Mobs:

Toronto's inner city space is overrun with noisy mobs these days. You'd think we actually had no procedures to redress social ills and no politicians with enough backbone to have them enforced.

The process of peaceful co-existence seems to have been subverted by noisy minority groups who have nothing better to do than to gather in the streets, bellowing loudly to draw attention to their causes.

There's the inner city feminist mob, the indeterminate sexuality (LGBT-whatever) mob, and, most prominent lately, the Black Lives Matter mob.

The BLM mob, bent on bringing attention to the killing of a black man with a hammer by a cop, has been receiving most attention from the electronic media lately. At its nucleus are a pair of stridently loud black females with a megaphone, an accusatory attitude and language suitable for launching bloody revolution.

We can only hope that at some point in their undertaking, they come to realize that their message would be more effective if it included all lives, not just black lives. And if, having achieved that, they might proceed to use their influence on their own community to take up that message.

Even better, they might get their community to cooperate with the police when witnesses to shootings should step forth to make law enforcement easier.

Let's hope their efforts evolve into a learning experience for them with achievable goals that will benefit all of us. 

The Ghomeshi decision:

Amateur analysts everywhere are expounding on the pros and cons of the Jian Ghomeshi trial.

Most of the pros come from members of the judicial fraternity while the Toronto inner city feminist mob remains unconvinced.

So far, haven't seen much from the shrinks--either amateur or professional--on the probable psychological profiles of the people involved.

It was mentioned at some point during the proceedings that Ghomeshi obviously liked his sex rough. Nothing new there. Tom cats do it that way all the time. Lots of people like their sex rough too, possibly to make it more interesting.

Obviously, each of the three plaintiffs also liked it rough, or they wouldn't have tried for return bouts. Since none were offered, they each retreated into a petulant sulk that stewed on for years.

Since there was no mention of families in the media, apparently none of the participants in this little drama had the imagination or the resilience to go on and establish normal human relationships including spouses and families of their own.

So, what can we assume from this? Was the whole cast, including Ghomeshi, a group of basically dysfunctional individuals? And while the lawyers in this case are going to be handsomely remunerated--well deserved in Ghomeshi's lawyer's case--can our society afford to dump a petulant load of crap like this in the laps of the judiciary every time someone's delicate feelings are hurt?

It's not easy to imagine that our forefathers who structured our laws to make society work smoothly, worried much about hurt feelings. 

Yet, in this case, the law worked just fine.