A note about rewards

A special note to our backers, to let you know that all the rewards have now been shipped. Please give it two weeks or so for yours to arrive (the last batch left Ottawa late on the night of Dec. 23, and with the holiday schedule it’s hard to predict how long it will take for yours to arrive).

We also wanted to tell you that we now have copies of the digital version and of the DVD available for sale, if you have friends who would like one. Here are the links: Digital, DVD, blu-ray, DVD from Amazon.com for non-Canadian shoppers.

Many thanks again for your support and we hope you share the film widely.

Backers! Please review the credits

The movie is thisclose to being ready, but we need you to do a little something for us first. Please have a look at the credits (below) and check that your name is there and as you wanted it spelled. Or, if you wanted to be left out of the credits, that your name isn’t there.

Please note that there are two categories of backers. Make sure to watch/scroll to the end. If you notice a mistake, or if you want a change, please email us at bp@brigittepellerin.com BEFORE DECEMBER 3 and we’ll get it fixed.

Thanks!

Back on the road we go

Great news! We are taking a tiny break from editing our Fix the Constitution project! (Some of us are more ready for a break than others; it’s great fun but a touch relentless, this editing job…) We are leaving very early Saturday morning for a quick trip to Philadephia via Vermont and the south shore of Montreal to do a little more filming for the Right to Arms project. We are also taking two days off while on the road to enjoy our long-delayed summer vacation. (Yes, two days. In September. It’s been that kind of summer.)

We will keep you updated on our filming progress as usual while we’re on the road.

Why our project matters

Because of stories like this one.

Regular folks don’t have the right, in the normal course of events, to take the law into their own hands and enforce their own justice. But regular folks do have the right to defend themselves and their families, fellows and property, against threats.

We were not there when the son in this story chased down one of the thugs who was attacking his mother. We don’t know how much force he used. Generally speaking one is not allowed to use force that is greater than what a reasonable person would have used in the same circumstances, and this always varies depending on the details of each case. We were not there, we didn’t see it happen, we do not know whether undue force was used in this particular case. But we know this: When the state prosecutes regular folks who were suddenly put in a very difficult situation where they had to react quickly to avoid or deal with a very dangerous threat harder than it prosecutes hardened criminals with a rap sheet this long for attacking and threatening innocent people, we no longer have a state that protects decency and order and we must – peacefully but firmly – work to change that.

“We must denormalize this attitude”

Just rewatched a great speech our friend Brian Lilley gave to a group of Albertans last year, two years after the High River gun grab. We are a year later and “this attude”, that gun owners’ rights don’t matter, is still very much alive.

Like Brian, we say this: It’s not about guns. It’s about your fundamental right to self-defence. And we need to help people understand that. That’s the purpose of our documentary.

As one of our backers, Bryan Moir, put it on Facebook today:

While we decry the actions of the state police I wonder how many of you will speak or spoke with your wallets to fund the work and documentary underway by John Robson? without solid historical and legal precedent conveyed in a way so all can understand FB posts are nothing more than yelling down a well.

There is still time to make a contribution to our project and add your name to the credits. Visit the “Help us” page for details.

Of guns, crime and terror

Reposted from John Robson Online:

The recent terrorist attack in Orlando has prompted some people to call for Americans to surrender their right to bear arms. It’s understandable that they would try to exploit the tragedy. But it is not a rational response.

We see that particularly by comparing the Pulse nightclub massacre to the November 15 terrorist attack in Paris, where firearms and explosives were used to kill over 100 people including 89 at the Bataclan theatre. France has strict gun control laws. They didn’t keep the bad guys from getting guns. But they did keep the victims from fighting back. And at the Pulse nightclub, for whatever reason, no patrons seem to have been armed.

Then there’s the June 28 attack at Istanbul airport, using explosives and, again, firearms that Turkish citizens and residents are emphatically not allowed to own. And a correspondent has also noted that the murder, apparently an act of insanity rather than terrorism, of British MP Jo Cox, involved a firearm in a nation that in recent years has brought in very strict gun control.

Cox was shot using a weapon that was by various reports either an antique or improvised. But she was also stabbed. And the knife wounds alone would very probably have proved fatal; London has seen a gruesome jihadi killing using a car, knives and a cleaver. In any case there are also millions of illegal guns in Britain readily available to criminals and maniacs. But no law-abiding citizen present when she was attacked was armed and able to shoot the attacker before he could stab Cox repeatedly and fatally.

The notion that stricter gun control will prevent or reduce terrorist incidents, or acts of insane murder, simply doesn’t fit the facts. Terrorists can use explosives, as in the 7/7 attacks in London. And both they and thugs can easily get firearms even when ordinary citizens cannot, because of the by now familiar point, at least it should be familiar, that criminals don’t obey the law.

When trying to explain similar events, it is important to focus on the elements they have in common especially if we are the sort who boasts of “evidence-based decision-making”. And what we find in these attacks is jihadist motivations and the ability of bad guys to get weapons including firearms regardless of local laws. Yet people were also quick to attribute the Pulse nightclub shooting to Western homophobia, very curious given that the assailants were adherents of an austere, nihilistic and ferociously anti-Western brand of Islam. Oddly, there was little attempt to link the Bataclan attack to dislike of cosmopolitan or hedonistic lifestyles, even though that was an important aspect of the Paris terrorists’ choice of target. And it’s hard to see how homophobia could have motivated the Istanbul attack.

To exploit such incidents to push arguments against gun control or social conservatism is understandable, even predictable. But it’s not rational. And it’s not very nice eith