Monday, June 20, 2005

My First Fisk, Revisited

Way back, when this blog was new, I posted my first fisking. I thought it was kinda dumb then, but on re-reading it, I see it's not so bad. Now that I have readers, all three of you, here it is again for your enjoyment (I wrote this back when the LaPierre/Peters Great Gun Debate was raging). It was brought to my attention because someone arrived at my blog by searching "Rebecca Peters". So without further interruption:

Statement by Rebecca Peters, Soros Senior Justice Fellow / International Alliance forWomen, United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice

Apparently, Rebecca Peters is a leading international gun-control advocate. From what I read, she was influential on the Aussie gun ban, and is a Soros cronie. Wayne Lapier will be debating her on Pay Per View on October 12. I thought I'd check her out, and this is one of the things I came up with.

After reading this dismal tripe I see that the focus of Ms. Peters, hhhaaaak! spit!, work, is in line with typical "social justice" types. That is, the focus is on the lowest rung of the social behavior groups of society. And yet she treats this as paramount significance to the state of the world. This group of people, in each society, should, apparently, dictate policy of wide and influential scope. I'm so agitated that I'm adding commas to every other word, forgive me...
The Resolution on illicit trafficking that is now before delegates is another laudable outcome of the Commission's firearms project. The Resolution focuses on illicit trafficking in firearms between countries. However, the international and domestic spheres are not independent of each other. The harm done by guns is felt within countries, within communities and within households. Also, every gun begins its life within a country, usually as a legal product. A gun can have a long and varied career before it crosses the border into the realm of 'illicit international trafficking'. To prevent harm from guns internationally, the most critical point for intervention is within the domestic policies and practices of individual countries. To re-state a point mentioned by the distinguished delegate of Canada and others: nations that allow guns to be freely manufactured, transferred and possessed within their borders are undermining the international community's efforts to prevent transnational gun crime.
What they're saying is what the commies used to say, that their bullshit is failing because they can't lock down the entire world. This becomes the justification for the UN as world police officer and delegation of power to the UN to dictate laws on national levels. Skip some drivel...
I am here as a representative of the International Alliance of Women, which works for de facto equality between women and men, and for the ratification and implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. For more than 20 years, IAW has been active in combatting violence against women and children in all its forms. We urge Member States to comply with the International Declaration on Violence Against Women, and to work closely with the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. Distinguished delegates will recall last month's Resolution of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, to join international efforts against illicit traffic, trade and transfer of weapons and to control excessive production.
blah blah BS about women's equality (not before the law mind you, but in terms of the usual income, employment and the rest). Now about that "excessive production," who gets to define that? I bet I know who Rebecca Peters thinks should decide.
There are many reasons why the regulation of firearms is a women's issue. One is that women and their children make up the majority of victims in civil wars and regional conflicts fuelled by the global flood of guns. Another is that women and their children are the main users of the social and health services which suffer when resources must be diverted into policing crime and arming military and security forces. However, the topic I am addressing today is gun violence in the home.
Yeah, I guess you're happy that the flood of guns didn't reach the black population of Darfur. This way, they didn't have to divert their resources away from their social and health services, lucky them.
In Canada, the national survey of violence against women found that 25% of all women had experienced domestic violence. 16% of these women had been threatened or injured with a gun or knife, compared with 4% among women victimized by men who were not their spouses.
Still shows that the lowest denominator in society is the troubling one, and that they tend to keep it among themselves, thankfully.

Domestic violence is a way of gaining and maintaining control over the perpetrator's partner and children. Here are a few examples, reported by domestic violence services, of how guns are used to do this:

* direct threats at gunpoint;

* shooting the family dog as a warning;

* sleeping with the gun nearby and threatening to shoot the wife if she 'tries to sneak away';

* wielding the gun during discussions about custody of the children;

* mock executions - holding the gun to the victim's head and pulling the trigger;

* getting the gun out and cleaning it during or after arguments.

When a woman has left an unhappy relationship, brandishing a gun may be a means of forcing her back into it, or of obtaining access to the children. When she is still in the relationship, a gun can prevent her leaving.
So we're talking about the scum of the earth, no? So why does this justify her desire to disarm the law-abiding? Put the rest of us at the mercy of the asswads focused on in her study.
It may be that by recounting these grim facts I have made some delegates feel depressed. I do not apologize for voicing a perspective which is often overlooked in discussions about crime and guns. It is an uncomfortable reality that societies must face: whether at the level of the nation or the household, guns serve as implements of injury and coercion. Women have long pointed out that where violence is concerned, the distinction between the public and private sphere leaves us unprotected where we are most at risk. A strong parallel can be drawn with the distinction between international and national policies on gun control. The international effort to restrict the flow of guns across borders must be accompanied by efforts to restrict the build-up of arsenals in private homes.
This was all summarized by DiFi a while back when she said "people have the RIGHT to FEEL safe." Except she gets to decide what it is that makes you feel safe. I FEEL safe (and a lot of other nice things) when I'm in the process of building up the arsenal in my home, but that doesn't count.

Senators ought to get tarred, feathered, and kicked out of office at the first mention of RIGHTS to FEELINGS. I thought this fisk would be more interesting, but it's kinda blah. Oh well, first try. I'll do better next time.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Rusticus said...

I feel it is my right to better fisking!

I'm going to hold my breath until you write one! Or I am going to tell on the FCC!

Really, though, not bad, not bad at all.

"I FEEL safe (and a lot of other nice things) when I'm in the process of building up the arsenal in my home, but that doesn't count."
Amen to that.

Why is it the left are the only ones with 'valid' and 'actionable' feelings? Just wondering...

6/22/2005 1:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Testing ...

<< Home