My Thoughts on the Montreal Massacre

John Orth
December 7, 2004 (Addendum, November 20, 2005)

 It is time once again for our annual exercise in self flagellation - the Montreal massacre memorial. As the media suggests, this event does indeed reveal a great deal about Canadian society, but it is not what they are telling you.

It reveals that liberals have near total control of our news media, and how they shamelessly suppress any information that tends to discredit their worldview. In his book 'The Bias Against Guns', author John Lott explains how the US media deliberately excludes important information when reporting on gun control issues. He uses the media coverage of the Appalachian Law School shooting to illustrate his point.

For the benefit of those who don't remember it, I will provide a synopsis of this event. In January 2002, a student at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia, Peter Odighizuwa, went on a shooting spree with a .380 caliber handgun. He killed three people before he was taken into custody by two other students, who had retrieved guns from their cars.

Amazingly, of 208 news reports in the week after the event, only four mentioned that the students had halted the massacre by using their own guns. Most stories simply noted the attacker was "restrained by students" or that "students tackled the gunman". The students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, gave interviews to over fifty reporters. It was not lack of knowledge that caused this omission. The information was deliberately withheld, because liberals will not report any story where guns saved lives.

Similarly, there is one critically important fact regarding the Ecole Polytechnique shooting that has been deliberately excluded from virtually every news report of the past fifteen years - the murderer's true name was Gamil Gharbi.

Mr. Gharbi was the son of an Algerian Muslim. His father was a convicted wife beater. His mother testified at their divorce hearing that he had "a total disdain for women, and believed they were only intended to serve men." Mr. Gharbi changed his name to Marc Lepine when he was eighteen. Of course, the liberal media does not want you to know this, because it would reveal that their entire analysis of the massacre is complete nonsense. For fifteen years we have been told Mr. Lepine was a product of North American culture, and this culture is to blame for his hatred of women. Mr. Lepine's violent misogyny was merely a more extreme manifestation of attitudes present in most Canadian males, so the feminist theory goes. The truth is, Mr. Lepine was a product of North African culture. Canadian males in general resemble Mr. Lepine about as closely as we do the September 11 terrorists.

To the best of my knowledge this information has been mentioned only four times in a Canadian newspaper - in the Montreal Gazette the day after the massacre, in a 1999 Toronto Star article, and twice in the National Post in 2002, in articles by Diane Francis and Mark Steyn. Of course, the 1999 and 2002 articles came too late to help Canadian gun owners. As a response to the shooting, the Progressive Conservatives passed Bill C-17 in 1992. The Liberals then upped the ante with Bill C-68 in 1995. At the time these pieces of legislation were passed, Mr. Lepine's true identity had not been disclosed once in a newspaper outside of Quebec. (If someone is aware of a paper that did reveal this information, I would like to know.)

If you think you are getting the whole story by listening to the CBC and reading the Toronto Star, you are living in a fantasy world. When dealing with contentious issues, these sources are about as reliable as Pravda.[1]

It reveals that our twin policies of Multiculturalism and Massive Immigration have been tragic failures. As I have noted elsewhere, the invasion of Afghanistan revealed that there are cultures where women are treated worse than dogs. There are countries where women are not permitted to leave their house unless they are accompanied by a male relative. They must dress all the time in hot, heavy, black burkas. They are not allowed to attain any more than a grade school education. There are cultures that perform genital mutilations on pubescent girls. There are cultures where arranged marriages are the norm. There are many cultures where polygamy is acceptable. In fact, modern Western society is one of the few places where women have achieved parity with men.

Yet our twin policies of multiculturalism and massive immigration bring millions of people from societies like these to Canada, then encourage them to set up self contained communities and retain their own system of beliefs. Frankly, with stupidity like this, I am surprised there have not been more incidents like the Montreal massacre.

Let me be crystal clear about one thing. It is liberals who are responsible for importing and encouraging misogynist cultures. It is liberals, therefore, who must ultimately bear responsibility for the Ecole Polytechnique tragedy.

It reveals that Canadian feminists are actually socialists masquerading as feminists. There was a time when a feminist was a woman who fought for the same rights as men - the right to vote, the right to attend University, the right to run for political office, etc. These rights were all attained long ago. What then, do modern feminists fight for? Quite simply, they are campaigning to replace male/female relationships with government programs. This is not feminism. It is socialism.

An excellent example of this type of distorted thinking can be found in an editorial on the Montreal massacre by Shelley Page, which appeared in the November 20, 2004 Ottawa Citizen. Ms. Page describes pre-printed postcards that are to be sent to Paul Martin. What do these cards demand? I will let Ms. Page tell you in her own words:

"Postcard one: Women need affordable, safe housing for women. Postcard three: Mr. Martin, welfare should help women get back on their feet, but rates are below poverty levels. Postcard five: Women need a national child care program. Postcard six: We need higher wages and federal proactive pay equity legislation. Postcard 10: Women need to know they have protection from the justice system because restraining orders only work if enforced."

Think about what she is saying. In any society based on the family unit, the father and mother together provide housing, money, protection, and parenting of children (i.e. all of the things she is requesting in her postcards). Ms. Page wants to remove the father, and replace him with a government program. This is pure socialist dogma, and a Faustian bargain for women if ever there was one.

A true feminist would be campaigning for concealed carry laws, so she could protect herself when threatened with violence. A true feminist would want to take control of her own security. A true feminist would not want to replace a dependence on men with a dependence on the government. Alas, it appears there are no true feminists in Canada, only socialist imposters.

It reveals that socialists with a political agenda have no shame, and will hijack memorial services to further this agenda. An article in the December 7, 2004 Toronto Star reported on the Montreal massacre memorial services. "Canadians around country honour dead" the headline noted. Really? Is that what they were doing, honouring the dead?

There is another Canadian disaster that shares the same anniversary as the Montreal massacre. On December 6, 1917 an ammunition ship exploded in Halifax harbour. Two square kilometers of the city were flattened, and over two thousand people killed. Many more were injured or blinded by flying glass. Why are there no nation wide memorial services to honour these dead? Is it because the event is too long forgotten? No. After all, we still honour Queen Victoria's birthday, and that was in 1819. The straightforward explanation is that there are no memorial services for the victims of the Halifax explosion because such memorials would not help socialists promote their political agenda.

In truth, most of the December 6 memorial services are not simply 'honouring the dead'. They are recruiting the dead to act as martyrs for a cause they did not support while they were alive. Of all the underhanded tactics the left uses, this is perhaps the most despicable.

In her Ottawa Citizen article, Shelly Page wrestles with her conscience over this issue. "I've have always felt uncomfortable when people's deaths are misappropriated, used for something other than they stood for. Is this what the 14 women would have wanted?" she asks. Ultimately, the allure of fourteen good martyrs must have proved too powerful, for the bulk of Ms. Page's editorial does indeed misappropriate their deaths. Well, at least she is having pangs of guilt over this, which is more than I can say about 99% of her compatriots.

It reveals the anti-male bias of our media. By an odd coincidence, there was a domestic homicide in Toronto a few days before the anniversary of the massacre this year. Andrea Labbe murdered her husband and one of their three children, severely wounded a second child, attacked the family dog, and then committed suicide. For the first couple of days it was not clear whether the husband or wife was the killer. On Friday December 3, 2004 the Toronto Star noted the mother was now the prime suspect. The paper went on to detail how she may have suffered from postpartum illness, and extensively quoted friends and relatives about how she was a loving mother and wife. Then, the story dropped out of sight.[2]

Three days later, on December 6, the Star editorialized about the Montreal Massacre "Little has changed for women at risk". The article went on to list several domestic violence cases that had occurred in Toronto over the previous few months. (Needless to say, these were cases where men had assaulted or murdered women.) Amnesty International has called violence against women "the world's most pervasive human rights violation" the article claimed. The Star concluded by noting there was "little room for (Lepine's) terrible killing spree to be seen in a vacuum."

Let's recap, just so you are clear on how this works. If a woman kills her husband and children, it's because she was sick and couldn't help herself. She was a loving mother and good wife. It certainly doesn't say anything about society as a whole, except that we should probably be spending more money on women's mental health issues. If a man kills his wife and children, it is because there is an epidemic of male violence in our misogynistic society. The murderer was a filthy, wife beating bastard, and all men should be ashamed to have a penis because of what he has done. Understand? Heads they win, tails we lose.

By the way, here is a little known statistic that you are not likely to hear on the CBC or read in any Canadian newspaper - more children are killed by their mother than their father. You will not hear this fact for the same reason you will never hear the name Gamil Gharbi, because our liberal news media will ruthlessly suppress any information that tends to discredit their distorted view of the world.

Conclusion: I have always noticed that I felt a strong urge to vomit when listening to, or reading, reports of the Montreal massacre. It wasn't until I sat down and composed my thoughts on this issue that I realized why. Vomiting is a natural response when you are being force fed bullshit.


1. There is a sharp contrast between the way the media has handled the Gharbi/Lepine name change with the way it has reported the names of two other famous Canadian murderers - Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. Astute readers may recall that shortly before they were arrested for the murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, Homolka and Bernardo changed their name to 'Teale'. Although news reports at the time of the murders did often refer to them as Teale, a consensus seemed to quickly develop that this name change was illegitimate. Within a short while, virtually every news outlet began calling them by their original names - Homolka and Bernardo, and have done so to this day. Strange that the media insists on referring to Mr. Bernardo by his original name, then does the exact opposite with Mr. Gharbi.

2. The Star was not the only paper to jump on the postpartum bandwagon. For several days following the murders The Globe and Mail ran a series on postpartum depression. This is in spite of the fact that experts say seven months (the age of Labbe's youngest child) is an exceptionally long time for a postpartum link. In addition, the murder of her husband does not follow normal postpartum patterns. Finally, she left a note, which demonstrates premeditation. This too is very unusual for a postpartum sufferer. (The Western Standard, January 31, 2005)