Compassion?
On October 9th of this year, an armed youth made a decision that will forever change the life of a Toronto woman. He shot her in the face. Since he is facing attempted murder charges, it is obvious his victim survived the attack, but no-one would argue her life has been forever changed in a way she never chose. Nightmares, anguish both physical and mental, a face that will perhaps never again look the same - all of this and more was forced on this woman by a criminal, a thug with no concept of compassion, and the harm done can never be undone. Yet our laws are protecting this offender from the full consequences of his decision.
Under Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act, the name of this offender is denied to the media for fear that it might have negative impact on his future. What protection was there for the future of his victim?
This 17-year-old malefactor was old enough to procure the weapon he used; old enough to choose to load and aim it; old enough to choose to fire it. Why aren't we treating him as old enough to accept the consequences of his choice? He willingly imposed unending negative impact on an innocent life. Why, why, why are we protecting him? Treating him in the manner currently dictated by our laws is embarking on a fool's errand of misplaced compassion.
Turn from this nameless wrongdoer to the famous and supposed doers of good. I'm thinking right now of Madonna. She must look into the mirror lately and find herself staring at an aging rock star, a face that is slipping a little from its formerly favoured position in the lenses of the paparazzi. What to do to recapture some of the limelight? Well, it would seem that Madge has somehow selected a Malawi orphan for the dubious distinction of being adopted by her.
Needing to "re-invent" herself again, I suppose, she has already played the boy's situation for all the publicity she could garner from it. She started out by touring African orphanages and then having her publicist issue denials to the resultant rumours that she wanted to adopt a child. Don't you have to wonder how else to explain the denial, especially since she has gone on to do just that?
The singer is supposedly "adopting an entire country" with her plans to set up an orphan care centre that could feed, shelter and educate up to 4,000 children. That's a wonderful plan, and kudos to her if she proceeds with it, but why does she need to take one of the children away from his roots to the unreality of her world? Why not leave him to grow up in the surrounds where his pride of heritage would be best nurtured?
If she has some need to adopt, why not look to her own roots? Hailing from Bay City, Michigan, as she does, she comes from a country where there is more than enough want and need for her to involve herself in. Why not adopt a native child, one languishing on a reservation that will forever curtail his/her opportunities in life? How about a child currently falling through the cracks of the foster-care system? So many of them end up as north america's version of the disadvantaged orphan. Are America's needy children just not the flavour-of-the-month orphans?
It would seem there isn't quite enough glamour and publicity potential attached to extending her compassion at home. She wants maximum camera exposure from this whole scenario and looking for a cause to care about in her own backyard just isn't going to produce it.
Under Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act, the name of this offender is denied to the media for fear that it might have negative impact on his future. What protection was there for the future of his victim?
This 17-year-old malefactor was old enough to procure the weapon he used; old enough to choose to load and aim it; old enough to choose to fire it. Why aren't we treating him as old enough to accept the consequences of his choice? He willingly imposed unending negative impact on an innocent life. Why, why, why are we protecting him? Treating him in the manner currently dictated by our laws is embarking on a fool's errand of misplaced compassion.
Turn from this nameless wrongdoer to the famous and supposed doers of good. I'm thinking right now of Madonna. She must look into the mirror lately and find herself staring at an aging rock star, a face that is slipping a little from its formerly favoured position in the lenses of the paparazzi. What to do to recapture some of the limelight? Well, it would seem that Madge has somehow selected a Malawi orphan for the dubious distinction of being adopted by her.
Needing to "re-invent" herself again, I suppose, she has already played the boy's situation for all the publicity she could garner from it. She started out by touring African orphanages and then having her publicist issue denials to the resultant rumours that she wanted to adopt a child. Don't you have to wonder how else to explain the denial, especially since she has gone on to do just that?
The singer is supposedly "adopting an entire country" with her plans to set up an orphan care centre that could feed, shelter and educate up to 4,000 children. That's a wonderful plan, and kudos to her if she proceeds with it, but why does she need to take one of the children away from his roots to the unreality of her world? Why not leave him to grow up in the surrounds where his pride of heritage would be best nurtured?
If she has some need to adopt, why not look to her own roots? Hailing from Bay City, Michigan, as she does, she comes from a country where there is more than enough want and need for her to involve herself in. Why not adopt a native child, one languishing on a reservation that will forever curtail his/her opportunities in life? How about a child currently falling through the cracks of the foster-care system? So many of them end up as north america's version of the disadvantaged orphan. Are America's needy children just not the flavour-of-the-month orphans?
It would seem there isn't quite enough glamour and publicity potential attached to extending her compassion at home. She wants maximum camera exposure from this whole scenario and looking for a cause to care about in her own backyard just isn't going to produce it.
1 Comments:
I'm surprised ... can't youths charged with violent crimes be charged in an adult court if a judge deems it? Why isn't the courts making it so? The punishment in this case should fit the crime. No thug buys a handgun without an intent being there to use it against someone. Our society doesn't condone such behaviour. We need to take people like that off the streets so the rest of us don't have to go buying guns to protect ourselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home