Liberal Michael Bryant killed cyclist in ‘self-defence’ now criticizes Harper’s gun-defence comment

michael-bryant-guns

It’s take a stunning amount of gall for Liberal Michael Bryant who was charged with criminal negligence causing death (see here) after he struck and killed a cyclist:

to state PM Stephen Harper was advocating people take the law into their own hands when it comes to rural residents defending their homes:

“It’s not Canadian law,” said Bryant, who was attorney general from 2003 to 2007. “It’s vigilantism. People are going to find themselves facing the criminal justice system and being charged with serious crimes if they decide to follow what the prime minister is suggesting.” Bryant expressed concern that people will assume that they have a right to use their gun in self-defence at home.

“Canadians should not listen to the prime minister on this one at all. Resort to common sense. We don’t live in the wild west. We live in a country of law. And we have a criminal law that puts enforcement and protection in the hands of police, not in the hands of citizens.”

“He’s just wrong under criminal law, under constitutional law and it’s just incredibly reckless of him to do that,” said Bryant, who is part of the Coalition for Gun Control. (see here)

And also imagine the lack of journalistic ethics it takes for the Ottawa Citizen’s Mark Kennedy to omit mentioning Bryant’s flaming hypocrisy.

Also: See earlier post where after interviewing him, CBC’s Amanda Lang refused to disclose her relationship with Bryant to me (see here).

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Liberal Michael Bryant killed cyclist in ‘self-defence’ now criticizes Harper’s gun-defence comment”

  1. Deryk Says:

    So Bryant is an idiot. No news in that.

  2. Jen Says:

    Apparently, anyone can commit any crime and get away with it, just as long they say they are Liberals. The media not only have the liberal party mps to protect but the liberals coalition partners-The NDP mps as well. That is alot mps to keep clean after.

  3. Liz J Says:

    In order to make sense of this case and it’s convolutions in Court we need to ask whether an ordinary Joe or Jane would have gotten away with this.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: