| |
©Gregory James,
November 2006 Canada has long felt pride at having the world’s largest unarmed border. But the union representing border staff has for a very long time been asking for weapons. They fear that one of them will one day be confronted by an armed criminal and they want to be able to defend themselves. I don’t suppose it hurts any that being armed also brings with it a certain kind of self-importance and prestige, and probably a hike in pay too. The new Conservative government has agreed and announced a package that will cost the tax payer an additional $100 million in expenses. Is this really necessary? Officers tell stories about cars running the border crossings without stopping. It happens more frequently than you might think. But there must be other ways of dealing with that, such as physical barriers. What is the alternative? Is the officer to step out and start shooting at the back of the fleeing vehicle? They also tell stories of dangerous people coming to the border, usually without advance warning. Such people are often flagged when the license plate or identity information is put in the border services computer. Right now such people are allowed to enter the country where they will be stopped by highly trained professional police. What is the alternative? Will we have armed border guards, trapped in their booths, getting into gunfights with hardened criminals? Or maybe they will not be trapped in their booths, but engaging in gun battles in the open, where other travellers may be put at risk. Border officials may argue that having weapons reduces the chance of conflict. But there is no point in carrying a gun if you are not prepared to use it. The budget includes money for bullets. The guns are not props and they are not toys. The RCMP recommended against this step as dangerous and unnecessary. It smacks of politics. The government wants to look tough and publicize its law-and-order politics. Fine, but couldn’t all this money be spent where it will make a difference? How about hiring more police officers instead?
|
|
|
Home | Contact Us | Assessments and Consultations | Sponsorship
© Gregory James 2004-2007
|
||