A nineteen year old Montreal resident has this week pleaded guilty to arson. In April he set fire to a religiously based children's school. Fortunately, there were neither injuries nor loss of life but the resulting fire caused damage of more than half a million dollars. A note left at the scene, which the guilty man admits writing, indicates that the fire was set as a direct retaliation for events in the Middle East. Indeed, the note promised further consequences if world events did not unfold in a different way in the future.
So, having confessed his guilt, what does the young man now have to say about his action? A Canadian Press story released this week exposes some very weak and pathetic responses.
First, the man says that his actions were "inappropriate." One wants to inquire as to just when intentionally burning down a school in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, is "appropriate." When you belch audibly at a dinner party that is inappropriate! When you burn down a school that is called a criminal action.
To further explain his actions the man is quoted as saying, "I just showed my emotions in the wrong way." No! The truth is, he had the wrong emotions. No matter how aggrieved he may feel about events in another part of the world, attacking the persons or property of people simply because they happen to subscribe to the same religion as those he wishes to vilify half a world away is wrong. There is no right way to express hatred and the desire for revenge.
Apparently the young man's father told the presiding judge that "his son is a good person who made a mistake." What a sad commentary that is on things! I don't know what a parent can say in a situation like this, but this father's comment seems to demonstrate the same inadequacies as the son's. The son does not appear to be experiencing remorse. After all, what he did was merely inappropriate.
The maximum sentence for this crime is 14 years. The report indicates that the father is pleading that the son not be sent to jail but is asking that the judge "impose difficult conditions" concerning probation. OK. Perhaps he should start with paying for the damages to the school as well as the court costs.
Though they are part of the public record, I have chosen not to mention the religious affiliations of the respective parties in this case. The reality is that it doesn't matter who does it to whom! Hatred and and a spirit of revenge are not merely "inappropriate" they are morally wrong!
(This post is based on a Canadian Press story as published in the Hamilton Spectator on Friday, December 17th., 2004.)
So, having confessed his guilt, what does the young man now have to say about his action? A Canadian Press story released this week exposes some very weak and pathetic responses.
First, the man says that his actions were "inappropriate." One wants to inquire as to just when intentionally burning down a school in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, is "appropriate." When you belch audibly at a dinner party that is inappropriate! When you burn down a school that is called a criminal action.
To further explain his actions the man is quoted as saying, "I just showed my emotions in the wrong way." No! The truth is, he had the wrong emotions. No matter how aggrieved he may feel about events in another part of the world, attacking the persons or property of people simply because they happen to subscribe to the same religion as those he wishes to vilify half a world away is wrong. There is no right way to express hatred and the desire for revenge.
Apparently the young man's father told the presiding judge that "his son is a good person who made a mistake." What a sad commentary that is on things! I don't know what a parent can say in a situation like this, but this father's comment seems to demonstrate the same inadequacies as the son's. The son does not appear to be experiencing remorse. After all, what he did was merely inappropriate.
The maximum sentence for this crime is 14 years. The report indicates that the father is pleading that the son not be sent to jail but is asking that the judge "impose difficult conditions" concerning probation. OK. Perhaps he should start with paying for the damages to the school as well as the court costs.
Though they are part of the public record, I have chosen not to mention the religious affiliations of the respective parties in this case. The reality is that it doesn't matter who does it to whom! Hatred and and a spirit of revenge are not merely "inappropriate" they are morally wrong!
(This post is based on a Canadian Press story as published in the Hamilton Spectator on Friday, December 17th., 2004.)
No comments:
Post a Comment