When is a Fight not a Fight? When it's "Consensual."

Wasn't it just a week ago that a video of 2 teenage girls fighting furiously was all the rage on the net? The girls were from some woebegotten school in that centre of civilization, Nanaimo. Although the fight was vicious, nothing of consequence followed. That is, no school sanctions, detentions, evictions, talking-tos. Why? Because this was considered a "consensual" fight.

Which is to say, that the school, like most of our public institutions, has abandoned any hope of moral or civic leadership. They don't want to leave their position, frozen in time, of being "nice" and "Caring."

Today's headline is all about a 13-year old child dying in a knife fight that took place at 5 in the afternoon on a holiday weekend in front of the Science World.

Was this tragedy a result of a "consensual" fight? You bet. Relativism at its best.

And what consequence will flow as readily as this child's blood?

No doubt we will perform circus acts of elasticity in "understanding" the little shit who did the stabbing.

The grief counsellors have already parachuted in, as have the criminoligists, citing the "low statistical probability" of such an event, which is, no doubt, of tremendous help to the family.

Not far away, on the same remote planet, the police wanting to take down a protester, disguised themselves as a reporter for "24 Hours," thus, in one swell foop, disgracing themselves and the media. Nice work, boys.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is about to consider the case of "Chief," the wonder-dog, who sniffed and found drugs in school kids' backpacks. No matter that the drugs are illegal and harmful and that they have no place in the school environment. The "issue" is that Chief may have put his little paws all over the children's Charter Rights.

Amen.