Share |

Meta

Archived posts

Most Recent Posts

  • It’s Spring. Sharpen Your Pitchforks.
  • Ron Liepert, Conservative Nom For Calgary-Signal Hill, Tells Jason Kenney Where to Go
  • Jim Flaherty’s Death Does Not Warrant the Hero Worship he Has Been Receiving
  • Is Anyone Capable of Critical Thinking? Does Anyone Even Care?
  • The Middle Class, an open letter to Tom Mulcair (and whomever else may be listening)
  • Why This Anglo Supports Quebec Solidaire and So Should Other Progressive Anglos
  • Jason Kenney Gets His Job Data From Kijiji — Myths Regarding Labour & Skills Shortages Debunked
  • Come Join the Dark Side! We Got Poutine, Pepsi and Jos Louis! (Mise a Jour) — Part D’Uh??
  • Thursday Night’s Quebec Election Leader’s Debate and The Power of Misinformation
  • Happy St-Paddy’s Day From Sister Sage’s Musings

Jane Taber and Candy Hoeppner Are Now Into Fiction: Part 2–Inconsistencies Between Scrapping C-391 And Tough On Crime Agenda

Part 2 doesn’t really have anything to do with Janie Taber’s little apparent attempt at fiction regarding Candy getcherguns Hoeppner’s little ego trip, but it did raise questions in mind like how does stripping away at gun control square with a tough on crime agenda? How does the meme of not wanting to “make criminals out of law abiding farmers and hunters” as a justification for scrapping the long gun registry, but much the latest dumb on crime omnibus bill, along with more of the upcoming dumb on crime agenda will surely do just that–criminalize law abiding farmers and hunters–well, not only them, but law abiding Canadians of all stripes work?  How do they justify that?

Stevie and the Harpercons’ reasoning behind scrapping the long gun registry are asinine and hypocritical and doesn’t make sense. Certainly not in light of other legislation they’re bringing  in or have brought in.

They claim the registry is too intrusive, yet they have no problem allowing the US to access any and all personal information of any passenger who is on board any plane flying over American airspace.  Ex-ray machines to scan airplane passengers’ naked bodies, along with invasive pat downs.

How Does Scrapping The Long Gun Registry Compute With Harpercons’ Dumb On Crime Agenda?

Simply put, it doesn’t. In fact, there are just too many inconsistencies. So much so, that they’re recurring mantra of ‘not wanting to criminalize law abiding hunters and farmers’ just doesn’t work.

How about warrantless internet spying? They seem to have no problem with that kind of intrusiveness.  Is anyone going to tell me that those farmers and hunters or any other rural Canadian for that matter, who is against the long gun registry, is actually ok with warrantless internet spying?   That whole dumb on crime omnibus bill is also pretty intrusive.

Speaking of that dumb on crime omnibus bill,  those Harpercons keep harping on the fact that the long gun registry turns law abiding hunters and farmers into criminals? Well, there are parts of that omnibus bill that would do just that? In fact, it criminalizes many law abiding Canadians of all stripes. Let’s remember that that this omnibus bill would have someone found growing a few pot plants a mandatory stiffer sentence than a pedophile. And yes, boys ‘n’ girls,  according to my experience living in rural Quebec,  many of those same  farmers and hunters that Harper keeps clamouring about,  do grow pot plants.  There are many, still,  who grow the plants for their own medicinal use for specific illnesses, like cancer, HIV/AIDs, epilepsy, chronic pain, etc.

Also, Robbo Nicholson, our beloved injustice minister, has made it clear that this hideous omnibus bill is “just the beginning” of a whole new line of dumb on crime measures the Harpercons plan to bring into this session of parliament.  More measures sure to bring many law abiding Canadians, including those farmers and hunters Stevie keeps the rallying cry loud and clear for, yes, including the red meat base out west, I strongly suspect.  Let’s take a look at some of Robbo’s wish list he expressed last year (bold text is my two cents):

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 attempted, unsuccessfully, to close down Vancouver’s safe injection Insite program–latest Supreme Court Decision has ordered in favour of Insite

Gee, if Robbo keeps this up, breathing the wrong way or looking at a Harpercon cross-eyed will be illegal.  The point is that, are you going to tell me that even true dyed in the wool Con voters have never even participated in a hockey pool amongst his/her buddies or at the office?  Just another example of criminalizing hard working law abiding citizens.

Bill C-391, the Dumb on Crime omnibus bill and the rest of that whole dumb on crime agenda does indicate one glaring issue with those Harpercons, though. Their blatant indifference to crimes against women. Nothing for victims of domestic violence. Marlene Jennings had once called out ol’ lock’emup Toews for his indiffernce regarding domestic violence :

“So if the crime’s committed in the home, then I guess that’s okay?”

We’re going backwards when it comes to sexual assault. We’ve seen this recently with Justice Robert Dewar’s recent decision and Vic “lock ‘em up” Toews’ rumblings about removing ‘sexual assault’ from the criminal code and going back to ‘rape’ – a much harder crime to convict. We’re going back to the old blame the victim with sexual assault against women under Toews’ and Nicholson’s watch.  I mention this because I wonder how Janie Taber can continue to be such a cheerleader for Stevie and this band of misogynists. I wonder how Harpercon women like Candy ‘getcherguns’ Hoeppner can not only continue to do her puppet master’s dirty work, but how can she push for a bill that would surely exacerbate domestic violence and other violent crimes, particularly against women?

Love how the Harpercons claim this omnibus bill will be supporting victims.  It sure doesn’t help female victims, that’s bloody well for sure. In fact, if anything, it further villifies them.

Regarding domestic violence, and their indifference toward it, one gets the feeling they’re ok with a husband/boyfriend abusing his spouse/girlfriend.  After all, I don’t recall Super Toews offering any answer to Marlene Jennings’ question that day.

Cost

A red herring. Nothing more. Sure the initial costs were more than expected. With any new legislation or project, under any party’s watch, costs generally are. Bill C-391 won’t bring that money back to the tax payers, nor back to government coffers. That money is already spent.  The yearly costs are quite nominal compared to other useless projects and legislation the Harpercons have going these days. Hello fake lakes and billion dollar security which yielded the biggest mass arrest in Canadian history; mass arrests which saw peaceful. law abiding protesters excercising their democratic right to express dissent, or so they thought? Oh and what about 50 million dollar port-o-crap, glowsticks and gazebo slush funds in Muskoka?

What about the costs of the useless war in Afghanistan? Talk about throwing bad money after bad…

And of course, the secrecy of the dumb on crime omnibus bill and the rest of the dumb on crime agenda to come.

Not to mention, all those religious groups we’re funding!

All this to say that the yearly cost to maintain the long gun registry is pretty slim when you compare it other costs the Harpercons incur; most pretty wasteful.

Further Evidence That The Harpercons Have No Interest In Gun Control

Both Iggy and those six NDP MPs who changed their tune and voted with the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois in favour of  maintaining the long gun registry, at least, wanted to take a crack at fixing what they felt was wrong with it.  The Harpercons wanted to scrap this registry without even offering anything to replace the registry. If they really believed in gun control, but honestly believed the registry wasn’t the way to go, they would’ve had another proposal on the ready to present to the House of Commons and to Canadians. They didn’t.   Now they have their majority and scrapping the registry is another item on their to do list along with their dumb on crime agenda. They still don’t have anything to propose to replace the gun registry in an effort to at least, pretend to care about gun control.

Punishment Instead of Prevention

Many critics, along with your’s truly, have always maintained that we should be concentrating on measures of prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishment when it comes to fighting crime.  Not only is it much cheaper to the tax payers, but rehabilitation and prevention would produce much better results.

One would think that scrapping the gun registry or getting rid of any measure of gun control, for that matter,  would be counterproductive in the fight to gun crimes.  All one has to do is look south of the border, particular in states where gun control laws are particularly lax to know that strong gun control laws would be a big step in prevention.

Again, I ask, tough on crime or dumb on crime?

Why the Hurry?

One does have to wonder why Candy “getcherguns” Hoeppner is in such a hurry to scrap the gun registry. After all, the Harpercons do have their majority until 2015. There is plenty of time.  As I’ve mentioned in Part 1 , pollster Nik Nanos did mention that the Harpercons don’t fair too well when they start obsessing about gun registries, dumb on crime and other such paranoia instead of economy and jobs , which should be the top priority of this government these days as we head into uncertain economic times and as mentioned before, poll after poll has reflected that the top issues for Canadians these days are  jobs and the economy.

Even if there were another minority, the last election was pretty evident that the long gun registry didn’t play any part in the campaign. Odds are, it won’t again, one way or another the next election.

Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The red meat base.  To which I say, so what? They stick with Stevie, no matter what. We’ve seen this time after time. They ain’t goin’ anywhere.  The fact is, the gun registry isn’t a priority for most.  Even those who don’t like it, have lived with it for over 15 years, they can live with it for a while  longer.  So, again, what’s the rush?

Better question, why is this whole scrap the gun registry/dumb on crime more pressing than the economy and job creation?

And while we’re at it, how could these Harpercon women and their she-cheerleaders continue to support these misogynists?

Again, how about it, Jane and Candy?

5 comments to Jane Taber and Candy Hoeppner Are Now Into Fiction: Part 2–Inconsistencies Between Scrapping C-391 And Tough On Crime Agenda

  • kootcoot

    I get so frustrated with you city folk mixing up the long gun registry with crime and gun control. Guns have always been reasonably controlled in Canada until the over reaction to the Dawson incident lead to the absurd registry. Prior to that country mice could have all the 30-30′s and shotguns they needed, subject to a license to own/purchase (a firearms acquisition certificate) and Canadians didn’t assume like Americans that every is entitled to their own machine gun or rocket launcher.

    But now in order to have a hunting rifle, one must sign a search warrant for their home, usable at anytime, in advance and of course the criminals don’t register anything anyway. Their guns are stolen, smuggled, serial numbers removed etc. Any cop who checks the registry before breaking down a door is an idiot, cuz if it’s the crooks you have to assume they are armed and their lair may be booby trapped as well.

    Scrapping the expensive and useless long gun registry is the only Harper policy with which I agree and I doubt if he will ever actually do it as he will be too busy trying to surpass the US in jailing our own citizens as he follows his ideological disregard for reality down the same doomed War on Drugs and Crime that even RePukes in y’all land are coming to realize is useless and doomed to expensive failure.

    Sometimes I feel like I’m drowning in a sea of stupidity and venality……..

    ck Reply:

    Ok, for openers, let’s correct something:

    Guns have always been reasonably controlled in Canada until the over reaction to the Dawson incident lead to the absurd registry

    Actually, it was the Polytechnique massacre that happened in 1989 that led to the passing of Bill C-68 in 1995. The Dawson shooting happened in 2006. Before calling us city slickers ‘stupid’, it would be nice if you had your facts straight.

    Now, I’m going to share a little story with you about a family I used to know– a household of people whose lives were saved. A couple who could both be described as volatile at best had separated. Her ex had moved back in with his mother along with their teen-aged son. Custody hearings in court were pending. You can imagine, this was not going to be a friendly split by any stretch of the imagination. The old woman had her late husband’s hunting rifles collecting dust in her garage. Yes, both she and her late husband were law abiding citizens. However, her son, who just moved in, was another story altogether. His behavior could be best described as erratic and had been known to beat the mother of his children. The ex, while she didn’t merit what happened to her, had an explosive personality in her own right. Every time she would go over her ex and his mother’s home to see her teen-aged son, it was never pretty, to say the least. One day, when the old woman wasn’t home, the situation was so volatile, the neighbours called the cops. Yes, they confiscated the rifles. It was the right decision. I’m sure I don’t have to explain why. But that is neither here, nor there for the purposes of the post we’re commenting on. I only wanted to illustrate one situation where one household may be law abiding, but that doesn’t mean one who doesn’t colour inside the lines necessarily won’t move into that household at a later time.

    Also, you should take a look at an article Antonia Zerbisias wrote awhile back regarding long guns and conjugal violence. Yes, conjugal violence, one serious crime the Harpercons don’t take seriously enough. A crime of which I am a survivor.

    I had already pointed out that gun registry isn’t all that expensive when you consider every other idiocy the Harpercons have spent money on. As I’ve mentioned, the annual costs are quite nominal. And the initial start up fee is already long gone. It will not go back to the tax payers, nor back to government coffers.

    I’m afraid you missed the main point of my post, which was that whole Harpercon meme of not wanting to make criminals out of law abiding hunters and farmers go out the window when their dumb on crime omnibus bill, particularly regarding pot plants, will do just that. Not to mention, more dumb on crime hits from Robbo Nicholson will also make criminals out of law abiding Canadians; urban and rural. Sometimes it is good to question true motives. Particularly from those Harpercons.

    ck Reply:

    Also to be added, I am really tired of people like yourself assuming that folks like us who support strong gun control laws hate rural folks. It couldn’t be further from the truth. At least, speaking for myself. I spent many years living in Matane (ok, more small town in the Gaspesie), a town around the New Brunswick-Quebec-Maine border, and in Lac-Megantic, not far from St-Georges de Beauce and Thetford Mines while I was on the run from my violent ex. I met many good folks along my travels. But I also know there are violent people in rural areas as they’re are in cities. In fact, I had witnessed something terrible in a town, population 150 in Central Quebec, which, ironically, brought me back to Montreal, for good. You accuse us city slickers of hating you, but you seem to assume the worst about us. This is a classic example of the divisive and wedgie games Stevie Spiteful and the Harpercons play. Instead of arguing vehemently with each other, we should be having constuctive dialogue with each other.

  • kootcoot

    ck,

    I agree that the HarperCon approach to crime totally sucks and is inconsistent and wrong in sooooo many ways. I must confess that though I didn’t call you stupid, maybe you don’t read well, because I only said city folk seem to get the crime legislation mixed up with the gun registry – when I referred to “stupidity and venality” I meant such as the Canadian Taliban of Spiteful Steve, the con men of Wall Street, Bay Street and Howe Street and the Clark/Campbell BC Lib/Cons and RePukes to the south.

    Geeez, I’m sorry I don’t have the name of every school in the east welded to a brain cell, at least I did get one where a whacko went shooting folks, just not the one that inspired the registry. If I called everyone east of Thunder Bay “stupid” every time they either ignored or were totally wrong about anything happening west of the Rockies, I wouldn’t have time for much else – I rarely venture over the mountains and rarely willingly.

    Believe me when I say guns were fairly well controlled in Canada almost a half century ago when I came here from the OK Corral country, handguns and automatic rifles were virtually unknown outside of law enforcement and the military. Anywhere a gun exists, it could be used to kill someone, think of what happened in Norway recently, where guns are much less available than anywhere in North America. However, making people sign an open dated search warrant because they harbor their grandfather’s 30-30 is overkill that accomplishes almost nothing. If I recall correctly, the Dawson weapons were completely legally obtained and registered.

    The guns that are a real problem are completely unaffected by the registry, mostly being guns that cannot be registered by anyone but the army or a cop. People rarely use hunting rifles to rob banks or liquor stores, they are difficult to conceal and not generally very rapid firing. Shotguns are rarely used in crime either, unless they are sawed off, and thereby ILLEGAL from the git-go.

    By and large, city folk have no use for guns, but in the country they are a necessary tool like axes and knives and big hammers, all of which have also been used to harm or kill people, even domestic partners. I don’t buy into the Charlton Heston/NRA view of the right to bear arms, but I feel the long gun registry is an invasion of privacy, and a hardship for really rural folks who may have to travel days or by air to deal with the bureaucratic aspects.

    For the most part I agree with you about the inanity and inconsistent logic of Harper’s nightmare of Canada. Reality and facts are trumped by ideology, thus the omnibus crime legislation, the neutering of stats can, the muzzling and firing of scientists and so on……

    But hey, Harper’s happy if we’re quibbling about the gun registry, just like Crusty Clark is happy if we’re talking about the boobs in her blouse rather than the boobs in her caucus!

  • kootcoot

    BTW I also don’t recall saying anything about anybody hating anyone…..don’t put words in my mouth or my comments!

    1. I didn’t say city folk hate country folk

    2. I didn’t say city folk are stupid (though you did suggest I was for confusing two relatively obscure schools – compared to say U of T, UBC or McGill.