Something has never sat right with me about this entire incident and the resulting (lack of) coverage. JT was practically salivating at the opportunity to enact further gun control measures, almost like he was just waiting for an event like this to happen. And when it did, we never really got much coverage of the incident itself. Your piece is pretty much the only time I've seen the guy's name in print in the last few years.
I think the focus on gun control was just opportunistic. There were red flags surrounding this man for years, but apparently nobody cared until it became politically beneficial for them to pretend to care.
Not sure how you can say there was a lack of coverage of this incident & the after-math. I saw multiple news reports over various news media. There was also extensive coverage of the mass casualty report.
I chalk a lot of it up to timing. Mid-April 2020 we didn’t know if people would be left in the waiting room to die gasping as we ran out of ventilators; media and government were working 100-hour weeks on covid response and ensuring the ER and ICU system didn’t collapse. There just wasn’t the mental bandwidth.
Nah, we had all the time in the world. Most of us were sharing sourdough pictures. They kept stuff from us deliberately and did an order in council because it fit with Trudeau’s plan for more control with less opposition and oversight. This was roughly about the time when he wanted carte blanche in the house of commons to do whatever he wanted.
Wortman did not have a firearms licence, all his guns were illegal so no amount of gun control would have prevented this massacre, what might have is if the RCMP had done there job long before it occurred and investigated Wortman after several domestic violence reports. Trudeau was just grateful to have horrible event to forward his political overreach against lawful gun owners
Even playing dress up with the car , is impersonating a police officer. Still, the RCM Police did nothing. The guy was a psychopath and hurt more than just his surviving wife. Trudeau stepped up and banned guns, and looked proud. Like Kristin wrote, nothing was done , and all 120 recommendations are gathering dust -- typical for Canada, a country once known as CAN ada has become CanNOT ada
Johns gave a press conference on the anniversary of the murders wherein he disagreed with the position of the MCC’s final report which highlighted the role of domestic violence, stating that domestic violence is not in fact an epidemic.
This is, of course, absolutely inaccurate and despite quick attempts to save his job by apologizing and reaching out to stakeholders, he resigned the next day. As he should have.
I'm sorry, but where is the evidence that domestic violence is currently an epidemic? The expert report linked to in the article was authored by the Canadian Labour Congress (really? the CLC are now experts in DV??!!) and is little more than an advocacy paper with respect to workplace issues. Further, on a full reading, the main thrust of the paper is that things were exacerbated during covid due to people being locked in their homes and declining shelter spaces, again for covid related reasons (accompanied by calls for legislative changes affecting employment).
In addition, the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the report reads: As is the case in many other countries, domestic violence has likely increased in Canada since lockdowns began.
So, no actual PROOF that DV actually HAS increased (just it has "likely" increased) and an inference that IF IT HAS, the reasons are related to covid lockdowns. Again, where is the evidence that DV is an epidemic in this Country? This strikes me as similar to claims that racism has never been more rampant when it is obvious to any honest observer that there has never been less racism. Do we want to reduce DV and racism? Yes, we absolutely do. But I for one won't take seriously your suggestions/recommendations for dealing with any issue if you make unsupported claims about its prevalence. I am open to (and even welcome) receiving evidence that DV actually is an epidemic in Canada.
I found the article to be heavy on emotional appeal and light on insight. We want to reduce the rate of domestic/intimate partner violence, but the argument is using premises which don't necessarily support its conclusions:
1. If 2/3 of mass shooters have a history of DV, all this really tells us is that violent people are violent. That isn't a novel insight.
2. Will introducing new laws reduce DV/IPV if existing laws are not being enforced? Seems like a process problem within the justice system. Additions to the CC won't fix that.
3. Using the word epidemic strikes me as inccurate. Are we seeing a sudden spike in DV/IPV above the base rate or is the perceived problem the fact of the base rate itself? The former would be an epidemic, the latter is not. If we're actually talking about the base rate and not a sudden spike, then let's be upfront about that because it seems highly unlikely that the base rate will be much affected with these suggested policy changes.
100%. And the Nova Scotia example doesn't even strike me as being properly characterized as "domestic violence". This guy had an arsenal and was bent on killing huge swaths of people who were not even related to him. A quick google search yields this definition of domestic violence: violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.
People who commit extreme acts of violence are likely to commit minor acts of violence. If 68% of DV perpetrators went on to become mass shooters, then we would be confronted by a very different situation. The direction of the arrow is important.
Likewise, people who import firearms illegally are unaffected by additional restrictions on law-abiding owners.
My only quibble is using the term epidemic to describe domestic violence or DV.
I agree DV is a large problem that requires more attention and focus as an underlying cause of murder and mass murder, but the word epidemic is a medical term.
Domestic violence is not an infectious disease that one can contract like influenza.
DV is an aberrant, repugnant, often learned behaviour rooted in a loss of self control and/or in devious, disrespectful intent to exert control or inflict harm to one's partner, children, or other family member(s).
Also repugnant (and unfortunately not aberrant) is the Canadian police and political response to DV, which is usually to deny it's a factor in murder and mass murder, and instead to reflexively push to ban legal firearms while ignoring the ongoing proliferation of illegal guns.
23 were killed in the bombing of Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 108.
It was not a shooting, but it was, I think, the "deadliest mass-killing event in Canadian history", and another example of domestic violence (the perp was murdering his wife).
He had help from a couple others. All three of them were tried for murder and executed.
Studies without follow up action. To steal one of the best lines from the brilliant mini-series "Chernobyl", we should put that on our money. That has become the Canadian identity. Thank you for writing this. I know it came with a price...again.
Something has never sat right with me about this entire incident and the resulting (lack of) coverage. JT was practically salivating at the opportunity to enact further gun control measures, almost like he was just waiting for an event like this to happen. And when it did, we never really got much coverage of the incident itself. Your piece is pretty much the only time I've seen the guy's name in print in the last few years.
I think the focus on gun control was just opportunistic. There were red flags surrounding this man for years, but apparently nobody cared until it became politically beneficial for them to pretend to care.
Not sure how you can say there was a lack of coverage of this incident & the after-math. I saw multiple news reports over various news media. There was also extensive coverage of the mass casualty report.
It was different. There was a lot of unanswered questions. And the police and government were being vague.
I chalk a lot of it up to timing. Mid-April 2020 we didn’t know if people would be left in the waiting room to die gasping as we ran out of ventilators; media and government were working 100-hour weeks on covid response and ensuring the ER and ICU system didn’t collapse. There just wasn’t the mental bandwidth.
Nah, we had all the time in the world. Most of us were sharing sourdough pictures. They kept stuff from us deliberately and did an order in council because it fit with Trudeau’s plan for more control with less opposition and oversight. This was roughly about the time when he wanted carte blanche in the house of commons to do whatever he wanted.
Wortman did not have a firearms licence, all his guns were illegal so no amount of gun control would have prevented this massacre, what might have is if the RCMP had done there job long before it occurred and investigated Wortman after several domestic violence reports. Trudeau was just grateful to have horrible event to forward his political overreach against lawful gun owners
Even playing dress up with the car , is impersonating a police officer. Still, the RCM Police did nothing. The guy was a psychopath and hurt more than just his surviving wife. Trudeau stepped up and banned guns, and looked proud. Like Kristin wrote, nothing was done , and all 120 recommendations are gathering dust -- typical for Canada, a country once known as CAN ada has become CanNOT ada
It was Justin's Jacinda moment. He was waiting for it. You could just tell.
From the article:
Johns gave a press conference on the anniversary of the murders wherein he disagreed with the position of the MCC’s final report which highlighted the role of domestic violence, stating that domestic violence is not in fact an epidemic.
This is, of course, absolutely inaccurate and despite quick attempts to save his job by apologizing and reaching out to stakeholders, he resigned the next day. As he should have.
I'm sorry, but where is the evidence that domestic violence is currently an epidemic? The expert report linked to in the article was authored by the Canadian Labour Congress (really? the CLC are now experts in DV??!!) and is little more than an advocacy paper with respect to workplace issues. Further, on a full reading, the main thrust of the paper is that things were exacerbated during covid due to people being locked in their homes and declining shelter spaces, again for covid related reasons (accompanied by calls for legislative changes affecting employment).
In addition, the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the report reads: As is the case in many other countries, domestic violence has likely increased in Canada since lockdowns began.
So, no actual PROOF that DV actually HAS increased (just it has "likely" increased) and an inference that IF IT HAS, the reasons are related to covid lockdowns. Again, where is the evidence that DV is an epidemic in this Country? This strikes me as similar to claims that racism has never been more rampant when it is obvious to any honest observer that there has never been less racism. Do we want to reduce DV and racism? Yes, we absolutely do. But I for one won't take seriously your suggestions/recommendations for dealing with any issue if you make unsupported claims about its prevalence. I am open to (and even welcome) receiving evidence that DV actually is an epidemic in Canada.
I found the article to be heavy on emotional appeal and light on insight. We want to reduce the rate of domestic/intimate partner violence, but the argument is using premises which don't necessarily support its conclusions:
1. If 2/3 of mass shooters have a history of DV, all this really tells us is that violent people are violent. That isn't a novel insight.
2. Will introducing new laws reduce DV/IPV if existing laws are not being enforced? Seems like a process problem within the justice system. Additions to the CC won't fix that.
3. Using the word epidemic strikes me as inccurate. Are we seeing a sudden spike in DV/IPV above the base rate or is the perceived problem the fact of the base rate itself? The former would be an epidemic, the latter is not. If we're actually talking about the base rate and not a sudden spike, then let's be upfront about that because it seems highly unlikely that the base rate will be much affected with these suggested policy changes.
100%. And the Nova Scotia example doesn't even strike me as being properly characterized as "domestic violence". This guy had an arsenal and was bent on killing huge swaths of people who were not even related to him. A quick google search yields this definition of domestic violence: violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.
"Emotional appeal" is bang on.
People who commit extreme acts of violence are likely to commit minor acts of violence. If 68% of DV perpetrators went on to become mass shooters, then we would be confronted by a very different situation. The direction of the arrow is important.
Likewise, people who import firearms illegally are unaffected by additional restrictions on law-abiding owners.
Good article on an important issue.
My only quibble is using the term epidemic to describe domestic violence or DV.
I agree DV is a large problem that requires more attention and focus as an underlying cause of murder and mass murder, but the word epidemic is a medical term.
Domestic violence is not an infectious disease that one can contract like influenza.
DV is an aberrant, repugnant, often learned behaviour rooted in a loss of self control and/or in devious, disrespectful intent to exert control or inflict harm to one's partner, children, or other family member(s).
Also repugnant (and unfortunately not aberrant) is the Canadian police and political response to DV, which is usually to deny it's a factor in murder and mass murder, and instead to reflexively push to ban legal firearms while ignoring the ongoing proliferation of illegal guns.
23 were killed in the bombing of Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 108.
It was not a shooting, but it was, I think, the "deadliest mass-killing event in Canadian history", and another example of domestic violence (the perp was murdering his wife).
He had help from a couple others. All three of them were tried for murder and executed.
Wow, I'd never heard of that story before, so just googled it. Fascinating.
Studies without follow up action. To steal one of the best lines from the brilliant mini-series "Chernobyl", we should put that on our money. That has become the Canadian identity. Thank you for writing this. I know it came with a price...again.
This article should be widely circulated to all elected officials who are in a position to affect change.