Anything that might possibly be used as a weapon should just be banned. That’s the flawed logic of left-wing idiots like Toronto city councilor Adam Vaughan and now, apparently, Nova Scotia Provincial Court Judge Gregory Lenehan.
It’s just so much easier to ban a physical item than do something about the moron using something as a weapon, isn’t it? After all, this is Canada and we do NOT hold people accountable for their actions. It’s never the criminal’s fault they committed a crime, it’s their environment, it’s their drug addiction, it’s their “sickness”; never their responsibility.
The recent sentencing of serial pedophile Graham James to just 2 years in prison for his decades-long abuse of his hockey charges shows that quite clearly. An even more horrific example is former Harrison Hot Springs, BC, councilor David Kenyon’s sentence to 14 days in jail for his sex crimes which cannot even be discussed because of a publication ban.
Two weeks in jail for sex crimes? Seriously? It’s no wonder pedophiles the world over view Canada as a great vacation spot!
But once again I digress, as the stupid comments in court from Judge Gregory Lenehan don’t have anything to do with sexual assault or pedophilia, but with his statement that we need to ban glass bottles and mugs from bars.
“I’m beginning to think that provincial authorities should start looking at drinking establishments and prohibiting glass objects from being in there,” Lenehan said.
“Far too often the courts are dealing with a situation where somebody has grabbed either the glass that’s in their hand or a beer bottle and either smashed it over somebody’s head or into somebody’s face.
“If we had plastic bottles and plastic drinking glasses in the taverns, we wouldn’t have people suffering facial injuries.”
Yes, it’s true. Now we need, according to this so-called judge, to ban glass from bars. Anything but actually hold criminals accountable for their actions.
Judge Lenehan made his comments while handing down a pathetic conditional sentence in the case of Marissa Dawn Nauss, who had smashed Stacey Aulenback in the face with a glass at Tops’l Tavern in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia.
Smashing someone in the face is a crime. That crime is called assault. You could even go for assault with a weapon if you liked, because Marissa Dawn Nauss used her glass as a weapon.
The result of that criminal assault with a weapon? Stacey Aulenback required 7 stitches in her face to close the wound. I’m sure Stacey Aulenback is thrilled to see that her attacker won’t serve a single day in prison for the vicious assault that left her face scarred for life.
The solution to these sorts of crimes is not to ban the item used as a weapon. The solution is to hold people like Marissa Nauss accountable for their actions.
But this is Canada. We don’t do that here. It’s not Marissa Nauss’s fault she assaulted someone with a weapon, right? She was drunk… the glass made her do it… there is an endless litany of excuses used to abdicate a person’s responsibility for their actions.
The solution is never to actually hold people accountable for their criminal acts, is it? No, of course not.
This is Canada.
We’re too civilized for that.
Of all the things in short supply judicial activism and judicial lunacy aren’t two of them….unfortunately.
Regards, Don Laird
Edson, Alberta, Canada
How correct you are, Don. For supposedly educated people, some of our judges don’t have the common sense that God gave a gnat. It’s frightening.
Christopher’s opinions, which are clearly stated in his column’s title Nova Scotia Provincial Judge Gregory Lenehan Stupidly Joins the “Ban Camp”, were posted within minutes of when Beverley Ware’s article N.S. Might Have to Ban Glass in Bars appeared in the Bridgecourt, N.S., Chronicle Herald on July 18.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/118227-ns-might-have-to-ban-glass-in-bars-judge-says
By the next day, the judge’s outrageous remarks were clogging search engines as expressions of outrage exploded across the Internet.
It was evidenced that more than one person shares Christopher’s and my thoughts on anybody who so much as thinks about whispering the words ”ban” or “prohibit” in our airspace.
To my way of thinking, it’s people not inanimate products that need banning.
When a moron–drunk or sober–hurls a glass pitcher, empty or full, and breaks an expensive, oversized mirror behind the bar, glasses and/or glass shelving or hits somebody in the head with the flying object, the owner makes the moron pay damages and BANs him/her from the premises forever. You don’t ban the substance served or the container the substance is sipped from…get rid of the root of the problem.
Another who comes from a similar school of thought is Chris Schafer of Canadian Constitution Foundation.
http://www.theccfblog.ca/2012/07/ns-might-have-to-ban-glass-in-bars.html
“Coming to your local bar … plastic cups?” Schafer queries.
“According to a provincial court judge in Nova Scotia, it may be time for the provincial government (and one would assume provincial governments across Canada) to ban glass glasses and bottles in bars.”
(Maybe Chris should have eliminated that thought, even in jest; it only encourages the prohibitionists who don’t need any encouragement to ban and demonize stuff Canadawide such as smoking, guns, incandescent light bulbs, DDT. Glasses? Hey, what a great idea, all the GONGOers will yell in unison!)
Farther down in his response to Beverley Ware’s original article N.S. Might Have to Ban Glass in Bars, Chris Schafer continues: “However, why stop at banning glass glasses and bottles?”
“Why not require helmets and face masks for bar patrons? What about forks and knives at restaurants? Both are sharp and pose risk of bodily harm to diners everywhere.
“What about staircases? They pose risks to less than sober tavern patrons. Ban those as well!
“The point Judge Lenehan misses here is that inanimate objects such as glass bottles, forks, and knives, do not pose risk to bar and restaurant patrons. The idiots that decide to pick them up and use them as weapons pose the real risk.
Deal with these idiots…”
Well said.
His perfectly-sensible suggestion reminded me of a terrible incident back in 1974. A disgusting Turk immigrant took one of the three stewardesses hostage on a Canadian Pacific Airlines milkrun.
After takeoff from Winnipeg, the well-dressed man in his 40s, who wanted to go to Cyprus in a hurry, grabbed a stewardess by the nape of her hair, dragged her down into the seat and drove the blunt prongs of a silver dinner fork into her face under her eye socket.
To get to Cyprus (where the pilot had no intentions of going, I’m sure) the 737 had to refuel en route at a Saskatchewan airport where a horde of Mounties and plainclothesmen swarmed the orange jet within seconds of landing.
It was the quick-thinking, calmly-composed pilot who convinced the Turk to release his prisoner who was left in the protective arms of the authorities. The flight crew and shaken passengers carried on to Vancouver.
But the finale of this high drama, besides the tragedy of the stewardess’ face being permanently disfigured, was CP Air and most other airlines feeling compelled to replace all their elegant silver cutlery with plastic utensils.
Was it necessary to ban the silver cutlery? What are the chances some other moron would try the same stunt? The impulsive airlines did not solve the problem. The decision-makers gave no consideration to how much damage can be inflicted with a sturdy plastic fork.
As usual, the entire traveling public had to suffer the consequences of one deranged lunatic. Because of that ingrate–a foreigner that Canada had graciously invited to come live in our friendly, peaceful country–the royal mid-air meals on Empress flights could never be enjoyed in the same style again when dining with plastic picnic forks.
Due to that hostage-taking Turk over Winnipeg, can you imagine serving the Queen an elegant meal picnic-table style on paper plates and plastic utensils in order to “save” the China, crystal and silver from wear and breakage and to protect the Queen from possibly hurting herself?
Nope.
Then where does a whimpering society get off on the stupid notion that every time some bozo pulls another stupid stunt that somebody has to go running to the government pleading for another “ban it” law?
In case you missed the sage words of Brian Lilley from Lilley’s Pad, in response to Chris Schafer’s blog, here are his sensible thoughts on the subject.
http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/the-nanny-state-wants-to-make-drinking-safer/
“Obviously this judge has never been in a bar fight, watched a bar fight or been in a tough part of town,” says Brian Lilley.
“I’ve heard of people using chairs as weapons before, let’s ban those. I’ve seen people smashed against bars before so let’s take the physical bar out of the bar.
“And tables have pointy corners sometimes so only round ones. On second thought, tables can be used as weapons so let’s ban those unless they are made out of cushy foam that never hurts anyone or the environment.
“Or here is a better idea…..how about Judge Gregory Lenehan sticks to applying the law and leaves crafting the law, social policy or the stemware regulations to those responsible for such things.
“Buffoon.”