Editor’s note: Jack Todd was city columnist at The Gazette on Dec. 6, 1989, and one of the first reporters to arrive at the École Polytechnique. This essay contains his reflections on what might have been had 14 young lives not been interrupted that day.
MONTREAL – The cold drizzle turned to wet snow and in the snow the ambulances waited, the smoke from their exhausts like the breath of monsters in the chilly yellow lights.
We waited like the ambulances but colder than they, stamping our feet to keep warm, telling the sort of black jokes journalists tell themselves when they’re tired and hungry and frightened that the horror at the heart of this will be worse than anything they’ve known. Bad beyond cynicism and dark comedy and the carapace we grow so that we can go on year after year, covering the stories of plane crashes and corrupt politicians and the daughters who never came home.
Hours passed. We watched them take out the wounded, counted the stretchers as they passed, voyeurs peering into young lives that had been ripped and torn by bullets. Fourteen wounded. It was almost comforting: If there were this many wounded, there could not be many dead. Could there?
The ambulances provided the mute answer. The wounded, those who would survive, had long since been taken away. And still the great yellow beasts idled in the snow, awaiting the heaviest cargo they would ever carry – the death of 14 dreams.
[More]
Here we go again… time for the annual weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, immortalising Gamil Gharbi a.k.a. Marc Lepine, and the implication that anyone who owns a firearm is but a half step removed from him…
Agreed but I had to post it because it’s everywhere.
Canada, a place where everyone except taxpaying citizens have a gun — and a point — had one teacher in that school been “carrying concealed” this situation might not have happened.
Something to think about on this special day.
They have to keep beating this horse because they don’t have any solutions, it’s that simple. They know that gun registration doesn’t change anything. They can’t legislate against hate so they have to assume all men are hateful and do everything in their power to demean and marginalize men. Politicians are too PC to call them on it so here we are stuck on the merry go round.
mid island mike
Jack, thats assuming that teachers would want to be armed. Lets not forget, that this is Quebec which greatly favors the ‘Long Gun Registry.’
Montreal yes, but the regions where people hunt, not so much! The ” elites ” of both the Provincial Liberals and the PQ think there are votes in supporting the registry plus both like or want the power to regulate everything they can ( Uber Nanny state ) instead of Ottawa.
One big reason the Polytechnique was so bad was that the procedure at the time was to isolate the area and wait for the Intervention unit ( SWAT ) to deal with it instead of having the on the spot beat cops to act as soon as possible: This changed from the lessons learned from this tragedy. The delay gave Gamil Garbi ( why spoil the very common Québec family name of Lépine ? ) lots of time to kill unopposed and wouldn’t we be happy if an armed off duty cop taking a class had been there to oppose him ? So, if that would have been a good thing why not a woman or a man well trained and licensed and background checked at the same level as a police officer ?
As to gun laws it seems that doing something symbolic and to honour the victims, and in the vain hope of preventing something like this from ever happening again, meant that something had to be done, but rational and effective took a back seat to emotional feel good legislation.
Oh, and demonizing all men as potential mass killers was certainly ” popular ” in the media and with the feminist groups at the time.
Even in hunting territory I found little desire among people to be carrying their weapons everywhere, peering over their shoulders to see who would draw first. This idea that every second person of any authority in Canada will double as a soldier will never fly unless this land becomes a warzone.
Emphasizing that Lepine had a Muslim name cheapens the event’s importance even more than any “demonization of men” that you claim.
Safe and responsible operation of a firearm in public is not a social impossibility. Even most socialists accept that police can do it.
If civilians were properly trained and annually tested, there is no reason to assume that they would not be responsible and safe with concealed firearms.
Combined with harsher punishment for gun crimes we would have safer public areas.
Emphasizing his Muslim name is important because the other side has done it’s best to minimize/hide/suppress the information and I only think that if it’s a fact it should be out there: What we make of it can be ” racist ” or not. Attitudes can be racist, facts are not racist in themselves if they are true facts.
I only see it relevant in the sense that misogyny, or at least that men are better and in charge and what ” uppity ” woman dares to tell a man what to do or be above a man attitude, is not something unknown in Muslin men and even Muslim women who buy into it.
By the way I know at least one close friend who is married to a Muslim man who doesn’t have an attitude like this, but he is not a radical type and I hope more typical of most culturally North American Muslims. ( Yeah, I know this may sound like ” some of my friends are Muslim ” cliché, but assuming racist in any critical comment of some minority sounds like a form of prejudice to me and putting minorities on a pedestal where they cannot be criticized by anyone of another race (white ) for any reason ! ).
“What we make of it can be ‘racist ‘ or not”
Islam is not a race. The issue is “poltical islam” as neatly set out here
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html
I don’t agree with all of it , but some provocative thoughts are there. For example:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that “Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual’s relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.”
Political Islam is a problem because by definition The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and The Islamic Republic of Iran are not separating religion and state. Pakistan was partitioned off from secular India for the very reason of combining the state with a religion. That’s the problem.
I agree Islam is not a race or a racial issue but the accusations of racism are still used when ” some “ Aspects of the application of the Muslim religion is discussed or criticized.
Just tired that too many times the subject of the discussion becomes side-tracked into a discussion about what is or isn’t racism !
If we get back to the Polytechnic there are the questions of always how much should the monstrous acts of a single nutbar be generalized to a discussion of violence against women, gun control, exploitation of the tragedy by feminist and politicians and yes the ” racism ” or religion aspect can be also be used or abused depending on agendas ! In other words the whole subject gets drowned out by competing agendas and any real analysis of the why and how gets lost.
Anyway, after 20 years of going over this I’m really tired about hearing little of any real usefulness and it would be nice if we could all morn for the victims without using the tragedy to push any agendas !
“Just tired that too many times the subject of the discussion becomes side-tracked into a discussion about what is or isn’t racism !”
Right and that’s why we shouldn’t hide the murder’s name. It is not racism to declare the name. Because we need to question if there is a link between the attitude of “political” Islam toward women and the way that guy’s brain worked.
But there was no sidetrack here – only in the last 5 years, when Mark Steyn became some sort of pied piper, did the right suddenly become more interested in Marc Lepine’s muslim background than his individual state of mind and plainly stated agenda (which was to off so-called “feminists”). My point was that Islamophobia seems to trump every other concern for some, completely distracting from the real issue. You just want to find “bad muslims” to justify your hostility. That has very little to do with Marc Lepine, what he wanted to call himself or what his actual agenda was (which was not Islamist in nature).
Over-emphasizing a fact is shaping an opinion. Repeat some small detail enough times and it becomes the focus. So no, you’re not just repeating a fact, you’re trying to set the agenda.
General observation: People are so sensitive about being called racist. I wish they were so sensitive about doing it. We’d be a lot further ahead as a society.
Well said Cy!
“Marc Lepine’s muslim background than his individual state of mind and plainly stated agenda (which was to off so-called “feminists”).
A Muslim extremist state of mind and offing feminists aren’t mutually exclusive. That should have been debated a long time ago and maybe we would have saved billions on the long gun registry boondoggle.
Maybe non-political Muslims would have even encouraged that debate to stop the “hostile/islamophopia” painting all with the same brush. Which brings us back to Jean’s point of the cost of being too poltically correct.
A Muslim extremist state of mind and offing feminists aren’t mutually exclusive
Same could be said about men who:
-Were abused as children
-Whose father was abusive to women
Marc was both of these things, but you don’t focus relentlessly on abuse patterns as the root of all evil. If you’re like many rightists, you probably regard such explanations as tree-hugging-political-correctness designed to keep criminals away from the gallows.
But it’s different with the Islamic angle. We’re scared of the moooslems, so any time Islam may be a factor in bad behaviour it should automatically supercede all others. At least that’s how it seems to work.
One more thing – you don’t need to be Muslim to engage in a mass shooting but you do need a high powered rifle, and not the type sufficient for deer hunting. Thus, if any political lobby should be unfairly scapegoated it should be …
Being abused is certainly a reason but it’s still not a pass or an excuse: The difference is subtle but it is there. If we can get to a damaged person before he or she does something terrible or just to help them since not everyone who suffered abuse reacts in a violent manner it is a good thing, and understanding contributing factors is useful.
I think there has to be a balance between ignoring that he was maybe influenced by his father’s attitude towards women, possibly based on religion, and going overboard with generalization about it’s significance.
Cy I can understand that you want to caution against possible misuse or abuse of the information and I do want to respect your opinion on this. ( SMILY / COOL ).
Oh, for the last comment: Without opposition i.e. armed police or otherwise armed and timely intervention the type of firearm made very little difference as a hunting rifle and pockets full of ammunition would have given the same result given the long time it took before the police entered the buildings to do a search/rescue ….. even worse in fact since most hunting calibers do more damage so many of the survivors wouldn’t have survived being shot by a bullet designed to take out a thousand pound moose ! But this is a whole different debate about bad guns versus good guns !
A comparison of one off abuse cases with the last few decades of a global religious political movement is apples and oranges.
“We’re scared of the moooslems”
If you mean Muslim extremists, yes. They worry me particularly since they also worry Muslims. It’s normal to be worried about this given events.
“I think there has to be a balance between ignoring that he was maybe influenced by his father’s attitude towards women, possibly based on religion, and going overboard with generalization about its significance.” Exactly right. And I think we got the balance wrong by “ignoring”.
If ignoring is going on, it’s not clear in the dozens of hysterical anti-muslim screeds being churned out daily by well-paid pundits. What would satisfy your requirements for recognition – a pogrom?
And one off abuse cases? Domestic violence is far more pervasive than the < 1% of Muslims qualifying as extremists ever were. That is true in numbers (ie death and injury) and in diversity by population segment. But being scared of “abusive men” (which would no doubt include some valued members in your ranks, judging by my travels outside the GTA) hardly serves as a platform to make empire … or take oil … or force conversion … or test out missles … or appoint a new middle east hegemon.
Maybe it would be more useful to just ask -
1) What level of hysteria do you think is correct for the public to have at this point?
2) Has this level ever been reached?
3) What is your lasting solution to all of this?
Hiding the truth behind the murder’s background isn’t going to stop “hysterical anti-muslim screed”. It does the opposite, It fans the flames.
Again, comparing a global movement of radical Islam to domestic violence is apples oranges, it is illogical at best, it’s like “hide the decline” at worst.
“What is your lasting solution to all of this?”
You can’t eliminate it, any more than you can eliminate crime and poverty. It requires a constant investment forever.
But we can press for more openness and a reduction of political correctness that hides the facts. Otherwise you get billion dollar Climategates and gun registry boondoggles .
Society needs to work toward solutions by airing the facts, doing what we’re doing now, pressing politicians to do the same.
Hiding the truth behind the murder’s background isn’t going to stop “hysterical anti-muslim screed”. It does the opposite, It fans the flames.
Especially when people are programmed to think that the background alone causes the problem. Witness the screams on the Globe and Mail to know the race of the shooter every time there’s a shooting in Toronto or Edmonton. Do you think they want to know that so they can help make a citizen’s arrest? Of course not – they want to hear it’s a South Asian / Jamaican / Native /etc so they can ramble on with their usual bigoted garbage. Either way you’re feeding the mob – still it’s best not to remake “The International Jew” for their pleasure.
And if that’s not what you see happening from whipping up the mob, you’ve yet to delineate what will. You want all dirty laundry aired, I get it. What happens next? Feel free to use historical examples of what happens when a conflict gets reduced to demographic disparity.
“what happens when a conflict gets reduced to demographic disparity”
You get HRC’s nailing Rev Boisine’s demographic. But then you eventually get a judge to say the outing of the facts is what matters more than the Rev’s bigotry versus some para-legal in an HRC deciding policy according to her agenda.
Bigotry needs the light of day so that we as a society can try to override it in our daily lives.
The truth wins eventually. Meanwhile this may all be a moot point because the legacy MSM can’t “hide the decline” or whatever anymore.
You get HRC’s nailing Rev Boisine’s demographic
Redneck preachers? They aren’t a race, gender, religion or sexual preference. The HRC isn’t trying to hold anyone down – they’re trying to make life safer for those who tend to be targeted for the unforgivable sin of existing. If their tactics need to be called into question so be it – but don’t even try to class them alongside the mob or some fire & brimstone preacher trying to turn back the clock. The HRC attacks people for doing, not being. That’s the big difference.
Bigotry needs the light of day so that we as a society can try to override it in our daily lives
Who says people want to? Maybe your Toronto-centric crowd, where the conservatives would be considered too liberal for most rural ridings. Leave the megacity, nom, and the tone will change. Many of the Canadians you’ll find don’t want to make peace with “the other”, they want to eliminate it. Look at how they handle the natives – people whom they admit were here first and who share at least some culture (and in many cases a religion). Do you really give good odds for any meaningful dialog taking place?
The truth wins eventually. Meanwhile this may all be a moot point because the legacy MSM can’t “hide the decline” or whatever anymore.
The decline of the MSM doesn’t necessarily mean the truth will be told. Very few bloggers in their basement even have the facilities to find out what the entire truth is. They do have a wonderful soap-box to amplify their own prejudices and provide a few neatly edited snippets as backup though. So far only one of those things have happened en masse.
Sorry, nom, nothing personal. You just have much greater faith in the masses than do many of us.
“The HRC isn’t trying to hold anyone down”
Yes they are, in fact “Calgary judge (Wilson) struck a blow for freedom of speech by ruling that the Alberta Human Rights Commission had made several “fatal” errors in 2007“
‘Many of the Canadians you’ll find don’t want to make peace with “the other” ‘
To me that kind of Canadian is the HRC woman who does not want to make peace with me, To her, I’m “the other”. Because I don’t buy into her elitism that allows an unelected clerk like her to stand behind her bully pulpit and sentence the Rev for causing a beating that he had nothing to do with and probably never even happened. That’s 1984 right under our noses.
Cy your accusations about race exist all over the place and in many forms . Also bigotry isn’t just about race.
I do know what you mean by rural, I’ve been to Haliburton. But my experiences up there convince me that while some people are ignorant about race and gender issues we see in a mega city; nevertheless, they can be educated. I was anti-gay once upon a time, until someone I knew and liked died of AIDs and I had to rethink that. We are all capable of learning. But we need the facts and some HRC person deciding for us what the facts are is very dangerous.
Yes I do have a lot of faith in reason. The West has been working on that for the last 500 years. It is a slow process and sometimes we let science become blind faith instead of science having faith to seek the truth. We’re on the right path but it takes courage and patience.