,000! Imagine. And that will only increase along with the numbers incarcerated. It has become impossible and unaffordable.
So, my second proposal: Instead of incarcerating gangsters and other criminals in prisons, they should be put on a very short leash in someone home, whether their own, a friend’s or relative’s or even a home some individual organized for that very purpose. They should feed themselves or be fed by friend, relative or whoever. Though living in private homes, they are actually incarcerated prisoners with no more freedom to move around than they would in actual prison. They would be subject to the same restraining orders and restricted contact with the outside then if they were in prison, with the exception of people living in the same house with them. They should be stripped of most human rights and be banned from any contact with the criminal world whatsoever during the course of their sentence. In fact, they are not allowed to phone anyone or conduct correspondence in whatever shape or form, except with their “keeper” or “handler,” that is, their caseworker. The terms “parolee” and “parole officer” would not apply in their case, for they are prisoners. No email or internet or social network access or connections. Complete isolation via comprehensive restraining orders. This is prison at home. If they wish to improve themselves in preparation for the time they have served their sentence by distant learning, special arrangements can be made with their keeper.
No doubt, there will be all kinds of problems to be solved before this system is workable, but it would be a lot cheaper than the current method of incarceration. And thus a lot easier on the pockets of citizens. It is these pockets, that is, the welfare of ordinary citizens, that are more important than the welfare of these hicks. My concern here is to reduce the burdens of innocent citizens who have to foot the current $120,000 p.a. per prisoner. My primary compassion goes out towards the hard working tax payer. I also have a strong but secondary compassion for many prisoners, but, I must confess, little for gangsters. I would think that my scheme would be much more humane for them and would protect them from the barbarization that appears to affect many in the current prison system. Being in the company of “ordinary” people might be a more effective way of rehabilitating, re-socializing and re-humanizing them.
I am very eager to hear of your response to these proposals. I know that they don’t stand much of a chance, but perhaps mulling them over will at least get us out of the box to something better than we have now. Personally, I would be overjoyed if they were accepted with the proper tinkering to make them workable. Email me at boerjf@hotmail.com for discussing these proposals. Go ahead and tell me I’m crazy or cruel.
Capital Punishment?
I am not even proposing capital punishment at this point, though, according to recent polls, that would not be so outlandish, since the majority of Canadians support it (Guest Editorial, Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, taken from the Ottawa Citizen). I confess to being tempted with regard to gangster dogs and other murderers, but I hesitate because of the lengthy and expensive legal appeals capital punishment often triggers, another impossible expense for which we need to tackle the legal profession from whom I want to protect the taxpayer. One of these days I will engage in a series of blogs directed at those gowned legal gangsters.
Summary
In summary, while in Post 32 I advocate self-cleansing of the gangster world so that the police can go about the more important business of protecting the innocent, in this one I propose reducing the expense of incarceration and exchanging the barbarization of the current system with rehabilitation in the context of more civilized and normal people. Between the two of them, we would create a more humane world for both taxpayers, my primary concern, and for prisoners, even for those gangsters.
Future Discussions
The next post will show how my apparent harshness in this and the previous posts mirrors that of Christ Himself. After that, I plan to change gears. Before long I hope to start a series of posts about lawyers and the court system. You should see the files of materials I have amassed about these “friends” of ours. It’s going to take me some time to organize the material. So, have patience. We will get there. In the meantime, we will occupy ourselves with some more innocent and less volatile issues—perhaps!
Apology and Subject
I once again apologize for the time lapse between this and the last post. I was under such intense work pressure that I just had to let go for a while. I may as well tell you now that I expect to be in Nigeria the full month of May and am not sure I will have the facilities or the files I need to write new posts while there. So, perhaps one or two posts over the next week and then off to Nigeria. When the next one after that? We’ll see. Possibly early June.
Please refresh your memory regarding my first preposterous proposal in the previous post with respect to the self-cleansing of the gangster world. Though I continue with the subject of gangsters to provide continuation with Post 32, my basic concern today is more with prisoners in general, including gangsters.
Second Proposal
The second proposal has to do with the fact that the prison population of this country and this province is increasing by leaps and bounds. The institutions are overcrowded something fierce. The Federal Government is planning to build more penal institutions. The latest statistic I read is that it costs approximately $120,000 annually to house one prisoner in Canada. $120,000! Imagine. And that will only increase along with the numbers incarcerated. It has become impossible and unaffordable.
So, my second proposal: Instead of incarcerating gangsters and other criminals in prisons, they should be put on a very short leash in someone home, whether their own, a friend’s or relative’s or even a home some individual organized for that very purpose. They should feed themselves or be fed by friend, relative or whoever. Though living in private homes, they are actually incarcerated prisoners with no more freedom to move around than they would in actual prison. They would be subject to the same restraining orders and restricted contact with the outside then if they were in prison, with the exception of people living in the same house with them. They should be stripped of most human rights and be banned from any contact with the criminal world whatsoever during the course of their sentence. In fact, they are not allowed to phone anyone or conduct correspondence in whatever shape or form, except with their “keeper” or “handler,” that is, their caseworker. The terms “parolee” and “parole officer” would not apply in their case, for they are prisoners. No email or internet or social network access or connections. Complete isolation via comprehensive restraining orders. This is prison at home. If they wish to improve themselves in preparation for the time they have served their sentence by distant learning, special arrangements can be made with their keeper.
No doubt, there will be all kinds of problems to be solved before this system is workable, but it would be a lot cheaper than the current method of incarceration. And thus a lot easier on the pockets of citizens. It is these pockets, that is, the welfare of ordinary citizens, that are more important than the welfare of these hicks. My concern here is to reduce the burdens of innocent citizens who have to foot the current $120,000 p.a. per prisoner. My primary compassion goes out towards the hard working tax payer. I also have a strong but secondary compassion for many prisoners, but, I must confess, little for gangsters. I would think that my scheme would be much more humane for them and would protect them from the barbarization that appears to affect many in the current prison system. Being in the company of “ordinary” people might be a more effective way of rehabilitating, re-socializing and re-humanizing them.
I am very eager to hear of your response to these proposals. I know that they don’t stand much of a chance, but perhaps mulling them over will at least get us out of the box to something better than we have now. Personally, I would be overjoyed if they were accepted with the proper tinkering to make them workable. Email me at boerjf@hotmail.com for discussing these proposals. Go ahead and tell me I’m crazy or cruel.
Capital Punishment?
I am not even proposing capital punishment at this point, though, according to recent polls, that would not be so outlandish, since the majority of Canadians support it (Guest Editorial, Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, taken from the Ottawa Citizen). I confess to being tempted with regard to gangster dogs and other murderers, but I hesitate because of the lengthy and expensive legal appeals capital punishment often triggers, another impossible expense for which we need to tackle the legal profession from whom I want to protect the taxpayer. One of these days I will engage in a series of blogs directed at those gowned legal gangsters.
Summary
In summary, while in Post 32 I advocate self-cleansing of the gangster world so that the police can go about the more important business of protecting the innocent, in this one I propose reducing the expense of incarceration and exchanging the barbarization of the current system with rehabilitation in the context of more civilized and normal people. Between the two of them, we would create a more humane world for both taxpayers, my primary concern, and for prisoners, even for those gangsters.
Future Discussions
The next post will show how my apparent harshness in this and the previous posts mirrors that of Christ Himself. After that, I plan to change gears. Before long I hope to start a series of posts about lawyers and the court system. You should see the files of materials I have amassed about these “friends” of ours. It’s going to take me some time to organize the material. So, have patience. We will get there. In the meantime, we will occupy ourselves with some more innocent and less volatile issues—perhaps!
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Treatment of Gangsters—Preposterous Proposals (3)
Post 32:—-
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top!
I’m not done. Stay with me.
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top!
I’m not done. Stay with me.
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
