Tofu Terrorism

              It’s like déjà view. On January 25, 2010 Fisheries Minister Gail Shea was delivering a speech at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, ON when a woman pushed a tofu cream pie into her face. The reaction? A Liberal MP suggests the federal government look into whether the pieing constitutes as an act of terrorism. MP Gerry Byrne [Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, NL] believes what happened should be reviewed under the legal definition of terrorism, which is as follows:

Noun

• S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear) [WordNet Search]

              Animal-rights group PETA claimed responsibility for the incident. It said that the pie was part of its campaign “to stop the government’s ill-advised sanction of the slaughter of seals”.  Emily McCoy, a 37-year old American activist was taken into custody and charged with assault after the pieing [there’s a new word for you Oxford]. McCoy was not the first pie-er [making up words is fun] in Canadian history. In 2000, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien was hit in the face with a pie by a protestor in PEI. In 2003, Jean Charest was pied when he was elected Quebec premier, as well as then-Alberta Premier Ralph Klein who was hit with a pie at the Stampede breakfast. There were two pie attacks in 2007. All pie-ers were given jail time.

           After wiping pie from her face and returning to the podium, Gail Shea [Prince Edward Island riding] said that the incident only strengthens her resolve to defend the hunt. Shea did not require medical attention.

              There are definitely certain things that people can read from the incident and its aftermath. The pie in the face is symbolic of the freedom people have to express attitudes towards certain situations. The aftermath suggests you have to find a less interactive way to get your point across. There are undefined boundaries in the Charter as it guarantees you freedom of expression, but sometimes that expression is considered violent, and therefore against the law. The importance of this news story is to inform readers that over stepping boundaries has its consequences, but having beliefs is your greatest power. Learn to channel them effectively.

           To be frank, comparing a pie in the face to a roadside bomber is outrageous. That’s exactly what the Liberals are doing when they say it should be considered a terrorist attack. In the definition of terrorism it says “done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”. The only people who are afraid of pie are panophobians and people on diets. The liberals called the pie in the face tasteless, well yes it would be. That’s what you get when you use Tofu. But in all seriousness yes it was tasteless, but it shouldn’t be considered terrorism. If a pie in the face is terrorism, than anybody who can bake a pie would be considered an accessory to terrorism. What about all the clowns and people who were subjected to pies in the face? Are they considered victims of a terrorist attack? If it becomes a crime to throw pies in peoples face, then you take away fundraising opportunities and fun memories from children. If anything, just charge the woman with assault. Shea wasn’t hurt [although her taste buds might have died a little] and she was able to continue on with her speech. No harm, no foul. [What’s the big deal for anyhow? Pies and politicians go hand in hand (In fact more politicians should have pies thrown in their faces) nobody seemed overly concerned before, why now?]

          Another matter that should be addressed is why the pie had been shoved in Shea’s face in the first place. Canada’s seal hunt is barbaric. Hundreds of thousands of seals die every year just so Canada can make a profit. Though Canada’s quota of 280,000 seals hardly dents the population of 5.6 million, it’s still not right. For the most part it’s not why they do it, its how they do it. Seal hunt opponents say that seals are routinely clubbed or shot and left to suffer on the ice until they’re clubbed later. But a 2002 report in the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that “the large majority of seals taken during this hunt … are killed in an acceptably humane manner.”* Isn’t that what people want to hear? How do you know what side to believe? Better yet, why do it all? [The same can be said about killing cows, pig and chickens... but more people are dependent on these animals than seals. The Inuit, who eat the seals, should be the only ones who can kill them]. Canada has so many other resources they can profit from, one less isn’t going to damage its revenue. Just think of it as one less reason to eat pie.

* from the CBC article FAQs: The Atlantic seal hunt

The original article was written by The Canadian Press and published in the Globe and Mail. (original)