Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
MONTREAL — Thousands attended somber memorials marking the 10th anniversary on Monday of Canada's worst mass murder, the slaying of 14 young women by a gunman in a hate-filled anti-feminist rampage at the Universite de Montreal's engineering school.
Montreal public schools were closed in memory of those who died in the Ecole polytechnique massacre on December 6, 1989. About 7,000 teachers and school employees gathered at the city's main hockey arena for a morning of speeches and musical performances led by children. The theme was a plea for an end to violence against women.
At noon, hundreds of engineering students paused in their end-of-term studies to attend a brief ceremony in front of a commemorative plaque for the 14 victims. As dark rainclouds hung low over the Ecole polytechnique, nestled on the flank of Mont-Royal, a wooded hill overlooking the city, hundreds listened, many with tears in their eyes, to a succession of tributes to the young women.
Presenters read aloud the name of each of the victims. Speakers said the massacre has not deterred women from pursuing their dreams of higher education in any field.
"Ten years after, the number of woman has almost doubled at Ecole polytechnique, proof the tragedy has not diminished women's interest in engineering,'' said one student.
Monday's ceremonies were the culmination of a full week of memorials in Montreal and other Canadian cities.
Many Canadians observed a minute of silence across the country to mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
"What happened on December 6 made people take notice that violence against women was a significant issue, that is was not just a private problem,'' said Anne Schroder, spokeswoman for Status of Women Canada, a federal agency promoting gender equality. "Someone had purposely gone out and taken aim at women specifically because they were women.''
Speakers at the ceremonies pointedly did not mention the name of the killer, Marc Lepine. The 25-year-old gun-loving recluse entered the school armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle and knives and systematically shot female students and employees while shouting anti-woman epithets.
"You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists,'' eyewitnesses said Lepine shouted at one point during the fatal fusillade.
In a 20-minute shooting spree, Lepine shot and killed 14 women and injured another 13, including four men, before turning his gun on himself. Widely known as the "Montreal Massacre,'' it remains the deadliest single-day mass shooting in Canadian history and ranks among North America's worst despite a recent rash of U.S. school shootings.
In a rambling, incoherent suicide note found on his body, Lepine said that "feminists have ruined my life,'' and lamented that he would not have time to kill 19 other Quebec women on a hit list attached to the letter.
The shooting sparked a national debate on gun control that led to a controversial federal government law creating a registry and licensing system for firearms owners.
"We took action with one of the toughest gun control laws in the world and by making the justice system more responsive to the needs of women who experience violence,'' said Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien in the House of Commons in Ottawa.
If I had known you were going to post this, Brian, I would have given my reply to this thread instead of the "Gun Control Gaining Political Prominence" thread. I am glad you posted this though. I also know what the reaction will be. Ah well, I tried.
What a load of crap! Chretien and the Women's groups are just as bad as Clinton at Littleton.
Lepine was a NUT. He was not expressing a patriarchal society's hatred toward women, he was expressing his insanity, right up to and including the moment he blew his diseased brains out.
As usual the political opportunists are front and center, crying crocodile tears and telling us what we should think.
Well, I guess I will just have to drag it over here.
Just to put to rest all those nasty rumours that Free Republic only allows one side of an issue to be discussed, let me give you a few lines from the mother of a young girl who was murdered along with 13 other young women on Dec.6,1989 at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
"What started as a response to the tragedy at Polytechnique became a national effort to save lives. The deaths of our daughters forced people to consider the terrible toll exacted by guns. Despite the widespread support for the new law ( i.e. liscensing firearm owners)in every single province, a number of provinces are challenging the law before the courts. We will join other violence-prevention groups in defending the law in the Supreme Court of Canada. Gun control is essential to achieve the more peaceful society that we all promised to work for after Dec. 6, 1989. And as we watch events unfold around the world, we know Canada is on the right track. This law brings us in line with most developed countries."
This presented only in the interested of an unbiased Free Republic. I know the majority, heck, probably ALL of you disagree but just wanted the other side to be presented :-).
TRUE FACTS:
1. The type of gun used in the Montreal Massacre (a Ruger Mini-14) was not banned when a law was made as a result of the outcry over guns.
2. If you had a gun that suddenly became banned, you HAD TO TURN IT OVER to the police. You received NO COMPENSATION, even if you had bought the gun the day before the law went into effect. Some people had bought expensive black powder guns, but because they were .50 cal, they became banned. They lost their guns and were not entitled to any money - since the Canadian Constitution has no protection or recognition for property rights.
Just thought you might like to know. See any similarities to events in the USA?
First, I've seen this statement and I'm not sure the maker is the mother of a "young girl" (engineering grad) killed at L'Ecole Polytechnique. I think this statment is attributable to a young female spokesperson for the coalition for gun control. Her group is pro-gun control and pro-confiscation. The Lepine massacre was certainly not the impetus for the Canadian gun licensing and registry debacle. The Chretien government (the proponent of the scheme) did not even get elected until years after the killings. The killings did provide the impetus for a ban on Mini 14s and high capacity clips for semi-autos which is what the killer used.
Presently the Chretien government and the gun control coalition are trying to capitalize on these 10 year old deaths in order drum up support for the horrific white elephant that their gun control registry has become. Anyone can see that registering guns would not have prevented Lepin from killing these women. His gun was legally owned and there was never any need to trace it to him after the crime: it was still in his hands.
The women's groups are out in force on this tragedy as well, again co-opting it to their agenda. They claim it represents "the culture of violence against women" and is a wake up call to Canadians about gun violence against women in Canada. Again, bull crap. Lepine was a nut. Period. He didn't represent anything except insanity. By suggesting he represents violence against women, these silly dykes happily tar all men in Canada with the same brush. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that all men are partially responsible for Lepine's actions.
I can remember when this tragedy first happened, the lumberjacket wearing "feminists" were "banning" all men from attending memorial services for those killed. The ban included the womens' fathers, brothers and any other male relatives. They tried to sell it as a healing time which men, who were indirectly responsible for the deaths, could not understand or appreciate.
These people are lying parasites who are willing to piss all over the memory and the graves of these young women in order to sell their rabid anti-male dogma to the liberal intelligentsia dwelling in the ovary towers of Ottawa.
The biggest tragedy of all is that the deaths of these women could likely have been prevented if just one person in that whole school had been carrying a sidearm. Unfortunately for Canadians, they are not qualified to protect themselves. They die like penned sheep and then call for bans on the only tool they could efficiently use to prevent the deaths. Fools.
Thanks Melinator, well thought out post, it deserves copying for my own special collection of great posts. I well remember a young man at the school being quoted as saying "I feel I have to apologise for being a man". I hope you have seen the accounts of the two lesbians who were briskly turned away from a psychiatric facility in Toronto. One shouted(expletives deleted) "you'll read about us in the papers tomorrow. One stabbed an undercover police officer to death, the other urged her---"do it, do it". Both found guilty, awaiting sentence now. A decent family man,with wife and children ,now dead. No, you wont hear a peep about these types of losers from the likes of Judy Rebick et al. Never mind, your post says it all--thanks.
Quoting from an interview of professor/economist John Lott, (author of the book More Guns, Less Crime) in the January 2000 issue of Reason magazine:
" Right after the Columbine attack, a friend of mine dropped off his kids at a public school in Seattle, and he e-mailed me afterward because there was a big sign in front of the school that said, ‘This is a gun-free zone.' The question I had was, if I put up a sign like that in front of my home, would I think that people who are intent on attacking my home would be less likely, or more likely, to harm my children and my wife? You may be trying to create a safe area for your family, but what you've ended up accidentally doing is creating a safe zone for (criminals), because they have less to worry about."
Mr. John Lott has it right. There should be a federal law: All gun-control liberals should be required to place large 4' by 8' signs in front of their houses saying, "This is a gun-free house." They should be required to have bumper stickers on their cars saying, "This is a gun-free automobile," and they should have to wear clothing with this on the backs, "this is a gun-free person."
Let the liberals meet the requirements of that law and we would soon learn whether or not being gun-free lowers the crime rate.
First, I've seen this statement and I'm not sure the maker is the mother of a "young girl" (engineering grad) killed at L'Ecole Polytechnique. I think this statment is attributable to a young female spokesperson for the coalition for gun control
Wrong. This was taken from a letter to the editor in a newspaper today by the mother of one of the murdered girls.
By suggesting he represents violence against women,
Not a suggestion - simple fact - he WAS. From an eyewitness report "The gunman had separated the females from the males in the students' class and ordered the men out of the room. Then the shooting started."
I can remember when this tragedy first happened, the lumberjacket wearing "feminists" were "banning" all men from attending memorial services for those killed
I do agree with you on this one. The feminists did take advantage of this tragedy, which says more about them than the cause of the tragedy.
The biggest tragedy of all is that the deaths of these women could likely have been prevented if just one person in that whole school had been carrying a sidearm
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
What a nice compliment. You're welcome.
I guess the mother and the Coalition must be reading from the same press release.
I don't see how Lepine represents violence against women in Canada. He was a suicidal madman. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah (sp?) building, did you conclude that his act represented the culture of violence in America? Of course not. So why Lepine? Is it possible you have fallen for the feminist dogma?
Finally, I am most disturbed that you would disagree about these women being in a position to protect themselves from Lepine. Every day women use firearms to protect themselves from rape, robbery and murder. When one of these killings starts, who stops it? The guys with the guns. How can you conclude that these law abiding, sane women should be denied the only effective tool available if they wish to protect themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |