Newsletter: April, 00

Table of Contents:

[Turning a Blind Eye to Terrorism] [Environmentalism: The Rise of Evil] [Failing Gun Registration Program] [Voices of Freedom]

Editor’s Remarks

Some people have a lot of nerve, but few have as much as the political arm of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The political arm of the LTTE in Canada consists of the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils (FACT) and the various branches of the World Tamil Movement (WTM). These two groups are well organized, aggressive and react immediately to any discussion of LTTE terrorism or the global criminal enterprises that fund it.

Last winter, the Sun newspaper chain carried a column about security threats in Canada that extensively quoted the Director of this Institute. The LTTE was cited as an example of how terrorists earn money. Two days later, the author of the column, the Toronto Sun, and the Institute were subjected to a tidal wave of harassment calls. Almost all of them followed the same script, most were from unlisted numbers and phone booths, and were both mendacious and abusive. Worse, one of the very first calls (albeit a very polite one) was from a Liberal MP. This illustrated FACT’s growing ability to put legitimate Canadian politicians into harness.

A demonstration was held in front of the Toronto Sun where FACT leaders denounced any coverage of LTTE terrorism or criminal activity as "racism" and demanded that the Sun refrain from reporting it. The "little paper that could" has been very tactful since. Fortunately, later FACT protests against the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen have not deterred coverage of the Tamil Tigers and their apologists. The same can be said for us.

by Joe Turlej

Canada’s opinion-makers have lauded their high moral stance on human rights for many years. There is no shortage of platforms where Canadian politicians have proclaimed their support for basic human rights; anti-terrorism; banning land mines; or protecting children from being conscripted into Third World conflicts. However, consideration must also be given to the inaction of this opinion elite.

Canada is one of the most fertile grounds for insurgents, terrorist groups and criminal cartels to operate — mostly by raising funds and laundering money. These are the very groups that commit atrocities on vulnerable populations around the world. Topping the list of terrorist groups that operate in Canada are the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or Tamil Tigers). Now into the third decade of fighting for an ethnically pure "homeland", there appears to be little hope for those who are suffering as a result of this gruesome terrorist/insurgent campaign. Even in Canada, where innocent civilians are fleeing the violence in Sri Lanka, they are not finding respite from the Tamil Tigers.

Australian immigration authorities have documented a case whereby a Canadian Tamil attracted the attention of the LTTE in Canada after speaking out against the terrorist organization during Sri Lanka’s 1994 election. As a result of his public views, he and his family fled from Canada to Australia. Australian authorities accepted his evidence "that the LTTE in Canada forced the closure of some newspapers, had been involved in gang warfare, and was associated with criminal activities such as drug trafficking, extortion and illegal migration." The claim was turned down, however, because the applicant did not report the threat to Canadian police and so his assertion that he could not receive protection from Canadian authorities was not accepted.

A similar claim was made by a Tamil with landed immigrant status living in New Zealand. While there, he was threatened by LTTE members in that country. Fearing for his life, he came to Canada. Again, LTTE members in Canada found him and continued their threatening behaviour. This individual next moved to Australia and claimed asylum. In the eyes of these two individuals and their families, Canada had failed them.

While LTTE criminality in Canada is posing a serious threat here, it pales in comparison to the threat it poses in Sri Lanka to Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. LTTE supporters, now well entrenched in Canadian politics, see to it that millions of dollars raised here, legally or otherwise, go to fund a brutal insurgency that has become infamous for using child soldiers (often in suicide attacks) and for "human wave" assaults.

Political assassinations have also been a staple of LTTE operations; hundreds of politicians, human rights activists and key government personnel have fallen victim to the Tigers’ vicious campaign. In one instance, a LTTE hit squad murdered a politician from a major Tamil party and his wife at the entrance to the Canadian High Commission in Colombo, Sri Lanka. On July 29, 1999 an LTTE suicide bomber killed constitutional lawyer and human rights activist Neelan Tiruchelvam — internationally known as a moderate Tamil.

There is no shortage of LTTE acts of mass violence, directed at civilians, that have a Canadian connection. Some examples:

• April 8, 1994: A Canadian LTTE operative died when a bomb detonated prematurely. Four other bombs exploded at hotels and other civilian targets overnight.

• October 26^th 1996. A Tamil Tiger assassin gunned down the LTTE’s treasurer for France and a companion in Paris. (The deceased was apparently lining his own pockets too.) The gunman is believed to have escaped to Canada and is being hidden by the LTTE here.

In 1994-5, the LTTE talked peace during a cease-fire while acquiring a massive shipment of explosives from the Ukraine through forged end-user certificates. The shipment included 50 tonnes of TNT and 10 tonnes of the plastic explosive RDX. A significant portion of the funds used to make the purchases came from LTTE fronts in Canada, who often resort to extorting Tamils here. A Maclean’s report indicated that $6.8 million was channeled from Canada, into Europe and then the Ukraine to secure these explosives. What followed was a horrific series of Oklahoma City-style attacks on civilians and infrastructure. Below is a partial list of the killings that the money the LTTE raised in Canada helped to fund:

• November 3^, 1995. A suicide unit of the LTTE shot their way into an oil storage depot in Colombo. The terrorists then used the explosives strapped to their bodies to destroy 14 storage tanks — causing $61 million in damage. They killed 23 soldiers and two civilians.

• November 24, 1995 a suicide cadre of the LTTE tried to penetrate the headquarters of the Sri Lankan Army. When stopped by guards, the first bomber detonated his explosive vest. Shortly afterwards, a second bomber detonated her vest in a crowd of civilian on-lookers. Casualties included 16 dead and 52 people injured.

• January 31, 1996. A truck bomb detonated in the Central Bank building in Colombo. Some 1,400 people were injured and 81 were killed.

• July 26, 1996, two bombs exploded on a commuter train near Colombo, killing at least 78 people.

• October 15, 1997, Another LTTE suicide bomber took a 400 kg truck bomb into the newly opened World Trade Centre in Colombo. This attack killed 18 people and wounded 100.

• January 25 1998, a LTTE Suicide squad detonated a truck bomb at the holiest site for Sinhalese Buddhists, the Temple of the Tooth. It killed 14 people. The outrageous attack was probably intended to provoke Sinhalese into communal rioting and counter-atrocities — which, in classic insurgent strategy, would be of enormous benefit to the Tamil Tigers.

• March 5 1998, a bus bombing campaign in Colombo killed 32 people and wounded 250.

• December 18, 1999, simultaneous LTTE suicide bomber attacks were made on Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga and the Leader of the Opposition days before a federal election. President Kumaratunga lost an eye in the attack.

• February 7, 2000. Seven bombs exploded on trains and buses in Sri Lanka in a one week period. Another bomb was detected and disarmed.

Canada is not living up to her responsibilities to protect civilians from harm by allowing the LTTE to operate within our country. We cannot claim to honour human rights if we permit this to continue.

Unfortunately, a powerful long-term presence in Canada is all but guaranteed. The Tigers have sustained an iron grip on the Tamil community. Moreover, with non-Tamil groups, they masquerade as a ‘protector" of the Tamil people around the world — duping numerous naive (but well-intentioned) human rights groups, activists, NGOs and government agencies. Tiger activists in Canada are quick to protect their organization’s position by fending off any criticism as "racist" and "anti-Tamil". In reality, the Tigers bear responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Tamils.

The most recent trend in LTTE operations in Canada consists of harassing and threatening mainstream media sources and reporters who document Tiger crimes and abuses here. This goes well beyond playing the "race card" as they have in the past. Until recently, the LTTE has reserved both the threat and use of violence for Canadian Tamils who do not support the cause. Harassment and threats against the wider Canadian community should be taken seriously. As Ovind Fuglerud writes of LTTE leaders in Life on the Outside: "When they speak, they do so with the undoubted authority of an organization which shares the responsibility for over 60,000 lives having ended violently in the last 15 years." This fact has not been lost on Canadian police officers; those who provide expert evidence about the LTTE and related groups wear body armour when testifying in the courtroom.

In the Spring of 2000, the LTTE made significant gains on the battlefield in Sri Lanka. On May 6^, 2000 the Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin and Maria Minna, the Minister of International Cooperation, attended a fund-raiser for an LTTE front group. This was interpreted by the Tigers as an approval for the group by this country’s leadership. Other recent manifestations of the LTTE in Canada included the presence of their activists in fund-raisers held in Toronto-area schools wearing combat fatigues and displaying replica assault weapons. Politicians from all levels of government have attended LTTE events.

Given the evidence cited above, and the appearance of federal cabinet ministers consorting with a Terrorist front group, one could conclude that the next Canadian Tamil who applies for refugee status in Australia has a reasonable chance of winning it. For a nation that prides itself on our quality of life, we deserve to be deeply embarrassed by this. Canada also stands to be cut-off from the sharing of intelligence with allied nations because of this faux pas.

Until the situation with the LTTE is firmly redressed, Canada ought to stand in silence when it comes to anything to do with the protection of human rights or public safety. Our good standing in the community of nations has been seriously jeopardized, and the safety of our citizens is compromised.

by Ray Girn

The following essay first appeared in the March/April edition of The Window, a student newspaper from UofT. This abridged version is reprinted with the permission of the author, Ray Girn — a philosophy student and columnist.

There is a dangerous mentality steadily growing in society. It is now so pervasive that it contaminates virtually every aspect of our culture. Officially, it is known as environmentalism but, in essence, it is nothing more than a hatred of humanity. At the root of the doctrine of every environmentalist organization is the nihilistic premise that human life is evil. Their defining element is not a love for truth or justice, but an unbending conviction to destroy human happiness and progress.

Human nature is necessarily antagonistic with non-human nature, and the leaders of environmental organizations implicitly grasp this truth. In fact, most of them explicitly acknowledge that their propaganda is indifferent to any of the human consequences it entails.

If you are deluding yourself into believing there is no conflict between human life and the credo of environmental non-interference, ask yourself how it is that human beings survive. Is it not by "exploiting" natural resources, including something as primitive as plucking an apple from a tree or harvesting wheat from a field originally composed of weeds? Then consider the "rights" of each microscopic organism in the ecosystems of those apples or weeds.

If, recognizing this, you then suggest a compromise, ask yourself by what standard. Life? Ultimately, then, the only thing justifiable is bare subsistence. Thus, we will all be returning to the fog of the Stone Age. Is this your view of humanity? Any other degree of compromise is arbitrary, and thus a policy of hypocrisy (by which I mean that you ignore your own principles).

If one grants "rights" to nature, then one cannot violate those rights, which means one cannot grant rights to human beings. Furthermore, one has to be able to explain to the rest of humanity why nature has "rights". Ask the next environmentalist to explain to you how he defines the concept of rights, and you will see that "either-or" prevails.

Alternatively, if you support environmentalism because you care about the future of humanity and not "nature-in-itself", ask yourself if those you support and (directly or indirectly) fund feel the same way. They do not, because such would mean the rejection of all but a handful of the monstrosities they advocate. However, they do silently allow you to superimpose your intentions onto them, and then use your money to support and promote your destruction. They do not offer you the complete evidence, which would accurately describe the suffering and starvation they directly cause. Nor do they inform you that their actions, far from being based on even a semi-plausible hypothesis, are carried out on faith - a faith so ruthlessly blind and irrational that it would put the most violent religious crusades to shame.

Their philosophy (which reduces to "by any means necessary because we want to") is indifferent to human survival, indifferent to logical or scientific justification, indifferent to morality, justice, human rights and, ultimately, indifferent to life itself. Calling them terrorists is giving them too much credit. They are more like sadists whose only pleasure in life is the destruction of it. Do not be fooled by the lush gardens they pretend to envision (perhaps even to themselves): the only logical end of their ideology is disease, poverty, suffering and death.

How can such a worldwide movement be so twisted and evil? Surely, not every professional environmentalist is so vile? No, only a minority recognizes the essence of their cause. The majority is not ignorant, but in voluntary denial. Yes, some are honestly innocent and some are too uneducated to grasp the broader picture. Theirs is the lesser evil, but their actions are still wrong, and as such are a crucial part of the problem.

In Nazi Germany, many citizens were perhaps simply trying to make a living or even to "do what’s right". They nevertheless deserve moral condemnation for participating in heinous crimes against humanity, for at some level even the most innocent chose to remain in denial. Hitler was not alone, he was supported by the masses. That their support was reluctant does not absolve them, they made his brutal vision a reality. Moreover, the Nazi philosophy was undeniably evil -- independent of the motivations of those who perpetuated it - and no one can argue that the philosophy itself should be condemned. The environmentalist movement is a virtual parallel of both the Nazis’ methodology and, unless reversed, their destructive consequences.

The following is a five-step illustration of how one becomes an environmentally conscious human being (or a Nazi soldier). It is an example in which, although the chronology or particulars may be different and more subtle, I have tried to capture and highlight the essence of the process.

Imagine a young adolescent in our society. Assume he is relatively intelligent and that, like most adolescents, he is a little confused about the world. Also like most adolescents, grant that he retains the healthy idealism that happiness is possible on earth.

One day, he comes across a protest of some kind. Hearing the activist on the megaphone and seeing their provocative slogans, he watches them. Their self-righteous confidence appeals to him. Emotionally, he is drawn to the idea of crusading for a noble cause. Psychologically, they represent a legitimate arena in which to pronounce moral judgment (a healthy, necessary human need that is usually condemned by society but here seems sanctioned by it).

One activist approaches him and hands him a pamphlet. He looks down at the headline, "Stop Cruelty towards Animals!" Cruelty, he recognizes, is a bad thing. Glancing around, he notices the appearance of camaraderie and solidarity between the activists, which sharply contrasts the loneliness of his existence. He feels a rush of some vague, comforting emotion at the sight of individuals putting aside their differences to oppose a common enemy. They seem sure of themselves, he observes, and they are standing up for what they believe in. He decides they must be crusading against a truly vile opponent.

Looking around unsuccessfully for an opposite party, he automatically registers their absence as a suggestion of their guilt. It does not occur to him that, unlike these activists, the absent others had neither the time nor the desire to be absent from work. Reflecting on the issue, he frames it as the activists arguing to stop cruelty towards animals and the absent others as defending their right to continue cruelty towards animals. Again, it does not occur to him that perhaps the absent others would deny they are being cruel. Nor does he question the unspoken assertion that killing animals is automatically an act of cruelty. Neither does he consider the definition of cruelty in this context (which also infers that a wolf is being "cruel" when it hunts deer).

Furthermore, our young subject fails to understand that the activists’ focused, angry, "holier-than-thou" resolve is an expression only of its own intensity, and not the validity of a cause they advocate. [For example, if a person calmly and peacefully declares that child pornography is psychologically healthy for the children involved, any half-intelligent person would realize he is wrong. This judgment is neither more nor less valid if instead of one calm person there is a mob of chanting, hysteric activists. This principle obviously applies vice versa as well. The validity of an argument is in no way contingent on the qualities or quantities of the people uttering it].

The boy, now watching from the sidelines, overhears an elderly person casually say, "it’s so good to see these youngsters channel their emotions into something positive. They’re a little bit of a nuisance, but their heart’s in the right place". This completes step one for the boy: Emotionally, he has accepted the intentions of the activists as noble. Although he may yet question the end, the means are sacrosanct.

Having soaked in the aura of authenticity surrounding the activists, the boy is now ready to proceed to step two. While his critical faculty is riddled with emotional bias, he is exposed to a grab bag of arbitrary, disjointed, out-of-context "scientific" facts manipulated to appear as evidence. Whatever capacities for rational thought he chooses to exercise is frustrated with technical jargon that is too rhetorical to grasp coherently. He fails to question why the sympathetic datum and the accusatory datum do not focus on the same issue. Specifically, he does not notice that the pro’s of one phenomena are compared to the con’s of another, and then in the conclusion assumed to be comparative analysis of a single case, (which is relevant only by fallacious inference anyway).

For example, the pamphlet tells the boy that 5,000 walruses were killed last year for their tusks. The next point states that walrus skin exports are a five billion-dollar industry. Then, it is mentioned that "recreational walrus hunting has increased 25% in the last two year", without mentioning from what to what (i.e. 5 recreational hunters up from 4 constitutes a 25% increase, but is hardly significant). At the end of the information, in bold letters, reads, "Cruelty towards Walruses must be stopped! Human beings do not have the right to murder .for their amusement!"

Flooded with images of brutish, bloodthirsty hunters (or greedy, corrupt CEOs), the boy actually accepts that the facts objectively prove the assertion. Any gaps he reluctantly recognizes in his logic are plugged up by a picture of a baby walrus impaled with a spear, and a toothless, grinning hunter holding the spear. Unbeknownst to the boy, the photo is 12 years old and involved an unusually sadistic man who was heavily fined for not abiding to strict seasonal and geographical hunting laws. Nor does he consider the implausibility of hunters using spears.

After this brief exposure to the activists, the boy loses interest and continues on his way. The event is eventually forgotten. However, if some time later, he thinks about environmentalism, the event will be remembered with an overwhelming sense of authenticity. The information table and megaphone will come to mind, grossly over-exaggerating the protest’s level of organization. He pushes away any peripheral recognition to the contrary, ignoring its nagging insistence to be examined. The pamphlet will be remembered as meticulously detailed and researched. A few extravagant but contextually irrelevant facts will be recalled as the highlights of a coherent, integrated analysis. He will attribute the emotional intensity to himself, forgetting that the entire scene was loaded with arousing propaganda. Alternatively, if the boy does not reflect on the experience, it has still served its intended purpose (the third step of this development): he has been primed to react favorably to the next such experience.

The favorable impression does not necessarily mean that the boy will overtly be more sympathetic or supportive. In fact, in time he may find the activists annoying. Rather, the essential element of the third step is that the boy’s guilt has been harnessed. Implicitly, he has accepted the validity of environmentalism. He will see his noninvolvement as a fault, as selfishness or indifference, as an act of immorality. This is all that is required. Activist organizations bank on the knowledge that he has neither the time, the resources, or the desire to check their premises. They know, as a worst-case scenario, he will simply stay out of their way.

If, at any time, his interests conflict with the activists, they can always rely on the seed of guilt they planted. Even when he stands up for himself (or his business or education) he will do so apologetically, silently burdened by his own shame. That is their secret weapon. Eventually, they hope, he will crack. If not, he will at least avoid standing up to them. There will be others to subvert. [As an example of this phenomenon, scientists who know how many lives animal research saves, or industrialists who know that certain regulations are scientifically indefensible, are unwilling to publicly oppose the activists].

Step five is the process by which they make him impervious to reason, in case someone offers a rational argument with objective facts and enough rhetorical talent to break through his "feeling" that the environmentalists are right. These organizations understand that the majority would not accept their nihilistic position. Most, far from having accepted it themselves, are like alcoholics who keep drinking more to deal with their alcoholism - the more sobriety shows them the reality of their problem, the more violently they turn to that problem as their solution. However, in regards to others, they are calculatingly systematic in method.

How can they best resolve the problem that very few people would openly support their premises? They compromise. Specifically, along with the images of smog or gutted seals, they add examples of cancer, poverty, and other human issues that they (according to their principles) simultaneously deny as constituting valid consideration. This policy has an added benefit: it becomes much easier to manipulate science as there is a wider pool of random statistics to employ. Furthermore, it also becomes easier to gain the support of other organizations — many of whom also oppose the primary enemy, private enterprise.

Perverting terms such as "balance" and "coexistence" and inventing others such as "speciesism" and "human-centric" allow an increased vocabulary to attack economic interests with an ethical pretense. By separating principles from their effects in a debate (even though no separation is possible in practice), they arm themselves against logic, reason, and truth without altering their movement one iota.

Returning to the boy, since objective evidence is no longer a factor in determining the degree to which he will support environmentalism, what is the basis of his involvement? As with anyone who forfeits rational analysis in any issue, his driving force becomes chance. An accurate example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, by abdicating volition (in this issue) he is now prone to psychological determinism, and his behavior will be the sum of the influences around him.

If he lands a job with a corporation, he may ignore environmentalist credos and then feel an ever-present weight of guilt, avoiding the subject whenever possible. If he happens to take an "environmentalist ethics" course (perhaps hoping to resolve the contradictions inside him), he will be assaulted with elaborate rationalizations. These will require strength of will (as well as the formal logic necessary to uncover fallacies) to defy the immense pressure of guilt urging him to stop thinking and believe.

He may become a full-fledged activist, embracing the ideology that abuses his mind. Alternatively, his involvement may be a gradual process initiated by his relationship with a girl who is an environmental activist. Or perhaps he will be feeling inadequate one day and accidentally notice an advertisement for a rally and rush into the safety of conformity. Ultimately, his level of involvement is arbitrary, determined by the only determinant left when one forgoes judgment - random events. The one constant, of course, is that his guilt will be inversely proportional to his involvement. The tragedy is that the guilt is unearned, and so easily avoidable. All he has to do is trust his mind’s efficacy and exercise rational judgment, reject anything implausible (or less plausible), and then refuse to accept the guilt they need so badly for him to maintain.

If he continues to choose not to think and, by chance, does become involved in the environmentalist movement, then the "he" in this story will become the "they". The boy will adopt the role of the activist, ready to convert others as he had once been converted.

Indeed, that is the danger of these anti-life campaigns. Most of the participants do not grasp that they advocate the suicide of the human race. The majority of the movement is mechanistic, with human cogs that do not consider the consequences of their actions. There is a psychological phenomenon, known as learned helplessness, in which an animal temporarily denied escape from suffering ceases to attempt it when the escape later becomes possible (sometimes only a matter of moving a few feet to escape shock). Most activist similarly accept the futility of thought - thought that could wipe away every shred of self-contempt that eats away at their existence - and confine themselves to crusading against implicit knowledge.

Hitler erred in putting a face to the Nazi evil. Environmentalist leaders, the ones who fully and consciously recognize their cause, are more cunning. They realize that it is more difficult to combat evil when it is faceless and formless, a smog of incoherent, empty ideas that one cannot confront or analyze.

In conclusion, be on the lookout for attempts to instill guilt in you. There is not much difference in one becoming a Nazi (or environmentalist) through denial or through ignorance. Remember that, since life must be sustained by the exploitation of some resource, anyone who does not want to exploit nature seeks to exploit you instead.

For those who have not yet noticed it, the Institute does tend towards a Libertarian perspective at times — although this is complicated by the hodgepodge of other ideologies (populist, liberal, social conservative, and anarchic) that sometimes percolate here. The complexity of perspective is compounded by the Director’s Churchillian gestalt. However, it is with great delight that we notice some of our predictions have been coming to pass.

In researching the black market in firearms in 1995, and in publishing an opinion poll on gun control in 1997, we predicted that Bill C-68, the Federal Government’s gun control law, would result in a wave of civil disobedience. While Canadians appear on the surface to be a law-abiding and placid people, it is — as we have said several times — a mistake for lawmakers to rely on this. There are limits.

When researching the black market in cigarettes and the black market in alcohol, we were appalled and pleased in equal measures by the eagerness with which ordinary Canadians decided to break the law. Sin-taxes represent both an attempt at social engineering and a blatant revenue grab by governments. Canadian consumers obviously felt little need to respect these artificial prices and sought out alternative supply sources.

Gun control likewise represents a form of social engineering. While truly dangerous weapons (handguns, automatic weapons and so-called "assault weapons") have been required to be registered well before the passage of Bill C-68, the Federal Government’s sudden prohibition of many types of registered weapons alerted gun-owners to a hostile and confiscatory administration. The banning of properly registered handguns and collector’s items was coupled with contemptuous language and behavior from the Bill’s creators and backers. Even before the passage of the bill, gun owners decided not to cooperate with it. We predicted that fewer than 40% of firearms owners would register all of their weapons — and that this figure was perhaps a trifle optimistic.

Ottawa has been traditionally eager to conceal its failures, and this practice has become stronger than ever in recent decades. So far, the Fire-Arms Registration Program bids fair to become one of the biggest boondoggles ever. Although expenditures on the Registration program are salted away in various other budgets, Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkruz and his staff have been digging out material on the cost of the program and its effect so far.

The program is a failure. In 1995, Allan Rock, then Minister of Justice, promised that the program would be scrapped if it cost $150 million. By the end of 1999, the program had cost at least $327 million and was generating annual expenses of $85 million (excluding the separate registry for Quebec). Both Rock and his successor Anne McLellan have assured Canadians that the full costs of the program would come from fees from firearms owners. As of April 2000, fees had raised $6.4 million in revenues. Interestingly, the Federal government only spent $17 million on cancer research in 1999.

The program was not supposed to take a single police officer off the street… but it has. The equivalent of 395 RCMP officers alone (plus officers from provincial and municipal forces) are involved with the program, as well as some 1,400 government workers.

Of the 3 million Canadian firearms owners (who likewise must be registered), less than 190,000 have complied — mostly because as the owners of previously registered weapons they had to comply. Another 50,000 applications are back-logged. Of the 3 to 8 million rifles and shotguns, it seems that very few weapons have been registered. However, to pad the program’s figures, a feat of bureaucratic legerdemain was performed. All previously registered handguns (plus police and military firearms) were lodged with the new registry to give it an appearance of success. But the best estimate is that, after five years, the program has only been able to account for less than 10% of Canada’s inventory of tin-can plinkers, duck guns and deer rifles.

The absent owners and guns represent a massive exercise in civil disobedience. Canadian legislators should take note.

"What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature!"

"We are a race which has achieved perfection much ahead of any country in the world"

"Tamil Culture was one of the oldest culture [sic] in the world, when British and French people were living naked"

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mackenzieinstitute@bellnet.ca