![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
Everywhere I’m reading from blogs, pundits; mainly the Harpercon cheerleaders; all saying that Stevie will get his majority due to this loss; he will campaign pretty much solely on scrapping the registry. They actually think he will be successful! That’s fine. I wouldn’t expect anything less. Pathetic, really. One trick pony for the one track mind; cute!
Remember how I said this whole C-391 was poorly packaged? Jim Travers explains.
…But that was before Manitoba’s James Bezan hee-hawed his way on to YouTube — complete with horse and cowboy hat — and Breitkreuz mused about a clandestine police scheme to wrench guns from cold Canadian hands. Along with looking and sounding foolish, the two Conservative MPs exposed the soft underbelly of a Harper strategy that once seemed bulletproof.
Instead of a risk-free run at the registry, Conservatives now face layered and linked dangers. By attacking police chiefs, Conservatives created a contradiction within their law and order agenda.
Whether one is for the registry or against, if they stopped to think about it, the Harpercons packaged it poorly. It’s the same thing for any bill or any piece of legislation; it could be the most popular thing in the country, but if it’s badly packaged, odds are it would be, at the very least, more difficult to pass.
As for those 12 NDP ridings and those thinking the Harpercons will scoop them up in one fell swoop; don’t buy into it; it’s far from a fait accompli. Here is a breakdown of the voting patterns and the 2008 voting results from those ridings. As you will see, in many of them, either the ridings are longtime NDP strongholds, or the Liberals are in second place or three way tie with Harpercons and Liberals. And this, with Steve yammering about scrapping the gun registry.
Of course, this vow of Steve’s to campaign on scrapping the registry is a trap. I think we’re all smart enough to know this. Hopefully, all opposition parties will be too and they not only avoid the trap, but actually capitalize on the Harpercons’ divisiveness.
Before I go on, I was disgusted with the Harpercons’ heckling of Scott Simms when he took his turn to vote last night. But then, what do you expect from an MP who allowed a flunkie to advocate the beating of Iggy black and blue? Like Iggy or not, it’s not civilized behavior and it only reinforces to Canadians that these Harpercons like Brute Breitkreuz advocate violence toward others. Really! Tasteless and despicable! And many of the anti gun control folks resent us for calling them rednecks? Here’s a thought; stop behaving that way. At least, try to pretend to show empathy for your fellow man.
Equally, I find the Harpercons’ laissez-faire attitude regarding domestic violence as well as dismissing victims’ and victims’ families’ groups, nothing short of disrespectful, not to mention, frightening to say the least.
Go figure, domestic violence is ok, but pot smoking, gambling or runnning a bawdy house, which hurt no one are mortal sins in the land of Harpercon.
After Deficit Jim’s psychotic breakdown before the Canadian Club, (Scott Feschuk does a great job translating Harpercon nervous breakdown), he has shown the Harpercons’ desperation more than anything else.
Whether or not the NDP and the Liberals will really ‘fix’ the gun registry or not really shouldn’t be a priority and definitely shouldn’t dominate the debate now. Either way, according to parliamentary rules, this issue cannot come back during this session of parliament. Time to move on, now. There are indeed more pressing matters and they should be taken care of at once.
Furthermore, not only has Steve succeeded in pitting east v west and rural v urban Canadian, but he has managed to have Liberals (supporters too) v NDP in the worst possible way as of late. They should somehow try to find common ground as soon as possible. I would say the best way to achieve this is to come out with a pressing issue we hardly hear about anymore; an issue that united most Canadians and angered by Stevie Spiteful. Yes, I’m referring to the mandatory long form census.
Remember, not that long ago, when Steve scrapped the mandatory long form census over summer vacation without dialogue or debate? How pretty much all Canadians, with the exception of the usual tea-bagging element, all united in anger against Steve? Right, left; urban, rural; east, west; business groups, economists, working class, non-profit groups, political parties of most stripes from all levels; hell, even one of Steve’s MPs, James Rajotte of Edmonton-Leduc; various media outlets...you get the idea. The Liberals are going to be introducing a private members’ bill to reinstate the mandatory long form census, minus as it was before, minus the threat of jail attached. From what I’ve heard on the radio this evening, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois will be voting for this bill. And yes, unlike C-391, it is a real private members’ bill. Although, no doubt, Steve will be whipping James Rajotte (as well as other MPs who may be in favour of keeping the census, or at the very least want to discuss its’ merits) if he hasn’t been whipped already. It would be a great start.
There are other pressing issues, such as looking into how Sean Bruyea’s medical records were leaked.
There are other issues that concern all Canadians that also need to be addressed; jobs, which are still being lost and not being recuperated, I don’t care how the Harpercons and their cheerleaders paint this; universal health care, education, child care. Pensions; many of us are worried that we may never see retirement, no matter where we live. It needs to be addressed. A budget is coming up soon which promises to be austere, despite warnings from economists and bank executives of the consequences of such actions. A budget sure to be chock full of poison pills.
Not to mention, those tough on crime bills as well as that super mega-prison Steve wants to build to fill with ol’ Stock Day’s ‘unreported’ criminals and those who break Rob Nicholson’s proposed new laws. By the by, a question; I wonder how Steve will view those law abiding rural farmers and hunters he doesn’t want to criminalize with a gun registry, who would break any of Rob Nicholson’s new proposed laws? Here they are again (bold is my commentary):
The crimes now designated as serious offences include:
- Keeping a common gaming or betting house–I guess no more friendly nickel and dime poker games with the boys
- Betting, pool-selling and bookmaking–No more hockey pools or group lottery purchases, I guess, among friends and co-workers.
- Committing offences in relation to lotteries and games of chance.–Such as? Strip poker? Don’t they have such laws ont the books with regards to lotteries?
- Cheating while playing a game or in holding the stakes for a game or in betting.–Does that mean that casinos have to stop fixing games? Does that mean young Johnny has to stop cheating while playing Sunday night monopoly on family night?
- Keeping a common bawdy-house.–Many escorts/prostitutes do receive clients in their own homes and/or clients receive the escort/prostitute in their little ‘love nests’ (secondary apartments if they’re married)
- Various offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act relating to the trafficking, importing, exporting or production of certain drugs.–Grow ops; probably also means no more pot permits for medicinal use; explains the clamp down on compassion clubs. They’re already attempting to close down Vancouver’s safe injection Insite program
Just a question: would Steve still not want to ‘criminalize’ them? Somehow, I think he would have no problem locking them up in his super-prisons.
See? Much more important matters to deal with. Time to move on.
Hmm, I wonder if you’d be so anxious to move on if the vote had gone the other way.
Whether Harper campaigns on the registry or not (and I hope he does), there’s unfinished registry business still to be dealt with. Iggy and jack both made proposals to “fix” the registry, and the vote was largely swung on their power. They should be held to account, and encouraged to move forward with their proposals to change the objectionable parts of the registry. They owe at least that much to those of us who oppose this BS authoritarian dog’s breakfast of a program.
ck Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 PM
Even if the vote had gone the other way, as I found out only today, parliamentary rules say they can’t bring this up again during this session
You & your friend never answered my question: is scrapping the registry really more important than jobs, economy, universal health care, reproductive rights, pensions? Are you willing to sacrifice all that for scrapping the registry? I seem to remember once upon a time on a previous comment to a previous post of mine that you voted an NDP MP to your riding in spite of the fact that she was for the registry; that she was a good MP. Did that change?
And another part of the question, what is wrong with attempting to unite Canadians by finding common concerns such as the issues I’ve mentioned above? Do you want to keep Canadians divided?
.
ck Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Whether Harper campaigns on the registry or not (and I hope he does),
Are you hoping for a Harpercon majority?
Oh, but, this kind of campaign won’t win him a majority. Not if the opposition campaign on the more important issues of the day that I mentioned
You mean rural v urban and not rural v Canadian? You are saying that rural residents are not real Canadians?
ck Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:36 PM
oh gosh! I apologize. Typo. Will correct.
ck Reply:
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:39 PM
corrected; apologize again; I often leave words out of sentences when typing. Thanks for correcting me. In fact, if you read other of my posts, I’m sure you’ll find a lot of that. I should hire a proof reader.
ck – That is a damned lie. I did in fact answer your question, in fact, I gave you an excruciatingly detailed answer, but since you haven’t actually bothered to READ IT, here is a highlight:
“So yes, ck. Sadly, I have no alternative but to vote for someone who is actively trying to make me into something other than just another criminal-in-waiting, despite what other social sins they might be advancing.”
http://unrepentantoldhippie.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/a-little-voting-music-please/#comments
Scrapping the registry is more important than jobs. By turning men into criminals, we make society less-safe, loose more jobs, and HURT our economy.
Scrapping the registry is more important than the economy, because it does nothing but HURT our economy.
Scrapping the registry is more important than than Universal Health Care. Less money poured into that black hole called the registry means more money for universal health care.
Scrapping the registry is more important than reproductive rights. Reproductive rights have been won, and are of absolutely no effect on me, or my family. I never intend to use them, nice to have, but I don’t really need the right to an abortion, thanks.
Scrapping the registry is more important than pensions. Again, less money poured into the hole, more money for pensions.
Yes, because the personal stakes are so very high for gun owners, I am absolutely willing to sacrifice all and sundry if necessary. And you know, it wasn’t going to cost ANYTHING to kill that damned albatross.
But now that’s not going to happen, and the sacrifices you describe may have BECOME necessary thanks to Taliban-Jack and Iggiot.
All it would have taken was for Layton and Iggy to keep their damn mouths shut!
Instead, they decided to hand Harper a license to print money for the Conservative Party of Canada. Congratulations guys, a Harpercon majority is now well underway.
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 12:09 PM
The original start up costs? Scrapping the registry won’t bring that money back. The operating costs are so minute; that ain’t what’s going to break the bank, compared to other boondoggles, especially the Harpercons spent (G20, F35s, pork barreling comlete with signs, probably a new hockey arena for Peladeau, which means new pro sports complexes for overpaid athletes for the rest of the country, corporate tax breaks, super mega-prisons with new tough on crime bills and it goes on…plus that cut in the GST…). Besides, if the registry were scrapped, the operational costs would have gone on some new payroll office in Miramichi ( http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blogs/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/20/tasha-kheiriddin-turning-guns-into-ploughshares-or-payrolls) in another effort of pork barrelling; probably would have costed even more.
Scrapping the registry is more important than reproductive rights. Reproductive rights have been won, and are of absolutely no effect on me, or my family. I never intend to use them, nice to have, but I don’t really need the right to an abortion, thanks.
How selfless of you! Not to mention, naive. Remember Senator Nancy Ruth’s frantic shut the fuck up moment after Steve cut funding to all those NGOs; many of which dealt with women’s causes and development aid? She kinda hinted that Stevie would be only happy to take them away. Also, Dean Delmastro’s Glenn Beck weepy moment a few years back on Youtube at a prolifer rally. Not to mention, Rod Bruinooge’s little private members bill; when Steve discovered it didn’t quite pass the smell test, only then did he frantically put an end to that. Just remember who has his office on speed dial; hello Charles McVety. Give him a Majority, and I’ll bet my paychecque reproductive rights will be severely restricted. Talk about criminals in waiting; that would make any rape victim, teen-age girls who had an accident, oh hell, all women. You may not need reproductive rights, but perhaps your girlfriend/wife, sister, daughter, niece, etc. would…As well, I’m not sure if many women who may oppose the gun registry would see it as a higher priority than their reproductive rights (those who are pro-choice, that is).
As for turning law abiding men into criminals, what about those new insipid laws Nicholson wants to implement? Activities that don’t hurt anybody? Pot, prostitution, gambling. Evidence that the Harpercons do want to criminalize everyone, no matter where you live. Hell, even dissent is now a criminal offense after what happened at the G20; again, no matter where you came from. So, criminalizing law abiding citizens argument doesn’t fly here neither.
No, for Steve, this is all about fund raising. He’s lost most of his base, thanks to his scrapping of the long form census and his firing of Colonel Pat Stogran, among other things. What’s left for him, really? Gun lobbyists. I’m sure the NRA has even found a loophole in their constitution to funnel money to them through the backdoor.
“Taliban Jack”, spoken like a true Blogging SupposiTory. Congratz! You’ve sunk to their level! I may not be fan of his these days.
Guns more important than pensions, jobs, health care, child care. Gee, Wow! You know, I have read from those who are at best luke warm to the registry who aren’t nearly as obsessed as you are. They would differ, in fact, I would believe that would compose at least half of those against the registry; they still wouldn’t make it the single issue when voting. They haven’t in the past, otherwise, Steve would have had his majority a long time ago, despite the fact he’s always campaigned on scrapping it.
And Harper didn’t change his spots:
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0010
Oh, and if he did get his majority, make no mistake, he will scrap public health care and Americanize it:
http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/01/stephen-harper-hates-canada-at-least.html
http://www.tranquileye.com/stockwell/harper.php
- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.
So, no more universal health care under a Harpercon majority, whether there is money, or not. Read all those links, he intends to cut social programs as well as privatize and/or scrap services altogether. Still worth losing for your precious concealed guns?
Oh, don’t want to be treated like a criminal? stop behaving like one. And your gun obsession? Seriously troubling. Wouldn’t want to be in your neighbourhood.
You need a less violent hobby, say, underwater basket weaving?
Two more things: You don’t realize it, but terrorists have more protection under Canadian law gun owners. Gun owners are effectively denied the right to the presumption of innocence, thanks very much Mr. Rock.
Unity would be nice, unfortunately some people just refuse to be educated, and are not interested in rational discussion.
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Two more things: You don’t realize it, but terrorists have more protection under Canadian law gun owners. Gun owners are effectively denied the right to the presumption of innocence, thanks very much Mr. Rock.
Spare me the Christy blatchford sob sister–blogging supposiTory rhetoric…it doesn’t wash here!
Unity would be nice, unfortunately some people just refuse to be educated, and are not interested in rational discussion.
Two more things: You don’t realize it, but terrorists have more protection under Canadian law gun owners. Gun owners are effectively denied the right to the presumption of innocence, thanks very much Mr. Rock.
Unity would be nice, unfortunately some people just refuse to be educated, and are not interested in rational discussion.
Translation: unity means turning Canada into the ok corral. the right to carry a semi-automatic or an automatic to the mall. Right. Got it…
Impossible to have a rational discussion at the barrel of a gun.
It’s you who refuses to be educated. It’s your side who is all for Harper hiding reports, studies, stats and other data from police from everyone. I mean, if it’s all so useless, why shouldn’t all those documents be out in the open for Canadians to form their own opinions? Why does Marty Cheliak have to be sent for French lessons he doesn’t need? Why not let the man speak and again, let everyone form their own conclusions? Afraid you’ll have fewer supporters?
End of discussion.
Time to move on to more important matters.
Now I know things like health care, pensions, jobs, environment, economy, long form census don’t mean that much to you, but it means a hell of a lot to most Canadians, rural or urban; east or west; French or English.
“they can’t bring this up again during this session”
That doesn’t stop them from moving forward with their proposals, maybe consulting with gun owners (for a change), and producing something amenable to everyone involved in time for the next session. I would think that after months of pro-registry pleading that “We can’t fix it if it’s abolished!”, this would be a fairly high priority. Then they don’t have to worry about Harper scrapping it anyway if/when he gets a majority.
“you voted an NDP MP to your riding in spite of the fact that she was for the registry”
Yes I did, and I still like my MP in spite of disagreeing on the registry. But I’ve never been a partisan, and the NDP’s subterfuge on this vote has lost me.
They’re all the same, the system is fundamentally flawed, and I refuse to keep validating it. My voting days are over.
“Do you want to keep Canadians divided?”
Absolutely not. But “unity” doesn’t mean “I get my way and you STFU”, which is pretty much how it’s been for the last 15 years. Until the registry is fixed to everyone’s satisfaction, it will continue to divide Canadians. (And I’m even doubtful it can be fixed at this point — it’s way too toxic.)
“Are you hoping for a Harpercon majority?”
No, why would I?
Anyway, if the registry is so great, then campaigning on scrapping it should be the kiss of death, right?
All the other issues you mention are all important, but: Remember how important keeping the registry was to you? Well, scrapping it is 10x as important to me as keeping it was to you, because I’m the one who has the choice of (a) being a criminal, or (b) having my personal information out there for all in law enforcement to see for no reason at all, and setting myself up to be the target of harassment & property seizure. Right now, (a) seems like the most reasonable choice. (And no, getting rid of my guns is not an option.)
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 4:14 PM
having my personal information out there for all in law enforcement to see for no reason at all, and setting myself up to be the target of harassment & property seizure. Right now
you bought into the Tony Bernardo–NRA talk? If you’re as responsible as you say you are, that is, they’re stored safely, they’re not around children, you don’t have mentally unstable people or non-law abiding citizens living in your home for any length of time, you didn’t illegally modify them as Kimveer Gill did his prior to the Dawson College shooting, and if ever one of them went missing, you reported it to the proper authorities, then you have nothing to fear, right?
I have co workers who are hunters who have registered their weapons & they’re responsible people with them and they’re never harrassed or wondering about the threat of the cops taking them away.
(And no, getting rid of my guns is not an option.)
Strange, this attachment to material posessions. I’m not attached to any material posessions of any kind and I’m happier that way.
Anyhow, I’m not going to be posting about gun control for a long time to come, unless, of course, there is another event like another Polytechnique or Dawson College shooting, Gawd forbid.
Again, the intent of this post was about moving on and not walking into Stevie’s trap.
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 4:16 PM
And another thing, not voting, is a vote for Harpercon, just saying. Low voter turn out is what he counts on.
“Translation: unity means turning Canada into the ok corral. the right to carry a semi-automatic or an automatic to the mall. Right. Got it…”
That’s exactly what I meant when I said “toxic” in the comment above. Nobody has even come close to suggesting such a thing.
That’s why I don’t have high hopes for the registry debate ever being resolved without complete abolition. Any attempt at rational discussion by registry opponents is greeted with either hysteria or derision, ridicule & name-calling. (I’ve been called a teabagger and a traitor to my gender — nice.)
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Tony Bernardo would love to have his guns everywhere and he most certainly advocates for it. Ever hear him speak? Catch him on Question Period last Sunday? Not to mention, the NRA involvement with the likes of Canadian anti-gun control lobby groups.
Then there was that James Bezan on YouTube with that Shirriff Roscoe giggle on that horse with all the redneckness he could muster.
That email exchange between Charlie Angus and Brute Breitkreuz suggests that Breitkreuz even wanted folks to be able to walk the streets packing guns. http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010/8/31/4618576.html
Plus all the secrecy from the Harpercons; the hiding of data, studies, reports, stats, etc.. I always thought that you advocated for people being having as much information as possible on any given issue.
C’mon, even you have to admit this whole Bill C-391 was poorly packaged from the word go.
As for those insulting you, well, I have never personally called you any names and never on your site. You were telling me to go get a biscuit. Not to mention the time you compared me to Suzy ALLCAPs over at Dammit Janets Just pointing out that you’re not much better. Just sayin’.
Your side calls us worse, but you guys have Brute Breitkreuz advocating the beating of Iggy black & blue and not to mention, a room full of Harpercons who heckle an MP who just lost his father in a horrific manner. And folks wonder why I think they’re evil? I have a problem with the fact that many on the anti registry side have zero empathy for their fellow man. Are those the kind of people you wish to align yourself with?
Anyway, you both missed the point about my post. It was a conclusion to the registry vote and that it is now time to move on to far more pressing issues. Stevie wants to keep Canada divided, right now the registry is the way to do it, but it could just as easily have been some other issue, like say, abortion. The question is, does everyone want to walk into that trap, or move on as suggested?
“Tony Bernardo would love to have his guns everywhere and he most certainly advocates for it”
So? What’s that got to do with the registry?
“That email exchange between Charlie Angus and Brute Breitkreuz suggests that Breitkreuz even wanted folks to be able to walk the streets packing guns.”
So? We have free speech in Canada, sort of.
“Plus all the secrecy from the Harpercons”
So? The reports have all been published.
You guys keep parroting this nonsense about secrecy and Cheliak being sent away… the report that he was supposedly sent away to keep him from presenting was online a week later. On the internets, for all to see. And like the reports before it, offered no proof of the registry’s effectiveness.
“you bought into the Tony Bernardo–NRA talk?”
I didn’t buy into anything except what I read in the news about people who have had the cops show up at their door and demand their guns. This isn’t fear mongering or paranoia, it has already happened.
“Strange, this attachment to material posessions. I’m not attached to any material posessions of any kind and I’m happier that way.”
Whatever floats your boat.
“Anyhow, I’m not going to be posting about gun control for a long time to come, unless, of course, there is another event like another Polytechnique or Dawson College shooting, Gawd forbid.”
Won’t the registry prevent something like that from happening?
If not, then wtf good is it?
Oh, this should be fun!
“The original start up costs? Scrapping the registry won’t bring that money back. The operating costs are so minute; that ain’t what’s going to break the bank,”
The former is true, but is no excuse for continuing to fund a program that only does harm to society. The latter is a half-truth at best, and at worst, an outright lie.
compared to other boondoggles, especially the Harpercons spent (G20, F35s, pork barreling comlete with signs, probably a new hockey arena for Peladeau, which means new pro sports complexes for overpaid athletes for the rest of the country, corporate tax breaks, super mega-prisons with new tough on crime bills and it goes on…plus that cut in the GST…). Besides, if the registry were scrapped, the operational costs would have gone on some new payroll office in Miramichi ( http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blogs/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/20/tasha-kheiriddin-turning-guns-into-ploughshares-or-payrolls) in another effort of pork barrelling; probably would have costed even more.”
Actually, that’s nonsense. We don’t actually know how much the registry costs to operate, we do not that it’s not cheap, and we also know that the RCMP isn’t being entirely honest. The taxpayer already spends upwards of $3 million dollars on postage, envelopes and printing costs alone, probably more. So to say that it won’t save a fair bit of money is simply not at all accurate.
The G20 could well be insanely expensive, but unlike the registry, the Auditor General hasn’t slammed the G20 just yet. That report is due this Summer. And while the costs may seem extravagant, I don’t know what it costs to provide snacks for what… 50,000 police officers? I certainly don’t. So while we can debate whether they were needed or not, they were on the government dime, and they needed to be fed, sheltered and watered while they were working.
The F-35′s. The Canadian Forces NEED new fighters, period. This is not even debatable; the CF-18 airframes have accumulated too many flying hours, and are beginning to be unsafe for the pilots. The discussion we should be having is whether or not the F-35 is the right plane for the job. You should take your concerns to the Chief of the Air Staff, I’m sure that Lieutenant General Deschamps will be happy to hear about your pressing concern for the safety and well-being of our pilots.
The stimulus just rebuilt a bridge in my area that was badly in need of repair. The use on this particular bridge is so heavy that it was becoming a major hazard, and without intervention, could have resulted in possible injury, or even loss of life. So glad that you’re willing to put partisan political considerations over the safety of Canadians.
Ah the Nordiques! Well, that certainly does seem to be an example of pork-barrel spending. Might I add that the money hasn’t actually been spent yet? And might I add that it looks like the PMO is backing down for once? And might I add that we could actually afford to pay for it, which would add much happiness and joy to the hearts of many in La ville du Quebec, if only we’d have scrapped the registry? Bad idea or not, between the Nordiques and the Registry, I’ll take the hockey team, thanks.
Super mega-prisons. Troubling yes. But, if scrapping the registry is all it takes to keep me and my children on the OUTSIDE of such a monstrosity, well… I just don’t see the problem with that bargain.
Tough on crime bills. I agree, we don’t need these. Never mind the fact that they MIGHT actually cut down on crime… Again, given the choice, I’ll take the tough on crime bills.
Cutting the GST. See this?.. That was the world’s tinniest violin playing you a sad-sad song. Nice to know that you favor high taxes too. You mean Stephen Harper is going to put more money in my pocket, AND remove some of the stigma from owning guns!? Where do I sign please?
New office in Miramichi. Well, I’m never one to see government jobs lost, because that’s not so good for the economy. And payroll is kind of important. And if it saves on the property tax and cost of living in Ottawa… I’m sorry, where’s the downside?
“How selfless of you! Not to mention, naive. Remember Senator Nancy Ruth’s frantic shut the fuck up moment after Steve cut funding to all those NGOs; many of which dealt with women’s causes and development aid? She kinda hinted that Stevie would be only happy to take them away. Also, Dean Delmastro’s Glenn Beck weepy moment a few years back on Youtube at a prolifer rally. Not to mention, Rod Bruinooge’s little private members bill; when Steve discovered it didn’t quite pass the smell test, only then did he frantically put an end to that. Just remember who has his office on speed dial; hello Charles McVety. Give him a Majority, and I’ll bet my paychecque reproductive rights will be severely restricted. Talk about criminals in waiting; that would make any rape victim, teen-age girls who had an accident, oh hell, all women. You may not need reproductive rights, but perhaps your girlfriend/wife, sister, daughter, niece, etc. would…As well, I’m not sure if many women who may oppose the gun registry would see it as a higher priority than their reproductive rights (those who are pro-choice, that is).”
This is mostly baseless fear-mongering, but yes, there certainly seems to be a social conservative movement within the government. However, while that thread is very real, it’s not very realistic. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that the government would first need to overcome a Supreme Court decision, AND the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I just don’t see that happening without a constitutional amendment, and there’s not NEARLY enough support to reopen the Constitution. Sorry sister, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. I’ll gladly accept a crappy attitude from the government if it keeps me outta jail, you betcha!
As for my wife, well, considering that we’ve chosen to have children, reproductive rights, even if they WERE under threat are kind of a non-issue for us. She’s actually negative on abortions anyway, but supports your right to have them, as do I. And if we needed them, well… there’s a Supreme Court decision to get passed, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As for my daughter, I own guns. The likelihood of her becoming a rape-victim is really quite low to begin with. Am I to understand that you support disarming women who might otherwise stop their attackers? Umm… Why? What possible justification can you have for that?
Nice try, but I am not afraid of the big bad Conservatives.
“As for turning law abiding men into criminals, what about those new insipid laws Nicholson wants to implement? Activities that don’t hurt anybody? Pot, prostitution, gambling. Evidence that the Harpercons do want to criminalize everyone, no matter where you live. Hell, even dissent is now a criminal offense after what happened at the G20; again, no matter where you came from. So, criminalizing law abiding citizens argument doesn’t fly here neither.”
First of all, that’s a lie. It is a bit of a shame that the solution is just to hit people with tougher penalties, but to say that there is no harm in these activities is simply not true. I for one don’t engage in any of those behaviors, nor do I have an especial need to punish those that do. And while there are very unfortunate implications for trivial offenders, each of those activities is prone to abuse from oh, pimps, who use sexual slavery for financial gain, drug dealers who peddle addictive substances for financial gain, and organized crime, which makes heavy use of both. So, sorry if I don’t shed a tear but those are still crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada. What I am doing is in full compliance with the law. And somehow, I doubt that litigators are going to have a big hard-on about prosecuting the office hockey-pool.
“No, for Steve, this is all about fund raising. He’s lost most of his base, thanks to his scrapping of the long form census and his firing of Colonel Pat Stogran, among other things. What’s left for him, really? Gun lobbyists. I’m sure the NRA has even found a loophole in their constitution to funnel money to them through the backdoor.”
Lost most of his base? According to his poll numbers, his base is doing just fine thanks.
As for the National Rifle Association, they haven’t given a dime to Conservative Party of Canada, or the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, or the National Firearms Association. Nor did they need to infiltrate Canada, or participate in any other conspiracy theory that you might be entertaining. It’s really very simple. The NRA was invited to come to Canada to provide guidance and moral support to the CSSA. If you think that the CSSA is receiving any significant financial support from the NRA, then, I want some serious proof for your libel please. Financial support is strictly in violation of the NRA’s constitution, and what’s worse, the CSSA is not the big bad scary organization that you have apparently imagined it to be. It runs on practically a shoestring budget; I’m pretty sure that your blog here, is more technically sophisticated than the CSSA website. The CSSA is getting buckets of money from the NRA? That’s just ridiculous.
“Taliban Jack”, spoken like a true Blogging SupposiTory. Congratz! You’ve sunk to their level! I may not be fan of his these days.
This from someone who’s chosen moniker for the Prime Minister is “Stevie Spiteful?” I’m reasonably sure that I could find much more offensive names if I dug through your archives. But you know what, yeah, the name-calling is over the top. I’ll try to stick to the facts. Like the fact that members of the NDP think that the Canadian Forces should be branded a terrorist organization.
“Guns more important than pensions, jobs, health care, child care. Gee, Wow! You know, I have read from those who are at best luke warm to the registry who aren’t nearly as obsessed as you are. They would differ, in fact, I would believe that would compose at least half of those against the registry; they still wouldn’t make it the single issue when voting. They haven’t in the past, otherwise, Steve would have had his majority a long time ago, despite the fact he’s always campaigned on scrapping it.”
Nice straw man you’re trying to build there. Perhaps, but I know I’ll be reluctantly hoping for a Conservative majority. It’s called freedom of association, and it’s one of Canada’s most deeply held fundamentals of law.
“And Harper didn’t change his spots:
… then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.”
Fear-mongering again. Are you trying to scare me into changing my mind?
“So, no more universal health care under a Harpercon majority, whether there is money, or not. Read all those links, he intends to cut social programs as well as privatize and/or scrap services altogether. Still worth losing for your precious concealed guns?”
Yes, I’m afraid so. If it keeps me and the other multitude of Canadian gun owners out of jail, it’s a sacrifice that I am willing to make. And even if health-care is in danger under a Harper government, that won’t change the fact that we need to have a very serious and very unpleasant discussion about the future of health-care in this country. Harper is at least offering solutions, and while I may not like those solutions, it’s not something the political left is willing to even mention.
“Oh, don’t want to be treated like a criminal? stop behaving like one. And your gun obsession? Seriously troubling. Wouldn’t want to be in your neighbourhood.
You need a less violent hobby, say, underwater basket weaving?”
Well I do have a big scary black Newfoundland that might lick your face…
Nice ad hominem there.
So let me get this straight… You don’t want me to criticize illegal activities in which you may, or may not take part… but, my participation in an Olympic sport is making me into a troubled, violent person who needs a different hobby? And, I’m acting like a criminal? Wow… Double-standard much?
“Spare me the Christy blatchford sob sister–blogging supposiTory rhetoric…it doesn’t wash here!”
Um… What? Rhetoric? So, are you telling me that the Charter should only apply to left-wing supporters, criminals and terrorists?
“Translation: unity means turning Canada into the ok corral. the right to carry a semi-automatic or an automatic to the mall. Right. Got it…”
Well, now that you mention it, concealed-carry is kind of interesting, but I don’t recall trying to make the case for it in Canada. Also, automatic weapons are banned in Canada, and almost completely banned in the United States. So, there’s yet another straw-man accusation. Nice…
“Impossible to have a rational discussion at the barrel of a gun.”
So… You feel threatened? By a trivial internet-conversation, which, at least on my end has been rather civil? If you feel threatened, then I think maybe you need a new line of work… You seem to be suffering from a little more paranoia than is healthy.
“It’s you who refuses to be educated.”
Okay, so educate me.
“It’s your side who is all for Harper hiding reports, studies, stats and other data from police from everyone.”
Hiding studies? If you’d like to discuss studies, I’m all ears. Good luck though, all the studies in the world haven’t been able to explain how the registry, as opposed to licensing constitutes effective gun control. Nice try though.
“I mean, if it’s all so useless, why shouldn’t all those documents be out in the open for Canadians to form their own opinions?”
They are. They are completely accessible. So is Professor Mauser’s stinging indictment of the long-gun registry.
“Why does Marty Cheliak have to be sent for French lessons he doesn’t need?”
Second language training is not at all uncommon for senior government officials. You’d be surprised how seriously the federal government takes bilingualism. I’ll put my credentials against yours any day.
“Why not let the man speak and again, let everyone form their own conclusions? Afraid you’ll have fewer supporters?”
Afraid? Not in the slightest. That was an MP from the Bloc Québécois named Maria Mourani. Perhaps you share her fear?
“End of discussion.
Time to move on to more important matters.
Now I know things like health care, pensions, jobs, environment, economy, long form census don’t mean that much to you, but it means a hell of a lot to most Canadians, rural or urban; east or west; French or English.”
More ad hominem. Very nice. As for thinking this is over, would you like to see a copy of the donations I’ll be making to the Turf Mark Holland fund? Or my a receipt of the donations that I’ll be making to the Conservative Party of Canada? I’ll be happy to share them with you, because I will never forget who it was who decided that I was a criminal, and who decided that I was innocent.
What’s funny about this discussion is that you’ve now spent about 5 pages bashing Stephen Harper, yet you’ve said almost nothing about gun-control. Is this about the fact that you don’t like who it is that’s running the show, or is this about gun-control? Me thinks that you don’t actually understand what you’re talking about; you just want a platform to criticize the government. If that is the case, they hey, it’s a free country man, do what you like. But leave the policy-making to those of us who take the time to understand what we’re talking about.
So since we’ve now established that you’re at best inaccurate, and at worst, an outright liar, and you don’t seem to care when someone is trying to honestly inform you, why should we, or anyone care what you have to say?
Granted, that’s sort of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois mantra for the time being, so why shouldn’t I talk to someone who is actually going to listen to me? Someone like say, the Conservative Party of Canada?
See? Wasn’t that fun? I sure had some fun!
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:43 PM
http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2010/04/16/the-adult-conversation-regarding-health-care-in-canada-rant-alert/
I talk to someone who is actually going to listen to me? Someone like say, the Conservative Party of Canada?
Ha! Like so many, You’re nothing more than a useful idiot to them.
Yanno, congratz are in order, you are now a typical neo-con thru and thru. Zero empathy for your fellow man, a gun toting redneck, one track mind, libelous accusations of Jack Layton, a conbot troll. Give it time, and I’m sure you’ll graduate to perverse pleasure of watching folks suffer. The Blogging SupposiTories will love you. Go join them, particularly Dr. Roy, KKKate of Small Dead Animals and Hunter.
Oh, and your 15 minutes are up here. Say good nite Gracie!
One more thing. (I know, I’m just full of these aren’t I?)
I can’t help but observe that you’ve taken everything I’ve said, and assumed the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME from all this.
Now, I self-identify as a progressive, though, maybe Libertarian is a better label, I’m not sure.
As such, I’ll be the first to admit that there are some serious problems that I perceive in the Conservative party. Most striking is the medieval attitude from some social conservatives on gay rights.
Now, I’m not too keen on anybody who opposes gay rights, especially for religious beliefs that don’t really have much place in our public discourse.
But, rather than see the positive opportunity here, for someone with some brains to try to change the organization from within, you’ve decided rather arbitrarily that I must be against all of those social rights. You appear to have looked with dark-tinted glasses, which appears to betray a deep-seated pessimistic attitude.
And, you’re quite happy to sacrifice me, and my family for some expensive political oppression of average, ordinary people.
If this is what Canada can expect of the political left, then don’t you think that I’ve made the right choice after all?
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Anyone who would donate money to Steve is anything but progressive.
Insecure as well?
Now now ck, was that really necessary? If you wanted me to leave that badly all you had to do was ask.
Oh, and did you really want that link about the NDP accusing the Forces of being terrorists? It was resolution 1 B4 on international security at the 2006 policy conference. I’ve had a little difficulty finding the policy documents themselves but my persistence has paid off! “In such a situation, Canadian troops end up acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people.”
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/ndp-resolutions1.pdf
To be fair, perhaps the resolution should be forgiven, since it’s really about the war in Afghanistan, and not so much about the Canadian Forces. The language used however, is in my opinion, inexcusable.
Now, I happen to know that the resolution was not adopted, but I think that still doesn’t reflect very well on the NDP.
That’s all, I shall trouble you no longer. Have a nice life.
ck Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 9:41 PM
If you wanted me to leave that badly all you had to do was ask.
Don’t take a hint earlier? I said your 15 minutes are up; Say G’nite Gracie! I don’t entertain Conbots for too long.
Citing Stephen Taylor now for your “Taliban Jack” accusations? Yeah, real “progressive” of you.
Using another IP address? Been going to the Twatsy Ross school of trolling?